Skip to Content

The Duopoly Debates Itself

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

 

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

To any objective observer, the consensus that exists between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on the fundamental issues of war and peace, Wall Street’s dominance of American life, and fiscal austerity, has been made crystal clear in the two “debates.” In the absence of effective popular resistance to the duopoly of money, the economic and social crisis fails to create a corresponding political crisis for the rulers. As a result, there is nothing important for them to debate.

 

The Duopoly Debates Itself

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

There is consensus within the duopoly that austerity must be the watchword – despite the Occupy Movement.”

The two titans of America’s finance capitalist duopoly clashed – leaving behind a dull fart. It was as if the town hall at Long Island’s Hofstra University was hermetically sealed against the raging realities of a world and nation in systemic crisis. For 90 minutes, not one useful fact or thought was allowed to enter or escape.

This is what happens when the terminal decline of the old order is not met by effective resistance from those who suffer under its dead weight. What to do about a jobs crisis that has left millions permanently unemployed from effects of the last two recessions? Apply additional corporate “incentives” to boost investment (Obama) or a thicker layer of laissez fair (Romney). And, by all means, extract more energy (Obama and Romney) from the exhausted environment, as if lack of fuel is what has stalled the engines of late capitalism. But do not, under any circumstances, question the inherent right of bankers (a.k.a. “markets”) to dominate every aspect of economic and political life.

Banks were mentioned only three times: once, by Romney, in connection with (of course) cutting taxes, and twice by Obama. The president is proud that his grandmother was the vice president of a small bank, and he took credit (deservedly) for denying banks their $60 billion cut of college student loans. But the funneling of $16 trillion in guarantees, grants and virtually “free” money to financial corporations over the last four years – a profound restructuring of the relationship between the State and Wall Street – has been unmentioned in all three debates to date, because it is a policy consensus within the duopoly.

Do not, under any circumstances, question the inherent right of bankers (a.k.a. ‘markets’) to dominate every aspect of economic and political life.”

Romney owned the word “poverty,” just as did the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, while Obama uttered the term not once. Corporate media pundits and even many “progressives” accept the Democrat’s avoidance of the subject as understandable, since he is an incumbent. Yet, the fight against poverty was Franklin Roosevelt’s rallying cry during capitalism’s previous great crisis, and Lyndon Johnson initiated a War on Poverty. Today’s poverty rate hovers only a fraction of a percent below the level of 1965, but the standard-bearer of the party most identified with the poor has nothing to say on the matter. Instead, there is consensus within the duopoly that austerity must be the watchword – clear evidence that the Occupy Movement is no longer a felt threat.

Romney is more “liberal” in the use of the term “poverty” only because his vision of laissez fair trickle-down to the poor is more fantastical (12 million jobs, just you watch!). Just as in the summer of 2011, all that separates the Obama and Republican wings of the Wall Street duopoly is the question of “modest” tax increases for the very rich. But both factions are intent on cuts of around $4 trillion dollars, mainly on non-military programs. Why should Americans whose vital governmental support is targeted for chopping be concerned whether or not some millionaires are also discomforted in the process? Are the poor and struggling classes supposed to accept the loss of the necessities of a dignified life, on condition that some rich people pay a modest financial tariff?

There is also no daylight between the contenders on drone warfare or the continued projection of U.S. power.”

The consensus on imperial war is near absolute. What passes for argument is merely a matter of style and posture. Romney attacks Obama for failing to grasp or reveal the “terrorist” nature of the fatal attack on the U.S. ambassador in Libya. But both candidates are wedded to an alliance with Muslim fundamentalist jihadis against Middle East governments targeted for destabilization or regime change: Syria and Iran. Obama’s obfuscations on Benghazi were an attempt to continue masking the nature of the Libyan legions armed by the U.S. as proxies against Gaddafi, many of whom are now deployed in Syria – a mission with which Romney is in full accord. There is also no daylight between the contenders on drone warfare or the continued projection of U.S. power in the “Af-Pak” theater of war, or in Somalia and Yemen. The War Party wins in November, regardless of the Electoral College outcome.

Despite the profound, systemic crisis of the global capitalist financial order and its U.S. imperial gendarme, there exists no political crisis for the rulers, because there is no serious internal resistance. These theatrical productions may pass for debates, but it’s really just the passing of gas within a closed Wall Street consensus.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

Share this

Comments

A Mind F***k is a Terrible Thing to Waste

Here's my two cents on AA.  IT DOES'T EXIST IMO!!!

When is the last time anybody has heard of a person of color winning an AA lawsuit, particularly on an individual level?  There have been a FEW publicized cases--White House Secret Service Agents comes to mind-- but pray tell who do yall know that's won an AA challenge?  The standard of proof is too damn high.  Oh, now there have been a ton of well-publicized REVERSE discrimination lawsuits, haven't there?

Astute businesses and institutions value diversity because as critical thinkers they understand DEMOGRAPHICS.  Despite the incessant prayers of the Tea Party and White Christian Conservatives, guess what Boo?  America ain't getting any Whiter!

Even the "Betsy's," Paul's,"  and "Muffins" complaining about AA understand THAT.  Diversity Magazine came out years ago with the "Business Case for Diversity."  Its a no brainer, why would you not cater or serve persons who are non-White when they comprise the emerging market sector?  (Granted they'll hire a white boy with an MBA for Harvard to tell you  that.  LOL).

And who are you going to hire to infiltrate the Hispanic market, Pedro, Juan or Paul and John?  Personally I have mixed feelings about AA.  Inasmuch as I don't think it exists or is not enforced ANYMORE, would it matter if it's struck down?  Striking it down might just relieve us all of the silliness going on at UT.   

Trust me, if a white business or institution don't want your Black behind, probably not a damn thing you can do about it, absent not so fine print at the bottom of the application saying:  "Nigga need not apply."  LOL

I honestly believe that as presently constituted the notion of AA is nothing but a mind f**k.

Notices I just rec'd from NY BD of Election= No,

Two  notices from the NY Bd of Elections were in my mailbox this morning: location of my polling place inviting me to vote and the other:this is to notify you that it has been determined that your polling place is not accessible.    When gov't exempts itself from the law and/or non enforcement of the law.

With luck, I'll type this link correctly - if I don't google search for amNY (free newspaper's online website) article of Oct.21,2012 Interview with disabilities activist Chris Noel http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/q-a-disabilities-activist-chris-no... Chris Noel is an optimist.

   The Bd. of Elections deserves to get its "walking papers".   There are many large buildings in my voting precinct (mine has 240 apartments) and many have wheelchair users, as well as people using walkers, canes, etc. (There are many buildings we can't get into: steps.) 

     The various gov't levels don't enforce the law.  Congress exempts itself from most laws they pass- one example: the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) when enforced requires reasonable accomodation and wheelchair access, but not for post offices, etc. inside the Capitol Buildimg.  I remember when a member of Congress who was a wheelchair user as a result of triple amputee military service, he had to pay from his own budget to have his office made wheelchair accessible (in the 1990s).  The most recent court decision on the ADA in re wheelchair accessible taxi cabs in NYC, just a couple of months ago, went like this: the court of appeals reversed a lower federal court decision to make NYC's Taxi and Limosine Commission put in wheelchair accessible cabs (which Bloomberg opposes), reversing the court order to make the cabs accessible, reasoning: the ADA didn't mean public taxi cabs as public accomodation!    And, since I never know if I can get out to vote on Election Day, I am on the permanent list Absentee Ballot for Homebound Disabled.  But those of us on the list have to pay to vote: return postage paid envelopes used to be included with my ballot, but not in the last several years.  We have to buy stamps and it's an oversize envelope=65cents postage and soon to go up again.

Romney vs Obama video

A pretty funny critique of Romney and Obama.

 

Whatever critique you have of Lincoln you will be cheering him at the end.

http://epicrapbattlesofhistory.com/videos/barack-obama-vs-mitt-romney-ep...

 

WSWS, the ICC, and CNBC are all the same

Off topic. Sorry.

Hope Brutal "truth" and EC are reading.

You guys should look at CNBC at night and on the weekend. Particularly the "American Greed" show. It's all about how small fry criminals are ripping off the rich and upper middle class.

A lot of focus on NON-VIOLENT small fry con-artist of color, and of non "connected" whites who are supposedly ripping rich/upper-middle class society off. No focus on the Illuminati that controls the game.

The neo-Trotskyites (Trotsky: Axelrod's grandfather? Axelrod one of Obama's handlers?) follow CNBC and the ICC court (for the prosecution of Africans) by signaling their desire to see right-wing judges abolish Affirmative Action:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/oct2012/cour-o19.shtml

Along with their opposition to "rich" 'uppity' Black's who oppose Mass Black Incarceration:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/sep2012/crow-s18.shtml

Trotsky's Grandson?

David Axelrod isn't Trotsky's grandson. Here is Trotsky's family tree.

http://www.trotskyana.net/Leon_Trotsky/Genealogy/genealogy.htm#children-2

 

Axelrod, who was born in 1955 is around the age of Trotsky's great grandchildren.  I disagree with the WSWS's position on Affirmative Action and the review of a New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander but saying they are against uppity blacks is a little too far.

I've Just Critiqued WSWS Wacked Criticism of the 'New Jim-Crow'

 

Now WSWS is back at it again w this dubious critique of Univ of TX [UT] top 10% admissions policy. WSWS misrepresents UT's policy by first implying it is a race-based affirmative action policy- when it is NOT. UT’s policy is that the top 10% [based on GPA] of graduating seniors from ALL TX hi-schools are eligible for admission. 80% of UT admissions are based on this policy while 20% are admitted based on other metrics. IMO UT's policy is about as fair across the board as it gets [failing free college Ed for all], yet 2 white [?Jewish?] women, Abigail Fisher & Rachel Michalewicz, are suing UT for racial bias against whites [IE: so-called reverse discrimination]. WSWS goes on to say that: they 'scored higher on the SAT admission exam than other applicants who were admitted.' What WSWS fails to say is what % of those they out-scored on the SATs were white vs Black & Hispanic [that's normally restricted info], nor that SATs have been shown to be consistently biased against Black & Hispanics because that’s how they were designed from the get-go!

These 2 white women fell just outside of the top 10% mark for their graduating classes & thus were denied admission to UT back in 2008. IMO They could have inquired if any of their top 10% class-mates were not going to exercise their UT option & then petitioned their own schools & UT as suitable replacements. And since apparently they came from top ranked TX schools, they should have had no trouble getting into other colleges in TX- or across the US for the matter. Thus IMO there's likely an elite [racist & classist] agenda at play here to halt, not just UT's 10% policy, but ALL Those like it across the US. IMO That's why this case is in the SCOTUS court, even though IMO the court should have rejected it out of hand because UT's 10% policy is NOT a race-based affirmative-action prog. The fact that they did NOT IMO suggests that some/most members of the SCOTUS court are thinking of ruling in favor of these 2 white women [IMO If these 2 women have not entered college after 4 yrs, which I doubt, they could have cut a deal w UT to allow them admission before things got this far- which again makes me suspicious about what the real-deal is.].

Another thing that WSWS ignores is that Slick Willie let the cat out of the bag during the affirmative-action debate on his watch- when he said 'Mend It but Don't End It' -because- 'The truth is that the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action have been White Women...' [also true for welfare]. This fact IMO is the main reason they've yet to phase-out neither affirmative-action nor welfare completely. WSWS justifies its dubious position on this issue by saying that affirmative-action was tailored for a narrow Black & Latino bourgeois class, while ignoring the fact that, as confirmed by Slick Willie, upper middle-class / affluent white women [which most likely describe Ms Fisher & Michalewicz- because WSWS would have made it a point if they were low-income whites] have actually benefitted more from it. }‘Quotas and preferences based on race and ethnicity have benefited a narrow strata among African Americans and Hispanics. Their wealth has shot up even as conditions for the working class have worsened. As a result, social inequality among Blacks has risen even more sharply than among the general population.  ‘{. IMO this statement has some validity- but instead of using a bit of finesse & suggesting affirmative-action reform which uses class, regardless of race &/or gender, as a criteria as much as race & gender, WSWS throws out this wild-card:} ‘Sandra Day O’Connor, in 2003, wrote the Grutter decision for a 5-justice majority. That ruling is remarkable for making clear that the purpose of affirmative action is not social equality, but the fostering of a “diverse elite.” "High-ranking retired officers and civilian military leaders assert that a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps is essential to national security..,” - In other words, affirmative action helps US imperialism by making the military more adept at occupying other countries and subjugating their populations.’ [of course this can also be said about the DADT controversy & the Dream Act.] – ‘The brief submitted by the Obama admin argued that affirmative action is in the interests of military-national security. “Officer training programs run by DoD and (DHS)—including service academies and ROTC programs located at civilian institutions…must produce a racially and ethnically diverse range of graduates who are prepared to lead a multiracial force,the Obama admin argued.  

IMO This is a wild-card logical-leap because WSWS fails to make a link between UT’s top 10% admissions policy & the Grutter ruling by the SCOTUS court, especially since WSWS fails to even establish UT’s policy as a race-based affirmative action policy. NOR does WSWS even claim that many/most Black & Hispanics admitted via UT's top 10% policy are enrolled in a ROTC prog at UT. But WSWS does make the following statement w which I can agree: }A program of genuine social equality requires that quality higher education is freely available to all, regardless of economic status, race, religion or gender. This is the only road to true equality of opportunity. Affirmative action fails to provide equal access to higher education for all...’{

So why didn’t WSWS make this pertinent case from the get-go, by arguing that college admissions based on race-based affirmative-action [which again UT’s admission policy is NOT] is at best an inadequate substitute for the above policy, & should at-least allow for class as much as race & gender??? If the SCOTUS court strikes down UT's top 10% policy [& all others like it], what does WSWS propose to replace it with? IMO WSWS can't be so naive as to believe that free college Ed for all is just around the corner, no matter if Obama or RawMoney gets {s}elected!!!

 

PS: Its interesting to see that WSWS took a entirely different tone RE: DADT which is directly [rather than a contrived] linked to the US Military Industrial Surveillance Security Complex @ www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/pers-d20.shtml [The end of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the US military ].

Is either of these assholes talking about military cuts?

Answer:  Hell to the no.

Interesting as we approach the "Fiscal Cliff" we are going to see the duopoly functioning at its best.  Does anyone believe there is a debate surrounding what we cut: military versus domestic spending?  This is the essence of why Mitt won the first debate, Obama was unable to get his lies straight and was unprepared for Mitt acting like Obama or the Old Mitt, i.e. a moderate Rethug.

http://www.cfr.org/economics/fiscal-cliff/p28757 

The abrupt onset of such significant budget austerity in the midst of a still fragile economic recovery has led most economists to warn of a double-dip recession in 2013 if Washington fails to intervene in a timely fashion. 

This philosophical rift is on display in the debate leading up to the fiscal cliff. The two parties are divided over how to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, the largest single component of the fiscal cliff. Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, are pushing for all cuts to be extended, while many Democrats, led by President Obama, would extend all cuts except for the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers. The fight over taxes is also very much part of the sequester debate (Politico), with Democrats pushing for more revenue as part of any deal to avert the drastic mandatory cuts.

What are the domestic consequences?

A $607 billion budget contraction in 2013 would likely send the United States into another recession in the first half of the year, according to the CBO. In such a scenario, analysts project real economic output in 2013 to grow at just 0.5 percent, resulting in lower taxable incomes and higher unemployment (one to two million). 

Automatic, across-the-board spending cuts of approximately $55 billion per year (through 2021) are scheduled to hit the Pentagon in January unless Congress steps in before the new year. Details of how the cuts will be enacted are yet to be fully worked out by the White House Office of Management and Budget, but some preliminary decisions have been made. In late July, President Obama exempted all members of the military from the potential cutbacks, an authority granted to the White House under the 2011 Budget Control Act (TheHill).

The decision will likely shift the burden of sequester cuts onto other areas of the Pentagon, including weapons programs. Defense contractors have already condemned the sequester as a potential "jobs killer." A fact sheet from the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee describes the looming defense cuts (PDF) as an "unacceptable risk" that will "severely diminish America's global posture" and lead to the loss of over one million private sector jobs.

Similarly, the White House has described the potential cuts as "highly destructive to national security and domestic priorities, as well as to core government functions," and continues to push for a political compromise that would avert major cuts. 

Hmmm... wonder where yall placing your bets?  Cuts to the military/defense budget or cuts to domestic spending?

Has the staged acts called the "debates" addressed the fiscal cliff choices?  Probably, its just that the US Pravada and the sychophants from both parties have OBSCURED the issue.

I don't suppose I'll hear Steve Harvey, Rev. Al, Roland Martin and Melissa tackle the issue either.  The somnabulant population is about to get a wake up call with a jack-booted kick in the ass.

It's only fitting as Halloween is around the corner.  "I keep repeating, its only a movie, its only a movie." The title of which is:  "Nightmare on Main Street."

Spooky huh???

Presidential Debates

 

Good one Glen ! I especially liked your use of the word 'Fart' denoting that something didn’t smell quite right. It would be great if this smell actually existed, then the canary in the coal mine could alert average Americans that their best interests were not being served !

Being a life long Democrat I have become very disillusioned with my party's actions over the last twenty or so years. The envisioned savior of our party in the early nineties was the Clintons who have led the party’s turn to the Right and away from long held progressive values that always worked toward improving the human condition. The Clintons were a product of the Democrat Leadership Council in the eighties, a group of Neo-Liberals Right Wing Blue Dog Democrats, and a few selected multi-millionaires, that decided it was better for the Democrat party to appeal to the same funding sources that had lavished the Right with money for so many years. They ignored the Liberal and Progressive wings of the party who had only been able to hold the White House for four years since 1968. If you want proof of the Clinton’s affiliation with these people just look at the following short list; signed NAFTA in 92 outsourcing living wage jobs after his Republican predecessor passed it over, ended the New Deal welfare system as we knew it in 96 forcing struggling mothers back to work with no child care assistance, signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 99 that ended 75 years of regulation of the too big to fail investment banks and bringing on today’s economic catastrophe only 8 years later.

We are near the end of a long slow move toward a government filled with career politicians from both major political parties who only respond to wealthy business and banking interests and a small group of very wealthy oligarchs who are striving to change this country to a full fledged Plutocracy. Unfortunately we are faced with fighting a relentless intruder that has permeated the souls of far too many on this planet for centuries, Personal Greed ! 

@Brutul Truth: The Brutal Truth about the future of the planet

"We the People" are going to keep playing with fire until ALL of our asses are burnt to a crisp.  Just like this whole thing with Iran. We kid ourselves on thinking we are somehow immune from it all.  That we can just put a foot up Iran's ass with no consequences.  That gas prices won't hit the stratosphere and all of us are out of work and on our asses.  We disengaged as a nation from the last two wars because the number of US dead were not staggering enough or because "our" guy, the Democratic President, is now in charge of the killing, because  "our" guy (Obama) is fighting a robotic war that sanitizes killing, because our Pravda won't show dead bodies or the wreckage of war on the idiot box like they use too. 

We the People want to believe that somehow tough guy Presidents (who probably can't stand the sight of blood oozing a shaving nick) and trillion dollar military and security apparatuses can keep us safe, they can't.  And last but most certainly not least, the wicked billionaires drunk on power and greed think that somehow they are immune from radiation sickness or their children or grandchildren are.

Is there any antidote for our collective sickeness? 

Unfortunately probably not.  If this world as we know it lasts for another decade, I'd be surprised.

I agree, when Obama "stuck" it to Mitt on the coal thing it was priceless.  What we have here is two pussified, empty suits, with no moral compass pushing the earth's existence to the brink.  That's the duopoly for you, the left and right buns of a jackass's  ass.

@Brutul Truth: The Brutal Truth about the future of the planet

"We the People" are going to keep playing with fire until ALL of our asses are burnt to a crisp.  Just like this whole thing with Iran. We kid ourselves on thinking we are somehow immune from it all.  That we can just put a foot up Iran's ass with no consequences.  That gas prices won't hit the stratosphere and all of us are out of work and on our asses.  We disengaged as a nation from the last two wars because the number of US dead were not staggering enough or because "our" guy, the Democratic President, is now in charge of the killing, because  "our" guy (Obama) is fighting a robotic war that sanitizes killing, because our Pravda won't show dead bodies or the wreckage of war on the idiot box like they use too. 

We the People want to believe that somehow tough guy Presidents (who probably can't stand the sight of blood oozing a shaving nick) and trillion dollar military and security apparatuses can keep us safe, they can't.  And last but most certainly not least, the wicked billionaires drunk on power and greed think that somehow they are immune from radiation sickness or their children or grandchildren are.

Is there any antidote for our collective sickeness? 

Unfortunately probably not.  If this world as we know it lasts for another decade, I'd be surprised.

I agree, when Obama "stuck" it to Mitt on the coal thing it was priceless.  What we have her is two pussified, empty suits, with no moral compass pushing the earth's existence to the brink.  That's the duopoly for you, the left and right side of a jackass's  ass.

My favorite moment of the debate

was when the two candidates were in the midst of competing to see which of them could wedge their entire body farther up the ass of the fossil fuel industries. I think Obama won this competition when he said what was clearly intended to be an insult but what to a normal human being with a conscience would seem comical in the way it turns morality on its head. When he said "Mitt Romney, since when have you been such a friend of the coal industry? I remember seeing you standing in front of a coal plant saying 'This plant kills people' and taking pride in having it shut down."

As if the moral thing to do is to embrace the concept of a coal plant killing people and ensure that it remains in operation to continue doing so. Astounding.

Another 9/11 might happen if romney gets in

Guns & Butter with Bonnie Faulkner | on Pacifica Foundation Radio

1. Why was Petraeus allegedly telling the White House that it was a demonstration that got out of hand and not a terrorist attack?

2. Why didn't the CIA rapid response force that was on the scene engage the (alleged) CIA backed terrorist and Guantanamo Bay alumnus who are alleged to have killed Ambassador Stevens?

3. Why didn't the (alleged) CIA backed March 17th Martyr's brigade engage the (alleged) CIA backed terrorist and Guantanamo Bay alumnus who are alleged to have killed Ambassador Stevens?

"The CIA Mormon Mafia and the Benghazi Killings"

http://tarpley.net/2012/10/17/the-cia-mormon-mafia-and-the-benghazi-kill...

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/show/34

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPFA

If there is another 9/11

it will only be because the billionaire elite and its puppet government feel they need another 9/11. So far the first installment has had all the effect they hoped for and then some. The mere mention of it makes most Americans throw critical thinking out the window and hide under the metaphorical bed with a gas mask. It still works quite well as a convenient crutch to legitmize this or that latest encroachment on civil liberties or whatever latest imperialist foreign policy misadventure. Since 9/11, at least in the U.S., all we've seen is a seemingly endless parade of "foiled terrorist plots" that run the spectrum from mildly far-fetched to totally preposterous, all with an F.B.I. informant at the heart of the plot, arranging it, planning it, getting the weapons/explosives, talking others into it.

This latest purported Federal Reserve bomb plot sure has convenient timing doesn't it? A few weeks before the election and barely a week before the last "debate", this one on the topic of foreign policy. What better way to burnish Obama's anti-terror credentials after the Benghazi debacle than to create a really scary-sounding "terrorist plot" then spring the mousetrap shut so he can pat himself on the back for saving America from terrorism?

Since they've killed off the actor the C.I.A. had been using to play the part of Osama bin Laden they can't produce any conveniently-timed "Osama" videos before the election as was the favored tactic of the Bush-Cheney administration. I don't foresee another false flag operation in the U.S. on the scale of 9/11 but I do think there will be a continuation of the pattern we've seen since then with every few months another F.B.I.-created "terrorist plot" getting foiled at the last minute for P.R. purposes.

To See How Big a Fraud the POTUS Debates Really Are See:

George Farah, founder and executive director of Open Debates. He's also author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates. [@ www.democracynow.org/2012/10/16/secret_debate_contract_reveals_obama_and ]. Farah explains why the Independent League of women voters were dropped as the sponors of the POTUS debates in 1988 because they refused to be manipulated by the 2 party duopoly. So the Dims & Repugs got together in an agreement that formed a bi-partisan corp for POTUS debates [Now we know why 3rd party candidates have been locked out since Ross Perot in 1992. Perot might have been a funny looking white guy w a squeaky southern drawl- but he said that NAFTA style trade agreements would lead to a 'Great Sucking Sound of Jobs Leaving the US' & he's been proven right about that.].

Also see: The Truth About the Commission on Presidential DebatesThe Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including moderators, debate format and even participants. [@ http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2012/10/truth-about-commission-presidential-debates ]

 

With such a stacked deck as this IMO it really shows just how much of an empty-suit &/or how compromised Obama really is- that he let a vain / flip-flopping / liar like Raw-Money show him up in their first debate.



Clicky Web Analytics
blog | by Dr. Radut