Spintested: 10/04/10

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

Monday, October 4, 2010

By the way, did you know about this? Explain it to me if you can:

How a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminal and corrupt administration in the nation's history, does these things:

Obama didn't replace Bush-era US attorneys so now we get Bush-style obscenity prosecutions:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_691667.html

FYI - Presidents may fire US attorneys, and they do so routinely at the beginning of a new administration. It is unusual to fire US attorneys in mid-term (as Bush did) except in cases of gross misconduct (which wasn’t the case during the Bush administration).

We need a real Democrat in the Oval Office, and real Democrats in Congress, instead of these DINOs. With fire in their bellies to go after those who obstruct the People's business (Republicans), and not fire in their bellies to go after the Democratic Party's base.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

You know yours is a non-response, don't you?

Nobody is more disappointed than I am about Obama's and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party's betrayal of the People.

And unless Obama's 'most ardent supporters' get a clue, this 'noble experiment', this democracy, is over. It already may be too late. They really have gamed just about every angle to bilking every last penny from the middle and poor classes, and will have us in servitude forever.

We have little enough of a Constitutionally-guaranteed role within this democracy as it is. We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted. The founders were nothing if not ironic.

But now, right this very period, the weeks leading up to an election, voting, that's it for making our deals with the candidates. This election is about what Obama and Democrats did with the mandate given them in 2008. They're not even running on what they did, it's that bad. They're running on Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell. It's fear again, over 2 candidates, both of whom are unlikely to win. Even if they did, they're running as Republicans, wouldn't have any power, and would most likely do what Scott Brown did when he won Ted Kennedy's seat: Moved to the left, said, "Sarah Palin, who???"

Do you honestly believe that a girl who has been paying her bills off of the campaign contributions of clueless voters for years is any threat to the institution of government?
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

Obama sure made some deal with Lieberman -- Here's one of the many 'services' Lieberman has performed for Obama:

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

http://www.truthout.org/1022095

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/143322/outrage:house_sneakily_passes_bill_banning_release_of_photos_showing_detainee _abuse/
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

'Party government' runs the US Congress, has since the late 1790s, and the Democratic Party has controlled both Houses of Congress (with a supermajority in the Senate) and the White House since 2008.

That's what being in the majority party's caucus means -- You get the perks of the power.
Democrats like to hide this from the people, the 'hierarchy of party control and power', 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. And come reelection 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.

There are all kinds of other 'carrots and sticks' you use to keep your party together, and if Obama really wanted to, it would have happened.

By the way, I'm talking about a president who is a popular leader, who comes into the White House with more Americans having voted for him and his campaign of CHANGE than had ever voted before in the history of the country. Political capital, and Obama came into office with a huge amount. So large, the GOP was in a puddle in the gutter outside of the US Capitol.

After the 2008 election, Republicans weren't just on the ropes; they were down for the count. What did Obama do? He issued them a pardon.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

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

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

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

If Obama got nothing for that concession, why didn't he? Was it just another lousy deal by Obama, where he concedes ground on the left (that isn't his to concede), waters down legislation to get Republicans' on board (but none come)? Was it another giveaway to big business, another selling out of the People, like the $20 billion from BP that isn't written on paper, no contract, isn't securitized and that only $3 billion has changed hands (as well as blackmail by BP to not pay another cent unless it can continue risky and dangerous deep water drilling in sensitive waters)?
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

AP: Big Oil Hasn't Learned Lessons Of BP Oil Spill

Yes, and only $3 billion has come through (just two weeks ago), there is no contract, it's not securitized, and BP is now positioning itself to duck out by claiming it wasn't BP's fault, and is also threatening the US in order to continue risky and dangerous drilling with no restrictions, no regulations, in sensitive deepwater.
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

AP: Big Oil Hasn't Learned Lessons Of BP Oil Spill

As an old liberal Democrat who's lived through decades of party politics, I suggest that you consider Democrats and Republicans as working on the same side, as tag relay teams. Or 'good cop/bad cop'. One side (Republicans) make brazen frontal assaults on the People, & when the People have had enough for that round, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.

Once in power, Democrats then consolidate Republicans' gains from previous years, & continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertising campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't even what the People thought they were.

Whenever the People get wise to the political shenanigans & all of the different ways they've been tricked & start seeing Democrats as no different than Republicans, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business -- This current one, because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc., is custom-tailored to Obama's 'bipartisan cooperation' demeanor, and is smirk-worthy when you realize they're trying to sell that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do, and that's "a good thing".

Whether I'm right or you're right (and I can back up my contentions with so much evidence of Obama's not being any more ethical than Bush-Cheney, beginning with his assertion that the president has the right to k!II American citizens with absolutely no due process and no oversight), how does his government's ineffectiveness work for you, for us?

Wouldn't you like to get this country back on the right track already?

About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

AP: Big Oil Hasn't Learned Lessons Of BP Oil Spill

The only ones being gamed are Obama's 'most ardent supporters'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't Let the Russ Feingolds Go Down For the Sins of the Blanche Lincolns

Notice, you ducked the question, then lobbed some ad hominem attacks.

WHAT PROGRESS?

If Obama is continuing just about all of the Bush-Cheney policies, if Obama's healthcare legislation is Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 Part 2 (and doesn't do what voters put Obama and Democrats into power to achieve: Affordable, quality medical treatment for all), if Obama's finance reform bill doesn't actually reform anything, wouldn't have prevented the meltdown and doesn't prevent the next one, if Obama is not doing the policies (not proposing them, not pushing them through Congress, not taking to the bully pulpit, not putting his foot to the necks of Republicans and Blue Dogs, not doing what a real Democratic president would do) for real job creation and is going along with millions being out of work in America for years more (at least a decade), if Obama is putting through more free trade treaties, if Obama is not working to remove the tax breaks for outsourcing jobs, if Obama is continuing rendition, t0rture, expanding the wars, continuing to let war profiteers make obscene profits, and so much more, how is this progress?
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

AP: Big Oil Hasn't Learned Lessons Of BP Oil Spill

No, it's not okay with liberals.

It's okay with Obama's 'most ardent supporters', aka DLC lovers. They're not liberals.

The irony of it is that they're ideologically more aligned with you, with conservatives (if that's what you are). They're all corporate, and okay with any 'compromises' that the DLC makes on labor, the environment, civil liberties and individual rights, will keep the war, you can wiretap them and read their email (because they think you wouldn't do it to them) and further restrict a woman's right to choose. That doesn't make for liberals. We're consistent on it -- Nobody can do that.
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

AP: Big Oil Hasn't Learned Lessons Of BP Oil Spill

Republicans haven't been filibustering anything, only threatening to filibuster.

HarryReid could've actually forced Republicans & turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster. He didn't (& doesn't).

Senate rule 22 gives the Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid) the discretion to force Republicans to actually filibuster & not just threaten to do it. Filibustering is very hard on those soft, pampered bodies. Reid forced it once (Jim Bunning & extending unemployment) & Bunning caved.

Democrats can even change the supermajority rule (it does NOT have to be done at the beginning of a new Congress, as some argue). It can be done at any time (see page 6 - http://fpc .state.gov/documents /organization/45448. pdf ].

There's not just one way (or even two) for Democrats to get bills passed without Republican votes.

http://www .huffingto npost.com/ 2010/07/27/ezra-klein-how-to-end-the_n_661234.html

http://www .senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*P%2C%3B%3F %22%20%20%20%0A

http://yglesias.thinkprogress. org/2009/08/hertzberg-on-the-constitutionality-of- the-filibuster/

But Obama & the DLC-controlled DemocraticParty aren't doing that. Because it might actually work to get Democratic voters' legislative agenda made into the law of the land & do good for the People. And that's not what Obama&Company are there for. They're there to do the work of the transnational corporations, & preventing that are liberals.

So Obama reaches out for Republicans, watering down the legislation that Republicans won't vote for. Because everything that the parties do, both parties, is for the next election campaign.
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

AP: Big Oil Hasn't Learned Lessons Of BP Oil Spill

11 people were k!lled. Another 15 d!ed at another of BP's installations in Texas.

People need to be prosecuted, and BP needs to be taken apart, burned to the ground and its ashes salted.
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

AP: Big Oil Hasn't Learned Lessons Of BP Oil Spill

There is no $20 billion restitution funding.

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

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

AP: Big Oil Hasn't Learned Lessons Of BP Oil Spill

Not gutless; corrupt, too.

Obama's timidity is myth; he's plenty tough when it comes to standing up to the Democratic base.

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.
About Gulf Oil Spill
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

AP: Big Oil Hasn't Learned Lessons Of BP Oil Spill

Isn't it fascinating that given the same restrictions, of a government hopelessly deadlocked, Bush & Cheney managed to get their agenda through?

Whatever else we say about Bush & Cheney, they sure were 'earners'.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

AP: Big Oil Hasn't Learned Lessons Of BP Oil Spill

HEY! LEAVE OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS ALONE!

It's not their job!

It's BP's job to police themselves. It's BP's job to make itself do it!

Next week: We turn over the prisons to the inmates.

Week after that: We take away all of the gvns from the police and give them to the criminals.

The week after that: We assign assign registered s3x offenders to all grade school children as Big Brothers and Big Sisters.

http://www.amazon.com/Its-Not-My-Fault/dp/B002EANAPG
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Don't Let the Russ Feingolds Go Down For the Sins of the Blanche Lincolns

WHAT PROGRESS????

Obama is continuing just about all of Bush's/Cheney's policies.

This is a pro-corporate, anti-populist, pro-war, anti-civil rights, pro-police state, chipping away at privacy rights, abortion rights -- There's no defending this out of any Democrat.

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

If Obama didn't have a 'D' after his name, anyone looking at his actions would know that his most ardent supporters' belts don't go through all the loops for supporting what they claim to loathe about Republican. But the 'D' after Obama's name is a brand they believe and trust in (as did I), despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product) as what Bush & Cheney gave us. And worse.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Jewish Problem With Obama; Part One

Yes, but what about it?

Obama's policies, pretty much across the board, are a continuation of Bush's policies, but that doesn't seem to be what they're objecting to about them.

When I hear from one faction that these are socialist (economic) policies, I have to wonder what color the sky is on their planet.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Don't Let the Russ Feingolds Go Down For the Sins of the Blanche Lincolns

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe it's time to clear out the omega liberals, find some liberal alphas and set them loose on Washington.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Don't Let the Russ Feingolds Go Down For the Sins of the Blanche Lincolns

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.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Don't Let the Russ Feingolds Go Down For the Sins of the Blanche Lincolns

That's a trick that we've been trying since the DLC took over the Democratic Party.

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

Don't Let the Russ Feingolds Go Down For the Sins of the Blanche Lincolns

Having said all that I still have a gripe against Russ. I followed the Health Care 'Reform' legislative process and I must say that I did not hear Russ's voice much. He should have made a song and dance about the way Single Payer was booted out. There is also one more discordant note in his record. He voted for the largest increase of H-1B quota. Not good but I would vote for Russ in a heart beat.
==================================================

In this system of government, where congressional districts have been gerrymandered and a state with a population of 500k has the same amount of representation in the US Senate as a state with 36 million (one senator from Wyoming, pop. 544,000, can hold the entire nation hostage), isn't it valid to measure a candidate's performance, not on what his intentions are or how good a heart he has, but on how effective he is in achieving his supporters' objectives?

Feingold's a nice guy, but he's not an 'earner'. Not for the left. Like I said, nice guy, but not the brightest color in the box. In wolf pecking order, he's not an alpha, he's not a beta, he's not even a mature subservient male. All of the liberals in national office seem to be omegas. This does not bode well for getting Democrats to deliver to the People.

All it does is enable distracting, meaningless rhetoric from the DLC-controlled Democratic Party, to claim it's got a "big tent". But it does nothing to prevent the DLC's moving the center line to the right (to attract into the Democratic Party those Republican politicians & their supporters who have become disenfranchised from the Teabagger-controlled Republican Party.

I've got a similar problem in my district, with my representatives. My senators are DLC, and my representative in the House is a liberal who talks the talk, but doesn't walk it. Every time House liberals get into a position to make gains on our behalf, they cave. 79 House Progressives pledged not to vote for a healthcare reform bill if it didn't have a public option in it. They choked.

KEEP READING
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

Equivalent to what it cost taxpayers to fly Bush around the country fundraising.

If it's not against the law, they will do it.

The fact that neither party is actively trying to make public financing the law of the land should tell you that neither party is interested in doing it. Neither party is trying to end the obscene corporate money and lobbying in our system of government.

They hit the jackpot when they got elected to public office and are in politics as a way of life, the path to vast personal riches. We The People be d@mned.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

That the Repubs would actually try and do something to help out the citizens of the country, after all their motto was country first.
==================================

How? Practically. How did you envision it would work?

Do you know the process of law-making? How an idea gets made into law?

I think "working together" is being conflated with "voting for". That once a bill makes it through committee and onto the floor to be voted on, if Republicans don't vote for it means that they didn't "work together" with Democrats.

Is that what you mean?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism, and how liberals were responsible for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgvnned by election dirty tricks & fraud.

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they nor I would characterize themselves as far-anything or extreme, but mainstream. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicament of an unwanted pregnancy.

Most Democratic voters have no idea what the DLC is or who is in it. Most Democratic voters think Bill Clinton is a liberal, and not because they identify themselves with his policies, but because they are, in fact, ig.nor.ant about much of what he did. So when it comes to identification of ideology, don't you think that that is something that needs to be explored a bit?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

Where did you come up with those figures? And how are voters' ideology being identified?

I am an old FDR liberal Democrat. Whether you think that's left or far left (or far right, depending on some people's perspective), then that's what you think about FDR.

I am one of the 70% of liberals that comprise the Democratic Party, and what Obama and Democrats are doing is not what Democratic voters put Obama & Democrats into power to achieve on their behalf.

The DLC is DINO, ideologically the moderate Republicans of the 1950s & 1960s. It is anti-populist and a t00l of the corporations, just like Republicans. The DLC, through no acclaimation of the People or Democratic voters, controls the Democratic Party.

Can we agree on that much? On any of it?

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Jewish Problem With Obama; Part One

And why do they despise him?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Jewish Problem With Obama; Part One

Ed Klein is talking about AIPAC Jews, or Zionist Jews, who support Israel "no matter what".

He's not talking about the bulk of Jews in America, overwhelmingly secular, who have problems with Obama for a great many other reasons, but all having to do with Obama's being a DINO.

I don't think any who voted for Obama (except those running corporations) thought that 'HOPE' & 'CHANGE' meant "more Bush-Cheney-Republican policies, please." But that what Obama obviously meant.

“Do or do not... there is no try.” -Yoda
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

BP May Have Violated U.S. Sanctions On Trade With Iran, Says Government Audit

Our partners in Iraq, the Kurds, are violating the sanctions and selling oil to Iran - (Starts at 8:20)

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6923496n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

'Party government' runs the US Congress, has since the late 1790s, and the Democratic Party has controlled both Houses of Congress (with a supermajority in the Senate) and the White House since 2008.

Democrats like to hide this from the people, the 'hierarchy of party control and power', 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. And come reelection 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.

There are all kinds of other 'carrots and sticks' you use to keep your party together, and if Obama really wanted to, it would have happened.

By the way, I'm talking about a president who is a popular leader, who comes into the White House with more Americans having voted for him and his campaign of CHANGE than had ever voted before in the history of the country. Political capital, and Obama came into office with a huge amount. So large, the GOP was in a puddle in the gutter outside of the US Capitol.

