Spintested: 09/23/10

David Axelrod Leaving White House In 2011: Will Work On Obama's Re-Election Campaign

Thursday, September 23, 2010

The DLC is ideologically aligned with Republicans. It's the old Republican party, before Ralph Reed delivered an organized Christian Right to the Republican Party. Pro-corporate, anti-populist, pro-war, anti-civil rights, pro-police state, chipping away at privacy rights, abortion rights -- There's no defending that out of any Democrat.

Liberals need to take control of the Democratic Party and start educating the American people on what liberal policies are, explain them in detail and then discuss why they are the solution. Liberal policies were, after all, what made this country great, built the American dream and created the greatest middle class in the history of the world. And then Nixon came along and got the ball rolling to wreck it all to heII.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Americans Vastly Underestimate Wealth Inequality, Support 'More Equal Distribution Of Wealth': Study

You're a paid political operative; what in heII would you know about honesty?

"The fear, OMIGOD, THE REPUBLICANS ARE COMING!!"

Teabagger Scott Brown gets elected and moves to the middle, and says, "Sarah Palin who?"

Sarah Palin herself governed Alaska as a Republican, which is no different than any DLCer governs. If you're not afraid of Evan Bayh, you have no business being afraid of Sarah Palin.

Liberals need to take control of the Democratic Party and start educating the American people on what liberal policies are, explain them in detail and then discuss why they are the solution. Liberal policies were, after all, what made this country great, built the American dream and created the greatest middle class in the history of the world.

And then Nixon came along and wrecked it all to heII.

The DLC is ideologically aligned with Republicans. It's the old Republican party, before Ralph Reed delivered an organized Christian Right to the Republican Party. Pro-corporate, anti-populist, pro-war, anti-civil rights, pro-police state, chipping away at privacy rights, abortion rights -- There's no defending that out of any Democrat.
About Billionaires
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Axelrod: If Tax Cuts Aren't Done Before The Election, 'We Will Insist On It After'

I wish with all of my heart and soul I was wrong. But I'm not.

Sure he can count on fooling the electorate. One important reason is that corporate media controls the message, and their narrative on the day to day workings of government is already out of Mother Goose. Then there are the buffers or middlemen -- 'all the president's men' who will fall on their swords and provide him plausible deniability in order to keep him 'likable' by the public.

That's the key to getting Obama to deliver on his campaign promises, and move him to the left: Obama's 'most ardent supporters'. They enable him to screw them and us over. His 'likability'.

When Obama starts getting connected to all that they are doing to sabotage the People, his numbers plummet and he will then deliver to the Democratic base (70% of Democratic voters).

Until that happens, he's actively working to move the Democratic Party even farther to the right, to attract Republican politicians and their supporters to the Democratic Party. He's trying to make the Democratic Party into a place where Republicans who are in danger of losing their jobs due to Teabaggers can feel comfortable. At home.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Axelrod: If Tax Cuts Aren't Done Before The Election, 'We Will Insist On It After'

"recessions are cyclical and vary in severity"
==============================

Abzurd spin; it suggests inevitability

http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003.pdf

The fact is that presidential administrations do everything that they can to inspire consumer confidence and avoid recessions. When they go around dropping 'recession' into every conversation, it's because they want it to happen. It serves a purpose, which in this case was Bush's proposed tax cuts for the rich. And he had to do it fast, before 9/11, before the money would be needed elsewhere and 9/11 wrecked the argument about "Got to get the money out of Washington, before Congress spends it."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Axelrod: If Tax Cuts Aren't Done Before The Election, 'We Will Insist On It After'

The crash happened on Bush's watch. Before the election even occurred. TARP.

Did you just wake up?

Get back on the Tea Cup ride & suck up that snow cone, duder.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Axelrod: If Tax Cuts Aren't Done Before The Election, 'We Will Insist On It After'

The Obama administration is trying to have it all ways.

They want the base of the Democratic Party to show up at the election, but if they continue the Bush tax cuts, if they don't let that legislation exp!re as it's on track to at the end of the year, the base (70% of Democratic voters) are done with Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party.

So they're trying to telegraph (to the rich) that "We're there for you" while keeping the base on tenterhooks.

Between appointing Elizabeth Warren to an advisory position with no power or authority, touting a massive giveaway to Big Insurance & PhRma as "reform" that doesn't get Americans affordable quality medical treatment for all, an escalating mess in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, and now this, how much more proof do 0bama's 'most ardent supporters' need before getting that this administration thinks Democratic voters are too stup!d for words?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Axelrod: If Tax Cuts Aren't Done Before The Election, 'We Will Insist On It After'

Congress needs to come up with new legislation having NOTHING to do with the Bush legislation.

Let the Bush legislation d!e.

This cross-contamination, of legislation, of one administration's policies to the next, is abzurd.

It's intended to confuse the American people, and as you can tell from the knee-j#rk j#rks' reactions to the fact that Bush & Cheney created a recession to jam through tax cuts for the rich, it works.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Americans Vastly Underestimate Wealth Inequality, Support 'More Equal Distribution Of Wealth': Study

I was browsing through Dean & DeLuca a couple of weeks ago.

Their prices are a good reminder of how well the top .02% are doing in this country. Nothing was what you could say was within affordability for a middle class family today, and that wasn't true just a couple of years ago.

A 7.5 oz. can of cannelini beans was on their marked down table, from $17 to $13. A can of beans.
About Billionaires
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Americans Vastly Underestimate Wealth Inequality, Support 'More Equal Distribution Of Wealth': Study

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama&Democrats want what they want. The DLC-controlled DemocraticParty gives lip service to all populist issues (like civil rights protections, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, 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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Axelrod: If Tax Cuts Aren't Done Before The Election, 'We Will Insist On It After'

Even then, Americans & Democrats in Congress weren't supportive of putting through those tax cuts for the rich. The only way that Bush could get them through was through reconciliation. And because it was done through reconciliation, it couldn't be permanent as Bush had wanted (anything that has an impact on the budget that is passed through reconciliation -- 50 +1 -- can only be temporary).

I knew at the time that even though they would expire after the 2010 election, Republicans would try to make hay with it before the 2010. Few didn't know that.

What is surprising is that Democrats have let themselves be maneuvered into being victims again. Instead of getting out in front of this issue, especially in this time of DEPRESSION, Democrats' divided loyalties (to Corporations and the rich versus We The People who are the life's blood of the Democratic Party) are being exposed. I say it's surprising because even I hold out hope that Democrats really are 'the good guys', & haven't become the corporate t00Is that all of their behavior tells me they are.

So the only choices are that they're either corrupt or they're inept. When it's 100% failure rate, that's not inept. That's corruption.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Axelrod: If Tax Cuts Aren't Done Before The Election, 'We Will Insist On It After'

Presidential administrations don't do that unless they are hoping it will spur one; the mere whisper of the word can be so powerful as to undermine consumer confidence which causes people to stop spending, which was Cheney's purpose for doing it.

Cheney wanted to undermine confidence in order to drive the economy into a recession because the Bush administration needed a rationale for the tax cuts for the rich that they had promised during the campaign (instead of using the projected surplus from the Clinton administration for shoring up Social Security), or putting the money away for a 'rainy day' (like, should you find yourself in a war).

From that day in December, 2008 and for each day thereafter, Bush & Cheney created an impression of a worsening economy until it actually became a reality. They got into the White House on 1/20/01; economists have dated the beginning of the recession to 3/01.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200405010002

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Axelrod: If Tax Cuts Aren't Done Before The Election, 'We Will Insist On It After'

Nothing needs to be done. The Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich expire naturally at the end of the year. What Axelrod is saying here is that Obama wants them reinstated. That makes Obama the corporate t00I, and it's why the base of the Democratic Party (70% of Democratic voters) are abandoning him.

How we got here:

The Bush tax cuts were created for the sole purpose of jumpstarting a recession that Bush claimed to have inherited from Clinton.

For the record, Bush didn't inherit a recession from Clinton.

The very day after the US Supreme Court decision that gave Bush the presidency, Cheney took to the air waves and started talking down the economy, suggesting (and actually dropping the word "recession" into his comments) we were embarking on a recession.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/04/whitehouse.cheney/index.html>
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Axelrod: If Tax Cuts Aren't Done Before The Election, 'We Will Insist On It After'

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama&Democrats want what they want. The DLC-controlled DemocraticParty gives lip service to all populist issues (like civil rights protections, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, 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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Axelrod: If Tax Cuts Aren't Done Before The Election, 'We Will Insist On It After'

Obama is promising to reinstate Bush's tax cuts to the rich.

How much more proof do 0bamab0ts need to realize this is not a man of the People?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John Boehner At GOP 'Pledge For America' Unveiling: Privatizing Social Security Is Still On The Table (VIDEO)

How so?

Here's how so:
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John Boehner At GOP 'Pledge For America' Unveiling: Privatizing Social Security Is Still On The Table (VIDEO)

My facts are straight; yours are not.

I am not about to ever EVER let Obama's 'most ardent admirers' lead us down the primrose path again; not after all of the assurances about Obama's committment to a public option, and real committment to reform of Wall St., and hundreds of his other empty promises, and how it all has fallen flat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli/john-boehner-privatizing-social-security_n_736444_61466929.html> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli/john-boehner-privatizing-social-security_n_736444_61467084.html>

You're the problem, dearie, and you 0bots aren't going to do it again.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John Boehner At GOP 'Pledge For America' Unveiling: Privatizing Social Security Is Still On The Table (VIDEO)

==The President's Deficit Commission is designed to be as anti-democratic and un-transparent as possible. Its work is done in total secrecy. It is filled with behind-the-scenes political and corporate operatives who steadfastly refuse to talk to the public about what they're doing. Its recommendations will be released in December, right after the election, to ensure that its proposals are shielded from public anger. And the House has passed a non-binding resolution calling for an up-or-down/no-amendments vote on the Commission's recommendations, long considered the key tactic to ensuring its enactment. The whole point of the Commission is that the steps which Washington wants to take -- particularly cuts in popular social programs, such as Social Security -- can occur only if they are removed as far as possible from democratic accountability. As the economist James Galbraith put it when testifying before the Commission in July:

Your proceedings are clouded by illegitimacy. . . . First, most of your meetings are secret, apart from two open sessions before this one, which were plainly for show. There is no justification for secret meetings on deficit reduction. No secrets of any kind are involved. . . .
Second, that some members of the commission are proceeding from fixed, predetermined agendas. Third, that the purpose of the secrecy is to defer public discussion of cuts in Social Security and Medicare until after the 2010 elections. You could easily dispel these suspicions by publishing video transcripts of all of your meetings on the Internet, and by holding all future meetings in public . . .
Conflicts of interest constitute the fourth major problem. The fact that the Commission has accepted support from Peter G. Peterson, a man who has for decades conducted a relentless campaign to cut Social Security and Medicare, raises the most serious questions.

That's why Commission co-chair Alan Simpson -- with his blunt contempt for Social Securityand and other benefit programs (such as aid to disabled veterans) and his acknowledged eagerness to slash them -- has done the country a serious favor. His recent outbursts have unmasked this Commission and shed light on its true character. Unlike his fellow Commission members, who imperiously dismiss public inquiries into what they're doing as though they're annoying and inappropriate, Simpson -- to his genuine credit -- has been aggressively engaging critics, making it impossible to ignore what the Commission is really up to.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/04/simpson ==
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John Boehner At GOP 'Pledge For America' Unveiling: Privatizing Social Security Is Still On The Table (VIDEO)

Just like Obama's declaration that he wouldn't sign any legislation that didn't include a public option.

You don't know how to listen with educated ears to lawyer-speak.

The truth about Obama (and the proof) is, as usual, in his behavior.

Obama Packs Debt Commission with Social Security Looters
Obama has filled his new 'debt commission' with Wall Street insiders determined to gut Social Security
http://www.alternet.org/story/146183/obama_packs_debt_commission_with_social_security_looters?page=entire>
Obama Packs Debt Commission With Social Security Privatization & Benefit Cut Supporters
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/10/obama-packs-debt-committee-with-supportes-of-social-security-benefit-cuts-and-privatization/

http://www.truth-out.org/obama-catfood-commissioner-threatens-small-town-with-nuclear-annihilation62852>
You don't put Social Security on the table at all before a "Deficit Commission" (it's not in danger of going broke, to begin with) or put people like this on your commission if you weren't signaling that you're open to doing it. For a Democratic president to talk about Social Security in terms of "entitlement" broadcasts his real ideology & agenda.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

John Boehner At GOP 'Pledge For America' Unveiling: Privatizing Social Security Is Still On The Table (VIDEO)

Boehner Supports Privatizing Social Security
===================================

As does Obama.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Democrats Look To Punt On Tax Cut Debate

The Bush tax cuts were created for the sole purpose of jumpstarting a recession that Bush claimed to have inherited from Clinton.

For the record, Bush didn't inherit a recession from Clinton.

The very day after the US Supreme Court decision that gave Bush the presidency, Cheney took to the air waves and started talking down the economy, suggesting (and actually dropping the word "recession" into his comments) we were embarking on a recession. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/04/whitehouse.cheney/index.html>
Presidential administrations don't do that unless they are hoping it will spur one; the mere whisper of the word can be so powerful as to undermine consumer confidence which causes people to stop spending, which was Cheney's purpose for doing it. He wanted to undermine confidence in order to drive the economy into a recession because the Bush administration needed a rationale for the tax cuts for the rich that they had promised during the campaign (instead of using the projected surplus from the Clinton administration for shoring up Social Security), or putting the money away for a 'rainy day' (like, should you find yourself in a war).

From that day in December, 2008 and for each day thereafter, Bush & Cheney created an impression of a worsening economy until it actually became a reality. They got into the White House on 1/20/01; economists have dated the beginning of the recession to 3/01. http://mediamatters.org/research/200405010002

Even then, Americans & Democrats in Congress weren't supportive of putting through those tax cuts for the rich. The only way that Bush could get them through was through reconciliation. And because it was done through reconciliation, it couldn't be permanent as Bush had wanted (anything that has an impact on the budget that is passed through reconciliation -- 50 +1 -- can only be temporary).

I knew at the time that even though they would expire after the 2010 election, Republicans would try to make hay with it before the 2010. Few didn't know that.

What is surprising is that Democrats have let themselves be maneuvered into being victims again. Instead of getting out in front of this issue, especially in this time of DEPRESSION, Democrats' divided loyalties (to Corporations and the rich versus We The People who are the life's blood of the Democratic Party) are being exposed. I say it's surprising because even I hold out hope that Democrats really are 'the good guys', & haven't become the corporate t00Is that all of their behavior tells me they are.

So the only choices are that they're either corrupt or they're inept. When it's 100% failure rate, that's not inept. That's corruption.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Democrats Look To Punt On Tax Cut Debate

The American people swallow it because of the lack of Democratic leadership. Obama and Democratic politicians should be taking to the bully pulpit and talking turkey to them.

But Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress aren't because they not only support the tax cuts for the rich, they will vote to extend those tax cuts after the election. To do so now would turn off the Democratic base (70% of Democratic voters) and risk their not showing up at the election in a few weeks.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Democrats Look To Punt On Tax Cut Debate

Democrats Look To Punt On Tax Cut Debate
====================================

Now that's a misleading HP headline.

Punt, HP?

The tax cuts legislation was never intended to be permanent, and were set to expire at the end of this year.

Not putting up legislation to continue them isn't 'punting'.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Dear Angry American, Joining the Tea Party Is NOT Your Only Option

Your way has led to the corporate takeover of our government.

Your way continues the corporate takeover of our government.

We are obviously not on the same side; you are not for or about liberal Democratic policies or governing.

I can't help that you refuse to see these facts. I can, however, help others to see that and diffuse any effect you might have on their thinking.

By the way, if you're looking for "uniters", not "dividers", you're a Bushie.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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.

And you know what the ideas are, too. What "new ideas" do Republicans have that they're angry at Democrats and Obama and say Democrats & Obama "aren't listening"? If Republicans had any "new", "revolutionary" ideas, they'd be announcing them in public to get Americans to pressure Obama and Democrats into adopting them. Republicans are offering the same old ideas and solutions that they lost the 2008 election over.

That's what election are for: Putting your ideas and plans up for a vote, and 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

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

In a certain way, you're correct.

Obama has watered down Democratic legislation, conceding ground on the left that really wasn't his to concede. He did it, he's claimed, to get Republicans' votes, but it hasn't worked. Instead of withdrawing the legislation and putting the 'real thing' through by way of reconciliation, he gets Republican-like legislation passed, to the pleasure or satisfaction of his corporate masters. They are who he and Democrats have always intended to please anyway. What Obama and Democrats have needed, though, is cover with Democratic voters, and so far 'being inept' is something that Obama's most ardent supporters accept and forgive.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

^ - Lucky that breathing is an automatic function.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ted Kennedy Jr. Demands Linda McMahon Pull JFK Ads

Where in this does he say anything about that? -

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-september-16-2010-bill-clinton
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ted Kennedy Jr. Demands Linda McMahon Pull JFK Ads

"Blasted" is not demanding or asking or engaging in an attempt to get a dynamic dialogue going before the American people.

If Obama & the DLC (the group inside the the Democratic Party which Clinton co-founded with Joe Lieberman and Al From, & that controls the Democratic Party) were sincere about 'bipartisan cooperation', there are specific ways, steps in communications, that they would be adopting to foster a cooperative relationship. At the very least, if they really wanted Republican 'obstructionism' to end and were at their wits' end, they would be using situations like the Whitman ads as an opportunity to teach the American people how to resolve conflicts with 'difficult people'. If for no other reason than to score points by being the bigger one, and giving the American people a bird's eye view of the problems that Democrats are alleging to have in dealing with Republicans.

If DLC Democrats really wanted to work with Republicans, if they really wanted anything but exactly the results they're getting (only pro-corporate legislation getting through and the political gamesmanship of getting to blame Republicans for obstruction so that individual DLC Democratic politicians remain in office), Bill Clinton would have done what Ted Kennedy, Jr., did.

Most, if not all, politicians know this, if for no other reason than most are lawyers trained and experienced in contracts. In business relationships, there is no possibility of doing any kind of business with people who you don't trust, don't like, issue ultimatums to, and generally treat like chit.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP