Spintested: 10/30/10

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Obama's already broadcast what he & Democrats are going to do if Democrats win, IF DEMOCRATS REMAIN 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
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

It's actually funny how Obama's 'most ardent supporters' believe that Republicans can get done with 41 seats in the Senate (stymie Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress, both Houses) what Democrats couldn't get done (stymie Bush as a minority party with a significantly greater number of seats than Republicans held from 2000-2006 than now, and later as the majority party of both Houses of Congress ever since).

In the election cycles from 2000 to today, Democrats had 51 senators, 49, 45, 51, and 60 in their caucus.

Democrats have everyone they need, to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. They've not only had all the t00ls needed to do what they were put into power to do, they had a clear undisputed mandate of the voters, which is something that Bush & Cheney didn't have. Yet it didn't stop Bush & Cheney from pulling out all of the stops to get their agenda through.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

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 SenateMajo rityLeader (HarryReid) the discretion to force Republicans to actually have to filibuster or merely threaten. Reid lets them merely threaten.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

Politifact has gamed its way of measuring Obama's "promise-keeping"; its categories ('NO ACTION', 'IN THE WORKS', 'STALLED' or 'NOT YET RATED) are misleading. Many a campaign promise or pledge (hundreds of them) has been generously placed in these categories to languish so that Politifact can cut Obama much slack by only recognizing 22 broken promises.

As Politifact claims, "Once we find action is completed, we rate them 'PROMISE KEPT' 'COMPROMISE' or 'PROMISE BROKEN'". By Politifact's own definition, it enables Obama to keep these issues in limbo for 4 years.

One of many examples of Politifact's gaming its list is that Politifact doesn't even list in its "Promises Broken" category Obama's campaign promise to impose 'Windfall Profits Taxes on the Oil & Gas Industry" - Obama immediately reneged on that promise once in office, saying, "The prices have now dropped - We'll see about doing that if or when they rise again." Oil hit over $80/barrel (the amount that, had Obama kept his promise, the windfall profits tax would have been triggered) months ago. Politifact has conveniently ignored this issue.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

Another duped by politifact.com

Between Ar!anna, me and others, Politifact has been discredited as a source for accurate, unbiased assessment. Politifact has gotten it wrong on Obama's "accomplishments', his promise-keeping, on Halliburton, on war contracting, on Nita Lowey, on the Stupak Amendment, on the healthcare legislation, and more:

PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter in Need of Tune-Up

PolitiFact Embraces Equivocation, the Truth Gets Squeezed

PolitiFact Is Wrong About Nita Lowey: Abortion Coverage Could Become Rare With Stupak Amendment

PolitiFact gets it wrong on Jones -

http://southdekalb.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/ajc-politifact-gets-it-wrong-on-jones/

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

Irrelevant, but how do you know that he didn't?

http://www.counterpunch.org/tnfraud.html

There's nothing funny about voter disenfranchisement and election fraud.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

ANY time is the time to vote for the candidates who represent your interests best.

The DLC does NOT represent the interests of the People. The DLC represents corporate interests.

And there is no time. In case you hadn't noticed, Citizens' United has escalated the plans for corporate takeover of the government, and neither Democrats or Republicans are going to do a thing to change that.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

No, they do NOT.

Presidents do NOT get involved in primaries. 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). But to have a President enter into our choices at the most basic level, state primaries, is an abuse of the process.

While Obama is the first president to do it, beginning with the deal he made with Arlen Specter.

You don't know what you're talking about.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

Not only is this about running another Democrat against Obama in the PRIMARY, electoral votes are decided by popular votes.

The candidate that gets the greatest number of popular votes in a state gets all of that state's electoral votes.

While Al Gore did not win the 2000 election, it wasn't because he didn't get more popular votes in Florida. Had all of the lawfully cast ballots been counted, Gore would have won. Gore got more votes in Florida. Any way it was counted (and the biggest point that people seem to forget were that close to 200,000 ballots were never tallied, never even examined, due to undervotes), Gore got more votes than Bush.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2006/jul/14 guardianweekly.guardianweekly1

That was a stolen election, and people should have gone to prison, starting with the governor and his secretary of state for spitting on a sacred trust.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

And Obama's assertion that the president can k!ll American citizens without any due process, no oversight.

The policies of Bush's that Obama isn't continuing, he's amped up to a level even Bush and Cheney never dared dream to try. On the issue of 'Unitary Executive' and presidential overreach, Obama is Bush on steroids.

How any Democrat defends that and still supports Obama is beyond me. In fact, they're no different than Bushies.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

You're not limited to voting for just Democrats & 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.

Last week Obama refused to endorse the (progressive) Democratic candidate for governor in Rhode Island, because Obama "doesn't want to offend" the Independent candidate, LincolnChaffee. One effect of that is the suppression of the Democratic turnout in Rhode Island, thus risking PatrickKennedy's seat going 'R' (Kennedy is leaving the House, not running for reelection).

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 BlancheLincoln.

The WhiteHouse put its full weight & support behind BlancheLincoln over the true progressive candidate in the primary, union-backed Lt. GovernorBillHalter.

This wasn't unlike when Obama made a deal with ArlenSpecter & put the full weight &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) JoeSestak. Consider that -- Obama actively went about trying to prevent Democratic voters from choosing their preferred candidate for the US so that a DINO, Republican ArlenSpecter, could retain the seat.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

Biggest fallacy you can make is assuming something to be true because "the people you know are still _____".

We tend to have friends who believe as we do, so our social circle isn't an accurate reflection of the population at large.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

The 2008 election was a head-to-head between liberals/progressives and the DLC (pro-corporate, DINOs). The problem was that the base thought that voting for Obama meant the end of the DLC (Clintons). No sooner did Obama win than he hired all of the Clintonites (DLC), & squeezed out Howard Dean (responsible for the 50-state strategy that won it for Obama) - More on Dean, who is NOT a liberal, later.

Obama stole the Clintons' strategy (to vanquish the left from the Democratic Party, & bring in moderate Republican politicians and voters who can't abide the fringe rightwingers controlling the Republican Party), with some minor tweaks.

The plan is to move the DemocraticParty to the right by alienating, marginalizing, breaking up the different interest groups within the liberal base of the Democratic party (civil libertarians, anti-war, pro-choice, etc.), drive them out of the party and bring moderate Republicans (both politicians who can't deal with the RepublicanParty's base, the evangelical Christians, who are controlling their party & moderate Republican voters, like Susan Eisenhower) into the Democratic Party. To have a centrist party which would govern for 100+ years.

This was the Clintons' plan (and why I think BillClinton was so angry with Obama) because Obama stole the plan with a minor change -- Obama is going for a couple of special interest groups within the RepublicanParty in a bigger way (defense industry hawks) and one of which Clinton could never hope to bring over (Christian Republicans).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

If the 2012 election were held today, the only way that Obama could win would be by bringing moderate Republican politicians and their supporters into the Democratic Party.

Independents have already left Obama, and every day Obama loses more of the base of the Democratic Party.

Obama has already said that after the election next week, no matter who wins, he intends to move the party farther to the right than the right-of-center that it already is. Democratic leadership has echoed that.

There is no way that liberals and progressives are going to stand for that.

This is a war long in coming.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Primary Challenge? Nearly Half Of Dems Want 2010 Fight

"A real Democratic challenge to Obama seems unlikely at this stage and his re-election bid is a long way off."

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

Bad journalism.

It's not Alan Fram's role to make abzurd prognostications like this. There are forces coming into being that are making 2012 look like 1968, and I think the next battle may be the mirroring of this year's emergence within the Republican Party of the Tea Party. The liberals and progressives challenging Obama & the DLC can only be a good thing. Let the DINOs leave the Democratic Party and join with moderate Republicans to form a new party, and not the other way around. It's time the Democratic Party stood for the People again, and not the corporations.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

HUFFPOST HILL - OCTOBER 28TH, 2010

For Obama to do & say what he's been doing and saying, there can only be one of two reasons:

1. Obama's got no conscience, or,

2. . Cheney's got Michelle's mother in an 'undisclosed location'.

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' can choose to believe whichever makes them feel better about their ability to assess character, but I don't think they can pick #2 unless they ignore everything else known about him to date.

You, on the other hand, might want to reregister as a Tea Party member, with your ideas on the Constitution.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

HUFFPOST HILL - OCTOBER 28TH, 2010

I think you could benefit from reading these:

Here's an article by Glenn Greenwald on preventive detention:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive _detention

Here are another couple of articles by Greenwald worth a read:

Obama is asserting that he has the right to deny Americans their day in court, to murder American citizens with no due process, no oversight whatsoever.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/25/assassinations/index.html

Pure Kafka-

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/29/kafka/index.html

Bush and Cheney make no excuses for what they did and are about.

What makes Obama even worse than Bush-Cheney, IMHO, is that he campaigned on knowing different.

But Obama ran on not being like them.

As a "Constitutional scholar", the candidate Obama assured Americans and the world that he would not continue or repeat the abuses of Bush & Cheney.

To see what Obama's done in office is d@mning of his character. And when he's cornered, the excuses and l!es he speaks just confirm that he has no character.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Aren't Business Leaders Standing Up to the Tea Party?

The legislation coming out of Congress has no meaningful regulations. The legislation is being WRITTEN by corporate lobbyists, and they make sure the legislation won't crimp their style, as rising stock prices can attest. Most notably, right after the legislation passed.

Are you in business? What do you want to do that you think you can't do?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Aren't Business Leaders Standing Up to the Tea Party?

Why Aren't Business Leaders Standing Up To The Tea Party?

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

Why didn't business leaders stand up to the Bush-Cheney warrantless wiretapping? Or Clinton years earlier, when he expanded the government’s ability to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications passing through telecommunication “switches”?

How can any business leader expect their communications to be secure?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

ABC Taps Andrew Breitbart For Election Night Analysis

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 hate where Obama and the DLC are taking the 'new & improved' Democratic Party from which they hope "to govern for 100 years".
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

ABC Taps Andrew Breitbart For Election Night Analysis

This is something I think you'd like - It's a sensational, off-beat documentary film, a metaphor for what's wrong, for what we're up against:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnyVcegi2i8

It's only tangentially related, power and politics, but it's a must-see for understanding the backdrop for what we're dealing with.

Showtime has been broadcasting it (it's also for rent at Netflix and video stores).

I recommend it highly!

[Then watch this, but it may change your perception of Rachel Maddow. At the very least, you'll never look at Ed Rendell the same way. That is if you've been looking on him favorably. In this clip, Rendell says clearly what I've been writing about for years (since the DLC took control of the Democratic Party back in 1990), about the DLC helping to push the Republican Party to the right, in order to attract moderate Republican politicians and their supporters into the Democratic Party. Yes, "politics makes strange bedfellows", but there's a point where one's humanity is at stake, and if Democrats want to regain theirs, if Democratic voters want politicians who work on their behalf and not corporations', if Democratic voters want the principles they believe America is all about and what makes us great, they have to purge the DLC from the party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PGkzjGeJ1A ]
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

ABC Taps Andrew Breitbart For Election Night Analysis

A sensational, off-beat documentary film, a metaphor for what's wrong, for what we're up against:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnyVcegi2i8

It's only tangentially related, power and politics, but it's a must-see for understanding the backdrop for what we're dealing with.

Showtime has been broadcasting it (it's also for rent at Netflix and video stores).

I recommend it highly!

[Then watch this, but it may change your perception of Rachel Maddow. At the very least, you'll never look at Ed Rendell the same way. That is if you've been looking on him favorably. In this clip, Rendell says clearly what I've been writing about for years (since the DLC took control of the Democratic Party back in 1990), about the DLC helping to push the Republican Party to the right, in order to attract moderate Republican politicians and their supporters into the Democratic Party. Yes, "politics makes strange bedfellows", but there's a point where one's humanity is at stake, and if Democrats want to regain theirs, if Democratic voters want politicians who work on their behalf and not corporations', if Democratic voters want the principles they believe America is all about and what makes us great, they have to purge the DLC from the party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PGkzjGeJ1A ]
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Elections 2010 LIVE Updates

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

Elections 2010 LIVE Updates

That's the way......start off with a perceived insult - good idea.

You seem to have been expecting a miracle on 21 January, 2009 and you're peeved because you didn't get everything from day one.

Be realistic and stop carping.

No time for this nonsense. I'll be voting Dem and pleased to have thathat freedom - TO VOTE!

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

You begin by insulting me & misrepresenting my position.

You then get your nose out of joint when the insult is returned (along with an explanation of how you've misrepresented my position).

Instead of apologizing, you insult me yet again, then you go off on a tangent, projecting up a storm, about what I "seem to want" or "expect".

In my writings, I very clearly express what I expect and want from this president and Democratic members of Congress. They campaigned on a platform that they've ignored and abandoned, and a set of promises which they've reneged on. Only fans who are easily influenced by rhetoric don't get it. Obama, himself, admits to doing it.

Whenever Obama has had to face challenging questions, he becomes irritated & defensive, gives a terse excuse for why he "had to do that". It's why he avoids press conferences; he knows that under close examination, the narrative falls apart.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

ABC Taps Andrew Breitbart For Election Night Analysis

Just when I think US media can't sink any lower, they dig some more.

All in the name of entertainment.

There was a time, before Reagan ended the fairness doctrine, when news divisions at networks were required to broadcast in the public good, and their budgets were separate from the entertainment budget. There was some integrity when news divisions weren't for-profit.

But that time is all gone.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP