Spintested: 10/27/10

Obama's Interview With Progressive Bloggers (FULL TRANSCRIPT)

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

No, dearie, 'political capital' has nothing to do with what the media says.

It's the measure of a politician's power, and on the heels of an election, where more people voted for Obama than ever have voted for anyone in the history of the country, and by the margin of the win, that's heavy political capital.

Right after an election, too, the honeymoon period, is when the politician's power is the greatest, particularly a president's. Even those who didn't vote for him will bestow political capital on him, just because he's a winner.

The more a politician uses his political capital, and successfully, the greater the amount and the power he has. It must be spent to be useful, and will generally expire by the end of a politician's term in office.

In addition, it can be wasted, typically by failed attempts to promote unpopular policies that are not central to a politician's agenda.

Along with the president's popularity are those who ride on his "coattails", congressional representatives of the president's party that are elected alongside the president. This support in congress enables the president to better use his honeymoon period and political capital to pass his ideal legislation.

Obama wasted his political capital. OUR political capital. We gave it to him, and he squandered it, on nothing.

Do you really not know this? May I ask how old you are, and your highest level of education?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Interview With Progressive Bloggers (FULL TRANSCRIPT)

Obama came into office with a clear mandate and more political capital than any president in decades. The only thing stopping him & Democrats was Obama & his will. Or lack of will.

How about you explain what you want and expect changed. Tell me how Obama & the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress are going to accomplish it, and why (as many of you say as an excuse for Obama) you think it will take "generations"?

Go ahead, pick something. And I want details. I want you to lay out step-by-step what & how they're intending to change, what has to happen, who has to be brought on board, and the timetable.

Pretend, if you need to, that the federal government is New Orleans just after Hurricane Katrina, and General Russell Honore's brain has been transplanted into Obama's body.

Start.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama On 'Daily Show': Stewart Presses President To Defend 'Timid' Policies, Hiring Of Old D.C. Hands

Obama came into office with a clear mandate and more political capital than any president in decades. The only thing stopping him & Democrats was Obama & his will. Or lack of will.

How about you explain what you want and expect changed. Tell me how Obama & the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress are going to accomplish it, and why (as many of you say as an excuse for Obama) you think it will take "generations"?

Go ahead, pick something. And I want details. I want you to lay out step-by-step what & how they're intending to change, what has to happen, who has to be brought on board, and the timetable.

Pretend, if you need to, that the federal government is New Orleans just after Hurricane Katrina, and General Russell Honore's brain has been transplanted into Obama's body.

Start.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama On 'Daily Show': Stewart Presses President To Defend 'Timid' Policies, Hiring Of Old D.C. Hands

And how do Obama's' 'most ardent supporters' defend his refusal to endorse the Democratic candidate for governor in Rhode Island, because Obama "doesn't want to offend" the Independent candidate, Lincoln Chaffee?

In Washington, one effect of that is risking Patrick Kennedy's seat going 'R' (Kennedy is leaving the House, not running for reelection).”
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama On 'Daily Show': Stewart Presses President To Defend 'Timid' Policies, Hiring Of Old D.C. Hands

Obama, RahmEmanuel, the DLC, DavidAxelrod, DavidPlouffe, all have worked their butts 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 18 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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama On 'Daily Show': Stewart Presses President To Defend 'Timid' Policies, Hiring Of Old D.C. Hands

I've asked Obama's 'most ardent supporters' a dozen different ways & they all keep dodging answering these questions. It looks like they all keep dodging even THINKING about these questions:

How do you think a win by Democrats next week will be interpretted by Obama, Democrats & the media? What do you think they will think they have a mandate to do?

Criticism & failing numbers in the polls have done nothing to persuade this president or this Congress to move to the left. What makes you think they're going to do in the next 2 years with less of a majority that they refused to do with a filibuster-proof senate?

Obama & Democratic leadership in Congress have already said that even with a Democratic victory in November, they're caving more to the right.

We've been doing it your way (the DLC's way) for 20 years now, & the government & the Democratic Party keeps moving farther to the right. If you & I are on the same side (as you insist) and want real Democratic policies, & going about getting them your way (protecting Obama, reelecting DLC Democrats) is getting Republican policies & NOT Democratic policies, when do you realize that maybe you don't know what you're talking about?

When do you realize that you've become that classic definition for 'insanity' ("Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-new-york-times_n_760774.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama On 'Daily Show': Stewart Presses President To Defend 'Timid' Policies, Hiring Of Old D.C. Hands

And then this:

Obama got Lieberman to provide him with cover after the court ordered his DoD to release the torture & abuse photos of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan (the ones that Obama had pledged during the 2008 campaign to release them and then flip-flopped after he got into the White House):

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/13/evening-buzz-prisoner-photo-flip-flop/

With Obama's pledge for transparency ripped to shreds with his reneging on releasing the thousands of t0rture & abuse photos of detainees, Obama used Lieberman to slip into legislation giving the SecretaryOfDefense the power to gut FOIA & bury the evidence, the photos, 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 Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama On 'Daily Show': Stewart Presses President To Defend 'Timid' Policies, Hiring Of Old D.C. Hands

Your little site here is filled with false information.

Like this one:

Obama Unveils New FOIA Act.

What it neglects to include is "Then Obama Gutted It".

AP review: Use of FOIA exemptions rose in 2009

By The Associated Press

03.16.10

WASHINGTON — Federal agencies haven’t lived up to President Barack Obama’s promise of a more open government, increasing their use of legal exemptions to keep records secret during his first year in office.

An Associated Press review of Freedom of Information Act reports filed by 17 major agencies found that the use of nearly every one of the law’s nine exemptions to withhold information from the public rose in fiscal year 2009, which ended last October.

Among the most frequently used exemptions: one that lets the government hide records that detail its internal decision-making.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=22720

That and more on Obama administration's lack of transparency-

http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/category/resources/federal-foia/

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama On Daily Show: Change 'Not Going To Happen Overnight'

Oh, toots, I've seen your little website. It's amusing, and as deceptive as the man himself. And you, too, apparently.

Before you imply someone is a rightwinger, do some research. I'm an old liberal Democrat, and I don't watch Fox.

For example:

"Ordered $20 billion escrow fund by BP to reimburse lost incomes in Gulf."

Obama didn't "order" chit.

Obama did what Obama's done several times now -- Negotiated very bad deals for the American people, without any TEETH!

For example, that deal isn't worth the paper it's written on. Oh wait: IT'S NOT WRITTEN ON ANY PAPER!

It's taken months to get BP to give the first installment ($3 billion), and it's short. It's also non-securitized deal.

AND, BP is blackmailing the Obama administration, saying that unless it's allowed to continue risky, dangerous offshore drilling in sensitive waters (like where we rely on 40% of our seafood), BP won't pay another dime.

Would you like more?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama On Daily Show: Change 'Not Going To Happen Overnight'

And how do Obama's' 'most ardent supporters' defend his refusal to endorse the Democratic candidate for governor in Rhode Island, because Obama "doesn't want to offend" the Independent candidate, Lincoln Chaffee?

In Washington, one effect of that is risking Patrick Kennedy's seat going 'R' (Kennedy is leaving the House, not running for reelection).
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama On Daily Show: Change 'Not Going To Happen Overnight'

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 18 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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama On Daily Show: Change 'Not Going To Happen Overnight'

Obama's expanded the wars beyond Afghanistan & Iraq, into Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, & increased military spending. The American taxpayer is going to be footing the bill for much of the clean-up of the BP oil blowout, as well as other unforeseen & unknowable disasters coming our way. We're going into a double-dip recession (it's a DEPRESSION). We can't get this president to do for the People what he's doing for the Corporations, & you think ObamaCare is "a start" towards public healthcare, aka affordable quality medical treatment for all?

Obama's got a 'Deficit Commission' going that'll deliver that bad news on behalf of Plutocrat Obama. Because Obama, corporate t00I that he is, will sooner cut SocialSecurity & all social programs, than take a dime away from the Corporate Welfare going to his Corporate Masters.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama On Daily Show: Change 'Not Going To Happen Overnight'

Obama & the DLCers schemed to get a corporate welfare program disguised as healthcare reform past the People & into the law of the land.

The healthcare legislation's about forcing Americans to purchase 'junk insurance'. It does nothing to reign in the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. It's not healthcare for all. None of the loopholes discovered (surprise!) a day after its passage have been closed (it doesn't cover all children, it doesn't keep all under 26-year-olds on their parents' insurance, etc.).

With the deal that Obama made with phRma, hospitals & the AMA & BigInsurance, there can be no PublicOption as long as Obama's in the WhiteHouse. The only "start" about it is that it's the beginning of the end of all public healthcare programs (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, CHAMPUS, veterans' care, etc.).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgKLMhk2m1Y

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Interview With Progressive Bloggers (FULL TRANSCRIPT)

AP review: Use of FOIA exemptions rose in 2009

By The Associated Press

03.16.10

WASHINGTON — Federal agencies haven’t lived up to President Barack Obama’s promise of a more open government, increasing their use of legal exemptions to keep records secret during his first year in office.

An Associated Press review of Freedom of Information Act reports filed by 17 major agencies found that the use of nearly every one of the law’s nine exemptions to withhold information from the public rose in fiscal year 2009, which ended last October.

Among the most frequently used exemptions: one that lets the government hide records that detail its internal decision-making.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=22720

That and more on Obama administration's lack of transparency- http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/category/resources/federal-foia/
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Interview With Progressive Bloggers (FULL TRANSCRIPT)

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/
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Interview With Progressive Bloggers (FULL TRANSCRIPT)

You are not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republicans. There are other alternatives besides sitting out the election or voting for Republicans. There are other candidates running as independents, from Green to Libertarian, in just about every race.

Anyone who tells Democratic voters to be quiet, not criticize Obama and Democrats, that you must vote for Democrats because they're "the lesser of 2 ev!ls", should be shouted down, told to cram it, because they're trying to deny voters holding their elected representatives' feet to the fire, to live up to their campaign promises.

Right now, this very period, the weeks leading up to an election (voting's already begun and it may be too late) is the most important, the ONLY time really, when voters have any clout. This is it for making our deals with the candidates. Citizens have little enough of a Constituti onally-gua ranteed 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. Our elections every two years is a window period, a time to re-up or opt-in/opt-out.

Vote incumbents out who've failed to achieve on their campaign pledges. For whatever reason, they're not capable of achieving what they claim to be their own and their constituents' shared objectives. Vote against them now or forever (in another 2 years) hold your peace.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Interview With Progressive Bloggers (FULL TRANSCRIPT)

You bring the entire party machinery down on Blue Dogs' heads. If it's not Obama who would make an impact on Nelson, it's someone else.

As we saw, Nelson was not above being bought off.

If Obama had wanted a REAL healthcare reform bill to pass and not that great big corporate welfare bill that does NOT get affordable, quality medical treatment to everyone.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Interview With Progressive Bloggers (FULL TRANSCRIPT)

Did Jon Amato really ask this question?:

Q Thanks for having us here, Mr. President. Just to start off, because the news of the day is obviously what just happened in Kentucky. What's your feelings on the thought of a Rand Paul supporter actually stepping on the neck of a female MoveOn supporter?

What a waste of an opportunity, Amato.

W-T-F was he thinking?

What did he expect Obama to say? "I loved it, Jon; I'd have knee-capped her!"
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Most Senators Are Millionaires -- And Getting Richer

Because he's ineffective. He should be kicked out.

Nice guy, but can't deliver. Not a leader. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. That's something you know something about, billy.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Most Senators Are Millionaires -- And Getting Richer

I am an old FDR liberal Democrat.

I'm against privatization of government, and for regulated capitalism (like Naomi Klein, I'm for a mixed economy). I'm for social safety nets; those we have, those we've had, and others which we would have had had it not been for the Reagan "revolution", and which would have come in handy during tough times like this, and which might have prevented this meltdown from happening at all. Most of all, I'm for education. Free to all, all the way.

I am one of the 70% of liberals that comprise the Democratic voters.

The DLC (pro-corporate, anti-populist, the Republican wing of the Democratic Party), through no acclaimation of the People or Democratic voters, controls the Democratic Party. The DLC, DINOs, are ideologically the moderate Republicans of the 1950s & 1960s. It's a t00l of the corporations, just like Republicans.

Most Democratic voters have no idea what the DLC is or who is in it.

Obama isn't a centrist; he's a neoliberal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism ). As the president, he heads the national Democratic Party, i.e., he's the defacto head of the DLC. He's a DINO. Obama & Democrats are NOT doing what Democratic voters put Obama & Democrats into power to achieve on their behalf, i.e., undo 30+ years of Republican programming.

I don't give a chit what you, someone who is mindlessly following a DINO off the edge of a cliff, thinks.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Most Senators Are Millionaires -- And Getting Richer

Do you know what the DLC is, and who is in it?

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

That's who you're defending, protecting.

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReagan, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism, & 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 & more Americans with college degrees than any other nation, 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, outmaneuvered & outgvnned by dirty tricks campaigns & election fraud.

If the DLC is on the side of the angels, on the side of the People, does what the DLC did & is doing make any kind of sense to you, when most Americans, when informed. agree with liberal policies?

There isn't a great deal of space to discuss this here, but let's try.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Most Senators Are Millionaires -- And Getting Richer

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. And if you frame it as, "You like to k!ll babies?!?!?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritarian intimidation are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Most Senators Are Millionaires -- And Getting Richer

I'm am not a progressive; I'm a liberal. Get it straight.

I've been voting the lesser of two ev!ls (DLC Democrats) since the DLC took over the DemocraticParty in the late 1980s.

I have watched the DLC take the DemocraticParty farther to the right each election cycle, promising change & 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 & 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 & how the People have prospered under liberal Democrats.

Currently, this DINO of a president has continued just about all of the Bush-Cheney policies & 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 without due process or oversight? And 'preventive detention'? And Obama's claims of 'state secrets' to deny courts even look at his a$$a$$ination program?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sharron Angle: I'll Start Talking To The Press After I'm Elected

Obama's already broadcast what he & Democrats are going to do if Democrats remain in the majority -- More caving by Obama & Democrats to Republicans:

==According to excerpts from the Times, aides say that the president's been spending "a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0," brainstorming with administration officials about the best way to revamp the strategies & goals of the WhiteHouse.

And despite the predictions that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislating power, including perhaps control of the House & even Senate, Obama isn't thinking of the next two years as a period that'll be marked with the same obstructive nature from the GOP.

"It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republicans] feel more responsible, either because they didn't do as well as they anticipated, & so the strategy of just saying no to everything & sitting on the sidelines & throwing bombs didn't work for them," Obama says in the article. "Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals & work with me in a serious way."

DickDurbin says Obama's post-election agenda "will have to be limited & focused on the things that are achievable & high priorities for the American people." TomDaschle says Obama has to reach out more: "The key word is inclusion. He's got to find ways to be inclusive."==

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-new-york-times_n_760774.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Most Senators Are Millionaires -- And Getting Richer

And how do Obama's' 'most ardent supporters' defend his refusal to endorse the Democratic candidate for governor in Rhode Island, because Obama "doesn't want to offend" the Independent candidate, Lincoln Chaffee?

In Washington, one effect of that is risking Patrick Kennedy's seat going 'R' (Kennedy is leaving the House, not running for reelection).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Most Senators Are Millionaires -- And Getting Richer

Vote them ALL out.

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 21 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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sharron Angle: I'll Start Talking To The Press After I'm Elected

the old idea of who is "likely" in a mid-term is totally outdated now.

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

Maybe, maybe not.

No poll can be taken as gospel, not even after the election, because all polls are a snapshot of that precise moment in time when the poll was taken.

Up until very recent modern history, polls weren't meant for or put in the media for public consumption. They are tools for use by political strategists. That was until the 1980s, when somebody got the bright idea to use them to influence the outcome of elections (Who could that have been?).

Tuesday is the only poll that matters, and even that one can't be counted on for accuracy anymore. It'll only tell us who the legal winners are, and not necessarily voters cast their ballots for.
About Sharron Angle
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sharron Angle: I'll Start Talking To The Press After I'm Elected

Not Harry Reid?

Not DLC-Democrats?

Not the partner of the GOP in pro-corporatizing the US, the DLC-controlled Democratic Party?

For playing nice with Republicans who were on the mat, on life support, before Obama issued them a pardon, and blocked all investigations and prosecutions into Bush-Cheney and Republicans?

Not Harry Reid for letting Republicans merely threaten to filibuster instead of forcing them to actually do it, to stand up and speak non-stop, as Senate Rule 22 gives the Senate Majority Leader the discretion to do?

But Sarah Palin?
About Sharron Angle
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sharron Angle: I'll Start Talking To The Press After I'm Elected

CNN - Time have it:

Angle: 49%

Reid: 45%

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/10/27/topstate8.pdf
About Sharron Angle
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sharron Angle: I'll Start Talking To The Press After I'm Elected

Obama's already broadcast what he & Democrats are going to do if Democrats remain in the majority -- More caving by Obama & Democrats to Republicans:

==According to excerpts from the Times, aides say that the president's been spending "a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0," brainstorming with administration officials about the best way to revamp the strategies & goals of the WhiteHouse.

And despite the predictions that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislating power, including perhaps control of the House & even Senate, Obama isn't thinking of the next two years as a period that'll be marked with the same obstructive nature from the GOP.

"It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republicans] feel more responsible, either because they didn't do as well as they anticipated, & so the strategy of just saying no to everything & sitting on the sidelines & throwing bombs didn't work for them," Obama says in the article. "Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals & work with me in a serious way."

DickDurbin says Obama's post-election agenda "will have to be limited & focused on the things that are achievable & high priorities for the American people." TomDaschle says Obama has to reach out more: "The keyword is inclusion. He's got to find ways to be inclusive."==

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-new-york-times_n_760774.html
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sharron Angle: I'll Start Talking To The Press After I'm Elected

With all due respect, "settling down and watching the circus show in DC" is the last thing you should be doing.

"Settling down and watching the circus show in DC" is what got us into this mess.
About Sharron Angle
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sharron Angle: I'll Start Talking To The Press After I'm Elected

And BTW, some years aren't incumbent-friendly years and this is one of them.

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

You think there's something in the stars, just a coincidence, no rhyme or reason for that?

Why would it be a different matter "if she wasn't a joke candidate or a person of substance or intelligence"? She'd be more formidable, not less, and harder to beat.

You're blaming the wrong people.

Start asking why Nevadans would turn to a Sharron Angle if Harry Reid and the DLC-Democrats were "substantial", and satisfying their needs.
About Sharron Angle
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sharron Angle: I'll Start Talking To The Press After I'm Elected

Hellooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Earth to taddles:

"when Jim Bunning threatened to filibuster"

You need to learn to read. How old are you?

You see that filibusters work now is that Harry Reid will confer with Mitch McConnell, tell him what McConnell what he's going to bring to the floor for a vote, and McConnell says, "No, we're filibustering that", and Harry Reid says, "Ok, I won't schedule it."

There are all kinds of variations, but that's the gist, dearie.

Rule 22 gives the Senate Majority Leader the discretion to do this.
About Sharron Angle
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sharron Angle: I'll Start Talking To The Press After I'm Elected

I agree. Obama and Democratic leadership has already said as much:

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/2010/10/13/obama-new-york-times_n_760774

So the anger being expressed at Angle should be directed at Obama & Harry Reid. If Nevadans were getting what they wanted and needed from Harry Reid and the DLC-controlled Congress, Angle never would have gotten the GOP nomination.
About Sharron Angle
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sharron Angle: I'll Start Talking To The Press After I'm Elected

Obviously they haven't gotten what they want or need with Harry representing them.

You're talking to the wrong side. You need to talk to Harry Reid and Obama, and tell them to start doing the People's business, instead of the corporations'.
About Sharron Angle
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sharron Angle: I'll Start Talking To The Press After I'm Elected

Why is anybody p!ssed off at her? She is what she is.

Why aren't you p!ssed off at what's causing Nevadans to turn to her? They don't like Harry Reid. What is Harry Reid doing to them? What aren't they hearing from Harry Reid?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sharron Angle: I'll Start Talking To The Press After I'm Elected

Maybe Harry Reid should have forced Republicans to actually filibuster instead of merely threatening to?

Rule 22 gave him the discretion, and he refused, and took Mitch McConnell's word for it.

Except that one time when Democrats really needed to be seen as fighting for the People, when Jim Bunning threatened to filibuster extending unemployment payments, and Harry Reid forced him to actually stand up and speak non-stop. Bunning and the GOP caved. Filibustering is hard on those soft pampered bodies.

If she wins, it's just 2 years. Start looking for a REAL Democrat, a populist, a liberal, with 'fire-in-the-belly' to knock her out.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New MoveOn Ad Warns Of Bleak, Dystopic Corporate Future If Republicans Win In 2010 (VIDEO)

The current Democrats in power aren't going to do chit for the People. The current Democrats in power are either corrupt and working to sabotage you (and that goes straight to the top, into the White House, the buck stops at Obama), or feckless and ineffective, worthless. Do you really want to keep them in place because they're nice guys?

You're not going to get CHANGE until you CHANGE yourself, and start playing hardball for your own best interests.

Maybe you need to hurt some more, lose your home, sleep out of your car, or in the street, go from church soup kitchen to dumpsters for meals.

I don't know what it's going to take, but you don't have much time left to turn things around.
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Assails GOP On Clouded Final Campaign Push

I agree with you.

The dilemma before us, though, is where to wage the battle; each of us individually and all of us as a whole.

It serves the Haves, "them" (the robber barons, opportunists, bankers) to have "us" fighting among ourselves. That's how they've always managed to keep us disorganized and at bay. (There's a great book on the subject, published 40 years ago, out-of-print but available used, the title of which I can't get past the f!lter here, or the amazon link to it -- Search amazon for books by Jerry Farber -- It's the top entry)

But the Haves have further innoculated themselves by managing to have us choose leaders who actually work on behalf of the Haves. Ain't that a kick in the head? So one of the fronts where I focus my efforts is exposing that fact to the more simple-minded and trusting among us.

Take a look at this thread and tell me what you think:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/MARYHOBE/moveon-ad-dystopic-republicorp-2010_n_773689_65164807.html

What I describe in there is very old technique known to power-brokers and power-busters. It's not generally known to ordinary People, unless they've learned it the hard way, been on the receiving end of some battle with power (everything from class action or even ordinary civil lawsuits, to unions and contract negotiations and strikes).

"Pragmatism is the hobgoblin of cowardly minds." -Anonymous
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Kaine, Axelrod Lash Out At McConnell For Abandoning Post-Election Bipartisanship Before Election

These aren't "my" projections, or projections at all: This is what Obama and the Democratic leadership has announced that they'll be doing! And not if Republicans win control of the Congress, but IF DEMOCRATS REMAIN IN CONTROL!

Obama & the DLC-controlled Congress are setting it up to move the Democratic Party even farther to the right-of-center than they've already moved the party. They're laying the foundation for their post-election declaration of what the mandate of the election was.

Is that what you're voting for when you vote for Democratic candidates?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New MoveOn Ad Warns Of Bleak, Dystopic Corporate Future If Republicans Win In 2010 (VIDEO)

One example of the folly of 'pragmatists' & their ig.no.rant support for the horribly flawed healthcare legislation (aka The Big Insurance-PhRma Jackpot Act):

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli/richard-trumka-afl-cio-ch_n_503323_42473911.html

Again: Cut & paste the links above -- Make sure you take the space out between the 'huf' and the 'fingtonpost -- I had to put the space in because the f!lter scrubs the post.
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New MoveOn Ad Warns Of Bleak, Dystopic Corporate Future If Republicans Win In 2010 (VIDEO)

As no discussion on the internet is complete without the mention of H!tIer or N@z!s, I think you should read this. I wrote it a long while back, about the lessons of the past benefitting us, how they're the only things to save us, but first we must learn them:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli/richard-trumka-afl-cio-ch_n_503323_42475312.html

Again, Cut & paste the links above -- Make sure you take the space out between the 'huf' and the 'fingtonpost -- I had to put the space in because the f!lter scrubs the post.

KEEP READING
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New MoveOn Ad Warns Of Bleak, Dystopic Corporate Future If Republicans Win In 2010 (VIDEO)

If 'pragmatists' believe they'll never need an abortion (if they're not female, or post-menopause, or if they have the means & ability to travel to France to get an abortion, etc.), then assaults on a woman's right to choose aren't 'deal-breakers'.

If 'pragmatists' are employed, if they don't own a home (or if they do own a home & able to make mortgage payments), if they have healthcare insurance through their work, if they're young & living in their parents' garage, if they haven't had any significant health problems, if their parents/grandparents are dead, if their parents/grandparents are alive & supporting them (or not supporting them, & able to support themselves), etc., IT'S NOT THEIR PROBLEM.

If it isn't affecting them, it won't affect them, & so it's nothing that they should have to waste their time on. Or in their 'bottom line'.

There's nothing "pragmatic" about these people. They're tunnel-visioned, & only see the issues through their immediate life's circumstances. Some might say that they're in denial. Others might say they're selfish, "narcissistically-inclined". Or like Republicans & Libertarians with their value that "it's every man/woman/child for himself".

But it's certainly not a Democratic value.

Until you recognize that what you're calling 'pragmatism' is the problem that prevents solutions for our working together & coming to agreements that serve to benefit all of us, any "solution" I offer you is going to be met with out-of-hand dismissive arguments & derision.

KEEP READING
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New MoveOn Ad Warns Of Bleak, Dystopic Corporate Future If Republicans Win In 2010 (VIDEO)

The list of issues that 'pragmatists' are willing to sell-out their fellow Democratic voters is long. If they're not gay, repealing DOMA and DADT doesn't affect them (so they believe), so they tell those whose lives are being devastated by those laws, "Relaaaaaaax, it's no big deal. Obama will get around to it (sometime in the next 8 years)." And if he doesn't, if it's 2016, nothing substantive has changed either legislatively or culturally (hom0phob!a still rampant, bullying continues, etc.), will 'pragmatists' still be saying about the Democratic Party's candidate, "He's with gays on these issues, and once in office he'll end discriminatory laws & practices, but he can't say or do anything now during the campaign or he risks losing the mushy middle or Republican crossovers who don't support it", as Obama's FISA vote in July 2008 was peddled to the Democratic base?

KEEP READING
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New MoveOn Ad Warns Of Bleak, Dystopic Corporate Future If Republicans Win In 2010 (VIDEO)

The best recent examples of the Obama Administration's use of the 'pragmatic' argument were Jonathan Alter & David Axelrod during the months that Obama & the DLCers schemed to get a corporate welfare program disguised as healthcare reform past the People and into the law of the land.

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli/health-care-the-final-wee_n_499318_42281151.html

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli/inewsweekis-alter-accuses_n_264374_29464605.html

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli/ed-schultz-takes-jonathan_n_385040_35963802.html

http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/2009/08/01/jonathan-alter-our-heathc_n_249280.html

Cut & paste the links above -- Make sure you take the space out between the 'huf' and the 'fingtonpost -- I had to put the space in because the f!lter scrubs the post.

KEEP READING
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New MoveOn Ad Warns Of Bleak, Dystopic Corporate Future If Republicans Win In 2010 (VIDEO)

The best recent examples of the Obama Administration's use of the 'pragmatic' argument were Jonathan Alter & David Axelrod during the months that Obama & the DLCers schemed to get a corporate welfare program disguised as healthcare reform past the People and into the law of the land.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli/health-care-the-final-wee_n_499318_42281151.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli/inewsweekis-alter-accuses_n_264374_29464605.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Marcospinelli/ed-schultz-takes-jonathan_n_385040_35963802.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/01/jonathan-alter-our-heathc_n_249280.html

KEEP READING
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New MoveOn Ad Warns Of Bleak, Dystopic Corporate Future If Republicans Win In 2010 (VIDEO)

Before we get to the solution (and there's not just one solution, but several), the real problems preventing solutions have to be identified and discussed [WARNING: Limited space/time/my patience also limits my diplomatic abilities]:

#1 problem - "I am, at heart, a pragmatist!"

We hear that a lot from Obama's 'most ardent supporters'. That they're only being "pragmatic" (or "reasonable", or "realistic", or "adult", or some other characterization which is intended to elbow the greater majority of Democrats' positions and issues off the table & out of consideration), when the truth is that their "pragmatism" is the hobgoblin of a cowardly, selfish, lazy/ig.no.rant mind.

'Pragmatists' have no dog in the hunt for the issues of their fellow Democrats or have been bought off (they've had their demands on the issues met, or mistakenly think so because of their faulty understanding of the legislation); 'pragmatists', once bought off, are perfectly content to throw everyone else under the bus.

'Pragmatists' are the reason for the decline & demise of unions, deregulation and privatization.

KEEP READING
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bill Richardson Reportedly Barred From Bill Clinton Event

According to Bill Richardson, he never made any such assurance to Bill Clinton. Richardson said that he felt badly pressured by the Clintons. According to Richardson, Bill Clinton invited himself over to Richardson's home on Superbowl Sunday to watch the game with him and put the screws to him about endorsing Hillary. You can hear him for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiQHjv3tMTw
About Hillary Clinton
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New PPP Polls Favor Joe Manchin, Show Michael Bennet Closing

Obama's healthcare 'reform' legislation (which does not do what voters put Obama and Democrats into power to get for them, namely affordable quality medical treatment for everyone) is Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (which was a $700 billion + giveaway to Big Insurance & PhRma). Obama's legislation is Part 2. It doesn't get affordable quality medical treatment for all, in fact, it's a giant leap toward ending all public healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, CHAMPUS, veterans care, etc.).

Having insurance (which is all that Obama's legislation does, and not even for everyone, just for a few million more) doesn't mean getting necessary medical care or that you will be able to afford medical care.

Think about that for a minute, because I do understand how, after hours/days/months of spin by professional spinmeisters (politicians), you might not appreciate the distinction.

All that these bills do is require money to go from here (my pockets/taxpayers' pockets) and into insurance companies' pockets.

There is NO LIMITATION on insurance companies' charging and increasing co-pays and deductibles and eliminating services.

There is NO REQUIREMENT for insurance companies to have to provide services not paid for.

More people will be put into Medicaid, which states (which are currently going bankrupt) are required to co-pay along with the federal government. States are eliminating Medicaid services as a result. "Yes, you will fall into Medicaid, but Medicaid doesn't treat chit."
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

White House Explains Why It Won't Discuss DADT Court Challenges At LGBT Meeting

You are not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republicans. There are other alternatives besides sitting out the election or voting for Republicans. There are other candidates running as independents, from Green to Libertarian, in just about every race.

Anyone who tells Democratic voters to be quiet, not criticize Obama and Democrats, that you must vote for Democrats because they're "the lesser of 2 ev!ls", should be shouted down, told to cram it, because they're trying to deny voters holding their elected representatives' feet to the fire, to live up to their campaign promises.

Right now, this very period, the weeks leading up to an election (voting's already begun and it may be too late) is the most important, the ONLY time really, when voters have any clout. This is it for making our deals with the candidates. Citizens have little enough of a Constituti onally-gua ranteed 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. Our elections every two years is a window period, a time to re-up or opt-in/opt-out.

Vote incumbents out who have failed to achieve on their campaign pledges. For whatever reason, they're not capable of achieving what they claim to be their own and their constituents' shared objectives. Vote against them now or forever (in another 2 years) hold your peace.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP