“A country reeling from one disaster has dodged another. While President Obama’s re-election inspires varying degrees of hope among progressives, it has evoked one common sentiment: relief. Democracy may not be reborn, but a living symbol of plutocracy was defeated by the voters on November 6 … This right-wing coalition was defeated at the polls by a “rising American electorate,” a coalition of women, African-Americans, Latinos, the young and unionized blue-collar workers in Midwestern battleground states.”
“Progressive opinions on Barack Obama’s first term are as conflicted as his record. These differences are a sign of a diverse and spirited left, and we welcome continued debate in our pages about the president’s record and policies. But that discussion should not obscure what is at stake in this election. A victory for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in November would validate the reactionary extremists who have captured the Republican Party. It would represent the triumph of social Darwinism, the religious right, corporate power and the big money donors who thrive in a new Gilded Age of inequality. It would strike a devastating blow to progressive values and movements, locking us in rear-guard actions on a range of issues—from the rights of women, minorities, immigrants and LGBT people to the preservation of social insurance programs and a progressive tax structure. Inside the Democratic Party, Obama’s defeat would embolden the Blue Dogs and New Dems, who have greased the party’s slide to the right. Whatever disappointments we have with Obama’s first term—and there are many—progressives have a profound interest in the popular rejection of the Romney/Ryan ticket.”
Inside, How Mitt and Ann made millions—and Mitt’s hedge fund donors made billions—from the auto-industry rescue that he condemned.
Plus:
“When asked a question about gun control, [Mitt Romney] inexplicably ended up talking about single mothers and how they are apparently at fault for gun violence. (Never mind studies that show no correlation between the two.) In his wandering response, he said, “We need moms and dads helping raise kids. Wherever possible, the—the benefit of having two parents in the home—and that’s not always possible. A lot of great single moms, single dads. But gosh … if there’s a two-parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically.” That sounds quite a lot like family planning to me. How does one plan a family? By using contraception to control fertility and have children when and with whom one wants.”
The newest issue has arrived; inside we reveal the Romney family recipe for crony capitalism, or how investors in Tagg Romney’s firm will cash in if his father wins.
“Mitt Romney would never live on Sesame Street. It would freak him out—all that remarkable diversity, all that collective creativity, all those good public works being done without someone owning, eliminating, or profiting from it all. Given his ruthless record in both the private and public sectors, it’s no wonder Mitt Romney would cut funding to support a place like this.”
“Like a caveman frozen in a glacier, Mitt Romney is a man trapped in time — from his archaic stance on women’s rights to his belief in Herbert Hoover economics. And now it appears his foreign policy is stuck in the past, as well.”
Mitt Romney, yesterday:
We simply can’t have a setting where the teachers unions are able to contribute tens of millions of dollars to the campaigns of politicians and then those politicians, when elected, stand across from them at the bargaining table… I think we’ve got to get the money out of the teachers unions going into campaigns. It’s the wrong way for us to go.
So Mitt’s got absolutely no problem with billionaires buying elections, but working people participating in the political process is apparently a bridge too far.
