I just discovered the following comments about US power around the globe on wiki afer hearing about the death of Chalmers Johnson, professor emeritus at the Univeristy of California in San Diego.
It kind of fits this thread ...
"In Blowback, I set out to explain why we are hated around the world. The concept "blowback" does not just mean retaliation for things our government has done to and in foreign countries. It refers to retaliation for the numerous illegal operations we have carried out abroad that were kept totally secret from the American public. This means that when the retaliation comes - as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001 - the American public is unable to put the events in context. So they tend to support acts intended to lash out against the perpetrators, thereby most commonly preparing the ground for yet another cycle of blowback. In the first book in this trilogy, I tried to provide some of the historical background for understanding the dilemmas we as a nation confront today, although I focused more on Asia - the area of my academic training - than on the Middle East."
"The Sorrows of Empire was written during the American preparations for and launching of the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. I began to study our continuous military buildup since World War II and the 737 military bases we currently maintain in other people's countries. This empire of bases is the concrete manifestation of our global hegemony, and many of the blowback-inducing wars we have conducted had as their true purpose the sustaining and expanding of this network. We do not think of these overseas deployments as a form of empire; in fact, most Americans do not give them any thought at all until something truly shocking, such as the treatment of prisoners as Guantanamo Bay, brings them to our attention. But the people living next door to these bases and dealing with the swaggering soldiers who brawl and sometimes rape their women certainly think of them as imperial enclaves, just as the people of ancient Iberia or nineteenth-century India knew that they were victims of foreign colonization."
“In Nemesis, I have tried to present historical, political, economic, and philosophical evidence of where our current behavior is likely to lead. Specifically, I believe that to maintain our empire abroad requires resources and commitments that will inevitably undercut our domestic democracy and in the end produce a military dictatorship or its civilian equivalent. The founders of our nation understood this well and tried to create a form of government – a republic – that would prevent this from occurring. But the combination of huge standing armies, almost continuous wars, military Keynesianism, and ruinous military expenses have destroyed our republican structure in favor of an imperial presidency. We are on the cusp of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. Once a nation is started down that path, the dynamics that apply to all empires come into play – isolation, overstretch, the uniting of forces opposed to imperialism, and bankruptcy. Nemesis stalks our life as a free nation."
The Dems need to let the Sarah Palin thing just run imo.. which will encourage the Republicans to use her at the next elections... when Obama can make her look like the low-IQ hick she is and suffer the worst defeat in election history.
I think I agree with that article, at this stage its too close a call, but the scenario in my opinion is quite different to what it was say six months back when Obama was alienating his supporters by backing down all over the place and the Republicans were yet to shit all over themselves
And if Obama can use the momentum created by OWS to start talking about jobs instead of the defecit he has a chance because that is what Americans are really worried about. As he sent the Keystone XL pipeline back for review recently, which was a big surprise, maybe there is hope he might begin to deliver on promise
"What we've witnessed in these debates are not gaffes, but the inevitable result of a descent into rhetorical hyperventilation. For the past three years making bizarre, false, inflammatory statements was not regarded as an obstacle to being taken seriously within the party but a prerequisite for it.
None of this means Republicans cannot win ... In the only televised debate for the 2010 gubernatorial elections in Arizona, a swing state, the Republican incumbent, Jan Brewer, stopped halfway through her opening statement, stared blankly into the camera, and started giggling. She won by 12 clear points and enjoyed a 19% increase in her vote.
Obama sold the nation on hope and has presided over despair. It's because the Republicans have been so dysfunctional that he still has a shot. It's because he has delivered so little that their dysfunctionality may not matter. The stakes are high, the standards are low, and the choice is paltry."
By any normal standards, Obama should be extremely vulnerable. Not only is the economy in bad shape, he has proved to be a much more hesitant, less commanding White House presence than his supporters longed for. And yet, most surveys put him comfortably ahead of his would-be rivals. That's not a positive judgment on the president – whose approval rating stands at a meagre 44% – but an indictment of the dire quality of a Republican field almost comically packed with the scandal-plagued, gaffe-prone and downright flaky. And the finger of blame for this state of affairs points squarely at the studios of Fox News.
“You have to ask the question, is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of people and then walk off with the money?”
- US Republican Candidate Newt Gingrich
In the 2010 midterm election, there was much talk about the “enthusiasm gap” between Republicans and Democrats, with Republicans saying they were more enthusiastic about voting than Democrats by a massive nineteen point margin.
But in this year’s GOP presidential primary, it’s the Republicans who are deflated. GOP turnout has been down in every state that’s voted so far compared to 2008 except for in South Carolina
Romney will still almost certainly become the GOP nominee. But he’s looking like a weaker and weaker candidate by the day.
Romney (and Gingrich) are so clearly a couple of fakers who would do/say anything to get into the White House. Santorum is a fkn nutjob and the right love him but he has sweet fuck all chance of beating Obama.
There is talk that if he wins Michigan the GOP will lean heavily on Jeb Bush to enter the race... they're so fucked
Every time Romney gets an opportunity to reset the narrative of the election, he makes some psychologically revealing mistake. Giving Clint Eastwood his spotlight, rattling a rubber saber over a tweet from the US embassy in Cairo while it was under attack, writing off half of all American voters as moochers—you only have to tilt your head to see each of these “gaffes” as a cry for help.
Republicans themselves are grumbling about Romney’s skimpy schedule of public events.