After the 2008 election, Republicans weren't just on the ropes; they were down for the count. What did Obama do? He issued them a pardon.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

If that's what you want, model the behavior.

Discuss others' comments and speak to their points without digressing with insults and ad hominem attacks.

If you don't know how to do that, then don't comment until you learn.

One way to develop the skill is to try to put yourself in the other person's place, and imagine how you would feel, how you might react to someone calling your argument "drivel".

"Be the change you want to see in the world." - Gandhi
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

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

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

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

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

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

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

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. But it hasn't. Because Lieberman & Blue Dogs (& Republicans) provide cover to Obama & the DLC-controlled Democratic Party, to let them continue to serve corporate interests over the interests of the People.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Obama got nothing for that concession, why didn't he? Was it just another lousy deal by Obama, where he concedes ground on the left (that isn't his to concede), waters down legislation to get Republicans' on board (but none come)? Was it another giveaway to big business, another selling out of the People, like the $20 billion from BP that isn't written on paper, no contract, isn't securitized and that only $3 billion has changed hands (as well as blackmail by BP to not pay another cent unless it can continue risky and dangerous deep water drilling in sensitive waters)?
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

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

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

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

And if Democrats keep control of Congress? Do you think Obama's going to continue trying to work in a "bipartisan manner" with Republicans, keep flip-flopping on his campaign promises, and say that the election was a referendum on his trying "change the tone in Washington", and voters want him to do more of the same?

What issues do you see coming up in the next months leading up to the next campaign (2012), and what Democrats are and aren't willing to support to get votes?

What issues are important to you? For example, do you have any expectations of a public option being added to get real healthcare reform? If not now, when? Ever? How?

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

Historian Robert Dallek has written persuasively of the Kennedy and Johnson presidencies. "In my judgment," says Dallek, "war kills off great reform movements. " Thus, the American entrance into WWI killed off the progressive movement. WWII stifled the reforms of FDR and began the development of the "military- industrial complex" that Eisenhower later warned of. The Vietnam War ended much of the reform under Johnson and with money only for guns and not butter, halted the War on Poverty.

President Obama was elected on a platform of change and reform. He announced to the world that he would bring fresh faces to Washington, D.C., and change the way it did business. But nothing much has changed on that front: he even kept on George W. Bush’s man at the second most important post in the government, Secretary of Defense. He also kept on and even promoted most of W’s favorite generals, like Gen. McCrystal.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/8755

Obama = Bush's 3rd term
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Corporate Profits 'Near-Historic' In Second Quarter, Thanks To Cost-Cutting

Historian Robert Dallek has written persuasively of the Kennedy and Johnson presidencies. "In my judgment," says Dallek, "war kills off great reform movements. " Thus, the American entrance into WWI killed off the progressive movement. WWII stifled the reforms of FDR and began the development of the "military- industrial complex" that Eisenhower later warned of. The Vietnam War ended much of the reform under Johnson and with money only for guns and not butter, halted the War on Poverty.

President Obama was elected on a platform of change and reform. He announced to the world that he would bring fresh faces to Washington, D.C., and change the way it did business. But nothing much has changed on that front: he even kept on George W. Bush’s man at the second most important post in the government, Secretary of Defense. He also kept on and even promoted most of W’s favorite generals, like Gen. McCrystal.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/8755

Obama = Bush's 3rd term
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

Can you argue the issues? Can you discuss the facts? Can you speak to my argument? Because I am irrelevant to this discussion.

The fact that you can't imagine a liberal Democrat speaking to you this way, in light of the fact that it's widely reported in the media (and evident all over the leftwing blogosphere) that the base of the Democratic Party and Independents are abandoning Obama and DLC-Democrats, just tells me that you're ig.nor.ant or a paid operative.

I am an old FDR liberal Democrat. There is absolutely nothing that I believe or have ever said to contradict that, so if you think that's far left or far right, then that's what you think about FDR.

I am one of the 70% of liberals that comprise the Democratic Party, and what Obama and Democrats are doing is notwhat Democratic voters put Obama & Democrats into power to achieve on their behalf.

The DLC, to which you apparently belong, are DINOs, ideologically the moderate Republicans of the 1950s & 1960s. It is anti-populist and a t00l of the corporations, just like Republicans. The DLC, through no acclaimation of the People or Democratic voters, controls the Democratic Party.

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism, and how liberals were responsible for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgvnned by election dirty tricks & fraud.

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they nor I would characterize themselves as far-anything or extreme, but mainstream. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicament of an unwanted pregnancy.

You've got no moral center, dearie. You would just as soon throw your fellow American under the bus with wedge issue politics and triangulate away basic rights as root for Gordon Gekko if you knew he was a Democrat.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

The fact that you are defending him just tells me that you're either ig.no.rant of the facts, or, you're as corrupt as he is. Because if you wanted what we all thought we were getting when we put Obama and Democrats into power, you would be joining those who are only doing what he told us we were going to have to do.

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

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

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

Nobody expected "magic" from Obama. We did expect honesty, transparency, and have been getting nothing but a snow job.

There can be no democracy, no solutions, no functioning government, without honest, without trust, when elected officials are Iying, cutting secret deals and then spinning them as something that they're not.

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' (like you) are the most immediate problem, as they help him screw them (& us) over. They keep his personal numbers high. That enables Obama to blow them (and all Democratic voters) off. Until they wake up to these facts, they are their own (& our) worst e n e m ies, and the reason we don't get what we all thought we were voting for when we voted Obama and Democrats into office as the majority power in our government.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

For those of you who blame 'Republican obstructionism' for Obama's and the DLC-controlled Democrats failure to achieve on our objectives:

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

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

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

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

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

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

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

Americans are losing our jobs, our homes, our Social Security, Medicare, police, firemen, teachers, & going into debt to China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, (even our grandchildren won't be able to pay it off), for wars to protect & increase the riches that Americans don't derive any benefit from (an oil pipeline & mineral riches in Afghanistan, not to mention the oil contracts in Iraq). These are riches that ordinary Americans don't get profits from, but that the Establishment Elites (Dick Cheney & the Bush family among them) all are getting rich(er) from.

A few weeks ago, Rachel Maddow walked the dusty, garbage-strewn streets of Afghanistan with RIchard Engel to see what exporting US-style democracy means, and what US nation-building actually builds. Watch this to see where are our tax dollars going, and learn how we are not "nation-building", not making us safer, and not helping the Afghans or building their nation at all (or a democracy). Learn how this has all been just a huge rip-off of the American people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR5BHnN__5M

This is all going on under Obama and a Democratically-controlled Congress that has a bigger arsenal of t00Is available to them as the majority in power, controlling both chambers of Congress and the White House, than Republicans have as the minority.

About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

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.

The only power that you and I have in this democratic republic is the weeks before every election every 2 years. That's when deals are cut. That's when candidates' pledges, about what they will or won't do if they get into power, go on the record. For their 'report card' (the next election) when we either give them an 'A' (reelection) or an 'F' (toss them out). Pass/Fail.

What possible good are you doing us now?

You'll take anything, as long as it has a 'D' after it's name. You don't even know that that 'D' is no different than an 'R'. In policies, where it counts. All that either of these 2 corporate parties has to do is put up a candidate with a 'look', a shell' that would appeal to you, fill the candidate with focus-group-tested rhetoric (tested to appeal to Democratic voters) and you wouldn't know the difference.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

Have you considered that the reason that the DLC-controlled Democrats who you're talking about don't happen to believe what you (and I) think Democrats stand for?

We're dealing with a political party that has been taken over and is now controlled by DINOs, moderate Republican s-in-Democ rats'-clot hing.

The DLC, now led by Obama, has moved the political center line far to the right. Obama, and Clinton before him, has been flipping off the left and trying to attract Republican politicians and their supporters to support Democratic politicians. Whenever Obama has the opportunity he waters down Democratic policies and legislation, in spite of the fact that the Republican Party has decided to reject everything Obama does.

The Republican Party announced what their intention was (they weren't going to work in a 'bipartisan manner' with Democrats) the first day Obama got into office; it's not been any secret.

But Obama continues to crank out what is really Republican-style legislation, and at the last hour, he gets it passed through reconciliation. Why would anybody do that if that end result, lousy policies that don't represent Democratic policies nor get the job done as Democrats were put into power to accomplish, wasn't exactly the policies that Obama and the DLC like?
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

"Hope" doesn't pay the milk bill.

There is no action by those who you think are doing the People's business -- Democrats.

That's because the Democratic Party is controlled by the DLC. Do you know what that is and who is in it?

You mention t0rture chambers as archaeic, and yet it's still continuing under Obama.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/74796

If you are sincere, if you are a 'civilian 0bamabot' and not a paid political operative, I really do appreciate your need to believe and trust in a president, a leader, in Obama.

But he's not what you believe him to be, and all of the 'hoping' (propping him and his polling numbers up with words of support) isn't going to "make him do it".

As a matter of fact, keeping his approval numbers high have the opposite effect. They give him permission to bypass his supporters' interests, move the Democratic Party even farther over to the right in order to try to attract Republican politicians (who are being alienated by teabaggers) and their supporters into the Democratic Party.

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' are not only their and our worst enem!es, they're working against their own best interests.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

How do you justify supporting this, and that it's not any different (worse, actually) than Bush-Cheney?:

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

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

I am an old OLD liberal Democrat.

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

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

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

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

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

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

I'm an old liberal Democrat, dearie.

Start explaining how a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminal and corrupt administration in the nation's history, does these things:

Obama didn't replace Bush-era US attorneys so now we get Bush-style obscenity prosecutions:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_691667.html

FYI - Presidents may fire US attorneys, and they do so routinely at the beginning of a new administration. It is unusual to fire US attorneys in mid-term (as Bush did) except in cases of gross misconduct (which wasn’t the case during the Bush administration).

We need a real Democrat in the Oval Office instead of this DINO. One with fire in his belly to go after those who obstruct the People's business (Republicans), and not fire in his belly to go after the Democratic Party's base.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

I'm an old liberal Democrat, and my frustration with you and other 0bamab0ts (the sincere ones, not the paid ones) is that you fail to understand that this is the only time in our political process, in the weeks before an election, when We The People have any power. And you who are in lockstep, loyal to Obama and to the DLC-Democrats, destroy any possibility of Obama serving our best interests instead of corporations' interests.

Nobody expected "magic" from Obama.

We did expect honesty, transparency, and have been getting nothing but a snow job.

There can be no democracy, no solutions, no functioning government, without honest, without trust, when elected officials are Iying, cutting secret deals and then spinning them as something that they're not.

The fact that you are defending him just tells me that you're either ig.no.rant of the facts, or, you're as corrupt as he is. Because if you wanted what we all thought we were getting when we put Obama and Democrats into power, you would be joining those who are only doing what he told us we were going to have to do.

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

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

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

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' (like you) are the most immediate problem, as they help him screw them (& us) over. They keep his personal numbers high. That enables Obama to blow them (and all Democratic voters) off. Until they wake up to these facts, they are their own (& our) worst e n e m ies, and the reason we don't get what we all thought we were voting for when we voted Obama and Democrats into office as the majority power in our government.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Corporate Profits 'Near-Historic' In Second Quarter, Thanks To Cost-Cutting

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

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

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

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

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

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

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

Most of those posting here are political operatives being paid to be cheerleaders.

In a very real sense, on this thread they're cheerleading the $16 million because that's how they're being paid.

There are even some who pinch-hit for both parties; they work simultaneously as both Democratic-supporters and Republican-supporters, commenting at different websites.

We have Karl R0ve to thank/blame for creating such a job in the first place.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

If Obama is continuing just about all of the Bush-Cheney policies, if Obama's healthcare legislation is Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 Part 2 (and doesn't do what voters put Obama and Democrats into power to achieve: Affordable, quality medical treatment for all), if Obama's finance reform bill doesn't actually reform anything, wouldn't have prevented the meltdown and doesn't prevent the next one, if Obama is not doing the policies (not proposing them, not pushing them through Congress, not taking to the bully pulpit, not putting his foot to the necks of Republicans and Blue Dogs, not doing what a real Democratic president would do) for real job creation and is going along with millions being out of work in America for years more (at least a decade), if Obama is putting through more free trade treaties, if Obama is not working to remove the tax breaks for outsourcing jobs, if Obama is continuing rendition, t0rture, expanding the wars, continuing to let war profiteers make obscene profits, and so much more, how is he not in the category of Bush-Cheney?
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

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

The fear campaign again that we thought we were getting rid of when we put Democrats and Obama into power. No more pre-election Osama B!n Laden tapes leaked. No more 'overseas travel advisories', and non-specific terr0rist threats plastered all over the media in the weeks before an election.

We were supposed to be done with all that; Democrats were supposed to be better.

The fact of the matter is:

Once teabagger Scott Brown got elected, he moved to the middle, is in the Republican Caucus (he ran as a Republican) and votes like one, and said, "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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

The fear campaign again that we thought we were getting rid of when we put Democrats and Obama into power. No more pre-election Osama B!n Laden tapes leaked. No more 'overseas travel advisories', and non-specific terr0rist threats plastered all over the media in the weeks before an election.

And "Christine O'Donnell is coming!" alerts.

The DLC-Democrats' campaign slogan, "Be very afraid if the Republicans get control again of Congress".

We have Obama and Democrats to thank for the resurrection of Republicans. The GOP & Bush were down for the count after the 2008, and Obama gave them all pardon.

The DLC-controlled Democrats' slogan for the 2010 election: "The other guys are worse." (not really)

If Republicans are such scvm (and I believe they are), why isn't Obama investigating and prosecuting the greatest heist on the People in all history?

Why are Obama and Democrats continuing the war crimes of Bush & Cheney, and blocking investigations and prosecutions into their crimes?

Shame on you, JanPoore; we were supposed to be better than this.
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

As an old liberal Democrat who's lived through decades of party politics, I suggest that you consider Democrats and Republicans as working on the same side, as tag relay teams. Or 'good cop/bad cop'. One side (Republicans) make brazen frontal assaults on the People, & when the People have had enough for that round, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.

Once in power, Democrats then consolidate Republicans' gains from previous years, & continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertising campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't even what the People thought they were.

Whenever the People get wise to the political shenanigans & all of the different ways they've been tricked & start seeing Democrats as no different than Republicans, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business -- This current one, because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc., is custom-tailored to Obama's 'bipartisan cooperation' demeanor, and is smirk-worthy when you realize they're trying to sell that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do, and that's "a good thing".
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

DNC Raises $16 Million In September

Over the course of US history, corporations have managed to game our political system, & 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)".

Democrats (controlled by the DLC, and that's important to remember) & Republicans are corporate t00Is. Like siblings competing for the attention & approval (campaign contributions) of a parent, Republicans & DLC-controlled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituent, BigCorporations. 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, WallStreet, 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 DemocraticParty gives lip service to these & all populist issues, because like the RepublicanParty, the DLC works for the benefit of transnational corporations.

If you must continue to delude yourself into thinking Obama's a good guy who never would have started those wars, & who has only the best of intentions (I don't share that opinion anymore), but got a bad deal, then think of all this as a business plan where the Corporate Masters of the Universe have charted out their plans years in advance (governments do them, too) & select the politician/personality best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments. If you want to l!e the country into war for oil & war-profiteering, then George W. Bush is your man to front it (with Dick Cheney, the former Secretary of Defense who initiated the privatizing of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows).

And after 8 years of Bush-Cheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that. They're going to want HOPE & CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in & trust. BarackObama.

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

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

Once campaigns are publicly financed, then reforming our system & returning the government to the People can begin. That's when the work really starts.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP