He doesn't even have to issue an executive order at this point. The court gave him a gift. All he has to do is NOT APPEAL and DADT is tossed on the scrap heap of history.
If his DoJ doesn't appeal, an "orderly time frame" for the de@th of a law can be arranged with the court.
That's it.
About Gay Rights
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Federal judges determine policy all the time. Federal judges overturn laws all the time, and very very very few cases ever make it to the US Supreme Court for final dispensation.
What this is is Obama kicking the can down the road, or playing 'Hot Potato' with the other two branches of government. All he's about is the political -- He hasn't a leaderly bone in his body. Seriously, he does not know how to govern.
About Gay Rights
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Words are cheap.
When Obama's words don't match his actions, stories like this one shouldn't get dismissed out of hand:
In an interview three days ago with Washington Post's Jonathan Capeheart, Valerie Jarrett, senior aide to Obama, said about Minnesota g@y teen Justin Aarberg, who committed su!cide in July after being bull!ed, that he made a "lifestyle choice."
It's at around 4:15 on the video -
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2010/10/whs-jarrett-dead-gay-bully-victim-made.html
"Being gay", according to one of Obama's closest top aides (reportedly his closest aide) is a "lifestyle choice".
Jarrett said today that she "misspoke".
Try saying "homosexuality a lifestyle choice" and explain how you "misspoke".
Accuracy & precision in language about one of your core base constituencies is basic, fundamental in politics. It's 99% of politics, and how politicians finesse others.
It's an outrage for Jarrett to even try to dismiss her comment in that way, as "misspeaking". She's one of the top representatives for Obama; she speaks for him. Every word out of her mouth is the policy of the president; she broadcasts to the world the real policies of the administration she works for.
Can you imagine her not being fired had she said something equally as offensively ig.no.rant about women or J#ws or blacks? How can she be effective in advancement for gays when she holds the same beliefs about gays as do fundamentalist rightwingers?
Jarrett needs to resign or be fired.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
As long as Valerie Jarrett is a senior aide for the president (and probably his top, closest aide), she speaks for him. Every word out of her mouth is the policy of the president.
Now take that along with Obama's actual behaviors, from appealing the DOMA ruling, appealing the DADT ruling, and yes, the policy of this administration is to discriminate against g@ys.
She needs to resign or be fired. "Misspeaking" (what an outrage for her to even put it in that way) doesn't explain it. You try saying "it's a lifestyle choice" and explain how you "misspoke".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
From Rachel Maddow's program last night:
== Aaron Belkin, an expert on the issue at UC Santa Barbara told the New York Times that, “Unless the president declines to appeal the ruling in Log Cabin Republicans versus the United States, the ‘Don‘t Ask, Don‘t Tell‘ policy probably will remain law for years.”
Unless you believe the US Senate is going to do the right thing by g@y people. This year, with JohnMcCain still there & a slate of homoph0b!c Republican Senate candidates poised to enter. Unless you believe that the US Senate after this year‘s elections is going to do the right thing by g@y service members, then the decision by the ObamaAdministration, whether or not to appeal this ruling, is likely a decision between k!lling this policy now & letting it survive probably forever.
Obama's DoJ appealing this ruling was not an inevitability. The administration is not obligated to appeal. If the administration believes the law is unconstitutional, there's precedent that supports the administration not appealing it & letting the law d!e.
An orderly time frame for the de@th of a law can be arranged with the court. That's the way it is. A plan that has no chance of becoming reality is not a real plan no matter how much you say it is. You can either end it or you can stop saying you will.==
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wakRmwaphik
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
From Rachel Maddow's program last night:
== Aaron Belkin, an expert on the issue at UC Santa Barbara told the New York Times that, “Unless the president declines to appeal the ruling in Log Cabin Republicans versus the United States, the ‘Don‘t Ask, Don‘t Tell‘ policy probably will remain law for years.”
Unless you believe the US Senate is going to do the right thing by g@y people. This year, with JohnMcCain still there & a slate of homoph0b!c Republican Senate candidates poised to enter. Unless you believe that the US Senate after this year‘s elections is going to do the right thing by g@y service members, then the decision by the ObamaAdministration, whether or not to appeal this ruling, is likely a decision between k!lling this policy now & letting it survive probably forever.
Obama's DoJ appealing this ruling was not an inevitability. The administration is not obligated to appeal. If the administration believes the law is unconstitutional, there's precedent that supports the administration not appealing it & letting the law d!e.
An orderly time frame for the de@th of a law can be arranged with the court. That's the way it is. A plan that has no chance of becoming reality is not a real plan no matter how much you say it is. You can either end it or you can stop saying you will.==
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wakRmwaphik
About Gay Rights
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
From Rachel Maddow's program last night:
== Aaron Belkin, an expert on the issue at UC Santa Barbara told the New York Times that, “Unless the president declines to appeal the ruling in Log Cabin Republicans versus the United States, the ‘Don‘t Ask, Don‘t Tell‘ policy probably will remain law for years.”
Unless you believe the US. Senate is going to do the right thing by gay people. This year, with JohnMcCain still there & a slate of homoph0b!c Republican Senate candidates poised to enter. Unless you believe that the US Senate after this year‘s elections is going to do the right thing by gay service members, then the decision by the ObamaAdministration, whether or not to appeal this ruling, is likely a decision between killing this policy now & letting it survive probably forever.
Obama's DoJ appealing this ruling was not an inevitability. The administration is not obligated to appeal. If the administration believes the law is unconstitutional, there's precedent that supports the administration not appealing it & letting the law die.
An orderly time frame for the death of a law can be arranged with the court. That's the way it is. A plan that has no chance of becoming reality is not a real plan no matter how much you say it is. You can either end it or you can stop saying you will.==
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wakRmwaphik
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The law can end now, by the Obama administration not filing an appeal. Letting the law die. An orderly timeframe for the de@th of a law can be arranged with the court.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wakRmwaphik
About Gay Rights
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
According to Rachel Maddow last night:
=== RobertGibbs said today “The best way to end it is for the Senate to follow the lead of the House of Representatives so that end can be implemented in a fashion that‘s consistent with our obligations in fighting two wars.”
“But absent that action,” he said, “The president, again has set up a process to end this policy. The bottom line is that this is a policy that‘s going to end. It‘s not whether it will end, but the process by which it will end.”
Here‘s the thing: The WhiteHouse line, the line from the administration on this now is that they‘d like the Senate to repeal it. Absent that action, the spokesman said. Absent that action. Absent the Senate voting to repeal it. Absent the moon crashing through the atmosphere & turning us all to green cheese.
Absent that action of the Senate repealing “DADT”, the WhiteHouse says there's an orderly process underway to get rid of the policy. And that orderly process is that the Senate will repeal it? The WhiteHouse is sternly ensuring everyone that the policy will end.
And when you drill down on how they say it will end, they say it will end because the Senate will end it even though the Senate has just chosen not to end it & the Senate is poised to get more conservative not less in the imminent elections.
This is incoherence. ==
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wakRmwaphik
About Gay Rights
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
You think it's bad now??? Vote Republican then!
=======================================
I suggest that you consider Democrats & Republicans as working on the same side, as tag relay teams. 'Good cop/bad cop'. One side (Republicans) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, & when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.
Once in power, Democrats 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 what WeThePeople thought they were.
Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigans & all 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. It's 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, & that's "a good thing".
Whichever of us is right (& I can back up my contentions with much evidence of Obama's not being any more ethical than BushCheney, beginning with his assertion that the president has the right to k!II American citizens with absolutely no due process, no oversight), how is his government's ineffectiveness working for you, for us?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I suggest that you consider Democrats & Republicans as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. One side (Republicans) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, & when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.
Once in power, Democrats 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 what WeThePeople thought they were.
Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigans & all 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. It's 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, & that's "a good thing".
Whichever of us is right (& I can back up my contentions with much evidence of Obama's not being any more ethical than BushCheney, beginning with his assertion that the president has the right to k!II American citizens with absolutely no due process, no oversight), how is his government's ineffectiveness working for you, for us?
About Gay Rights
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
And then there's (senior aide to Obama) Valerie Jarrett's, interview three days ago with Washington Post's Jonathan Capeheart. She says about Minnesota gay teen Justin Aarberg, who committed suicide in July after being bullied, that he made a "lifestyle choice." It's at around 4:15 on the video:
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2010/10/whs-jarrett-dead-gay-bully-victim-made.html
As a liberal Democrat, I don't know how any self-respecting Democrat can defend Obama.
About Gay Rights
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
And to conclude anything else ignores yesterday's decision by the White House on DOMA. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10101303.html
The DoJ has no obligation to file a brief in favor of DOMA ( http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/choice-to-defend-doma-and-its.html ).
Not only doesn't the DoJ have any obligation to appeal, to challenge DOMA with legal arguments that, if pursued by the courts, could greatly damage gay and lesbian rights (that homosexuality is the equivalent of incest and pedophilia/child rape), it really shreds Obama's credibility about supporting the end of DOMA. Because if he really did support the end of DOMA, then he's supporting what he believes to be the equivalent of incest and pedophila/child rape.
And by the way, 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? 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). 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
About Gay Rights
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Let Rachel Maddow explain it to you -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wakRmwaphik
About Gay Rights
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
This has yet to break in media, but it's indicative of the Obama Administration's real attitude toward gays.
It should go viral.
In an interview two days ago with Washington Post's Jonathan Capeheart, Valerie Jarrett, senior aide to Obama, says about Minnesota g@y teen Justin Aarberg, who committed su!cide in July after being bull!ed, that he made a "lifestyle choice." It's at around 4:15 on the video:
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2010/10/whs-jarrett-dead-gay-bully-victim-made.html
"Being gay", according to one of Obama's closest top aides (if not THE closest) is a "lifestyle choice".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Rachel Maddow explains it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wakRmwaphik
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Why, when Obama could have put this off until after the election, would he appeal (both DADT & DOMA) in advance of an election, when voting has already begun in many states, when he claims to want to motivate the base to the polls?
Does that seem like the same Obama who ran a pitch-perfect campaign for the presidency, out-strategizing the most canny political operatives in the business, first within the Democratic Party to get the nomination and then in the Republican Party to win the general election?
I can tell you what's motivating Obama, but if you think about it, follow it out to the most logical conclusion, you'll realize why for yourself. Unless, of course, you're one of those who refuses to believe that Obama's trying to move the Democratic Party even farther to the right of where it's been, & get more Blue Dogs into Congress, attract more moderate Republican politicians & their supporters (turned off by Tea Partyers controlling the Republican Party) into the Democratic Party. So that the DLC-controlled Democratic Party can "govern from the middle for 100 years".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
In an interview two days ago with WashingtonPost's Jonathan Capeheart, Valerie Jarrett, senior aide to Obama, says about Minnesota g@y teen Justin Aarberg, who committed su!cide in July after being bull!ed, that he made a "lifestyle choice." It's at around 4:15 on the video:
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2010/10/whs-jarrett-dead-gay-bully-victim-made.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Even Rachel Maddow is starting to get it; that Obama's got no plan or plans to end DADT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wakRmwaphik
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
In an interview two days ago with WashingtonPost's Jonathan Capeheart, Valerie Jarrett, senior aide to Obama, says about Minnesota gay teen Justin Aarberg, who committed suicide in July after being bullied, that he made a "lifestyle choice." It's at around 4:15 on the video:
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2010/10/whs-jarrett-dead-gay-bully-victim-made.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
To begin with, I'm an old liberal Democrat.
Next, Obama, RahmEmanuel, the DLC, DavidAxelrod, DavidPlouffe, 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 its 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.
BlancheLincoln's 40 points down behind the GOP candidate JohnBoozman.
Guess who could beat Boozman in Arkansas? Lt. Governor BillHalter. Because, like just about all Americans, Arkansans would prefer an authentic, likable candidate, even if it's a progressive.
But more progressives in Congress means real populist legislation getting passed into law. Real reform bills, that re-regulate banks & big business. Real stimulus bills, with jobs creation, green clean energy development, and more. But that's not who or what Obama & the DLC-controlled Democrats are about.
Feingold's been extremely harsh in his criticism of Obama, so it's a fair question:
What's the deal, Russ?
About 2010 Elections
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Dear Tim Kaine:
Watergate wasn't merely a scandal; IT WAS CRIMINAL.
Democrats need to go after Bush-Cheney-Republicans for the actual crimes that they have committed.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
According to rule 22, the Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid) has the discretion to require Republicans to actually filibuster. Reid let's Republicans merely threaten to do it.
There are 60 members of the Democratic Caucus. Not all are Democrats, but they enjoy perks that come with being in the majority in the Senate (committee assignments, for example, and committee/subcommittee chairs) because they agree to certain conditions.
Bush-Cheney-Republicans, have no problem keeping their caucus members in line, exacting discipline and punishment on those who choose to go against the "shared objectives" of the whole of the Republican Party.
Democrats know this, too, and exact discipline and punishment when it's something that the DLC wants and perceives it needs. For example, when Democrats needed unemployment benefits to continue because the masses were becoming 'critical', Harry Reid had no problem calling Jim Bunning's bluff, forcing him to filibuster, and the GOP caved.
When the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress are motivated to do the will of the People, they get it done.
They're not motivated, and the reason they're not is because of complacent, forgiving, excuse-making supporters, who either don't know any better or are conflict-phobic or are political operatives spreading disinformation.
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama really, really needs a chief of staff who's not part of the club.
=====================================
That suggests that Obama's inept, a naive political neophyte at best, incompetent at worst.
Does that seem like the same Obama who out-strategized the most canny political operatives in the business, first within the Democratic Party to get the nomination and then in the Republican Party to win the general election?
You're absolutely right, by the way, that they had 60 days to decide, so why would they appeal in advance of an election where they claim to want to motivate the base to the polls? Voting has already begun around the country, so why would Obama intentionally anger and turn off Democratic voters?
I can tell you what's motivating Obama/Holder, but think about it, follow it out to the most logical conclusion. It's only when to those who refuse to believe that Obama's trying to move the Democratic Party even farther to the right of where it's been, get more Blue Dogs into Congress, attract more moderate Republican politicians & their supporters into the Democratic Party that it doesn't make sense.
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The problem isn't the filibuster.
The problem is Democratic politicians who are DINOs, who don't use the tools available to achieve their constituents' objectives.
The problem is Democrats who let Republicans merely THREATEN to filibuster instead of actually forcing them to filibuster. Filibustering is very hard on those soft, pampered bodies. Reid forced it once, when it suited the DLC (Jim Bunning & extending unemployment) & Bunning caved.
But now that Republicans are poised to take control over Congress, when Democrats would be in the minority, you want to get rid of the filibuster?
The problem is THESE DEMOCRATS. These DINOs.
They have to go.
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The massive stimulus bill that Obama should have been pushed through, that should have happened before Obama handed out TARP2 (which he did with no conditions, yet), didn't happen because it was never Obama's intention to be anything but a pro-corporate, anti-populist president.
That economic meltdown was the means for achieving everything that real Democrats have been unable to do for the last 20 years. A real stimulus would have solved every last problem we're facing today. It should have had WPA-type programs, money for public works projects to rebuild America's infrastructure on all fronts, from roads, bridges, high-speed rail, an energy renaissance ala the Manhattan project (another broken promise by Obama) and a building of that new energy grid (& communications) infrastructure across the US, along with massive infusion into SMART communities (residential/business/agricultural) ending suburban sprawl, high tech and more.
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama's 'most ardent supporters' have one excuse after another to explain Obama's & Democrats' failure to achieve their constituents' objectives, everything from "Republicans thwarted them" (when Republicans weren't needed for passing anything), to Obama's ineptitude.
To believe any of it, you would have to be ig.nor.ant of how government operates, and been in a coma to have missed the pitch-perfect campaign that Obama ran in both the primary and general election. That Barack Obama knew that you don't make concessions before you sit down to negotiate. You may not know that, but I guarantee you that Obama does, as does everyone around him in the White House & in the Congress. Everyone in any kind of business knows that.
Do you think that if Republicans take control of Congress next year that the Democratic minority, with greater numbers than the Republican minority has now, will be as effective at thwarting the Republicans?
Obama came into power with a golden opportunity, a catastrophic crisis, to get through sweeping change. For Obama to have blown it, and how he blew it, says everything about his real intentions.
KEEP READING
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
At the end, Obama emerged and kamikaze-style, rahmed through a massive corporate giveaway with no cost controls, no universal coverage, a bill guaranteed to end all public healthcare sooner rather than later. It's Bush's 'Medicare Reform Bill of 2003 - Part 2'.
The week before & the week after the healthcare bill passed in the Senate was the one & only time a PublicOption 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 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 ObamaAdministration will do everything it can to prevent a PublicOption, public healthcare, affordable, quality medical treatment for everyone as long as it retains the WhiteHouse, because THAT WAS THE DEAL THAT OBAMA MADE.
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama went AWOL publicly on healthcare reform, saying, "Oh, that's Congress's job", all the while he was undercutting the congressional committees writing legislation, cutting secret deals with phRma, the AMA and hospitals.
All of last summer, as teabaggers brought gvns to the Town Halls, & members of Congress were canceling Town Halls, did Obama take charge, send out federal marshals to protect the democratic process? Did Obama hit the air waves, saying, "There will be gathering in the public square to do what we do in America: Debate and discuss the issues facing us!"?
No.
What Obama did instead during the same time period was unleash federal security forces to Pittsburgh to break up peaceful protests of the G20 meeting, test out the new weaponry to use on the growing disquieted masses - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2009/sep/25/sonic-cannon-g20-pittsburgh
KEEP READING
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
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 Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
First, Democrats never had 60 seats. There were at most 58 democrats plus 2 independents.
=========================================
Democratic Caucus.
60 in the Democratic Caucus.
'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 by caucusing with the majority party. If you want to keep that committee chair, you do as the leaders of the party tell you to do.
Democrats like to hide this from the people, the 'hierarchy of party control and power', & 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 -- 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 (& those caucusing with you) together, and if Obama really wanted to, it would have happened.
KEEP READING
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
NOBODY can scr.ew this country more than BushCheney & past republican presidents, with their lies, getting us into two unfunded wars.
==========================================
Try thinking of Democrats & Republicans as working on the same side, as 'tag relay teams' (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. One side (Republicans) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, & when WeThePeople have had enough, we put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.
Once in power, Democrats consolidate Republicans' gains from previous years, & continue on with Republican policies, only renamed, with new advertising campaigns. They throw us a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what we thought they were.
Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigans & all the different ways we've been tricked & start seeing Democrats as no different than Republicans, Democrats switch strategies, inventing new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business. The latest, because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc., is custom-tailored to Obama's 'bipartisan cooperation' demeanor. It's 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, & that's "a good thing".
There's plenty of evidence of Obama's not being any better than BushCheney ("a president has the right to k!II American citizens with absolutely no due process, no oversight"?), but the real question is how is his government's ineffectiveness working for you, for us?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I suggest that you consider Democrats & Republicans as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. One side (Republicans) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, & when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.
Once in power, Democrats 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 what WeThePeople thought they were.
Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigans & all 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. It's 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, & that's "a good thing".
Whichever of us is right (& I can back up my contentions with much evidence of Obama's not being any more ethical than BushCheney, beginning with his assertion that the president has the right to k!II American citizens with absolutely no due process, no oversight), how is his government's ineffectiveness working for you, for us?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
When DLC-Democrats don't want something that their supporters want, they make up the most amazing excuses to try to convince their supporters that "We really would like to do that, but our hands are tied by rules."
The latest l!e has been that rule 22 can only be changed at the beginning of a new Congress. It's really outrageous the BS they tell constituents.
It can be done at any time (see page 6 - http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45448.pdf ).
Come November, if Republicans take control the Senate, Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party will tell supporters, "Aren't you glad we didn't end the filibuster?"
And we'll be in for yet another cycle of gridlock which benefits transnational corporations at the expense of people. They'll keep doing it, finding one way after another to deliver to their real constituents (corporations), for as long as they can.
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
When DLC-Democrats don't want something that their supporters want, they make up the most amazing excuses to try to convince their supporters that "We really would like to do that, but our hands are tied by rules."
The latest l!e has been that rule 22 can only be changed at the beginning of a new Congress. It's really outrageous the BS they tell constituents.
It can be done at any time (see page 6 - http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45448.pdf ).
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
By the way, I'm talking about a president who was a popular leader, who came into the WhiteHouse with more Americans having voted for him & his campaign of CHANGE than had ever voted before in the history of the country. FOR A BLACK MAN IN R@CIST AMERICA. Go figure.
That's PLATINUM political capital, & Obama came into office with a huge amount. So much that 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.
He blocked all investigations and prosecutions into the Bush administration. Instead of going after Republican leadership in Congress (who made it abundantly clear they had no intention of working on a bipartisan basis with Democrats or Obama), Obama & Rahm Emanuel went after Rush Limbaugh & Sarah Palin, 2 people with no positions in the RepublicanParty.
Throughout the summer debate over healthcare reform, Obama disappeared from the public debate, which was especially onerous during the summer town halls when teabaggers came into prominence & disrupted any real discussion. Obama cut secret deals with Big Insurance, PhRma, hospitals, the AMA, etc., & lied about it.
Obama elevated the TeaParty to prominence, and for specific reasons: To water down legislation, make it Republican-like & deliver to the corporations, & to move the DemocraticParty even farther to the right in order to attract moderate Republican politicians & their
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
60 in the Democratic Caucus.
'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', & 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 -- 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.
KEEP READING
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Barack Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton. He convinced centrists that he was a centrist. He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist.
First and foremost, Obama is a lawyer, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word, choosing his words very carefully (lawyer-speak) during the campaign, giving people the sense of what they wanted to hear to get their vote. It's why even among his most ardent admirers, they still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican.
Doing what is good for transnational corporations is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican, "What's good for GM is good for America."
He did a job on everybody.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
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 WhiteHouse.
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, & vote no on everything, in lockstep.
Since Obama's 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
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Democratic voters, for the most part, still haven't finished their love affair with Bill Clinton.
Like the real debate & assessment of Reagan that's never happened, we've never assessed Clinton's true legacy. Eliminating the social welfare safety nets, Glass-Steagle, the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, rendition, privatization, the sanctions & daily bombing of Iraq (& so much more) laid the foundation for what Bush-Cheney did to decimate the country. As Alan Greenspan said, "Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while."
The same is so for Obama. More so.
I keep hearing the latest DLC pitch for not throwing Democratic incumbents out of office on November 2nd: "Do you want to return to the failed policies of Bush-Cheney & Republicans?"
When did we ever leave them?
Obama-Biden have been continuing just about all of the Bush-Cheney policies, and the DLC-controlled Congress has been watering down real Democratic legislation, turning it into Republican-legislation.
Republicans love it -- They don't have to vote for it, which satisfies their base's need for knee-jerk tribal warfare between the 2 political parties (how many times have you heard Republican tr0IIs declare that a bill "must be bad if Democrats are for it"?), AND, it satisfies their & Democrats' shared Corporate Masters. They get amply rewarded with great big donations to their reelection campaigns.
What Obama's been doing should be shocking to all real Democratic voters.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Sitting presidents do not get involved in the primary contests between members of their own party.
Whenever the choice has been between real Democrats and DINOs, Obama has consistently worked to get the DINO into office, & gone beyond the past protocol to do so.
Obama's defenders say that the times & the stakes dictate he do that to make deals. The fact is that the deals Obama's made are lousy deals. Either he's a bad deal-maker, or the deals he's made (pro-corporate, anti-populist) are exactly what he set out to do.
That's the real key to understanding DLC Democrats & how they operate. They need us to believe that they're not corrupt, not working for Corporations, but are just merely inept. They also need to remain likable, & have us believe that they're not so inept that we won't keep voting for them. Even then, should we decide that as likable as an individual DLCer is, he's just not capable of achieving our shared objectives & vote him out, the DLC has more in the pipeline to take their place & continue the "ineptitude".
That's how we got Obama; he flew under the radar. We thought we were getting rid of the DLC's frontrunner, Hillary.
KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Just tonight, Obama's DoJ has appealed the DOMA rulings:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10101303.html
Contrary to what Obama's 'most ardent supporters' excuse, the DoJ has no obligation to file a brief in favor of DOMA ( http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/choice-to-defend-doma-and-its.html ).
Not only doesn't the DoJ have any obligation to appeal, to challenge DOMA with legal arguments that, if pursued by the courts, could greatly damage gay and lesbian rights (that homosexuality is the equivalent of incest and pedophilia/child rape), it really shreds Obama's credibility about supporting the end of DOMA. Because if he really did support the end of DOMA, then he's supporting what he believes to be the equivalent of incest and pedophila/child rape.
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? 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). 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
As a liberal Democrat, I don't know how any self-respecting Democrat can defend Obama.
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
So why isn't Obama and Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi for that matter, playing hardball with Republicans? Why are Democrats watering down any legislation, making it Republican-like to get Republicans on board who aren't interested in getting on board (and then passing it through reconciliation)?
Why isn't Obama and the Congress of the United States empowering Republicans, letting Bush & Cheney go uninvestigated and unprosecuted?
Pelosi has gall to blame upcoming losses in the Congress on the left -- It's her own and the rest of Democratic politicians' fault for failing to achieve the objectives of their constituents.
About Nancy Pelosi
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Pelosi to Progressives, Pundits: Don't Blame Us For Senate's Shortcomings
=====================================================
It has less to do with the Senate, in particular, and all Democrats, in general. Starting at the top, and trickling down on all. What a bitter disappointment Obama and all Democratic politicians have turned out to be.
Here's a sampling from just the last couple of days:
In an interview two days ago with WashingtonPost's Jonathan Capeheart, Valerie Jarrett, senior aide to Obama, says about Minnesota gay teen Justin Aarberg, who committed suicide in July after being bullied, that he made a "lifestyle choice." It's at around 4:15 on the video:
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2010/10/whs-jarrett-dead-gay-bully-victim-made.html
Rachel Maddow is starting to get it; that Obama's got no plan or plans to end DADT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wakRmwaphik
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
And on the DOMA front:
The Obama Justice Department on Tuesday filed a terse notice to a federal appeals court in Boston that it is appealing a U.S. district judge’s ruling striking down the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10101303.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Rachel Maddow is finally starting to get it; Obama's got no plan or plans to end DADT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wakRmwaphik
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
In an interview two days ago with Washington Post's Jonathan Capeheart, Valerie Jarrett, senior aide to Obama, saying about Minnesota gay teen Justin Aarberg, who committed suicide in July after being bullied, that he made a "lifestyle choice." It's at around 4:15 on the video:
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2010/10/whs-jarrett-dead-gay-bully-victim-made.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
If you didn't like the Republican Party of the last 35 years, the party of Reagan (forget just the past 8), you're going to h8 where Obama and the DLC are taking the 'new & improved' Democratic Party from which they hope "to govern for 100 years".
The course that Obama is charting is even farther to the right than what he and the DLC have already been doing.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Rachel Maddow is starting to get it; that Obama's got no plan or plans to end DADT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wakRmwaphik
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
