Robert Scheer’s reminder that we need a president whose policies help the 99 percent of Americans who are hurting, not the one percent who are extremely wealthy:
… To accomplish that, we need a moratorium on bank-ordered evictions, along with a government-funded program to aid the underemployed that is as robust as the trillions spent to save the Wall Street swindlers who caused all of this trouble.
Instead we are left with a Democratic president who soothes our rage with promises of decent-paying jobs that in actuality are being vigorously exported from our shores by the president’s top corporate backers. That absurdity was marked by Barack Obama’s choice of Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric—a company that has shifted to foreign countries two-thirds of its workforce and 82 percent of its profits—to head the president’s job creation council.
Obama has failed not because he is a progressive in the mold of Franklin Delano Roosevelt but because he is not. He has blindly followed the lead of George W. Bush in bankrupting the nation by throwing money at Wall Street while continuing to fund wildly expensive and unneeded wars…
Scheer’s observations lead him to conclude that voting for Obama makes sense because he will be the lesser of two evils, but he notes that such a choice is “akin to a form of slow torture.” He adds, “Better to support the Occupy Wall Street protests as an inspiring alternative.”
Right, but you can’t just dismiss electoral politics and expect any changes to be made, not without a revolution. Scheer doesn’t mention it, but a third-party candidacy for the Democratic nomination might help make Obama behave more like a Dem. Or is this mere wishful thinking on my part?