Spintested: 10/07/10

Obama: Election Groups 'That Receive Foreign Money' Are A 'Threat To Our Democracy'

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Obama referenced the investigation, warning that "groups that receive foreign money" are a "threat to our democracy".
==========================================

So what's he going to do about it?

Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk.

How does a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminal and corrupt administration in the nation's history, not replace Bush-era US attorneys? This is what Obama's US attorneys do instead of returning the democracy to the American people -- Instead 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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Danny Lampley Arrested: Lawyer Charged With Contempt For Staying Silent During Pledge Of Allegiance

Does anybody believe that a judge who doesn't respect the First Amendment of the Constitution should be sitting on the bench?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Will Not Sign Bill Seen As Cover For Bank Foreclosures

~Have a nice day.~

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

With that sarcastic line, you show you have no more less odious principles than you think Jane Hamsher or Norquist or Reed or Abramoff have.

You're no different than any Bushie or PUMA or teabagger, or anyone whose judgment is clouded & loyalty misplaced, who is run by ig.no.rance and fear and a sense powerlessness that causes them to be taken in by slick, smooth-talking individuals spouting focus-group-tested words and phrases designed to take in the least intelligent among us.

Your judgment st!nks, and it's led to the mess We The People find ourselves in today.

For you to have a problem with what Jane Hamsher did means that you were used by Rahm Emanuel no less to distract from Hamsher's call for his resignation because of his efforts to work against your own best interests.

This is what Jane Hamsher did:

http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/23/jane-hamsher-grover-norquist-call-for-rahm-emmanuel’s-resignation/>
This is why she did it:

http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/23/why-i-reached-out-to-grover-norquist-on-fanniefreddie/
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Will Not Sign Bill Seen As Cover For Bank Foreclosures

I read it and no, David Dayen has written a 'hope'ful piece, and not anything like what you suggest.

He suggests that this may be what like what Obama did the last time he did a pocket veto, which also included (but is missing here) a memo of disapproval "just to be sure the job was done", but "We'll have to wait and see the official Memorandum of Disapproval (if there is one)".

'UPDATES' were included to the article at FDL within the last 10 minutes (Leahy and Conyers weighing in), and while it's certainly looking better that Congress may decide to ignore the fact that it's not actually in recess., it's still not a done deal (and if it is, you should be thanking people like me who are MAKING THESE PEOPLE DO IT).

And as long as you're holding out FDL as a valid source, FDL doesn't doubt that Obama and Democrats will do it after the election.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Will Not Sign Bill Seen As Cover For Bank Foreclosures

"In bed with Grover Norquist"??

The things you 0bamabots come up with to justify voting against your own best interests.

It's really amazing.

By your logic then, you must be furious about Obama's giving Bush and Cheney a pass, not hold them or anyone in their administration to account. Bybee, John Yoo, the CIA psychologists who designed the t0rture program, all should have you frothing about 0bama. And what about 0bama's getting into bed with Joe Lieberman, insisting that Lieberman caucus with Democrats, be given the plum chairmanship of the Department of Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security, only to carve up FOIA.

You're a silly person, ErnestineBass.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Will Not Sign Bill Seen As Cover For Bank Foreclosures

Democrats are only acting like Republicans in that they've punked Democratic voters.

If the President does not sign or veto the bill in 10 days, it becomes law without the Presidents signature, if Congress is in session.

The Senate is in session!

This bill becomes the law of the land tomorrow.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Will Not Sign Bill Seen As Cover For Bank Foreclosures

If the President does not sign or veto the bill in 10 days, it becomes law without the Presidents signature, if Congress is in session.

The Senate is in session!

The bill becomes law tomorrow.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Will Not Sign Bill Seen As Cover For Bank Foreclosures

There's no record of who voted how, so each could say they didn't vote for it.

It's going to be the law of the land tomorrow.

A pocket veto can only occur when Congress has adjourned and the Senate is still in session.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Will Not Sign Bill Seen As Cover For Bank Foreclosures

A pocket veto, by definition, can only occur when Congress has adjourned.

The Senate is still in session.

Apparently the bill will become law tomorrow.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Will Not Sign Bill Seen As Cover For Bank Foreclosures

That wasn't the agreement.

The agreement wasn't that Harry Reid adjourn the Senate and Obama wouldn't make recess appointments.

The agreement was that Harry Reid keep the Senate open, pro forma, to prevent Obama from making recess appointments.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Will Not Sign Bill Seen As Cover For Bank Foreclosures

Correct, but then it would be up to Congress, if it was able to override the veto with a 2/3rds majority vote.

Harry Reid cut a deal with Mitch McConnell to keep open pro forma, to keep Obama from making recess appointments.

There are several possible outcomes; the jubilation is premature.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Little-Noticed Bill Could Make It Harder To Challenge Foreclosures

You need to get your head out of your @$$.

Put down the Kool-Aid, step away from the faxed talking points ("Sound like the old trailers for Japanese horror films of the 1950s, like Rodan -- '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 that once teabagger Scott Brown got elected, he moved to the middle, is in the Republican Caucus (he ran as a Republican) votes like one, and said, "Sarah Palin who?"

Sarah Palin herself governed Alaska as a moderate Republican, which is no different than any DLCer governs. If you're not afraid of Evan Bayh who is to the right of moderate Republicanism, 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.

But that is going to take a while, and it's never going to be possible with the DLC controlling the Democratic Party.

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

Little-Noticed Bill Could Make It Harder To Challenge Foreclosures

Blue dog corporate wh0res at it again. Looks like the Prez's first veto.

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

While he infuses their campaigns with cash:
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=8558

The DNC is pumping money into Blue Dogs' campaigns, and not so much into (in trouble) Progressives' campaigns.

Maybe Obama will veto, maybe he won't. A lot will depend on how much noise this story gets.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Little-Noticed Bill Could Make It Harder To Challenge Foreclosures

Obama never pressured any Blue Dog, by their own admission. The Democratic leadership has all kinds of tools it can use to keep loyalty within the caucus, from taking away committee chairs of members that join with Republicans to filibuster or take away reelection funds coming election time, etc., but it hasn't used any of them because Lieberman & BlueDogs (& Republicans) provide cover to Obama & the DLC-controlled Democratic Party, to let them continue to serve corporate interests over the interests of the People.

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 HillaryClinton. But in came Obama who put the Clinton team into the WhiteHouse, 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). The only ones who Obama is tough with is the DemocraticParty's base. So either he's corrupt or he's inept, and can only be powerful beating up on his own. Whichever it is, corrupt or inept, the American people lose out.
About Banks
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Little-Noticed Bill Could Make It Harder To Challenge Foreclosures

Dems don't have the majority they need in Congress.

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

Democrats have everyone they need, to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people.

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, vote no on everything, in lockstep.

Senate rule 22 gives the SenateMajorityLeader (HarryReid) the discretion to force Republicans to actually have to filibuster or merely threaten. Reid lets them merely threaten.

If Obama really wanted BlueDogs' votes or JoeLieberman's vote on legislation like real healthcare reform, he would have done to Lieberman & the BlueDogs what he did to DennisKucinich (the last hold-out on the ProgressiveCaucus, all of whom had pledged to vote for a healthcare bill only if it had a public option, and who all caved). Obama flew to Cleveland and rallied Kucinich's constituents against him and he got Kucinich's vote.

Where was that mentality with JoeLieberman, BlancheLincoln, the other BlueDogs and even OlympiaSnowe? If the president of the UnitedStates 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 is powerless in backroom deals.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP