A repository for Marcospinelli's comments and essays published at other websites.

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'

Monday, September 20, 2010


Thanks for the support.

Said in my best Lewis Black rant, in the 1960s, did you think "This is as good as it's going to get, it's all downhill from here for the rest of my lifetime with conservatives realizing their and Nixon's reality for the world"?

Bram Stoker and vampires keep coming to mind whenever I think of where it keeps going wrong.  About how important it is to drive the stake through its heart and open the coffin to the sunlight, if you really want to be done with them.  

Gerald Ford let them escape, to regroup and return refreshed and fortified.  

Obama, by blocking investigations and prosecutions into the Bush administration (and Clinton before him doing the same thing for the Reagan-Bush administration), is guaranteeing even worse to come.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


If you really believe that then you don't know what's in finance'reform' bill, or the healthcare 'reform' bill, or what's not in them -- Regulations.

There is nothing in the finance 'reform' bill that will prevent another economic meltdown.  There's nothing in it that would have prevented the last one from happening.  Wall Street is very happy with the legislation.  Stocks rose on its passage.

The DLC-controlled Democrats have been working overtime since the 1980s to eliminate regulations and oversight.

We need more than Democratic politicians talking about thinking about needing regulations and actually doing it.  Implementing regulations.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


 I think it is perfectly fine for Obama to ask for ideas from all sides. Dems are not the only people with good ideas. Just the ones with the most sane ones ;)

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

Obama's push for 'bipartisanship' isn't about soliciting ideas from all sides;  it's about slowing down the momentum for change that he got from the 2008 election.

There really are no 'new ideas'.  

There are hundreds of thousands of people working in politics and policies on all sides of the issues.  Everybody in the game knows the ideas and plans on any given subject that is their expertise.

Elections are about putting those ideas and plans up for a vote.

Democrats won.

The people rejected the Republicans way of doing things and Republicans' policies.

Obama knows this.  He knows what he and Democrats were put into the majority to do.  The problem is that he and Democrats have been playing Democratic voters for f00Is, using very carefully crafted rhetoric, all focus-group tested, to trick supporters into believing that Obama and Democrats are for what their supporters are for.

Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party are not.  

They are DINOs.  Democrats-In-Name-Only.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


There really are no 'new ideas'.  

There are hundreds of thousands of people working in politics and policies on all sides of the issues.  Everybody in the game knows the ideas and plans on any given subject that is their expertise.

Elections are about putting those ideas and plans up for a vote.

Democrats won.

The people rejected the Republicans way of doing things and Republicans' policies.

Obama knows this.  He knows what he and Democrats were put into the majority to do.  The problem is that he and Democrats have been playing Democratic voters for f00Is, using very carefully crafted rhetoric, all focus-group tested, to trick supporters into believing that Obama and Democrats are for what their supporters are for.

Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party are not.  

They are DINOs.  Democrats-In-Name-Only.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


 but I respect him for never abandoning the other half of our citizens.
============================================

No, he's just abandoned those who brung 'im.

I wouldn't be so glib slinging the 'i'-word around if I were you.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


The trick for Democrats has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of WethePeople. 

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama&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 & all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnational corporations.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


If this legislation was NOTHING but a "gift to Big Insurance" then why did the Republicans oppose it so strongly and without any opposition within their ranks? ================================= Is that really how you determine if something is good for you? What your enemies oppose must then be good for you? By your same logic, insurance industry and pharmaceutical stocks went up as soon as this legislation passed. 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 (who control the DemocraticParty) & Republicans are corporate t00Is, and are like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributions) of a parent. Republicans & DLC-controlled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituent, Big Corporations. Republicans led the effort in 2003 with the Medicare Reform Act, and then corporations gave big to Democrats and Obama in 2006 & 2008 to get them 'competitive'.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


If this legislation was NOTHING but a "gift to Big Insurance" then why did the Republicans oppose it so strongly and without any opposition within their ranks? ================================= Is that really how you determine if something is good for you? By what your enemies oppose? Then it must be good for you? By your same logic, insurance industry and pharmaceutical stocks went up as soon as this legislation passed. 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 (who control the DemocraticParty) & Republicans are corporate t00Is, and are like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributions) of a parent. Republicans & DLC-controlled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituent, Big Corporations. Republicans led the effort in 2003 with the Medicare Reform Act, and then corporations gave big to Democrats and Obama in 2006 & 2008 to get them 'competitive'.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


Also, this legislation, with all of it's many flaws and problems, establishes the principle of "Every Citizen Gets Health Care". It's Phase One. And we Americans will build from it in the years ahead. ======================================= That principle was already established. It's federal law. EMTALA What this healthcare legislation does is begin to unravel that law, and make it so Americans do NOT have such a right. Because we are now on the road to "if you can't afford it, you don't get it."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


Not better, not worse, but THE SAME. You just like the packaging better. I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for you; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand you believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

DADT Repeal Vote 'Too Close To Call'; Lady Gaga Hosts Rally In Maine


"DADT can be ended through executive orders.  Even if it were true that Republican obstructionism was holding anything up (Obama & Democrats don't need Republicans to pass anything), there are ways around Republicans, ways to move them, move Blue Dogs, but Obama doesn't do any of it."


DADT can be temporarily ended via executive order. It takes an act of Congress to permanently undo an act of Congress. Mind you, I am as frustrated by the foot dragging as anyone, but I do think pursuing it legislatively is the wiser course in the long run. Otherwise, the next time a conservative is in office he/she could simply reverse the executive order.
====================================================

Which is why ending DADT should have been done by Obama with an executive order while Congress was working on ending it through legislation.  

There's no reason both can't happen simultaneously.  

There's no reason both can't happen while the Log Cabin lawsuit is making its way through the courts (it's taken 6 years to get to today's decision in federal court).

One of the many benefits of an executive order ending DADT is that its implementation begins to knock down the fallacies that exist about gay men and women serving in the military.  It gets people used to it.

It also refocuses attention where I think it always should have been:  The purpose of our military and our true state of preparedness.  

How is it that this nation that allegedly stands as a beacon for individual liberty and universal justice can justify separating any competent professional soldiers from service for their sexual orientation in this time of war?  

Do you remember this?: 

==According to the February 2005 GAO report, seven hundred fifty-seven (about 8 percent) of these separated servicemembers held critical occupations ("voice interceptor," "data processing technician," or "interpreter/translator"), as defined by the services. Also, 322 members (about 3 percent) had some skills in an important foreign language such as Arabic, Farsi, and Korean. Government Accountability Office, February 2005. http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05299.html ==


It makes this criminal:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/afghanistan-whistleblower-claims-us-interpreters-speak-afghan-languages/story?id=11578169
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


What's left to cut?

Seriously, what would you cut?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


The beginning got cut off.  I'll try it again:

Help me remember, what Republican ideas has Obama attempted to push through
===================================

Obama's healthcare "reform" legislation for one.  It's Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003, Part 2 (which was the last great, obscene, sloppy wet k!ss to Big Insurance and PhRma, by both Republicans & Democrats).

Obama and Democrats were put into power to get affordable quality medical treatment for everyone.  This legislation doesn't do that at all.  In fact, it's a giant leap to 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."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


Help me remember, what Republican ideas has Obama attempted to push through
===================================

Obama's healthcare "reform" legislation for one.  It's Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003, Part 2 (which was the last great, obscene, sloppy wet k!ss to Big Insurance and PhRma, by both Republicans & Democrats).

Obama and Democrats were put into power to get affordable quality medical treatment for everyone.  This legislation doesn't do that at all.  In fact, it's a giant leap to 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."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


Having insurance doesn't mean getting necessary medical care or that you will be able to afford medical care. 

You 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."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


Republicans will do the same thing that Obama & the DLC-controlled Democrats are doing.  

Same kinds of legislation, pro-corporate, anti-populist, only with a Republican-sheen to the language.  

If Democrats were to put their name on that legislation (same legislation, that would accomplish the same ends by doing the same things, only written with focus-group-tested language that appeals to Democrats), Obama's 'most ardent admirers' would argue for it and attack anyone who pointed out that it was pro-corporate, anti-populist.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


Has Obama, since getting into office, not continued most of Bush's policies?  Are Obama's'accomplishments', being spun as "reform" by DLC operatives such as you, not pro-business, pro-corporate, aka Republican in nature?

You yourself have stated that these are the very same policies that Republicans would have been voting for enthusiastically had Bush been in office.

I wait with bated breath for your reply.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


Did Obama, once elected, slam on the brakes on the momentum of his election, and with a filibuster-proof Senate (which was tentative with 2 senators, Kennedy & Byrd, at d.e.a.t.h's door, and a time to get as much through as possible in a limited time), do a 180-degree turn on his promises & slow 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)?


What say you, BillLoney?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


^ - BillLoney here is a political operative paid by the DLC.

Good to see ya, BillLoney.  It'll be better to not see you come November 2, 2010, when you get that long deserved vacation.

By the way, BillLoney, where are the facts to back up your "Nuh UH!!!"?

Refute what I've said with facts.  I'll be impressed.

Did Obama come into office with the wind at his back?  Did more people vote for him, a black man in America, than ever in the history of the US?  Did they do it because of his ability to persuade that he was going to change the system, end the corporatocracy, lobbyism in government?  DId they believe that he was going to be the People's president, not a corporate t00I?

What happened, BillLoney?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


Typical TPer. Can make up stuff about the other guy, but when asked (and you were) can't come up with any repeat any specifics you would do, propose, support.

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

I'm an old liberal Democrat, you id-jit.

Yes, the liberal base of the Democratic Party has abandoned Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress (along with Independents who voted for Obama & Democrats after the fiasco of the Bush-Cheney years).

Going after teabaggers is 'weak tea'' -- The teabaggers aren't the problem.  

Yes, they're abzurd, yes, their beliefs and ideas are way out of mainstream, fringe, whackadoodle, but they're clowns.  
 
Stand back and look at the bigger picture.

Look at who created them.  Look at who keeps them going front and center in our faces day in and day out.  Look at who looks good in comparison.  

And that's their purpose.

There are leftwing grassroots movements, active and protesting Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress, all across the country.

But only the fringe of the fringe, the Tea Party, with its 600 registered members, gets any media coverage.

Why do you suppose that is?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


I'm an old liberal Democrat, you id-jit.

Yes, the liberal base of the Democratic Party has abandoned Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress (along with Independents who voted for Obama & Democrats after the fiasco of the Bush-Cheney years).

Going after teabaggers is 'weak tea'' -- The teabaggers aren't the problem.  

Yes, they're abzurd, yes, their beliefs and ideas are way out of mainstream, fringe, whackadoodle, but they're clowns.  
 
Stand back and look at the bigger picture.

Look at who created them.  Look at who keeps them going front and center in our faces day in and day out.  Look at who looks good in comparison.  

And that's their purpose.

There are leftwing grassroots movements, active and protesting Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress, all across the country.

But only the fringe of the fringe, the Tea Party, with its 600 registered members, gets any media coverage.

Why do you suppose that is?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


The Tea Party owes its success to the Obama White House elevating it to mythic proportions.  

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.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama To Tea Party: 'Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?'


The biggest mistake was when Obama tried to get things done on a bipartisan basis.  That turned out to be a big waste of time.
=============================================

Obama hasn't seen the light; he's still doing it.  

Obama hasn't sworn off 'bipartisanship'.

For all of his tough rhetoric of the last couple of weeks (and I don't think it's tough at all -- it's show-talk), it's only directed at a specific faction of the Republican Party -- The teabaggers.  He hasn't taken on the actual Republican leadership, the Mitch McConnells, John Boehners, Eric Canters, John McCains, Lindsay Grahams, et al.  

What do you think Obama is going to do after the election in 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

Read more...

Obama Advisers Ponder Ad Campaign Against GOP That Points To Rise Of Tea Party


The biggest mistake was when Obama tried to get things done on a bipartisan basis.  That turned out to be a big waste of time.
=============================================

Obama hasn't seen the light; he's still doing it.  

Obama hasn't sworn off 'bipartisanship'.

For all of his tough rhetoric of the last couple of weeks (and I don't think it's tough at all -- it's show-talk), it's only directed at a specific faction of the Republican Party -- The teabaggers.  He hasn't taken on the actual Republican leadership, the Mitch McConnells, John Boehners, Eric Canters, John McCains, Lindsay Grahams, et al.  

What do you think Obama is going to do after the election in 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

Read more...

Obama Advisers Ponder Ad Campaign Against GOP That Points To Rise Of Tea Party


Overhauling campaign finance reform isn't on Obama's or Democrats' agenda.  

It's not anything that they campaigned on, and it's been off the table since HAVA passed after the 2000 election theft.  That's how it works in DC.  It's why there won't be any move to meaningful healthcare reform, no public option, for another generation.  That's what Obama's 'healthcare reform' legislation did -- It got real and meaningful healthcare reform off the table.  

And why would overhauling campaign finance reform be on Obama's and Democrats' agenda?

Obama got more corporate money than any other candidate in history.  Democrats, too.

I'm afraid that you're making presumptions about the character of people who you don't know.  You presume things about them, their intentions, based on limited information that has been put through filters to make them into a product which is sold to you like any other product on a supermarket shelf.

The proof of this is their actions.  Is there anything that Obama and the DLC-controlled Congress has done that resembles Democratic policies or ideology?

Obama and Democrats today (and Democrats for the past couple of decades, or since the DLC took over control of the Democratic Party) are promoting Republican policies.  You forget that Democratic politicians voted along with Republicans to support George W. Bush's policies.  Democrats all but disappeared during the Bush administration (Barbara Boxer wrote mystery novels while collecting a salary from the Senate; Patrick Leahy got to act in a movie about his favorite comic book hero, Batman, while collecting his salary from the Senate). 

Democrats should have been working to obstruct Bush and block Republicans every way they could, but they actually argued on behalf of Bush.  How many times did we hear Democrats defend Bush's nominations on everything from cabinet posts to judges, citing "executive branch rights", "A president deserves to have whomever he wants on his cabinet" or "on the Supreme Court"?  Out of Democrats' mouths!  

Democrats did it and had as their talking points to quiet dissent among the base of the Democratic Party, "The pendulum will swing back and Democrats will be in power and get these rights, and make it all right again".

But when Democrats got back into power, they didn't do that.  They aren't doing that.  Democrats in Congress have refused to perform their Constitutionally required responsibility of overseeing the executive branch, both during Bush (after 2006) and now under Obama.  Between Henry Waxman, Joe Lieberman, Patrick Leahy, Jay Rockefeller, Democrats have been co-conspirators with Republicans.

And why wouldn't Democrats change, do anything differently when there are apologists, people like Obama's 'most ardent supporters', who keep his and their numbers high, who keep reelecting them no matter what their treachery.  "Because the Republicans are worse" -- That's some mantra.   It's no different than Bushies voting for Republicans because 0samaB!nLaden's picture gets flashed at them all over the media the weekend before elections.
 
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Advisers Ponder Ad Campaign Against GOP That Points To Rise Of Tea Party


As a progressive, I'm afraid I have to agree with you. The past two years have taught us that we no longer have a democracy, but rather a corporate oligarchy. You are perfectly write that, until and unless we overhaul campaign financing, our representatives from both parties are bought and paid for.
=================================================

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 & 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 WethePeople. 

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama&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 & all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnational corporations.

Overhauling campaign financing is not on Democrats' agenda; It is not anything that Obama or Democrats are interested in doing.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Advisers Ponder Ad Campaign Against GOP That Points To Rise Of Tea Party


But at least---and this is a big "at least"---serving the wealthy is not a core principle of Democratic beliefs, while it is indeed at the heart of the Republicans'.
=================================================

But it is a core principle of the DLC, which is controlling the Democratic Party, and which the Democratic leadership belongs.  

DINO.  That's Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and most Democrats in Congress.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Advisers Ponder Ad Campaign Against GOP That Points To Rise Of Tea Party


"Know Nothing Party".
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Advisers Ponder Ad Campaign Against GOP That Points To Rise Of Tea Party


The Tea Party owes its success to the Obama White House elevating it to mythic proportions.  

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.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Advisers Ponder Ad Campaign Against GOP That Points To Rise Of Tea Party


The Tea Party is the means by which the Republican Party tosses its most active fringees some red meat.  Like Al Qaeda with fewer than 100 in Afghanistan, the Tea Party has fewer than 600 members nationwide.  But teabaggers don't even run as independents, third party; they run as Republicans.

The GOP was on the mat (not even the ropes) and de@d after the 2008 election, but Obama and Emanuel let them rise again.   Obama, Rahm Emanuel and the DLC have worked overtime to elevate the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin (and now Glenn Beck), beginning as soon as Obama got into the White House to attack Limbaugh and Palin, two people with no official role in the Republican Party.  Obama to go after Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Yoo, Bybee, et al, blocked all investigations and prosecutions into that administration.  Obama's refused to go after anyone in the Republican leadership or in Congress.  Not Mitch McConnell, not John Boehner, not Eric Cantor, not John McCain (the titular head of the Party, as the last presidential nominee).  


Obama (nor any of the Democratic Party leadership) refuses to hold anyone in the Bush administration to account, for anything, from t0rture and Iying to take the nation to war, to the financial meltdown, the greatest heist on the American people in the history of the world.  To date, the only person who Obama has prosecuted has been Bernie Madoff.  While doing terrible and illegal things, Madoff was nevertheless responsible for about $170 billion of the more than $10 trillion worth of economic holes that were blown into the economy during the economic meltdown.  In other words, at his height, Madoff caused less than 2% of the total economic catastrophe.  That is something that is very important to keep in mind because as of the time of writing this particular article, Bernie Madoff is the only significant player to actually have gone to jail for his actions during the period of build-up that ultimately led to this economic collapse.  

It would be kind of hard to swallow (Obama going after the Bush administration for having committed crimes) when it's the same activities that Obama's actively engaged in.  It's also counterproductive to the DLC's other agenda, which is to attract Republican politicians and their supporters into the Democratic Party, which can only be done by moving the Democratic Party to the right of right-of-center.

 
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Bill Clinton Offers Advice To Obama, Discusses Clinton Global Initiative With HuffPost's Willow Bay (VIDEO)


Until it penetrates my brain?

I've said it many times myself, most recently 2 days ago -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli/bill-clinton-grandchildren-video_n_72­0492_60811­908.html>
It doesn't change my point that Clinton's s3xual exploits was one of the chief enabling factors to Bush-Cheney being able to steal that election.

And by the way, there are better proofs that Gore should have been sitting in the White House instead of Bush than Gore "won the popular vote".  He did, yes, but the only popular vote that has relevance in that election was Florida's (which he won, as well, but I presume you are referring to the national popular vote).  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Lanny Davis Attacks Maddow For Clinton Criticism: 'Worst Element Of Our Party'


This is the only time to do it, if we're talking about getting anything, being effective.

This is the only time that citizens have any power or say in their government.  At elections.  That's the only time the Constitution guarantees citizens any right to control or direct who is to represent them in this democratic republic.  And even that is weak tea -- Citizens have the right to vote, but not the right for their votes to be counted.  How screwy is that?

The "prize" as you call it isn't getting Democrats into office; it's getting Democrats to do what you put them into office to do.  Democrats have been blowing off their voters.  

It is "speak now or forever hold your peace (or wait for the next window in two years, when operators like you will be spewing the same soporific.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Advisers Ponder Ad Campaign Against GOP That Points To Rise Of Tea Party


So much for your expertise.

I am an old liberal Democrat who did not and does not support the Clintons, either together or separately. 

If you did some research before rushing to weigh in with an erroneous (& slanderous) opinion, you'd know that.  You'd also gain some information and wisdom that might help rid us of the DLC (which would go a long way toward getting the country back on track).
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obamas Stroll To Church On Sunday Morning (PHOTOS)


What I find both sad and infuriating is what a politician Obama has turned out to be.  Not a statesman, not a scholar, but a run-of-the-mill politician with a tin ear and lousy instincts.

Whatever he believes spiritually (and I think he and Michelle are most likely atheists), the shipped sailed on passing him off as an 'observant Christian' when he got into the White House and the Obamas chose not to attend (much less join) any church.  For the abzurd reason that "they'd create too much of a commotion and disrupt services for others if they did".  

All pols in the tri-state area of DC, Virginia and Maryland go to church regularly because the game is to look as if you are an authentic believer.  Every Sunday you can find Karl R0ve in the same church as Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.  Churches in DC, Virginia & Maryland are like a Hollywood funeral -- No parishioner thinks twice about having celebrities sitting next to them in pews.


The worst  thing about today's stunt by Obama was his using his kids to promote that phony image.  Because if you think it was legitimate, then it begs the question, "What have the kids been doing up to now?"  

What couple claiming to be Christian and raising young children don't attend church regularly and have those children involved in church activities?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Advisers Ponder Ad Campaign Against GOP That Points To Rise Of Tea Party


Teabaggers are Republicans.  

They're not running as Independents, as a third party; they're running as Republicans.


And no sooner do they get into office, as evidenced by Scott Brown, than they become good old corporatist Republicans.

And every last one of them would be under the thumb of the Republican leadership in Congress, doing very much the same thing that Republicans have been doing for the past three decades (and what Obama has been continuing) -- Corporatist policies.

Even Sarah Palin, for pity's sake, governed as a corporatist.  She's now directly under Fred Malik's wing.  She wouldn't be making a move without the Republican establishment telling her what to do.

The fact that you don't know that, that you don't get it, just shows how the DLC-Democrats have been creating this frenzy of fear around teabaggers.

Where was Obama last summer when teabaggers were so disrupting the democratic process of debate over healthcare reform, brandishing gvns at Town Halls, and talking about "de@th panels", that members of Congress across the continent cancelled the Town Halls.  Obama was silent, he went underground, couldn't be found.  But he surely was active in stifling the peaceful protests in Pittsburgh's G20 summit during the same period, unleashing federal security's use of modern weaponry on citizens.

 -http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2009/sep/25/sonic-cannon-g20-pittsburgh
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Advisers Ponder Ad Campaign Against GOP That Points To Rise Of Tea Party


Obama, Rahm Emanuel and the DLC have worked overtime to elevate the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin (and now Glenn Beck) and turn the election into one of fear ("What if the Republicans get in?").

We exchanged one party that ran on fanning voters' fears (of Osama Bin Laden) for another doing the same thing (fear of teabaggers).

And in the meantime, the American People are being sold out, quite literally.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Advisers Ponder Ad Campaign Against GOP That Points To Rise Of Tea Party


Obama has a short period of time, just a few weeks before this next election, to deliver to the liberal base that got him and Democrats into power if he wants to motivate Democratic voters to the polls.  Putting Elizabeth Warren in a position of no power whatsoever doesn't cut it.  And Michelle Obama need to retire the 'Nancy Reagan red' from her wardrobe and start telegraphing 'blue'); symbols matter.  I'm really tired of the Obamas' pandering to Republicans, in policies, legislation and in clothing attire.  

Democrats could get a whole heII of a lot further with motivating Democratic voters to the polls if they stopped behaving like politicians, hang up the 'lawyer-speak' with focus-group-tested ambiguous phrases and start shooting straight, speaking honestly to the American people.  

More people voted in the 2008 election, for Obama and Democrats, than have ever voted before in the history of the country.  More new and more returning voters voted for a black man in good old r@c!st USA because they believed he was going to change the way Washington did business.  They believed that Obama & Democrats were going to kick corporations and their lobbyists out of Washington.  

Obama l!ed.  He's been continuing most of the Bush-Cheney policies (and going even beyond what Bush and Cheney ever dared to do), and that's why voters are turning their backs on both Democrats and Republicans.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Voters Turn Their Backs On Both Democrats, Republicans As Election Nears


Yes, they're not running as a third party.  They're running as Republicans.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Voters Turn Their Backs On Both Democrats, Republicans As Election Nears


Only some of the teabaggers are the Religious Right.  Others are the fringe disenfranchised right.  Still others are disenfranchised Independents/Libertarians who tend to vote for Republicans each election.  What they all have in common is that they're the Republican base that gets activated every election cycle.

There are about 306 million Americans, of which about 100 million of us vote.  50 million Americans are children, underage, ineligible to vote.  The other half of America doesn't vote.  Political parties try to expand their membership, but it's an expensive and difficult proposition.  They spend their resources on identifying where likely voters are for targeting (and where voters who are likely to vote for their party hang out for the sales pitch).  

Democrats traditionally have found college and university campuses to be good places for recruitment.  But our modern American lifestyle doesn't lend itself to steady and consistent watering holes where we gather past our university years.  We get in our cars, we drive to work, we go home and a few places in between.  

In the 1980s, Ralph Reed figured out that a natural constituency existed that hadn't been tapped before.  Sitting ducks for Republicans.  Evangelical Christians, who can be found and pitched to at least once a week in their churches.  He told Rove that he could reliably deliver them to the Republican Party and has been doing so ever since. 

Democrats could get a whole heII of a lot further with recruiting new Democratic voters if they stopped behaving like politicians and start shooting straight and speaking honestly to the American people.  More people voted in the 2008 election, for Obama and Democrats, than have ever voted before in the history of the country.  More new and more returning voters voted for a black man in good old r@c!st USA because they believed he was going to change the way Washington did business.  They believe that Obama & Democrats were going to kick corporations and their lobbyists out of Washington.  

Obama l!ed, he's been continuing most of the Bush-Cheney policies (and going even beyond what Bush and Cheney ever dared to do), and that's why voters are turning their backs on both Democrats and Republicans.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Voters Turn Their Backs On Both Democrats, Republicans As Election Nears


Only some of them are the Religious Right.  Others are the fringe disenfranchised right.  Still others are disenfranchised Independents who tend to vote for Republicans each election.  What they all have in common is that they're the Republican base that gets activated every election cycle.


There are about 306 million Americans, of which about 100 million of us vote.  50 million Americans are children, underage, ineligible to vote.  The other half of America doesn't vote.  Political parties try to expand their membership, but it's an expensive and difficult proposition.  They spend their resources on identifying where likely voters are for targeting (and where voters who are likely to vote for their party hang out for the sales pitch).  

Democrats traditionally have found college and university campuses to be good places for recruitment.  But our modern American lifestyle doesn't lend itself to steady and consistent watering holes where we gather past our university years.  We get in our cars, we drive to work, we go home and a few places in between.  

In the 1980s, Ralph Reed figured out that a natural constituency existed that hadn't been tapped before.  Sitting ducks for Republicans.  Evangelical Christians, who can be found and pitched to at least once a week in their churches.  He told Rove that he could reliably deliver them to the Republican Party and has been doing so ever since. 


Democrats could get a whole heII of a lot further with recruiting new Democratic voters if they stopped behaving like politicians and start shooting straight and speaking honestly to the American people.  More people voted in the 2008 election, for Obama and Democrats, than have ever voted before in the history of the country.  More new and more returning voters voted for a black man in good old r@c!st USA because they believed he was going to change the way Washington did business.  They believe that Obama & Democrats were going to kick corporations and their lobbyists out of Washington.  

Obama l!ed, he's been continuing most of the Bush-Cheney policies (and going even beyond what Bush and Cheney ever dared to do), and that's why voters are turning their backs on both Democrats and Republicans.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Voters Turn Their Backs On Both Democrats, Republicans As Election Nears


Clever title, having no ring of truth to it whatsoever.

There was bait-and-switch, a relay tag with the passing of the same baton of corporatist policies that's been reigning over the nation for several decades, but there was no changing of the guard.

Obama has a short period of time, just a few weeks before this next election, to deliver to the liberal base that got him and Democrats into power (Elizabeth Warren in a position of no power whatsoever doesn't cut it, and Michelle Obama had better start telegraphing 'blue' in her wardrobe); symbols matter, and I'm really tired of the Obamas' pandering to Republicans.  
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Voters Turn Their Backs On Both Democrats, Republicans As Election Nears


The teabaggers aren't the problem.  Yes, they're abzurd, yes, their beliefs and ideas are way out of mainstream, fringe, whackadoodle, but they're clowns.  
 
Stand back and look at the bigger picture.

Look at who created them.  Look at who keeps them going front and center in our faces day in and day out.  Look at who looks good in comparison.  

And that's their purpose.

There are leftwing grassroots movements, active and protesting Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress, all across the country.

But only the fringe of the fringe, the Tea Party, with its 600 registered members, gets any media coverage.

Why do you suppose that is?

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Demeans His Own Supporters


The real question to the Bob Casey situation is why aren't you electing real Democrats, people who share your values and perspective, to represent your interests?  

 Do you belong to your local Democratic Party in PA?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Demeans His Own Supporters


Being ideologically aligned with one party but joining another isn't that unusual.  Particularly for professional politicians (those in public office and those who work behind them, political operatives), who do it for any number of reasons.  

For some, they just want the office (government work is fantastic -- Why do you think they don't want to give it up?) and they don't care how they get it, or what l!es they have to tell to get it.  Of that group there are those who would have to knock off incumbents who have held the offices for decades, and that's d@mned near impossible; the longer you hold an office in this country, the more difficult it is to unseat you.  

And then for others who see going into the enemy's camp as a higher calling, to destroy it from within, move the center line of that party closer to whichever side the operative truly feels kinship with.  

This has been going on since political parties began.  It's how the pendulum has swung over the more than 200 years we've had party government.  Its how today's Democrats (DLC) are yesterday's Republicans and how tomorrow's Republicans (after the teabaggers crash and burn) will probably be compared to the liberal Democrats of the 1960s.  The Republican party of Lincoln would hardly recognize itself in the candidates and ideology of today's Republican party controlled by teabaggers.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Demeans His Own Supporters


I wonder, how can you even BE pro-life and be a Democrat? 
============================================

You can't.  


This is one of those areas where it helps to understand lawyer-speak.  It's also why those who do (understand lawyer-speak), know that those whose faith and trust in Obama is unflappable are ig.no.rant or professional political operatives.  But I digress. 

You can be in the Democratic Party, or in any political party, no matter what you believe in.  

But what kind of Democrat isn't committed to the party's platform and has no interest in or intention of supporting the party's positions on the issues?

A DINO (Democrat-In-Name-Only).  

In other words, someone whose beliefs more accurately define him as a Republican, but for any number of reasons, he's decided to join the Democratic party.  

Bob Casey can be whatever the heII he wants to be, but as a Democrat, receiving money and support from the Democratic party's members, he has to unambiguously park his beliefs and anti-choice agenda at the door of his life until he goes back to his private life.  Because the Democratic Party "unequivocally supports R0e v. W@de and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal ab0rt!on, regardless of ability to pay, and opposes any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right".

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Demeans His Own Supporters


And when you talk about "Democratic ideology," what exactly does that mean? Because Republicans have gone SO far to the right, that means that Dems have to encompass EVERYTHING else, from the far left to the barely left of right. That's a big tent.
===========================================

To begin with, there are more than two political parties, and none of them define themselves in terms of what the other guy isn't.  It's not a matter of one of them picking up the slack when another of them goes to the bathroom or out for a cigarette break.

Think of "democratic ideology" as the Democratic Party's mission statement.
 
What We Stand For - http://www.democrats.org/about/party_platform

The
charter and by-laws of the Democratic Party - 
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/58e635582d­c516dd52_5­wsmvyn09.pdf>

Hundreds of thousands of citizens who are registered Democrats across the country work with their local, state and national Democratic Party organizations day in and day out to formulate plans, policies, legislation that their members vote on (I'm not talking about election days, but within the Democratic party itself), which Democratic politicians are obliged to carry out and made into law.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Demeans His Own Supporters


Those people represent constituents who are more politically moderate, probably bordering on conservative. I don't like their views any more than you do, but they deserve to be represented by the person they put into office. That's democracy. It's not black or white. This country is centrist, and that's how we're being governed.
=====================================

And when you say, "That's democracy", no, that's politics.  

But, by the way, the US is what's known as a 'liberal democracy'.  
[A democracy in which majoritarian decisions (from direct or representative processes) prevail in many policy areas, subject to the restriction that those decisions may not breach individuals' liberties and rights, as spelled out in a constitution. Liberal democracy is based on the philosophy of classical liberalism, melded with the idea of popular sovereignty.]

To confuse you further, democracy is "black and white", 50 percent + 1, but we're not a pure democracy.  We're bits of many things -- A liberal democracy, a direct democracy, a democratic republic, a party government, etc.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Demeans His Own Supporters


Those people represent constituents who are more politically moderate, probably bordering on conservative. I don't like their views any more than you do, but they deserve to be represented by the person they put into office. That's democracy. It's not black or white. This country is centrist, and that's how we're being governed.
=====================================

To begin with, the country is not centrist.  That's one of the biggest  misperceptions bandied about cable political talk shows.  But that's irrelevant to the issue at hand so I won't waste time now addressing it, other than not letting it pass unchallenged.

Whether you like or don't like how your elected representative votes, you're getting the only representation you "deserve" or are guaranteed under the law.  You have no Constitutional right to have your views represented by whomever represents you in any public office in the US.  You have a Constitutional right to vote, but you have no Constitutional right to have that vote counted.

The founders apparently appreciated irony.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Demeans His Own Supporters


You said a few posts back that Obama could have taken away chairmanships or pulled away DNC funding from fellow Dems who didn't back his play. I certainly don't want to live in a dictatorship. 
=======================================

That's not dictatorship; that's the way that the US government has operated since the 1790s.  It's called 'party government'.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Demeans His Own Supporters


"What you're admitting is that you don't understand the issues, the legislation, and in that case you really shouldn't be voting."

I was enjoying our conversation up until that last low blow. I shouldn't be voting? Not cool.
========================================

You think people should vote when they don't understand the issues, the legislation?

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP