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

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.   The 'D' after the 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 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

Read more...

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.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

going in the wrong direction.

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 the DLC-controlled 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

Read more...

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

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

Read more...

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

No, dearie, the answer is not these Democrats.  Not these DINOs.

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.  

The solution is to get the DLC out of the Democratic Party and get real Democrats into office.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

But that's just what we know of what Obama got from Lieberman (and we're d@mned lucky to have found out about that, given the lengths Obama went to bury it and lead other Democratic politicians around on a merry chase), because the promised transparency has long gone by the wayside. 

Obama, in his own words:

Transparency Will Be Touchstone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72g7qmeP1dE

"On transparency", "About inviting the people back into their government again", and  "Part of the job of the next American president is making Americans believe that our government is working for them, because right now they don't feel like it's working for them.  They feel like it's working for special interests and it's working for corporations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K97hvOOdy_I


"We need a president who sees the government not as a tool to enrich well connected friends and high-priced lobbyists, but as a defender of fairness and opportunity for every single American.  That's what this country's been about and that's the kind of president I intend to be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEMxfme7OQI

"Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public, no more secrecy.....No more secrecy.....":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQbQTrm_pSA



"Clintons did health care the wrong way, behind closed doors": 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvyharXBI0Q 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU0m6Rxm9vU 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBtIKgGHYPQ


"The American people are the answer":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2cvru2TH-s 


Obama's Transparency Problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IODbwOhZYEM
 ;
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

What did Obama get from Lieberman for letting him chair the Governmental Affairs & Homeland Security Committee (the committee that buried the investigation of Bush's non-, mis- and malfeasance in Hurricane Katrina)?

Certainly no agreement not to join Republicans in filibustering Democratic legislation.

Of the few known services Lieberman has performed for Obama (but not widely -- It came out on another 'Trash-Friday') is this:

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_sne akily_pass es_bill_ba nning_rele ase_of_pho tos_showin g_detainee%20_abuse
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

I guess that you really don't understand 'party government'.

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.

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?

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.


KEEP READING
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

Early in the healthcare legislation process, Obama declared that he wouldn't sign any legislation that didn't include a public option, but he did.  Instead of working to get a real healthcare reform bill through, Obama worked overtime to make sure that there would be no real reform -- Just a massive corporate giveaway with no cost controls & no universal coverage.   

The week before & the week after the healthcare bill (or, more accurately, 'The Insurance & Pharmaceutical Industries Windfall Act') passed in the Senate was the one & only time a public option had any chance of happening until another generation passes.

A group of senators had mobilized behind it since the bill had to be passed through reconciliation anyway, & there was no way that Democrats weren't going to get enough of its members to vote against it just because it had a PublicOption in it.  Obama nixxed it.  What was the reason? 

"If the Senate did that, the bill would have to go back to the House for a vote & there's no time!"

After the (allegedly) pro-PublicOption senators accepted that excuse & stood down, Republicans discovered 2 flaws with the bill requiring it's return to the House anyway. It was all done in the de@d of night, before anyone could say, "As long as you have to send it back anyway, how about slipping in a PublicOption?"

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/byrd-rule-sends-health-care-back-to-house_n_512609.html

The Obama administration will do everything within its power to prevent a public option, public healthcare, and affordable, quality medical treatment for everyone as long as it retains the WhiteHouse, because that was the deal that was made.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

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/SB12456721­1118336815.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/>
KEEP READING
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

It seems that you don't know how 'party government' works, or how the bills that Obama touts as "accomplishments" and "reform" aren't to your benefit.  Like Bush's 'Clear Skies Initiative'.  Let's look at healthcare.

Democratic voters put Obama & Democrats into power to get affordable, quality medical treatment for all.  Forcing everyone to buy junk insurance that doesn't control costs, doesn't make medical care affordable, isn't any "accomplishment", except for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries (and the politicians who they've paid off -- Obama is the #1 recipient of their money).

KEEP READING
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

Not my every post.  Two posts, and I've mentioned it those two times to highlight how in this r@c!st country, Americans had so had it with Bush-Cheney and Republicans that they chose a black man who ran on changing the way business was done in Washington, get rid of the lobbyists, and make government transparent and politicians accountable.

Over the corporations' front-running choice, a woman.

Over the military-industrial complex's choice, McCain, (and over the religious right's choice, Palin).

I think it's a shame (tragedy, really) that Obama is identified as black, when in fact he's more the product of the white corporate banking system and privileged culture than anything else.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

If you're sitting here waiting to push buttons to express your opinion, you're the reason we're in this mess.  

Until you're on your feet, carrying pitchforks and torches and marching on Washington, both parties know that you're harmless and dismissible, and they can do anything that they want to you.  You might grumble and write a nasty comment on a website like this one, but that's the extent of what they have to fear of you.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

Obama's going in the wrong direction.

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.  

His corporate masters are who Obama and the DLC-controlled 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.

Until now, it seems.  

And that's making Obama so angry that he's calling Democratic voters' names.

He's not changing what he's doing, he's not doing what the People want him to do.  He's going after Republicans.  He's unleashing his anger on the People.  
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

The DLC is trying to marginalize the RepublicanParty by forcing the fringe right of the RepublicanParty into the TeaParty, making the TeaParty the face for the Republican Party, leaving the rest nowhere to go but to the DemocraticParty, which the DLC hopes to control & govern "from the center for 100 years". The DemocraticParty, made over into the old RepublicanParty (right-of-center). All corporate, anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-civil/individual rights, pro-war, surveillance society. Anti-choice (anti-abortion), too. 

The tragedy of it all is that Obama's 'most ardent supporters' will settle for that, that they believe it's the best they can get, when the fact is that Obama was elected by more people ever in the history of the country to get rid of corporate rule, and restore the democracy to the People. The People were so thoroughly done with Republicans and conservatism after Bush, they voted for a black man in numbers never before seen. 

And no sooner was the election over (before actually, with his FISA vote flip-flop in July 2008), did Obama slam the brakes on the momentum of his victory, of HOPE & CHANGE, and adopt all things Bush-Cheney.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

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

"This doesn't happen with supplemental spending bills."

Doesn't happen when the presidents party controls both houses of congress either.

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

It will never happen with either of these two parties controlling Congress because both of these parties work on behalf of the transnational corporations.

Do you or did you see Democrats using their position as the opposition party to investigate or block Bush-Cheney's policies?  

The only investigations that Republicans held (and prosecutions sought) when they controlled Congress (and when a Democrat was in the White House) were against individual Democrats (the Clintons, Henry Cisneros) in order to advance Republicans' own ambitions as agents of transnational corporations. 
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

It will never happen with either of these two parties controlling Congress because both of these parties work on behalf of the transnational corporations.

Do you or did you see Democrats using their position as the opposition party to investigate or block Bush-Cheney's policies?  

The only investigations that Republicans held (and prosecutions sought) when they controlled Congress (and when a Democrat was in the White House) were against individual Democrats (the Clintons, Henry Cisneros) in order to advance Republicans' own ambitions as agents of transnational corporations. 
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

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.

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 & 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

Read more...

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

When Obama was in the Senate, he voted against the surge in Iraq. 

Presidential candidate Barack Obama told reporters: "I am absolutely committed to ending the war. I will call my joint chiefs of staff in and give them a new assignment and that is to end the war."

Do you seriously believe that more Americans in the history of this country voted for this man to keep wars going in Afghanistan and Iraq (& Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc.)  in perpetuity?
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

Democratic voters put Obama and Democrats into power to get them affordable, quality medical treatment for all.

Democratic voters did not and do not think that requiring them to purchase junk insurance with no cost controls gets affordable, quality medical treatment for everyone.

Obama's 'finance reform' legislation doesn't address what caused the economic collapse and doesn't prevent it from happening again.  

And would you pass along a message to your bosses at the DNC?:

Referring to Obama as "President Obama" in every single post defending him is a sure sign that you're a paid tr0II.  It's also NOT disrespectful to drop the title when referring to him -- It's actually correct.  You only use the title when you're actually addressing him.  So if you're trying to pretend you're just one of us, one of the crowd, talk as We The (ordinary) People do.  

Just sayin'.

[I personally hope you continue using it, because it's so easy to spot you guys this way.]
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

I guess you missed what the Obama administration tried to hide in its 'Friday newsdump' (as well as many other 'Friday newsdump's doing similar things):

Obama's response filing to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin Obama from assass!nating his son, a US citizen, without any due process.  

The administration filed a brief late Thursday night asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims.  

That's not surprising:  both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality.  

But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets":  in other words, not only does a president have the right to sentence Americans to de@th with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be k!lled and why he wants them de@d are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

That, in and of itself, should be shocking to all Americans.  

That Obama would do this on the heels of the 2008 campaign where he campaigned for himself as a champion of the Constitution and against Bush's disregard for the rule of law, in addition to the fact that Awlaki has never been charged with a crime, much less convicted, leaves no doubt about Obama's character: He has none.

To those of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' who are trying to defend Obama's actions by downplaying this assault on the Constitution's protections of citizens' privacy or that "the times call for it", or that "Clinton did it, too, so it must be ok", or that people "are overreacting; Obama's not going to be illegally taping anyone, or expanding his federal authority one iota" (that one is a flat-out false assertion), etc., should think very carefully about their blind loyalty to a man and a party whose interests are not those of the average American.  

Because we see very dramatically in the last decade of Bush-Cheney abuses, DLC-controlled Democratic administrations and Congresses don't bring previous criminal administrations to justice or overturn their abuses.  

DLC-controlled Democrats are building upon the GOP's abuses.  We the People can't count on the the courts to be the last resort to save us and the Constitution from these assaults; the wheels of justice grind too slowly, but especially since both parties have packed the courts with anti-populist, pro-corporate judges.

There's no coming back from this. 
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

Mrs. Warren said she was happy with this position
=================================

What else can she say?

She's a lovely woman, to begin with.  

She's also been put in a terrible position, and is handling it better than most.  

I notice that you aren't making the claim that MAJK below is, that she didn't want the job.  

Anyone believing that Elizabeth Warren "didn't want the job" has got to be grateful that breathing is an automatic function, or a political operative paid to spread disinformation (in this instance, as damage control for the miserable mess the White House has made of this appointment).

Had it been true that Elizabeth Warren didn't want the job, weeks of stories about confirmation battles over her nomination wouldn't have happened.  Chris Dodd wouldn't have been working feverishly to k!II the possibility, and the White House wouldn't have been talking with the media about it.

Taking this 'adviser' position allows her to say she wants to go back to Harvard soon, and then do it (leave Washington), without losing face.  

Everybody will play their role in this.  And then they'll all walk away, she'll go back home, and try to avoid ever thinking about it again.  Everybody will try to bury this in the scrap heap of history, of 'Things That We Don't Talk Of'.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

I'm an old, OLD liberal Democrat.

And anyone believing that Elizabeth Warren "didn't want the job" has got to be grateful that breathing is an automatic function, or a political operative paid to spread disinformation (in this instance, as damage control for the miserable mess the White House has made of this appointment).

Had it been true that Elizabeth Warren didn't want the job, weeks of stories about confirmation battles over her nomination wouldn't have happened.  Chris Dodd wouldn't have been working feverishly to k!II the possibility, and the White House wouldn't have been talking with the media about it.

You really don't know what you're talking about.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

If Obama believes that he's achieved "70 percent of his campaign promises", then his math is creative.  Or his promises were Bushspeak (oxym0ronic, like Clear Skies Initiative, contradictions in terms, meaning the opposite of what Democratic supporters thought he meant).

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. 
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

The White House's internal polling must be showing that November is going to be a tsunami for Obama to be insulting Democratic voters and name-calling.

Instead of delivering to Democratic voters what they put him & Congressional Democrats into office to achieve, instead of calling out Republican voters and using the bully pulpit to chastise them for supporting Republicans who would obstruct, Obama is attacking his own party's supporters.

Instead of naming Elizabeth Warren to the actual post (head of the new Consumer Protection Agency), Obama gives her an powerless position as an adviser, and he's now angry that Democratic voters weren't f00Ied.

His hubris is remarkable -- I had not seen that before now.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

President Obama has accomplished roughly 70% of his agenda

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

Roughly none of it was what Democratic voters put him and the Democratic Party into power to achieve.

One example is that voters put Obama and Democrats into power to get them affordable quality medical treatment for all.  NOT to sell them a few million more insurance policies without any cost controls.   

Getting affordable, quality medical treatment for all is not the same thing as forcing everyone to buy junk insurance policies.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

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

President Obama has accomplished roughly 70% of his agenda

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

Roughly none of it was what Democratic voters put him and the Democratic Party into power to achieve.

Voters put Obama and Democrats into power to get them affordable quality medical treatment for all.  NOT to sell them a few million more insurance policies without any cost controls.   

Getting affordable, quality medical treatment for all is not the same thing as forcing everyone to buy junk insurance policies.  
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 'Christian By Choice': President Responds To Questioner

He said what?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Oil Commission Baffled By Lowball Estimates; Suspects They Slowed Response

The fatal flaw in the plan was that it was presumed that BOPs never fail.
====================================


You're just pulling chit out of your @$$.

No such presumption about BOPs existed, except after the explosion when 0bamab0ts like you spread it as disinformation.  

BOPs have a 50 percent failure rate, which wasn't any secret.  It's known throughout the industry and by the government.  

A 2002 study commissioned by the U.S. Minerals Management Service, the agency that oversees the offshore oil industry, found that 50 percent of the shear rams tested failed to cut through pipe and halt the flow of oil.

http://www.boemre.gov/tarprojects/455.htm

It's not like blow-outs haven't happened before, with the same b.u.m. BOPs, with the same filed and failed response plans.  'Top Hat' = 'El Sombrero' (Ixtoc blowout, 1979). They tried a 'junk shot', too, at Ixtoc.  

The only known solution is the relief well, and even that has required multiple tries, which is why oil companies balked at having to be required to drill a relief well at the time they're drilling the original well.  
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Oil Commission Baffled By Lowball Estimates; Suspects They Slowed Response

They all use "carbon copy" plans.  

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-15/exxon-oil-companies-slammed-for-carbon-copy-plans-update1-.html>

Some of the "cookie cutter" response plans even mention walruses, Markey said, a marine mammal that he pointed out hasn't lived in the Gulf of Mexico for 3 million years.

"The only technology you seem to be relying on is a Xerox machine to put together your response plans," Markey said.  

http://citizen-40.tressugar.com/Oil-Company-Disaster-Plans-Strangely-Similar-8806586>
If the plans aren't workable, if they aren't implementable or haven't been implemented, they don't have plans.

Oil companies aren't required to just "produce a plan" -- They are required to produce workable plans and implement them.  And the government is required to make sure they do.  That's one of the MMS's jobs.  Because the government has a role in the response, too.  The federal government and the state governments.  

I wrote about this before the congressional hearing exposed that fact.  That when it was discovered that BP had no plan, if workable plans existed at all for any of the 50,000 wells in the Gulf,  then use it.  

But it was known before the blow-out that there were no plans.  And we know that because of the legislation that set up the MMS in the first place.  
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Oil Commission Baffled By Lowball Estimates; Suspects They Slowed Response

You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.  

Even Obama and Thad Allen contradict you, and say that the US was in charge and calling the shots.

It really is amazing what you 0bamab0ts pull out of your @$$ to try to defend behavior that, had it been done under Bush's watch, you would have condemned.  

You believe and contend that the lease requires BP's calling the shots, and should the US take over, it absolves BP of responsibility, which is simply not true.  Nor has it ever come out of the mouth of Obama, Thad Allen, Ken Salazar, or anyone else in government.  But it hasn't stopped anonymous commenters around the internet who  have been spreading that disinformation since the explosion.   The law does not require (not in these oil & gas leases or any kind of contract) that the government's (or anyone's) hands be tied and must just stand around or risk the assignment of legal liability while BP's (or a BP-like party) responds to the disaster any way it wants.

Even if this weren't a crime scene (11 people were k!lled due to negligence & fraud that we know about), it was an ongoing & continuing disaster.  It wasn't like an earthquake, where once the shaking is over, the government steps in to repair & rebuild.  This was an earthquake that continued for months, with no end in sight.

By the way, nobody in the government, not Obama, not Thad Allen, not Ken Salazar, nobody whatsoever in the government has ever made the claim you're making about the terms of the oil & gas leases.  They didn't because it's not true.  That's not the law for any of those leases.  That's wholly a creation of 0bamab0ts working backwards, trying to defend Obama's failure to respond adequately.  

0bamab0ts are no better than Bushies.


 
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Biden To Democratic Base: 'Stop Whining'

Yawning is an indication that your brain isn't getting enough oxygen.
About Joe Biden
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Biden To Democratic Base: 'Stop Whining'

Sarah Palin's not in politics because of passionate ideological beliefs; she's in it for the money & the glory. 

She's not stup!d; she knows her limits. What she's selling is her 'packaging' -- Her looks, her ability to deliver a speech, to land punches, and motivate a particular voting bloc on election day to cast their ballots for Republicans. She's willing to be the 'front' ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074554/ ), which works for her puppetmasters who don't want nor need public recognition. All they want is to control the power of the office of the president & Congress.

If you want to know who is controlling her, begin by googling Fred Malek (her escort to the Alfalfa Club dinner post-2008 election).

If Sarah Palin wants the presidency, I'm sure she's willing for someone else (a 'kitchen cabinet', like what Reagan had) to tell her what to do. 

Palin's ambition & beliefs about public service & politics are really the ultimate in cynicism. And after Ronald Reagan made it to WhiteHouse (and Dan Quayle became VP, & Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor of California, and W became president), who's to say she's wrong? 

It's all show biz. 

The real lesson of the 2000 election was that the old line that in America, "anyone can grow up to become the president" was true. Not the best nor the brightest, but the candidate with the best marketing team.

And once in office, no matter which party's candidate wins, the same establishment elites will be calling the shots.
About Joe Biden
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Biden To Democratic Base: 'Stop Whining'

Stop with the fear rhetoric about McCain and Palin already.  Both of their records of voting and governing are significantly different than their campaign rhetoric, and strikingly similar to Bush-Cheney, which isn't all that different than Obama-Biden's.

Both parties' candidates campaign to their bases, and once in office they work for their corporate masters in remarkably similar ways.   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).

When Sarah Palin quit as governor of Alaska, I wrote that she was quitting because she always intended the job to be just a stepping stone (just like Bush as governor of Texas); she had to leave before she had any record in it. 

She has no record of achieving anything but jobs. Once she gets a job, before she can muck it up, she parlays the job into a new, better one, in a higher office. Think Robert Morse in "How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying" -- That's Sarah Palin's blueprint for life, on how to get to the top. 

Sarah Palin as J. Pierpont Finch - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxPT20bn9fc


KEEP READING
About Joe Biden
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Biden To Democratic Base: 'Stop Whining'

So when the Obama-Biden administration stack a 'Debt Commission' with proponents of privatizing Social Security, there's reason for Americans to object (whine).  

The truth about the Obama-Biden Administration's (and the DLC's) intentions are, as usual, in the lawyer-speak rhetoric and in the the administration's 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_pack s_debt_com mission_wi th_social_ security_l ooters?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-annihilation62852gt; >
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.   

And Representative Chris Van Hollen (head of the DCCC, Rahm Emanuel's old post, carrying on in Emanuel's practice of recruiting Blue Dog candidates instead of real Democrats) made an interesting parsing slip on CNN about that very point (he never was the brightest color in the box -- Democratic voters are d00med if this is the future leadership of the party).  Go hunt: http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1008/15/sotu.01.html

[Hint: "partial"]
About Joe Biden
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Biden To Democratic Base: 'Stop Whining'

Then there's SocialSecurity, & how it's the other guys, the GOP, who want to privatize it.

That the Obama-Biden administration has put SocialSecurity (which runs a surplus) on the table of its 'Debt Commission' (a group, all of whom support privatizing SocialSecurity) should tell you that the American people (& not just "a few in the base") have reason to worry and "whine".  

Because we've seen the same deceptive behavior for a long while now from DLC-Democrats & Obama-Biden, along with their assurances about how "there's nothing to worry about".  We've seen the Obama-Biden administration continue the policies & practices of the Bush-Cheney administration.  And after campaigning on restoring the Constitution & bringing transparency to government, we've seen bigger abuses and assaults on the Constitution by Obama-Biden, more secrecy laws, and new restrictions to FOIA.  We've seen the Obama-Biden administration talk out both sides of its mouth, for what can only be an intent to deceive.  

You don't promise transparency, then beg off by claiming that you're leaving reform to Congress, & then undermine the congressional committees working on reform by cutting secret deals with corporations.   But that's exactly what the Obama-Biden administration did. 

Early in the healthcare legislation process, Obama declared that he wouldn't sign any legislation that didn't include a public option, but he did.  Instead of working to get a real healthcare reform bill through, Obama worked overtime to make sure that there would be no real reform -- Just a massive corporate giveaway with no cost controls & no universal coverage.   

The week before & the week after the healthcare bill (or, more accurately, 'The Insurance & Pharmaceutical Industries Windfall Act') passed in the Senate was the one & only time a public option had any chance of happening until another generation passes.

A group of senators had mobilized behind it since the bill had to be passed through reconciliation anyway, & there was no way that Democrats weren't going to get enough of its members to vote against it just because it had a PublicOption in it.  Obama nixxed it.  What was the reason? 

"If the Senate did that, the bill would have to go back to the House for a vote & there's no time!"

After the (allegedly) pro-PublicOption senators accepted that excuse & stood down, Republicans discovered 2 flaws with the bill requiring it's return to the House anyway. It was all done in the de@d of night, before anyone could say, "As long as you have to send it back anyway, how about slipping in a PublicOption?"

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/byrd-rule-sends-health-care-back-to-house_n_512609.html

The Obama-Biden administration will do everything within its power to prevent a public option, public healthcare, and affordable, quality medical treatment for everyone as long as it retains the WhiteHouse, because that was the deal that was made.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Biden To Democratic Base: 'Stop Whining'

The Obama-Biden Administration's War on Privacy

In early August, two dictatorial (and U.S.-allied) Gulf states -- Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates -- announced a ban on the use of Blackberries because, as the BBC put it, "[b]oth nations are unhappy that they are unable to monitor such communications via the handsets."  Those two governments demand the power to intercept and monitor every single form of communication.  No human interaction may take place beyond their prying ears.  Since Blackberry communication data are sent directly to servers in Canada and the company which operates Blackberry -- Research in Motion -- refused to turn the data over to those governments, "authorities decided to ban Blackberry services rather than continue to allow an uncontrolled and unmonitored flow of electronic information within their borders."  That's the core mindset of the Omnipotent Surveillance State:  above all else, what is strictly prohibited is the ability of citizens to communicate in private; we can't have any "uncontrolled and unmonitored flow of electronic information."  

That controversy generated substantial coverage in the US media, which depicted it as reflective of the censorship and all-consuming surveillance powers of those undemocratic states.  But the following week, The New York Times published an Op-Ed by Richard Falkenrath -- a top-level Homeland Security official in the Bush administration and current principal in the private firm of former Bush DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff -- expressing support for the UAE's Blackberry ban.  Falkenrath asserted that "[a]mong law enforcement investigators and intelligence officers [in the U.S.], the Emirates’ decision met with approval, admiration and perhaps even a touch of envy."  New Internet technologies -- including voice-over-Internet calls (such as Skype) and text messaging -- are increasingly difficult for governments to monitor, and Falkenrath noted, correctly, that the UAE "is in no way unique in wanting a back door into the telecommunications services used inside its borders to allow officials to eavesdr0p on users."  The U.S. Government is every bit as eager as the UAE and Saudi Arabia to ensure full and unfettered access to everyone's communications:

READ MORE @ http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/27/privacy/index.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...