Up for Debate: Obama's Tennessee campaign

Monday, February 20, 2012 at 11:34pm

Can Obama's campaign make it a "tougher" general election this time around compared to 2008? Who in the GOP field do you think will have the best primary success on Super Tuesday?

Filed under: City Voices
Tagged: Up for Debate

97 Comments on this post:

By: brrrrk on 2/21/12 at 12:29

Heard a great line this morning.... from a conservative political pundit no less.

The question was "Why do you think Rick Santorum is surging among the Republican base?".... the answer from the pundit, "In a room full of phonies, the crazy believer always looks better". :-)

By: dargent7 on 2/21/12 at 12:29

"yogi", your posts could be addressed to Charles Manson, Cell Block C, and it wouldn't matter.
You're the ONLY one running your mouth and keyboard about, "eligibility" requirements of the POTUS.
Yet, can rationalize, that 5 generations of Romney's, all born in Mexico, are all, "natural born, USA American citizens".
How's that work?

By: brrrrk on 2/21/12 at 12:33

BenDover said

"Even with his advocating the sterilization poor people?"

So now yogi and Ben are the same person?

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 12:35

Eye Nose & Now,

So what if bringing the eligibility issue forward would cause a race riot, which I don't believe would happen nationwide because too many of the black Americans I have communicated with are as much anti-Obama as I am.

And thinking only 12% of the population are the black Americans, who in the hell would want to fight the other 88%? Because, as I have noted before, the vast majority of the people who voted for him because of the race factor have seen what they "put their foot into".

And are such people the ones you want in Congress to represent the majority of the US citizens?

By: brrrrk on 2/21/12 at 12:36

Hey whatever happened to serr8d? Do you think his mom finally kicked him out of the basement?

By: brrrrk on 2/21/12 at 12:47

yogiman said

"So what if bringing the eligibility issue forward would cause a race riot, which I don't believe would happen nationwide because too many of the black Americans I have communicated with are as much anti-Obama as I am."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obama-targets-black-voters-in-new-campaign/

"The most recent ABC News-Washington Post poll found Obama’s approval rating among blacks stands at 91 percent, higher than any other surveyed demographic category. He won 96 percent of the black vote in 2008."

So now we know..... yogi knows two, maybe three, black people....

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 12:50

bfra,

You should only need one pieces of evidence on this matter, and I have mentioned two, plus more that you don't want to bother to prove me false.

One, Barry Soetoro (going by the name Barack Obama) refuses to show: That being his actual birth certificate. The other being his autobiography which is in bookstores all over the nation, probably even the world today. And so many of them have been sold and he can't block the evidence he wrote in it. Can he say it was a fake?

Have you read it? If you admire him so much, you should.

By: Rasputin72 on 2/21/12 at 12:55

Ummm........There is no such thing as a guaranteed livable wage. The United States was an anomaly from 1945 to 1980. WE WON WWII. The entire world had to dance to our economic tune.

The United States is no longer the beacon of the world. Our citizens have to be aware of the rule of mankind. "Survival of the fittest." We have a democracy that provides a standard of living for not working. This segment of the population is the fastest growing segment. They are overwhelming the productive class with demands for higher taxes.

Not next year but sometime in the next 25 years the entire economy will collapse. Not only the underclass but the productive class will fall into an abyss of chaos. The only people who will escape will be the 1%. I say that because that is what 2000 years of history has provided.

A living wage in a world economy cannot be dictated. The market for the goods and services of this country dictate the wage; Scream all you want but that is the way it is for not only this country but every country in the world.

By: bfra on 2/21/12 at 12:55

yogi - waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa???? why did???? why did???? what if?????

By: gdiafante on 2/21/12 at 1:11

Yogi fails once again and cannot cite any evidence.

Here ended the lesson.

By: brrrrk on 2/21/12 at 1:14

Rasputin72,

Get over it.... the free market is an absolute myth.... has been, is, and will always be. The closest example of a free market that has ever existed is a completely closed economic system like a commune. Show me one.... just one country... that doesn't define their own economies via laws and trade regulations.

By: oldgulph on 2/21/12 at 1:32

In 2011, 83% of Tennessee voters polled agreed that "The presidential candidate who gets the most votes always should be the winner."

Every political demographic group across the state favors changing to a system driven by the popular vote, the poll showed.

When Republicans were asked, "How should the President be elected, by who gets the most votes in all 50 states or by the current winner-takes-all system?" 73% of them favored the popular vote.

Of all Democrats asked the same question, 78% favored the popular vote system.

When respondents who agree with Tea Party values were asked, 72% of them preferred the popular vote.

http://tinyurl.com/3ap43e3

By: oldgulph on 2/21/12 at 1:33

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate.

And votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning candidates in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

By: oldgulph on 2/21/12 at 1:35

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

By: oldgulph on 2/21/12 at 1:38

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of even state elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

When every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense to try and elevate your share where you aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Texas, or for a Republican to try it in California.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states.

By: oldgulph on 2/21/12 at 1:46

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via nationalpopularvoteinc

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 1:48

brrrrk,

Are you insinuating 88% of the people are afraid of the other 12% of the people? Sorry, we all aren't like you.

And the fact congress would knowingly allow a usurper to take that office tells me they need to be sent home, also.

By: gdiafante on 2/21/12 at 2:02

Yogi, if you have evidence to support your completely outrageous accusation that every member of Congress was complicit in a vast international conspiracy that began fifty years ago, please provide it.

I want specific names, their involvement, who their contact/handler was, the details of compensation to all conspiracy members, the motives of each conspirator, the names and organizations involved (from every country), the depth of their involvement and photocopies of all transactions, original documents before alteration and each document needs to have an accompanying affidavit of legitimacy.

If you can't provide this information, STFU.

By: Mike Burch on 2/21/12 at 2:09

Yogi,

As much as you hate Barack Obama (why?), just look at the Republican alternatives:

Mitt Romney has a $101 million dollar Cayman Island IRA. That means he has never paid a penny in taxes on most of his $200 million fortune. His real tax rate is probably closer to 5% than even the 14% he disclosed on his tax returns.

Rick Santorum wants to put cameras in our bedrooms and make sure we only have sex when we're trying make babies. He's so far right he makes Ronald Reagan and GWB look like flaming liberals.

Newt Gingrich is an irrational egomaniac who says he's a conservative Christian, then says he can tell other people what to do, but doesn't have to abide by the same rules. He says he's a conservative but wants to build a colony on the moon which would cost trillions of dollars.

The irony is that there is no alternative to President Obama but morons and liars.

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 2:16

gdiafante,

What evidence other than a birth certificate or autobiography do you need to prove a person is whom they claim to be?

Every "evidence" I have noted has been all over the internet. I guess you don't read the same as articles as I.

By: gdiafante on 2/21/12 at 2:23

Pay attention, yogi. Either provide evidence of a vast conspiracy involving Congress or STFU. There's nothing else to discuss.

By: gdiafante on 2/21/12 at 2:24

So your evidence is the internet?

LMAO...what a moron.

By: gdiafante on 2/21/12 at 2:26

The irony is that there is no alternative to President Obama but morons and liars.

So with Obama we get a spineless "leader", without we get Martin Sheen's character from The Dead Zone...

Yay America...

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 2:28

gdiafante,

What accusation did I make about the congress of 50 years ago? Of course, you wasn't living then and have no idea what congress was like then, but I believe I made a comment about the communist party getting one foot on the road to the USA almost a hundred years ago and have advanced one step at a time. Go back on your history.

By: gdiafante on 2/21/12 at 2:42

Silly me...yogi can't even comprehend a simple sentence, why should I expect him to provide any evidence of such a complex conspiracy...lol

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 2:50

I don't hate Obama as a man, Mike. I "hate" him for being the man he is and not willing to prove to the people of this nation he is in that office legally. How can you accept him for refusing to prove he is in that office legally? Its hard for this dumb old man to understand why you're willing to accept a president you don't even know.

And let's face it, Mike, you don't even know who in the hell he is, do you? Yet you are so willing to accept him as the president of the highest office in this nation putting the entire nation on line for possible destruction. Sorry, I don't fit that category.

I agree, of the ones in the republican campaign, I can't see as a "good man" for the job except Ron Paul. He's the only one who is standing by the Constitution and that's why I voted for him the other day. So now you Obama fans can nullify my vote.

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 2:59

It wouldn't hurt for you to also go back to English classes, gdiafante. What is the clarification of the "," between the words; "sentence" and "why"?

And why did you end the sentence with a "...lol" instead of a "?" when you was asking a question?

By: gdiafante on 2/21/12 at 3:04

Don't change the subject, douchebag, provide the conspiracy information.

Chop chop

By: BenDover on 2/21/12 at 3:09

I've made the point about pro-rating the electors based on the state popular vote before, oldgulph... but in far less detail than you've offered. Good info.

I agree that pro-rating the electors is a good idea (probably down to the 1/1000th) plus it also maintains the additional representation of smaller (population) states.

By: Mike Burch on 2/21/12 at 3:34

Yogi,

It's beyond silly to worry about Barack Obama's nationality. How do we know that Mitt Romney doesn't have a fake birth certificate, or Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich? They all have funny-sounding names.

The main reasons so many Americans object to president Obama being elected are racism and intolerance. He has darker skin, a Muslim-sounding name, and he's a first generation American on his father's side. If his name was Joe Smith and his father was from Ireland, no one would bat an eye.

Barack Obama has proven that he's a patriotic American. If he was a planted Muslim, he wouldn't have kept our troops in Afghanistan fighting Muslims. Instead, like most Americans, he supports Israel even though Israel is one of the most racist nations on earth, and hardly an "ally" of the U.S. He hasn't cut aid to Israel, or suspended weapons shipments.

So all the crap about President Obama not really being an American citizen is just that: a load of crap. Why should he have to do more to prove his citizenship than anyone else?

By: Rasputin72 on 2/21/12 at 3:55

Ummm, The United States from 1945 to 1982 was an anomaly . The entire world danced to our economic tune. Wages were set by our standards. Today our leaders have given away our economic advantage and we participate in a world market. The world market sets the price of goods and certainly wages for "general labor"

You cannot set a "living wage" for "general labor" in the United States without disrupting further our disadvantage in labor costs.

Welcome to an entire world of "survival of the fittest"

The current wages are all that our economy can offer now. It is only through the buffoonry of our past government leaders that we have a welfare program that provides a standard of living for those that pay no tax and do no work.

You are barking up the wrong tree when you call for an "American Living Wage."

By: Rasputin72 on 2/21/12 at 4:01

Brrrk.....The United States offers a free market and it is the largest market in the world and the one that sets the wages of all Americans.

Since Americans do not support American companies paying a decent wage we have lost jobs to companies that provide a product at price points that Americans want to buy.

It is the end of an era for people who think being middle class is a willingness to work. You must bring something to the party in the way of skills,family connections,luck,educational advantages and probably many more.

No longer can an American walk up to an employment office and say "Send me in Coach,I am ready to work for a wage of my liking."

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 4:01

How much evidence do you want as proof, gdiafarte? I'm satisfied with an actual birth certificate. But I'll also accept an autobiography. Won't you? Why not? Do you believe they are lies and you need more proof?

Okay, I'll admit, the "Certification of life Birth" he presented has been proven to be a lie, so I'll settle with his autobiography. Fair enough?

If you don't, what evidence do you have proving he's in that office legally?

And to remind you, you are the one who brought up the subject on the sentencing of the English language. You continue, and so will I.

By: brrrrk on 2/21/12 at 4:17

Rasputin72 said

"Brrrk.....The United States offers a free market and it is the largest market in the world and the one that sets the wages of all Americans."

You're fooling yourself... if you define a free market as a market where the only thing that effects the sale and production of goods is that act of consumerism and the cost of production, we have anything BUT a free market. Anytime an outside parameter comes into effect, the market is not free. Anytime a city/county/state gives special consideration to a business in order to attract a business, the market is not free. Anytime a tariff is levied on a product based on where it's made or who made it, the market is not free.

By: bfra on 2/21/12 at 4:44

yogi -waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - Won't you? Why not? Do you
================================================

By: brrrrk on 2/21/12 at 4:49

Rasputin72,

One more point.... if we do have a free market why is it that the price of gas is going up at a time when our overall usage of gas is at it's lowest point since 1997 and our number one export is now gasoline? Seems to me that supply and demand would dictate lower gas prices.

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 5:19

bfra,

hehehehe, Nope. Cause. Yep and nope. it depend on what the question is and whose asking the question.

By: bfra on 2/21/12 at 5:24

rockheads answer their own questions!

By: oldgulph on 2/21/12 at 5:32

I support the National Popular Vote.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

I do not support pro-rating the electors based on the state popular vote.

Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

By: dargent7 on 2/21/12 at 6:43

If it's all the same to you fellas, I'd prefer to just home and play with my Wang..."

By: Loner on 2/21/12 at 6:48

Just eliminate the College of Electors; problem solved.

The major political parties will never willingly agree to changing the corrupt system we now have....neither political party is truly democratic or republican by nature...they are self-centered, provincial, undemocratic, unimaginative, authoritarian and rather fascist by nature.

By: Loner on 2/21/12 at 6:55

Has anyone else noticed that once we destroyed all vestiges of the Iraqi government, we installed a totally un-American type of democratic institution in its place?

We saddled the Iraqi people with some neoconic, experimental, European-style, parliamentary democracy...no Iraqi Senate, House of Reps, Executive branch and Supreme Court....we installed some think-tank intellectual's idea of an "improvement" on our own system.....a tacit admission that our own democratic system is fatally flawed....and unsuitable for world export.

If our system is too crappy for export, let's reform it so that it is suitable for world export.

By: Mike Burch on 2/21/12 at 8:08

Loner,

Nations usually export things they're good at making. Since Americans are far from happy with American-style democracy, it makes perfect sense to stop trying to export it.

Just think of all the lives and money we'd save, if we stopped trying to export democracy to other nations ...

By: Mike Burch on 2/21/12 at 8:13

I'm not sure where I read it, but recently I saw someone suggesting South Africa's constitution as a good model. South Africa has been one of the nations to point out that Israel is practicing apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

Since the United States has been funding and supporting Israel's crimes, should we admit that nations like South Africa have leapfrogged us, in terms of actually believing in equal rights, justice and representative government for everyone?

Should we praise American exceptionalism, or admit American deception-alism?

By: yogiman on 2/21/12 at 8:47

It was said by Sonia Sotomayer(?), Mike. She's that female lawyer Barry got put on the now Inferior Court. She's made a number of statements about using foreign laws on her decisions.

By: Loner on 2/21/12 at 8:54

We agree on that, Mike, if our product is not fit for export, and the Iraq example seems to bear that out, maybe we need to improve the product.

Exporting think-tank neoconic democracy at gunpoint seems like a perversion of this nation's values, and its mission.

Sadly, President Obama is a purveyor of "Neocon Lite"...tastes great, less filling.

Junior Bush led the nation into war using lies, half-truths, false assumptions and irrational fear...Obama, on the other hand, is going to let the Israelis suck us into the next big holy war in the ME...he won't have to sell the idea to the American public, like Bush did....Obama has hit the "Easy Button". Once the Iranians retaliate against the Israelis, Congress will force the CINC to order our forces to join the battle, to save Israel from "annihilation"....this is Holy War, baby!

I like the term, "American deception-alism"....very apt...it's self-delusion, false pride and wishful thinking....the facts speak for themselves.

By: Loner on 2/21/12 at 9:09

The US officially denounced and boycott the ethnicity-based apartheid and colonialism in S. Africa, during those apartheid years and we denounced the S. African nuclear weapons program.

In Palestine, however, the US officially endorses and underwrites the ethnicity-based apartheid and colonialism known as, "Jewish Zionism"....we have never condemned Israel's secret nuclear arsenal, or called for its removal.

This glaring double standard is visible for all the world to see....but few in this country are able to see the hypocrisy in our foreign policy....we are delusional....we euphemistically call this mass hysteria: "American Exceptionalism".