Spintested: September 2010

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

Thursday, September 30, 2010

I just did not feel like reading a whole bunch of your musings.

"Whenever the choice has been between real Democrats and DINOs, Obama has consistently worked to get the DINO into office, and gone beyond the past protocol to do so."

List please. And answer my question with a shorter response please.
==================================================

Would you like a donut and a cup of coffee with that, too? Or perhaps a nice piece of cheesecake?

The answer to your question is in the comment at the top of the thread.

Or if scrolling up 3 inches is too much for you, click on this -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli/obama-rolling-stone_n_741607_62113079.html>
Just out of curiosity, how many words, exactly, is your limit?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

Your reading comprehension skills need work: The DLC is what and who I don't like.

DLCers are no better than Republicans, and may be even worse. They're both corporate t00Is, but Republicans make no bones about it. DLC Democrats, OTOH, are poseurs.

About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

It's been a rule of thumb that former presidents don't formally endorse candidates in the primaries, but both Carter and Clinton have leaked their 'preferences' or that they 'like' a certain candidate in a race.

Their doing that set a precedent (broke the ice, IMHO) for what Obama did.

It's been more than just a rule of thumb that sitting presidents do not get involved in the primary contests between members of their own party, but a taboo, the likes of which shouldn't and have never needed explanation before.

Whenever the choice has been between real Democrats and DINOs, Obama has consistently worked to get the DINO into office, and gone beyond the past protocol to do so.

Some of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' have defended him, saying that the times and the stakes dictated he do that to make deals. The fact is that the deals Obama has made are lousy deals. Either he's a bad deal-maker, or the deals he's made (pro-corporate, anti-populist) are exactly what he set out to do.

And that's the real key to understanding DLC Democrats and how they operate. They need us to believe that they're not corrupt, not working for Corporations, but are just merely inept. They also need to remain likable and have us believe that they're not so inept that we won't keep voting for them. Even then, should we decide that as likable as an individual DLCer is, he or she is just not capable of achieving our shared objectives and vote them out, the DLC has more in the pipeline to take their place and continue the "ineptitude".

That's how we got Obama; he flew under the radar. We thought we were getting rid of the DLC's frontrunner, Hillary.

Democratic voters, for the most part, still haven't finished their love affair with Bill Clinton. Like the real debate and assessment of Reagan that's never happened, we've never assessed Clinton's true legacy. Eliminating the social welfare safety nets, Glass-Steagle, the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, rendition, privatization, the sanctions & daily bombing of Iraq (and so much more) laid the foundation for what Bush and Cheney did and the decimation of the country. As Alan Greenspan said, "Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while."
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Cornyn: 'We Need To Keep Expectations... Fairly Modest' About Health Care Repeal (VIDEO)

DLC Democrats (co-founded by BillClinton) who control the DemocraticParty & Republicans are corporate t00Is. Like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributions) of a parent, Republicans and DLC-controlled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituent, Big Corporations. The trick for them has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of We the People.

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats were for strong regulations on banks, Wall Street, investigations, prosecutions, restitution of what has been robbed from the middle class and poor for the past 30+ years, environmental clean-up, clean, sustainable renewable energy (& that isn't nuclear), putting an end to the wars and occupation of Iraq & Afghanistan, affordable, quality universal healthcare (which ObamaCare is not), and more. The DLC-controlled Democratic party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnational corporations.

Obama's healthcare legislation doesn't do what Democratic voters put Obama and Democrats into power to achieve for them: Affordable quality medical treatment for all.

Obama's healthcare legislation is really just part 2 of Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (which corporate-serving Democrats also signed onto). At that time, Republicans were currying favor with their corporate masters. Democrats and Obama then had to step up to the plate and get a jackpot for Big Insurance & PhRma in order to keep those campaign contributions flowing to Democrats' campaigns.

Obama's healthcare legislation does not contain costs, and does not force insurance companies to pay for medical care for everyone. Those with pre-existing conditions are not getting insurance policies that will cover their conditions without also having to pay high deductibles and co-pays. So high that they can't afford the treatment, and insurance companies are under no obligation to pick up those costs. The language that has been used to sell the healthcare legislation is artful in deceiving People about what they're getting.

Jon Kyl is just setting the stage for the next heist on the American people. But make no mistake: No matter who wins, Republicans or Democrats, they're each going to be working to get more of Americans' money into the offshore accounts of the transnational corporations.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rahm Emanuel To Begin Touring Chicago Neighborhoods, Connecting With Voters This Weekend

When is Obama firing Bob "We're Not Ever Leaving Afghanistan" Gates?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Corporations Have Unlimited Lobbying Power, Lobbyist Says (VIDEO)

Over the course of US history, corporations have managed to game our political system, and done it so effectively that the two-party system competes to serve corporate interests while defending that service as, "What's good for GM (corporations) is good for America (We the People)".

DLC Democrats (co-founded by BillClinton) who control the DemocraticParty & Republicans are corporate t00Is. Like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributions) of a parent, Republicans and DLC-controlled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituent, Big Corporations. The trick for them has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of We the People.

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats were for strong regulations on banks, Wall Street, investigations, prosecutions, restitution of what has been robbed from the middle class and poor for the past 30+ years, environmental clean-up, clean, sustainable renewable energy (& that isn't nuclear), putting an end to the wars and occupation of Iraq & Afghanistan, affordable, quality universal healthcare (which ObamaCare is not), and more. The DLC-controlled Democratic party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnational corporations.

Obama is no better than Bush-Cheney. Not better, not worse, but the same. His 'most ardent admirers' just like the packaging better. I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for some of them; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand they trust believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).

Unless and until there is drastic and uncompromising change to our campaign financing system, until corporations are no longer 'persons' and are prohibited from participating in elections and politics, all efforts to reform government are useless.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Draws 26,000 For Madison Rally (VIDEO)

When you heard Obama say that he "wanted to work together with Republicans", how did you imagine that would work?

The old, experienced politically active among us knew it was a BS line, meaningless political rhetoric, aimed at getting Republican crossover voters and Centrist voters, who tend to be uncomfortable with conflict, and just want us all to get along but haven't a clue about how that happens and haven't given the 'how' of it much consideration.

Republicans never made any secret of their intention to obstruct a Democratic Congress. It's what they were doing since Democrats took over control of Congress in 2006.

Obama's rhetoric on 'bipartisanship' was along the lines of, "Vote for me if you want to break the gridlock in Congress because Hillary's too polarizing; I've worked with Dick Lugar on bill to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons."

What did you presume from that? That Republicans would cross over and vote with Democrats because Obama has a great smile/smart/reasonable/silver-tongued/blahblahblah?

Did you think that Obama and Democrats were put into power to cave on their platforms and policies, and vote for Republican-like legislation?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Gates: Too Few Americans Bear The Burdens Of War

That was Bill Clinton who insisted that we "look forward, not back".

Had Clinton or Congress investigated and prosecuted, much more would have come to light and been more widely known (the treason committed by the Reagan-Bush campaign, conspiring with a foreign government to win the 1980 election, for example), and that would have ended the moratorium on speaking only nice about Reagan.

Had the Reagan-Bush administration been investigated and prosecuted, there would not have been a Bush-Cheney administration. The last ten years wouldn't have happened. The last greatest heist of the American people before this one (the Savings & Loan bailout) would have led to reregulating and preventing the abuses that created the latest one. As it is, Obama's finance reform bill would not have prevented the economic meltdown, and it doesn't prevent another one from happening.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

"Those who look forward and not back are setting us up for another (Jeb) BUSH - (Liz) CHENEY administration." -Marcospinelli
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Corporations Have Unlimited Lobbying Power, Lobbyist Says (VIDEO)

Lobbyist: "The great news is everybody's writing a check. The bad news is it used to be your money!"
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Politically Active Americans Facing Searches and Surveillance

As an old, old liberal Democrat, I don't how any Democratic voter can sustain enthusiasm, defend Obama, after he asserts he has the right to k!ll any American citizen with no due process or oversight? And 'preventive detention'? And Obama's claims of 'state secrets' to deny courts even look at his a$$a$$ination program? And Obama's war on privacy? And what Obama's FBI is doing to anti-war activists?

And what about a Democratically-controlled Congress that looks the other way, refuses to exercise its Constitutionally-required role of oversight?

What makes Obama even worse than Bush-Cheney, IMHO, is that he campaigned on knowing different.

Bush and Cheney make no excuses for what they did and are about. But Obama ran on not being like them, and to see what he's done in office (and when cornered the excuses!) -- HOLY MOTHERING G0D!

To say what he's saying, there can only be one of two reasons:

1. Obama's got no conscience, or,

2. . Cheney's got Michelle's mother in an 'undisclosed location'.

You can choose to believe whichever one makes you feel better about your ability to assess character.

But you can't pick #2 unless you ignore everything else known about him to date.

If Obama didn't have a 'D' after his name, anyone looking at his and Democrats' actions would believe they were in a bizarro mirror world, where the Democrats and Republicans had swapped identities.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Can Democrats Sustain Enthusiasm for Their Presidents?

I am an old, old liberal Democrat.

You tell me how any Democratic voter can sustain enthusiasm, defend Obama, after he asserts he has the right to k!ll any American citizen with no due process or oversight? And 'preventive detention'? And Obama's claims of 'state secrets' to deny courts even look at his a$$a$$ination program? And Obama's war on privacy? And what Obama's FBI is doing to anti-war activists?

And what about a Democratically-controlled Congress that looks the other way, refuses to exercise its Constitutionally-required role of oversight?

If Obama didn't have a 'D' after his name, anyone looking at his and Democrats' actions would believe they were in a bizarro mirror world, where the Democrats and Republicans had swapped identities.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Arianna To Progressives, Middle Class: Obama's Not That Into You

I'm not a Clinton supporter.

But thanks for admitting with the non-responsive comment that you don't ever realize that you don't know what you're talking about.
About Rachel Maddow
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Arianna To Progressives, Middle Class: Obama's Not That Into You

I am an old, old liberal Democrat.

You tell me how any Democratic voter can defend Obama after he asserts he has the right to k!ll any American citizen with no due process or oversight? And 'preventive detention'? And Obama's claims of 'state secrets' to deny courts even look at his a$$a$$ination program? And Obama's war on privacy? And what Obama's FBI is doing to anti-war activists?

And what about a Democratically-controlled Congress that looks the other way, refuses to exercise its Constitutionally-required role of oversight?

If Obama didn't have a 'D' after his name, anyone looking at his and Democrats' actions would believe they were in a mirror world, where the Democrats and Republicans had swapped identities.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Arianna To Progressives, Middle Class: Obama's Not That Into You

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama&Democrats want what they want. The DLC-controlled DemocraticParty gives lip service to all populist issues (like ending the wars, civil rights protections, restoring habeas corpus, PublicHealthcare, WallStreet reform, environmental & energy issues, etc.).

If the Bush years taught us nothing else, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid & relentless in your sales pitch & tactics. It's not that Bush&R0ve were geniuses & knew something that nobody else knew; Bush&R0ve were just more ruthless (clumsy & careless many political graybeards would say) in doing what politicians & the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine (to get the nomination) & the oldest, most experienced politicians in our nation's history (including the Rove machine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politicians (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching Bush&Cheney off the table & have us still reelecting them, not marching on Washington with torches&pitchforks?

Obama&Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it.

The trick for them has been to keep the many different populist groups believing that they really do support our issues, but they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them despite their failure to deliver on any of our alleged shared objectives.
About Rachel Maddow
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Arianna To Progressives, Middle Class: Obama's Not That Into You

Consider this a test of "How Well Do You Know Obama?"

What do you think Obama is going to do after the election in just a few weeks if Republicans take control of one or both Houses of Congress?

Do you think he'll veto the legislation they pass (through reconciliation and every other means they can manage)? Do you think Obama will take to the bully pulpit, urge Americans to bury Republicans in email, phone calls, snail mail, and urge Democrats to block Republicans every way possible?

Or do you think that Obama's going to be making deal after deal with them, spinning what he can as somehow "Good for the People and Democrats", and/or, "I'm president of all the People, and the People in their infinite wisdom put Republicans in the majority, so I must honor their wishes and work with Republicans, and not try to obstruct their will"?

Do you think he'll blame his lack of spine in standing up to the Republicans in the coming two years on the Democratic base (should the base sit out the 2010 election or should the base vote for the independent?). "It's all their fault, the liberals, for holding me and DLC-Democrats to account for not keeping our promises"? And will you believe that?

And what if Democrats keep control of Congress? Do you think Obama's to have a change of heart, stop watering down bills, stop looking for bipartisan support, or is he going to keep flip-flopping on his campaign promises, and say that the election was a referendum on his flip-flopping, and voters want him to do more of the same?

What are you expecting from Obama and a Democratically-controlled Congress this next two years?
About Rachel Maddow
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Arianna To Progressives, Middle Class: Obama's Not That Into You

There was never any chance of that happening.

Obama provided the different congressional committees working on healthcare bills with specifics that he wanted to see in the legislation ("doesn't add to the deficit", for example), but how Congress achieved it was up to Congress.

People began noticing that Obama was waffling on his pledges (public option, no mandates) at which point Obama threw his "transparency"-pledge under the bus, and went to work undercutting all of the congressional committees working on healthcare reform legislation except one: The Senate Finance Committee.

Through that committee's chairman, Max Baucus, Obama set the terms for the bill that would ultimately be adopted into law, by eliminating single payer universal health care from consideration and all advocates of public health care. No seat at the table.

And THEN, Obama cut secret deals with hospitals, insurance companies and PhRma on profits, and L!ED about it when it was discovered:

http://www.nbc11news.com/home/headlines/53311447.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31464689/ns/politics-white_house

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12456721 1118336815.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/jan-june09/pharma_06-22.html>

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?_r=3&hp>
http://www.alternet.org/story/141856/obama's_$80_billion_deal_with _pharma_is _a_very_bad_deal_for_us/
About Rachel Maddow
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Arianna To Progressives, Middle Class: Obama's Not That Into You

During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did. Nothing changed.

Democrats said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate". In 2008, we gave them the 60. And the White House.

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in America, than ever in the history of the US. They did it because of his ability to persuade that he was going to change the system, end the corporatocracy, lobbyism in government -- He was going to be the People's president, not a corporate t00I.

And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election & a filibuster-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy & Byrd, at d.e.a.t.h's door, Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises & sloooooowed everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republicans", after Republicans had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, and vote no on everything, in lockstep.

Since Obama has gotten into office, he's continued most of Bush's policies & his 'accomplishments' are being spun as "reform" when, in fact, they're Republican in nature.

There could be 100 "progressives" in the Senate & 435 in the House, & they & Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporations instead of the People. And then try to blame it on Republicans.

It's way past time to get the DLC-Democrats out of office, out of the Democratic Party, and put real Democrats in. That's what we thought we were doing when we put Obama in over Hillary Clinton. But in came Obama who put the Clinton team into the White House, and not one liberal in his administration. He actually kept liberals neutralized for close to a year, with vague promises and nomination paralysis (waiting to be confirmed, where they weren't free to speak out about his Republican-ways. No recess appointments, just half-hearted excuses.

Obama has turned out to be a poor excuse.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Arianna To Progressives, Middle Class: Obama's Not That Into You

Liberals aren't discouraged; we're angry. Because it's not a matter of "going through immediately" -- It's a matter of being repeatedly sold out by the DLC controlling the Democratic Party.

We've been doing it your way (the DLC's way) for 20 years now, and the nation and the Democratic Party keeps moving farther to the right.

If you and I are on the same side, if you and I want the same policies (real Democratic policies), and going about getting them your way (protecting Obama, siding with Obama) is getting Republican policies, NOT Democratic policies, when do you realize that maybe you don't know what you're talking about?

Do you ever realize it?
About Rachel Maddow
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

You'll have no one to blame but Obama and Rahm Emanuel should Sarah Palin in 2012 happen.

The Republican Party was not only on the ropes after the 2008 campaign, but down for the count. Obama and Rahm Emanuel didn't go after the Republican leadership in Congress, or even the Bush-Cheney administration for their many crimes. No, Obama and Emanuel blocked all investigations into Bush-Cheney, and then elevated Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, two people with absolutely no job, no position in the GOP, to their target sites.

Obama and RahmEmanuel have never gone after the Republican leadership directly. Not MitchMcConnell, not JohnBoehner, not EricCantor, not JohnMcCain (the titular head of the Party, as the last presidential nominee).

Obama and Rahm Emanuel won't go after Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Yoo, Bybee, et al, or anyone in the Republican leadership or in Congress, but instead they go after Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin (two people with no official role in the Republican Party).

Why hasn't Obama (nor any of the DemocraticParty leadership) held the BushAdministration to account?

Perhaps it would be kind of hard to swallow (Obama going after an administration for having committed crimes) when it's the same activities that Obama's actively engaged in. It's also counter-intuitive to your other agenda, the DLC's agenda for the past 20 years, which is to attract Republican politicians & their supporters into the DemocraticParty, which can only be done by moving the DemocraticParty to the right of right-of-center.

About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' claim that he's a centrist.

They say that he always has been & that those Democratic voters who voted for him because they believed him to be a populist, a liberal, weren't listening (forget the fact that Obama ran an aggressive progressive campaign, and to the left of Hillary). And, they say, conservatives who insist Obama's a liberal are either stup!d or so far right and unpolitically savvy, they don't even belong svcking up space and time on political discussion threads.

To those who thought that during the 2008 campaign, Obama was a moderate and wasn't trying to deceive anyone, what did you think he meant when you heard him saying during the campaign that people had to stay involved after the election, that they couldn't just vote for him, go away for four years and expect that he would do what they had hoped. That "there are powerful interests working against what the people want, and if you want me to do your bidding, you would have to make me do it".

What did you think he was talking about? Did you think he was just being honest, admitting he could be corrupted? Did you think he was trying to deceive centrists, corporatists, into believing he was really on their side but liberals and progressives could get him to keep his promises to them if they sat on him, kept after him?

What do you think it takes to get Obama to keep his campaign promises? Because his healthcare legislation doesn't do it, his finance reform legislation doesn't do it (it wouldn't have prevented the meltdown, nor will it prevent the next one). What did you think when Obama said it was Congress's job to write the healthcare bill, he was staying out of it, and then you learned that Obama was double-dealing the committees writing the bill, cutting secret deals with PhRma, hospitals, Big Insurance (then lied about it, said they hadn't), which Congress would be bound by?

What did you think when Obama and Rahm Emanuel, as soon as they got into the White House, went after Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, two people with no job in the Republican Party, instead of the Republican leadership in Congress? What did you think when after the 2008 election, with the GOP not only on the ropes but down for the count, got a pardon from Obama?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

Obama's a politician, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word.

He convinced centrists that he was a centrist.

He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist.

But first and foremost, Obama is a lawyer (also in the worst sense of the word).

Obama chose his words very carefully (lawyer-speak) during the campaign, giving people the sense of what they wanted to hear to get their vote. It's why even among his most ardent admirers, they still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican.

Doing what is right for transnational corporations is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican, "What's good for GM is good for America."

He did a job on everybody.

There's nothing in Obama's record to indicate he's anything but a DLC Democrat, a DINO, a Republican-in-Democrats'-clothing.

His flip-flop on FISA in June 2008 was a pretty good indicator of his politics and character (or lack of character).

Obama's most ardent supporters excused that betrayal, insisting that he was a closet liberal who had to vote that way in order to trick centrists & independents into voting for him in the general election.

It's Obama's most ardent followers who were tricked, & are still in denial, for they refuse to acknowledge that Obama has been continuing just about all of Bush's policies, going Bush-Cheney one better on asserting unitary executive powers for himself (preventive detention, murdering Americans without due process or oversight, etc., continuing rendition and t0rture, cloaking it all in the 'State Secrets'-Act).
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

How does any Democratic voter defend Obama after he asserts he has the right to k!ll any American citizen with no due process or oversight? And 'prevention detention'? And his claims of 'state secrets' to deny courts even look at his a$$a$$ination program?

If Obama didn't have a 'D' after his name, anyone looking at his actions would know that his most ardent supporters' belts don't go through all the loops.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

What Obama did get from Lieberman, under cover of darkness. One of the many 'services' Lieberman has performed for Obama:

After Obama flip-flopped (one of many) on an issue he campaigned on (transparency and releasing the thousands of t0rture photos of detainees), he used Lieberman to slip it into legislation that gave the SoD the power to gut FOIA and bury the evidence forever.

http://www.truthout.org/1022095

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/143322/outrage:_house_sneakily_passes_bill_banning_release_of_photos_showing_detainee_abuse/

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Republicans and their supporters, everyone but the Democratic Party's base that put Obama and Democrats into office gets better treatment from Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Joe Biden, and the DLC.

Why isn't Obama investigating and prosecuting the Bush administration?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

There is nothing that Democrats in Congress are doing that Obama hasn't signed off on, much less ordered.

When you are the president, you are the head of your political party. When your political party controls both Houses of Congress and the White House, you do what the head of your party tells you to do. The only people who don't understand this are those who have never worked in politics or in government.

Democrats like to hide this from the people, and lend the illusion of democracy (small 'd'), like "herding cats", "no organized party", etc., but that's how it is, and it's the only reason there are political parties.

If you do not get behind what the leader of your political party tells you to do, you're going to find your life really cold and lonely for the duration of your term in office. Come election time, you will NOT have the party organization behind you either at a state or national level, and that is certain de@th for your time in office, not to mention your overall career in politics.

The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs of members in their caucus that joined with Republicans and threatened to filibuster a public option for healthcare.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. But it hasn't. Because Lieberman & Blue Dogs (& Republicans) provide cover to Obama & the DLC-controlled Democratic Party, to let them continue to serve corporate interests over the interests of the People.

Obama insisted Lieberman remain in the Democratic Caucus. In spite of multiple betrayals by Lieberman before and during the 2008 election (Lieberman endorsed McCain, campaigned FOR McCain).

Over REAL Democratic senators, Obama insisted Lieberman keep the chairmanship of the Governmental Affairs & Homeland Security Committee. That's the committee that whitewashed the Bush administration's failure during Hurricane Katrina. Obama rubberstamped that committee's not investigating Bush once Democrats took over control of government after the 2008 election.

Does anyone really believe that Obama got nothing for that concession? No agreement that Lieberman would vote as Obama told him to vote? No agreement from Lieberman that he couldn't join Republicans in filibustering? No agreement that he would sign on to a public option?

If Obama got nothing for that concession, why didn't he? Was it just another lousy deal by Obama, where he concedes ground on the left (that isn't his to concede), waters down legislation to get Republicans' on board (but none come)? Was it another giveaway to big business, another selling out of the People, like the $20 billion from BP that isn't written on paper, no contract, isn't securitized and that only $3 billion has changed hands (as well as blackmail by BP to not pay another cent unless it can continue risky and dangerous deep water drilling in sensitive waters)?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

Obama didn't get a public option because that was the deal that he made, undercutting the congressional committees working on healthcare reform.

If Obama really wanted Joe Lieberman's vote, he would have done to Lieberman and the Blue Dogs what he did to Dennis Kucinich.

What did Obama do when Kucinich (the last hold-out on the Progressive Caucus, all of whom had pledged to vote for a healthcare bill only if it had a public option, and who all caved) was opposing him to the left. Obama flew to Cleveland and held a big rally. Obama rallied Kucinich's constituents against him and he got Kucinich's vote.

Where was that mentality with Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, the other Blue Dogs and even Olympia Snowe? If the president of the United States had used the bully pulpit against them, a lot of progressives would have respected that and said, "You tried your best".

But Obama didn't try. He cut a deal. Months earlier, cutting the will of the People off at the knees. The public was powerless in the backroom deal.

Obama never pressured JoeLieberman, Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln, or any Blue Dog. That's by their own admission. The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs of members in their caucus that joined with Republicans and threatened to filibuster a public option for healthcare.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. But it hasn't. Because Lieberman & Blue Dogs (& Republicans) provide cover to Obama & the DLC-controlled Democratic Party, to let them continue to serve corporate interests over the interests of the People.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

Obama's healthcare 'reform' legislation (which does not do what voters put Obama and Democrats into power to get for them, namely affordable quality medical treatment for everyone) is Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (which was a $700 billion + giveaway to Big Insurance & PhRma). Obama's legislation is Part 2. It doesn't get affordable quality medical treatment for all, in fact, it's a giant leap toward ending all public healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, CHAMPUS, veterans care, etc.).

Having insurance (which is all that Obama's legislation does, and not even for everyone, just for a few million more) doesn't mean getting necessary medical care or that you will be able to afford medical care.

Think about that for a minute, because I do understand how, after hours/days/months of spin by professional spinmeisters (politicians), you might not appreciate the distinction.

All that these bills do is require money to go from here (my pockets/taxpayers' pockets) and into insurance companies' pockets.

There is NO LIMITATION on insurance companies' charging and increasing co-pays and deductibles and eliminating services.

There is NO REQUIREMENT for insurance companies to have to provide services not paid for.

More people will be put into Medicaid, which states (which are currently going bankrupt) are required to co-pay along with the federal government. States are eliminating Medicaid services as a result. "Yes, you will fall into Medicaid, but Medicaid doesn't treat chit."
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

You think the Secret Service let's Obama get anywhere near "dumbarses" with rifles strapped to their backs and legs?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

If Republicans take control of the House, nothing would get passed?

How do you figure that?

And if Democrats continue to control both Houses, do you think Obama's going to keep flip-flopping on his campaign promises, and say that the election was a referendum on his flip-flopping, and voters want him to do more of the same? Or do you think he's going to move to the left?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

And Bill Clinton is on board with Obama, so just goes to show how they all take voters to be id-jits.

How about weighing in on this?:

What do you think Obama is going to do after the election in just a few weeks if Republicans take control of one or both Houses of Congress?

Do you think he'll veto the legislation they pass (through reconciliation and every other means they can manage)? Do you think Obama will take to the bully pulpit, urge Americans to bury Republicans in email, phone calls, snail mail, and urge Democrats to block Republicans every way possible?

Or do you think that Obama's going to be making deal after deal with them, spinning what he can as somehow "Good for the People and Democrats", and/or, "I'm president of all the People, and the People in their infinite wisdom put Republicans in the majority, so I must honor their wishes and work with Republicans, and not try to obstruct their will"?

And if Democrats keep control of Congress? Do you think Obama's going to keep flip-flopping on his campaign promises, and say that the election was a referendum on his flip-flopping, and voters want him to do more of the same?

About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

No, you don't get it.

An overwhelming number of voters in Arkansas are registered Democrats.

It's not like Halter comes out of nowhere in Arkansas; he's the Lt. Governor. He's very popular.

About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

House Overwhelmingly Passes Trade Sanctions Bill Targeted At China

American Citizens Get Stuck With The Security Bill, While China and Russia Benefit from Afghanistan's Mineral Riches

Although the U.S. government has spent more than $940 billion on the conflict in Afghanistan since 2001, a treasure trove of mineral deposits, including vast quantities of industrial metals such as lithium, gold, cobalt, copper and iron, are likely to wind up going to Russia and China instead of American firms.

The New York Timesreported Monday that U.S. officials and American geologists have foundan estimated $1 trillion worth of mineral depositsthat have yet to be exploited in the country. The paper said a Pentagon report called Afghanistan potentially "the Saudi Arabia of lithium," a key component in batteries for cellphones, laptop computers and eventually, a plug-in fleet of electric cars.

But while the United States and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries are providing the bulk of the security for Afghanistan -- U.S. troop levels are set to rise to 100,000 by year's end -- the firms that are profiting from the resource boom are primarily Chinese, and to a lesser extent, Russian.

"China has an absolute advantage in Afghanistan as far as resource development goes," says James R. Yeager, a Tucson, Ariz., consultant who worked as an adviser to the Afghan Ministry of Mines.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/9E0IHt
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

What do you think Obama is going to do after the election in just a few weeks if Republicans take control of one or both Houses of Congress?

Do you think he'll veto the legislation they pass (through reconciliation and every other means they can manage)? Do you think Obama will take to the bully pulpit, urge Americans to bury Republicans in email, phone calls, snail mail, and urge Democrats to block Republicans every way possible?

Or do you think that Obama's going to be making deal after deal with them, spinning what he can as somehow "Good for the People and Democrats", and/or, "I'm president of all the People, and the People in their infinite wisdom put Republicans in the majority, so I must honor their wishes and work with Republicans, and not try to obstruct their will"?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

I am an old OLD liberal Democrat.

I have been voting the lesser of two ev!ls (DLC Democrats) since the DLC took over the Democratic Party in the late 1980s.

I have watched the DLC take the Democratic Party farther to the right each election cycle, promising change and reform, blaming the lack of it on voters for not electing enough Democrats liberals progressives, all the while the party leaders are bankrolling pro-corporate DINOs over true liberals and cooperating with Republicans in Congress. Never are the party leaders using the bully pulpit of their offices to educate or inform the American people as to the great traditions of liberal Democracy and how the People have prospered under liberal Democrats.

Currently, this DINO of a president has continued just about all of the Bush-Cheney policies and gone Bush-Cheney one better in several areas. Civil rights abuses that Bush & Cheney could only fantasize about, never dare try, Obama's doing.

How does any Democratic voter defend Obama after he asserts he has the right to k!ll any American citizen with no due process or oversight? And 'prevention detention'? And his claims of 'state secrets' to deny courts even look at his a$$a$$ination program?

If Obama didn't have a 'D' after his name, anyone looking at his actions would know that his most ardent supporters' belts don't go through all the loops for supporting what they claim to loathe about Republican. But the 'D' after Obama's name is a brand they believe and trust in (as did I), despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product) as what Bush & Cheney gave us. And worse.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

Welcome to my world online.

Keep in mind that many of those who are doing that are political operatives, paid to spread disinformation, provide any kind of narrative (desperate, and as off-the-wall as their accusations are) to sow doubt in the minds of people who your comments are resonating with. The truth has a 'ring' to it, and they're trying to throw a '#CLANG# to distract readers' attention.

Accusing you of being a Republican or a teabagger means you have them flummoxed. They have no argument, they've run out of excuses to explain Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress.

"When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff" - Dr. Ralf Rinkle
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

We've seen Obama bravely go to town hall meetings where there were Republicans with rifles.

====================================================

You come to believe this, how?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Blame Game: It's Not About Turning Out Voters, It's About Protecting Himself

Obama, Rahm Emanuel, the DLC, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, all have worked their @$$es off to prevent real progressives getting into office.

One example right off the bat is Blanche Lincoln.

The White House put their full weight & support behind Blanche Lincoln over the true progressive (& union-backed) candidate in the primary, Bill Halter.

This wasn't unlike when Obama made a deal with Arlen Specter and put the full weight and support of the Democratic machine behind Specter during the 2010 primary in Pennsylvania, trying to buy off (among other alternative candidates Democratic voters in PA might have wanted to vote to have representing them) Joe Sestak. Consider that -- Obama actively went about trying to prevent Democratic voters from choosing their preferred candidate for the US so that a DINO, Republican Arlen Specter, could retain the seat.

Lincoln is 40 points down behind the GOP candidate John Boozman.

Guess who could beat Boozman in Arkansas? Bill Halter. Because, like just about all Americans, Arkansans would prefer an authentic candidate, even if it's a progressive. We appreciate honesty.

But more progressives in Congress means real populist legislation getting passed into law. Real reform bills, that re-regulate banks and big business. Real stimulus bills, with jobs creation, green clean energy development, and more.

But that's not who or what Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats are about.

The rightwing attacking Obama and their refusal to work in "a bipartisan manner" should have pushed Obama to play hardball and move populist legislation through Congress quickly and decisively. To undo the Bush-Cheney abuses, especially with the tentative hold on a filibuster-proof majority Democrats were given in the 2008 election.

Instead, he let Republicans dictate the pace and shape a debate that was already done and voted on and won by Democrats in 2008.

If Republicans are so bad (and I think they are), why is Obama blocking all investigations and prosecutions into the Bush-Cheney administration? Perhaps if Bill Clinton hadn't done the same thing for the Reagan-Bush administration, we wouldn't have been saddled with Bush-Cheney at all.

When Obama came into power, the GOP wasn't on the ropes; it was down for the count. And Obama issued them a pardon. He expresses absolutely no remorse or plan to do anything differently.

Obama's not the Democrat that you think he is. He's not any kind of Democrat; he's a DINO.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Gates Hints At Cuts For Military Pay And Benefits, Says Too Few Americans Bear The Burdens Of War

Robert Gates: 'We're Not Ever Leaving' Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Gates Hints At Cuts For Military Pay And Benefits, Says Too Few Americans Bear The Burdens Of War

End privatization of military (mercenaries, Blackwater), bring back the draft, end the wars of choice (for the profit of the rich oily people).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

Obama, Rahm Emanuel, the DLC, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, all have worked their @$$es off to prevent real progressives getting into office.

One example right off the bat is Blanche Lincoln.

The White House put their full weight & support behind Blanche Lincoln over the true progressive (& union-backed) candidate in the primary, Bill Halter.

This wasn't unlike when Obama made a deal with Arlen Specter and put the full weight and support of the Democratic machine behind Specter during the 2010 primary in Pennsylvania, trying to buy off (among other alternative candidates Democratic voters in PA might have wanted to vote to have representing them) Joe Sestak. Consider that -- Obama actively went about trying to prevent Democratic voters from choosing their preferred candidate for the US so that a DINO, Republican Arlen Specter, could retain the seat.

Lincoln is 40 points down behind the GOP candidate John Boozman.

Guess who could beat Boozman in Arkansas? Bill Halter. Because, like just about all Americans, Arkansans would prefer an authentic candidate, even if it's a progressive. We appreciate honesty.

But more progressives in Congress means real populist legislation getting passed into law. Real reform bills, that re-regulate banks and big business. Real stimulus bills, with jobs creation, green clean energy development, and more.

But that's not who or what Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats are about.

The rightwing attacking Obama and their refusal to work in "a bipartisan manner" should have pushed Obama to play hardball and move populist legislation through Congress quickly and decisively. To undo the Bush-Cheney abuses, especially with the tentative hold on a filibuster-proof majority Democrats were given in the 2008 election.

Instead, he let Republicans dictate the pace and shape a debate that was already done and voted on and won by Democrats in 2008.

If Republicans are so bad (and I think they are), why is Obama blocking all investigations and prosecutions into the Bush-Cheney administration? Perhaps if Bill Clinton hadn't done the same thing for the Reagan-Bush administration, we wouldn't have been saddled with Bush-Cheney at all.

When Obama came into power, the GOP wasn't on the ropes; it was down for the count. And Obama issued them a pardon. He expresses absolutely no remorse or plan to do anything differently.

Obama's not the Democrat that you think he is. He's not any kind of Democrat; he's a DINO.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

Obama, Rahm Emanuel, the DLC, David Axelrod, David Plouffe, all have worked their @$$es off to prevent real progressives getting into office.

One example right off the bat is Blanche Lincoln.

The White House put their full weight & support behind Blanche Lincoln over the true progressive (& union-backed) candidate in the primary, Bill Halter.

This wasn't unlike when Obama made a deal with Arlen Specter and put the full weight and support of the Democratic machine behind Specter during the 2010 primary in Pennsylvania, trying to buy off (among other alternative candidates Democratic voters in PA might have wanted to vote to have representing them) Joe Sestak. Consider that -- Obama actively went about trying to prevent Democratic voters from choosing their preferred candidate for the US so that a DINO, Republican Arlen Specter, could retain the seat.

Lincoln is 40 points down behind the GOP candidate John Boozman.

Guess who could beat Boozman in Arkansas? Bill Halter. Because, like just about all Americans, Arkansans would prefer an authentic candidate, even if it's a progressive. We appreciate honesty.

But more progressives in Congress means real populist legislation getting passed into law. Real reform bills, that re-regulate banks and big business. Real stimulus bills, with jobs creation, green clean energy development, and more.

But that's not who or what Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats are about.

The rightwing attacking Obama and their refusal to work in "a bipartisan manner" should have pushed Obama to play hardball and move populist legislation through Congress quickly and decisively. To undo the Bush-Cheney abuses, especially with the tentative hold on a filibuster-proof majority Democrats were given in the 2008 election.

Instead, he let Republicans dictate the pace and shape a debate that was already done and voted on and won by Democrats in 2008.

If Republicans are so bad (and I think they are), why is Obama blocking all investigations and prosecutions into the Bush-Cheney administration? Perhaps if Bill Clinton hadn't done the same thing for the Reagan-Bush administration, we wouldn't have been saddled with Bush-Cheney at all.

When Obama came into power, the GOP wasn't on the ropes; it was down for the count. And Obama issued them a pardon. He expresses absolutely no remorse or plan to do anything differently.

Obama's not the Democrat that you think he is. He's not any kind of Democrat; he's a DINO.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

Tell the truth now; you have a learning disability, don't you?

Had you read the entire comment, you would have seen:

Obama's personal polling numbers remain high.

Those polled may not like what he or Democrats are doing, but like him personally. His total job approval on Rasmussen, for example, is 46 percent - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll .

The numbers state-by-state swing more broadly, with that number going up to 58 percent in NY, for example. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/25/latest-round-up-of-obama-poll-numbers-by-state/

That's still high, or high enough that the White House thinks their problem is just one of selling its policies. So the White House "stays the course" and sends him out to stump, make speeches. If Obama's personal numbers weren't good, he wouldn't be out stumping; that's another indication of his high personal numbers.

54 percent may disapprove of Obama's performance but they still like him.

Here's my question for you:

Do you share the low opinion of Obama that you think most Americans have of Obama?

About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Draws 26,000 For Madison Rally (VIDEO)

Bad analogy (you comparing yourself to Obama, and the relationship between the president and the citizens as one of a parent to a child), but it gives us an important insight into the mind of an 0bamabot: You l!e to your daughter to get medicine into her, and you believe that in a democracy, it's all right for a president to l!e to citizens to get their votes.

Fortunately, the American people aren't your children you aren't in any position of power over the American people.

Unfortunately for us, Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats may see their relationship with the American people as you do, in which case they're as lousy at parenting as you are, and worse at governing than Republicans.

This is a democracy, a democratic republic, not a parent-child relationship. American citizens have to make adult decisions about who will have power over their lives, who will represent them and their interests in government.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama told people that they had to stay involved after the election, that they couldn't just vote for him, go away for four years and expect that he would do what they had hoped. He said that there were powerful interests working against what the people wanted, and if We The People wanted Obama to do our bidding, we would have to MAKE HIM DO IT.

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' forget that those of us who criticize Obama are only doing what he warned us needed to be done. NOT to trust him.

Since the election (and even before, with his FISA vote), Obama's given us every reason to distrust and doubt him. He's been deceptive, breaking every campaign pledge and promise, conceding the positions of the left (getting nothing in return), and hobbling real Democrats at every turn while making Republicans and Blue Dogs stronger (and harder to beat in 2010 and 2012).

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' (like you) are the most immediate problem, as they help him screw them (& us) over. They keep his personal numbers high. That enables Obama to blow them (and all Democratic voters) off. Until they wake up to these facts, they are their own (& our) worst e n e m ies, and the reason we don't get what we all thought we were voting for when we voted Obama and Democrats into office as the majority power in our government.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Draws 26,000 For Madison Rally (VIDEO)

As long as Obama's personal approval ratings remain high (and they are remaining high, thanks to Obama's 'most ardent supporters' who defend everything he does and respond to facts critical of him & the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress with, "But Republicans/Teabaggers are worse"), Obama & Democrats are not going to do anything differently.

Those polled may not like what he or Democrats are doing, but like him personally. His total job approval on Rasmussen, for example, is 46 percent -http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_admi nistration/daily_pres idential_t racking_po ll .

The numbers state-by-state swing more broadly, with that number going up to 58 percent in NY, for example -http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/25/latest-round-up-of-obama-poll-numbers-by-state/ ).

That's still high, or high enough that the White House thinks their problem is just one of selling its policies. So the White House "stays the course" and sends Obama out to stump, to make speeches. If Obama's personal numbers weren't good, he wouldn't be out stumping; that's another indication of his high personal numbers.

The White House has gone to great lengths to distance Obama from his and Democrats' actions, as do all White House administrations (try to keep presidents removed from any negative consequences of presidential decisions).

It's always others in his administration who are responsible when something goes south or wrong, in which case it's that person who "leaves the administration" (fired, asked to resign). The president is always the "last man standing"; everyone else falls on their sword for the king.

Presidents do that, implement unpopular policies, for as long as they can get away with it, i.e., the president is not associated with the policies (which is what the high personal polling numbers mean).

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Draws 26,000 For Madison Rally (VIDEO)

For those who defend Obama by saying that when he was a candidate he said he would expand the war in Afghanistan:

When Candidate Obama talked about Afghanistan, it was in the context that Bush had erred in moving the war on Al Qaeda to Iraq, and that he, Obama, wanted to refocus US efforts to where Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were -- In Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan.

It was certainly clear that Al Qaeda was not synonymous with the Taliban, and that the AUMF did not include the Taliban.

It was also clear that Obama was speaking for that moment in time, during the campaign, and that should circumstances change, i.e., Al Qaeda was not any serious threat or Osama Bin Laden was k!lled or somewhere else, Obama wouldn't be expanding the offensive in Afghanistan.

Once Obama got into the White House, the assessment was crystal clear that there were fewer than 100 in Al Qaeda, they weren't capable of anything.

Candidate Obama also communicated clearly that he understood how the US's pursuit of empire and military aggression was a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda, and that if elected, all that was going to end.

What Obama is doing as president is not what Candidate Obama campaigned on.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Oil Commission Baffled By Lowball Estimates; Suspects They Slowed Response

There is no $20 billion restitution funding.

There's no contract, BP just put up $3 billion, and nothing is securitized.

BP is trying to blackmail the government, too, by saying that unless it's allowed to continue risky, dangerous drilling operations in sensitive deep waters, it won't pay anything.
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Out Of Afghanistan 'Psychologically,' Woodward Says (VIDEO)

Everything you've said is true.

Congress, which works on behalf of transnational corporations and not the People of the US, does whatever it can to dilute, discourage, prevent citizens having any say in or control of the government and policy.

If Americans really want their country back, reinstating the draft is on the short list of 'Surest & Fastest Ways To Get Back The Democracy'.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Gates: 'We're Not Ever Leaving' Afghanistan

For those who defend Obama by saying that when he was a candidate he said he would expand the war in Afghanistan:

When Candidate Obama talked about Afghanistan, it was in the context that Bush had erred in moving the war on Al Qaeda to Iraq, and that he, Obama, wanted to refocus US efforts to where Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were -- In Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan.

It was certainly clear that Al Qaeda was not synonymous with the Taliban, and that the AUMF did not include the Taliban.

It was also clear that Obama was speaking for that moment in time, during the campaign, and that should circumstances change, i.e., Al Qaeda was not any serious threat or Osama Bin Laden was k!lled or somewhere else, Obama wouldn't be expanding the offensive in Afghanistan.

Once Obama got into the White House, the assessment was crystal clear that there were fewer than 100 in Al Qaeda, they weren't capable of anything.

Candidate Obama also communicated clearly that he understood how the US's pursuit of empire and military aggression was a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda, and that if elected, all that was going to end.

What Obama is doing as president is not what Candidate Obama campaigned on.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Out Of Afghanistan 'Psychologically,' Woodward Says (VIDEO)

For those who defend Obama by saying that when he was a candidate he said he would expand the war in Afghanistan:

When Candidate Obama talked about Afghanistan, it was in the context that Bush had erred in moving the war on Al Qaeda to Iraq, and that he, Obama, wanted to refocus US efforts to where Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were -- In Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan.

It was certainly clear that Al Qaeda was not synonymous with the Taliban, and that the AUMF did not include the Taliban.

It was also clear that Obama was speaking for that moment in time, during the campaign, and that should circumstances change, i.e., Al Qaeda was not any serious threat or Osama Bin Laden was k!lled or somewhere else, Obama wouldn't be expanding the offensive in Afghanistan.

Once Obama got into the White House, the assessment was crystal clear that there were fewer than 100 in Al Qaeda, they weren't capable of anything.

Candidate Obama also communicated clearly that he understood how the US's pursuit of empire and military aggression was a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda, and that if elected, all that was going to end.

What Obama is doing as president is not what Candidate Obama campaigned on.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Out Of Afghanistan 'Psychologically,' Woodward Says (VIDEO)

For those who defend Obama by saying that when he was a candidate he said he would expand the war in Afghanistan:

When Candidate Obama talked about Afghanistan, it was in the context that Bush had erred in moving the war on Al Qaeda to Iraq, and that he, Obama, wanted to refocus US efforts to where Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were -- In Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan.

It was certainly clear that Al Qaeda was not synonymous with the Taliban, and that the AUMF did not include the Taliban.

It was also clear that Obama was speaking for that moment in time, during the campaign, and that should circumstances change, i.e., Al Qaeda was not any serious threat or Osama Bin Laden was k!lled or somewhere else, Obama wouldn't be expanding the offensive in Afghanistan.

Once Obama got into the White House, the assessment was crystal clear that there were fewer than 100 in Al Qaeda, they weren't capable of anything.

Candidate Obama also communicated clearly that he understood how the US's pursuit of empire and military aggression was a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda, and that if elected, all that was going to end.

What Obama is doing as president is not what Candidate Obama campaigned on.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Out Of Afghanistan 'Psychologically,' Woodward Says (VIDEO)

Not formally, it doesn't.

You and I can agree that members of Congress enjoyed non-responsibility, non-oversight of these wars during the Bush years because it gave them "plausible deniability", but it is somewhat murkier for them under Obama. They can only get away with saying, "But Obama inherited these wars, he didn't start them, and as such he has few, if any, choices (and that means we have even fewer choices but to 'support the troops') and must keep paying the bills" for so long. Until civil unrest at home demands they end it now, or we can't borrow anymore money to pay for the wars. The latter is unlikely to happen as we are providing the security for our bankers to do business in these countries. So as long as the wars continue, China, et al, will continue loaning us money (that our great-grandchildren will be paying off; in the short term, we will be losing our social safety nets, healthcare, and most everything else as federal, state and county budgets are slashed). All that is left is the former, and I don't see the People taking to the streets with pitchforks and torches, do you?
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Gates: 'We're Not Ever Leaving' Afghanistan

Gates didn't do much in a way of providing the President any options other then a surge.
==================================================

It worked for both Bush and Obama in Iraq.

We're still there, it's still a full-on raging war but most Americans don't know that and believe "combat operations are over" and a few troops are there for show.

The way that Bush and Cheney and now Obama keep these wars going is by increment. The longer they get away with not bringing all of the troops home, the longer we remain occupying those countries, the more worn down the American people become in allowing it to continue. The goal is to wear down everyone, the Americans, the Iraqis, the Afghans, and the longer it goes on, the more self-fulfilling a prophecy it is.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Out Of Afghanistan 'Psychologically,' Woodward Says (VIDEO)

It's implied.

BillLoney, a paid political operative, invariably looks to excuse Obama's actions.

While rksnj67's comment may be taken in the sense of ironic, BillLoney's response to it wasn't meant to be critical of Obama or meant to be taken as negatively comparing him to Bush.

If I'm wrong, news is being made here today: BillLoney has turned on Obama.
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Out Of Afghanistan 'Psychologically,' Woodward Says (VIDEO)

Congress didn't authorize any war against the Taliban, or nation-building in either Afghanistan or Iraq, yet these wars continue. After taking a nation to war with Iraq based on l!es (not just about Iraq having WMD, but Bush got the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq from Congress based on his assurances that it was only to bolster his 'bullying Saddam Hussein'-strategy, & that he would go back to the UN for its authorization & come back to Congress before he did anything -- Bush did neither), no legal basis exists for the US military remaining in either of those countries.

All we've seen from Democrats in Congress is a whole lotta diffuse talk, but no action.

Obama & Democrats ran on putting the wars on the budget, with no more supplemental emergency spending bills to pay for these wars. Funding the wars through supplementals was how Bush & Cheney managed to avoid congressional oversight & public scrutiny.

After close to two years of controlling both Houses of Congress & the WhiteHouse, Democrats are continuing the funding of the wars through supplementals.

What's significant about this?:

When the funding of wars goes 'on budget', congressional committees & subcommittees then hold hearings & investigations into US policies, about US interests around the world, from which the UnitedState's overall foreign & military policies are derived. That's how civilian-control over the US military takes place: Through the citizens' chosen representatives choosing weapons systems & overseeing US military operations & installations, plans & policies, etc.

This doesn't happen with supplemental spending bills.

The nature of them is, "It's an emergency, we're running out of money, give us $80 billion now (that's the magic sum, invariably $80 billion) or you won't be 'supporting the troops'...We'll talk about it later".

"Later" doesn't happen.

The $80 billion ploy is so the American people think they're always talking about the same $80 billion.

I know, I know, "How is that possible that the average American wouldn't realize it's not the same $80 billion when it's year in& year out?" The average American is just barely keeping it all together as it is & fighting for his life(style).

Committees in both Houses of Congress have either never begun investigations into fraud and abuse, or dropped investigations (both on what happened during the Bush administration and afterwards), yet Congress is doing no oversight, & thieving criminal private contractors are still being awarded government contracts.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Out Of Afghanistan 'Psychologically,' Woodward Says (VIDEO)

So that makes it ok?
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Gates: 'We're Not Ever Leaving' Afghanistan

And so now, if Obama doesn't get rid of Gates, will Obama's 'most ardent admirers' admit that Gates is speaking for Obama and that Obama is committed to the Bush-Cheney 'Long War'?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Joe Biden Defines Midterm Election Stakes: Democrats Vs. Tea Party

Joe Biden voted with Republicans against these amendments, and for a Bankruptcy Bill that makes it harder for Americans to ever get out of debt.

It was a bill that served Corporations, and not the People.
About Tax Day Tea Parties
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

I'm an old, OLD liberal Democrat.

Do you not know that, in addition to independent voters, Obama is losing the base of the Democratic Party? - http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/16/johan_galtung_on_the_wars_in>
"When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff" - Dr. Ralf Rinkle
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

Any pollster will confirm that the President numbers are very low.
====================================

Then you shouldn't have any problem producing them.

Obama's personal polling numbers remain high. Those polled may not like what he or Democrats are doing, but like him personally. His total job approval on Rasmussen, for example, is 46 percent - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll (the numbers state-by-state swing more broadly, with that number going up to 58 percent in NY, for example - http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/25/latest-round-up-of-obama-poll-numbers-by-state/ ). That's still high, or high enough that the White House thinks their problem is just one of selling its policies. So the White House "stays the course" and sends him out to stump, make speeches. If Obama's personal numbers weren't good, he wouldn't be out stumping; that's another indication of his high personal numbers.

The White House has gone to great lengths to shield Obama from his and Democrats' actions, as do all White House administrations (try to keep presidents removed from any negative repercussions of presidential decisions). It's always others in his administration who are responsible when something goes south or wrong, in which case it's that person who "leaves the administration". The president is always the "last man standing"; everyone else falls on their sword for the king.

Presidents do that, implement unpopular policies, for as long as they can get away with it, i.e., the president is not associated with the policies (which is what the high personal polling numbers mean).

If you can't offer citations to back up your claims, then pray tell us how you come by your opinions. Do you have any special training in politics, or experience working in government or on campaigns?
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

To make such a claim means that you have no problem whatsoever with Republicans and consider them your friends, and like the fact that Biden voted against the troops, the elderly, the caregivers for those with ill and disabled family members, those facing homelessness and more due to medical bankruptcy, and the informing of all Americans and arming them against predatory lenders.

It's Joe Biden's voting record with Republicans that defines him. For you to support that record defines you, too.

"When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff" - Dr. Ralf Rinkle
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Rolling Stone Interview: President Calls Out 'Irresponsible' Apathetic Dem Voters

You're either an political operative paid to confuse readers by spreading disinformation or you're just an id-jit who has no capability of independent thought.

Or both.

But whatever it is, listing Joe Biden's voting record isn't a "rant", and I'm an old, OLD liberal Democrat.

"When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff" - Dr. Ralf Rinkle

About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP