So where were Democrats making that empassioned argument?
We're in a war, and the Democrats that we've put into lead us are walking around on eggshells. There is a reason for that, but you're not going to like hearing it.
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 SenateMajo
About Elections 2010
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. 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 Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama's already broadcast more of the same. He said last week that EVEN IF DEMOCRATS REMAIN THE MAJORITY, more caving to Republicans:
==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. "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 fingtonpos
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Feingold couldn't deliver.
He fell into line behind a corporate welfare bill sold as healthcare reform. That's not what Democratic voters put Obama & Democrats into power to get for them. They wanted affordable, quality medical treatment, not an expensive insurance premium with no cost controls.
Democratic voters wanted an end to the Bush-Cheney policies, and got a continuation of them, plus even worse.
With Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party, Bush-Cheney-GOP went uninvestigated and unprosecuted while Americans' fortunes drained into the offshore bank accounts of the rich.
And what is Obama's and the Democratic leadership's plan? What did they announce before the election, even if they managed to maintain control over Congress?
"More of the same".
More caving, more efforts of 'bipartisanship', "No big ticket changes."
It's nice you want to let guys like Feingold keep their jobs, draw a paycheck, but at the expense of yours?
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Here's an example from just a few weeks ago:
Obama Continuing Bush's Policies - Feingold sees similarities between Bush and Obama on intelligence sharing:
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) voiced his suspicion that the Obama administration is stonewalling on intelligence.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) voiced his suspicion that the Obama administration is continuing some of the stonewalling practices of the George W. Bush administration when it comes to providing full intelligence briefings to the relevant committees in Congress.
http://the
That's it.
He then did nothing.
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Incumbents are getting cleared out.
That's all that's happening.
The DLC-controlled Democratic Party and the Republican Party will use whatever they can to ram through more corporate fascism (corporate government IS fascism).
We have a president who announced before the election that no matter who won, he and Democrats would do more caving to the Republicans, watering down legislation to make it Republican-like.
Feingold, Grayson, Kucinich, are NOT the guys for the job.
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Whatever you say.
You're not ready to hear it.
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
You're still not getting it.
Republicans are playing for keeps; Democrats are NOT.
There's a reason.
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
What has he done for us lately?
He wasn't successful in preventing either, and that's what needed. An alpha liberal. Lots of them.
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Feingold's a nice guy, but he's not an 'earner'. Not for the left. Like I said, nice guy, but not the brightest color in the box. In wolf pecking order, he's not an alpha, he's not a beta, he's not even a mature subservient male. All of the liberals in national office seem to be omegas. This does not bode well for getting Democrats to deliver to the People.
All it does is enable distracting, meaningless rhetoric from the DLC-controlled Democratic Party, to claim it's got a "big tent". But it does nothing to prevent the DLC's moving the center line to the right (to attract into the Democratic Party those Republican politicians & their supporters who have become disenfranchised from the Teabagger-
I've got a similar problem in my district, with my representatives. My senators are DLC, and my representative in the House is a liberal who talks the talk, but doesn't walk it. Every time House liberals get into a position to make gains on our behalf, they cave. 79 House Progressives pledged not to vote for a healthcare reform bill if it didn't have a public option in it. They choked.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
How do you figure that legalizing marijuana and taxing it would reduce tax revenue?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Thanks.
I just returned from voting and had a first-hand experience with that.
Here's the story (I'd forgotten how this works - It's not sinister):
It's what happens in most counties around the state for mid-term elections, when turn-out isn't as great as it is for general elections. The Registrar of Voters consolidates polling precincts, so instead of my having to go 2 blocks from my home to vote, I went 6 blocks, to a larger facility that combined more precincts.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
See?
We've got some common ground!
About Pollster
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
See? I told you so. I told you how Obama and DLC Democrats would spin the outcome.
If Obama and DLC Democrats insist upon moving the Democratic Party farther to the right, Obama will lose in 2012, and more Democrats will be swept from office.
We need fire-in-the-belly REAL Democrats in office; progressives and liberals, working on behalf of the PEOPLE, not the corporations.
After the 2008 election victory, when the GOP was not on the ropes but on the mat, down for the count, Obama refused to investigate and prosecute Bush-Chene
This was Obama's election to lose. Nobody else but him and his continuing the Bush-Cheney policies are to blame.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Have you got a link to that?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Want to make a difference?:
Don’t Hope Prop 19 Passes; Help It Pass
By: Michael Whitney Tuesday November 2, 2010 1:45 pm
Less than 8 hours til the polls close in California; the last 3 polls showed the marijuana measure losing by several points. While the polls aren’t hopeful, we still need to bring every voter to the polls that we can, no matter what the outcome.
We have an easy way to talk to voters – real, live voters – without dialing, without hangups, without answering machines. Stay connected to live voters and turn them out for Prop 19.
Click here to call voters for Prop 19 - http://act
UPDATE: Just got this note from the Yes on 19 campaign (whose website is down…):
I’m told by organizers on the ground that youth turnout is so high that the polling location at San Diego State University has completely run out of provisional ballots. We’re hearing that it will take 3 or 4 more hours to re-stock the ballots there…
This is kind of good news about turnout, but not for people who are waiting to vote. We need to make it up - please start making calls for Prop 19 right now!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Lol.
Everything has "unintended consequences", but of all the issues that I've looked at from every angle, legalizing marijuana has the greatest benefits and least downside of them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Wherever did you get that cr@zy idea?
Alcohol kills brain cells; marijuana does not.
But didn't you just make an argument to me in another post about people not wanting to be controlled by government?
How do you reconcile two such disparate ideas?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
You might want to try thinking about it as an opportunity for the citizenry retaking the government, by first clearing out the de@dwood incumbents.
Obama has been a dismal failure, caving to Republicans and cheating Democratic voters out of the real reform that they thought they were voting for in 2008 when they put him and Democrats into power. Obama has already said that even if Democrats won in this election and kept control of Congress, he and Democrats would be caving more to Republicans.
We need leadership that doesn't do the work of the corporatocracy, but puts the People first.
This may be the beginning of that happening.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
It would also eliminate a lot of the violence that we're seeing all over California (and others must also be seeing wherever marijuana is being grown illegally, on public and private lands).
Reclaim the national forests where bandits are setting up gardens, and patrolling them with automatic weapons. It's a big problem in California.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Yes, for a wide array of reasons, passing Prop 19/legalizing marijuana makes sense.
What's your problem with it?
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Why's that?
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Please, don't hold back. What "unintended consequences"?
About Elections 2010
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Voters are being misinformed, by both parties.
The system has been broken for a very long time. No solution is going to come from anyone in it. But let me make this clear -- There's no solution that's going to come from the Tea Party either; the Tea Party is the wing of the Republican Party that gets active during elections.
The DLC has its talon in the Democratic Party; liberals and progressives need to form a new third party to run against the Democratic Party.
About Election Results
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Want to make a difference?:
Don’t Hope Prop 19 Passes; Help It Pass
By: Michael Whitney Tuesday November 2, 2010 1:45 pm
Less than 8 hours til the polls close in California; the last 3 polls showed the marijuana measure losing by several points. While the polls aren’t hopeful, we still need to bring every voter to the polls that we can, no matter what the outcome.
We have an easy way to talk to voters – real, live voters – without dialing, without hangups, without answering machines. Stay connected to live voters and turn them out for Prop 19.
Click here to call voters for Prop 19 - http://act
UPDATE: Just got this note from the Yes on 19 campaign (whose website is down…):
I’m told by organizers on the ground that youth turnout is so high that the polling location at San Diego State University has completely run out of provisional ballots. We’re hearing that it will take 3 or 4 more hours to re-stock the ballots there…
This is kind of good news about turnout, but not for people who are waiting to vote. We need to make it up - please start making calls for Prop 19 right now!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Sam Stein thinks that unions are "the professional left"?
That's not what the person who coined the term (Robert Gibbs) defined it as.
Anybody else think that's what's meant by the term?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I'm in California, but it was just reported on MSNBC about CT.
But we, too, have paper ballots.
About Election Results
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
They ran out of ballots in Connecticut today.
How is this BS still possible?
Why aren't election officials properly prepared for election turnout?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Most American agree with liberal policies? Wrong. Do most characterize themselves as mainstream? Yes. Are they. Yes. And mainstream is lean right. People don't like taxes, they dont like debt, they don't like control of their lives. The abortion argument is one for another day
==========
When informed on the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies.
You say that people don't like taxes, they dont like debt, they don't like control of their lives, and we should leave abortion for another day.
Ok.
You statement is awfully simplistic and general, so let's delve a little, shall we?
What are you going to cut to lower taxes and pay off the debt?
As far as control goes, control of what? I daresay nobody likes to be controlled, so how come conservatives support government control over the most basic of rights, the right to control what happens to one's own body, and force women to continue pregnancies that may destroy their mental and physical health?
Sorry, I forgot; we were leaving that for "another day".
About U.S. Senate
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
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.
About U.S. Senate
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Do you think Americans are really all that different from each other?
Do you think human beings are all that different from each other?
While most Democratic voters support liberal opinions (as do most voters, when informed of the facts), the Democratic establishment is not liberal; it's pro-corporate pro-CORPORATE, PRO-CORPORATE. And anti-populist.
If you were alive pre-Reagan, you would know that liberal policies were what created the greatest middle class in the history of the world, built the power grid across the nation, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc. All that Republicans and conservatism gave us was fear over commies, and the worst in human behavior. Blacklists and union-busting is the result of the worst in human nature.
Do you know what the DLC is and who is in it?
The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism, the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgvnned by election dirty tricks & fraud.
KEEP READING
About U.S. Senate
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I can't help that your refusal to accept facts, but I can make sure that anyone reading your ill-informed opinions do have the facts.
Hopefully there are more of them than you, and that we're able to achieve what it is you profess to be for: Real environmental reforms, clean and green sustainable energy, which is going to require purging the corporate t00ls that have taken over the Democratic Party.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
While the Deepwater Horizon gusher was spewing 65,000+ gallons of oil & gas a day into the Gulf of Mexico with no end in sight, no fix on the horizon, BP was going full speed ahead with its more risky and dangerous operation to drill down to 40,000 feet below sea level at the Liberty field off the north coast of Alaska (where we get the majority of our seafood), with Obama's blessing.
http://oil
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Salazar was one of only a handful of Democrats to vote against a bill that would require the United States Army Corps of Engineers to consider global warming when planning water projects.
http://www
If Obama were legitimate, if he wasn't a corporate t00I, he never would have hired him. But he sure would have fired Ken Salazar, the industry hack, after he had the audacity to say that we shouldn't end Exxon‘s subsidies in a year that Exxon was making $40 billion.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama put Ken 'Cozy-With-Big-Oil' Salazar in as his Secretary of the Interior. Salazar put 53 million offshore acres up for lease in the Gulf in his first year alone. An all time high.
http://www
Salazar helped open up the Gulf for drilling, including the lease bloc that BP drilled, WHEN HE WAS A SENATOR. He's always been for drilling and Obama & Salazar went full speed ahead as soon as they got in office and then they pushed for more offshore drilling.
Do you know what Ken Salazar's record was as a US Senator prior to becoming Obama's Secretary of the Interior?
As a senator, Salazar voted to end protections that limit offshore oil drilling in Florida's Gulf Coast. http://www
He also voted against increasing fuel-efficiency standards (CAFE) for cars and trucks, a vote that the League of Conservation Voters notes is anti-environment. In the same year, Salazar voted against an amendment to repeal tax breaks for ExxonMobil and other major petroleum companies.
http://www
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama doesn't get a pass on preventing BP's destroying the Gulf of Mexico, just as Bush didn't get a pass on preventing 9/11.
Obama let BP happen.
The problems with MMS and the potential for a disaster were long known. Obama came into office after the MMS report came out, and he appointed Ken Salazar, a dude very cozy with Big Oil.
Obama & Salazar didn‘t do anything to change the problems that both knew about when they came into office. When they came into office, they already knew that the agency had experienced a s3x & drug scandal. They knew the agency had such a close relationship with Big Oil that the agency was holding golf & ski junkets paid for by Big Oil in exotic places around the world. They knew the agency, put together by Reagan's Secretary of the Interior James Watt in 1982, was dysfunctional. Nothing has changed since Watt created it, saying, "I‘m going to form this agency with my buddies from Wyoming."
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The excuse which the court condemned as "misleading" is exactly the one Obama and his aides have been repeatedly making for why they issued exemptions to BP: namely that, as the President put it, "under current law, the Interior Department has only 30 days to review an exploration plan submitted by an oil company. That leaves no time for the appropriate environmental review." As a result, the court found that MMS's approval of Shell's drilling plan (including the exemptions it issued) violated NEPA, and thus invalidated the approval and ordered MMS to re-review the proposal in compliance with the law. That decision was issued in November, 2008 -- before the Obama administration even began -- so the notion that Obama Interior officials believed they only had 30 days to conduct a review, and that it therefore was forced to issue exemptions to BP, lacks credibility, to put that mildly.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
==The agency may be correct that it's difficult for an agency to conduct a full EIS in only thirty days, but its argument that OCSLA precludes such a result is unconvincing. There is flexibility built into the regulatory scheme so that the agency can perform its full duties under NEPA. The thirty-day clock begins to run only when an exploration plan is deemed complete. 30 C.F.R. § 250.233(a). If the agency is able to identify gaps before that point, then it can request that information be added before the proposal is finalized. See 30 C.F.R. § 250.231(b). Additionally, at the end of the thirty-day review period, the agency may opt to require modifications to an EP if there are concerns that it does not comport with environmental standards. 30 C.F.R. § 250.233(b). These options give the agency additional time to consider a plan & compile an environmental impact statement, if necessary. To say simply that the agency only has thirty days to complete a full EIS is misleading.==
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
The excuse the BushAdministration gave for failing to conduct that review is the same one Obama gave in his press conference. As the court put it: "MMS argues that the strict timelines in OCSLA indicate that an EIS isn't a feasible option at the exploration stage. The agency only has thirty days to approve or disapprove of an exploration plan" & officials "argue that thirty days is not enough time to generate a full EIS." The court categorically rejected that excuse:
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Even if that 3o-day excuse were true, it reflects very poorly on the administration. But as The Washington Post, in a good piece of reporting, noted on Tuesday: that excuse is false. An appellate court in 2008 rejected the 30-day interpretation now being asserted by Obama officials everywhere. That 9th Circuit ruling, in the case of Alaska Wilderness League, et al. v. Kempthorne, is really quite instructive to read, both because it illustrates how false is the excuse of Obama officials and, more generally, because of what it reveals about how completely co-opted MMS regulators are by the oil industry.
In that case, numerous environmental groups sued in order to challenge the Bush Interior Department's approval of a Shell Oil plan to drill multiple offshore exploratory oil wells over a three-year period in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. This is what happens frequently: environmental groups have to sue in order to prevent the Interior Department and the oil industry from working jointly to circumvent Congressional regulations for drilling projects. Just as was true for the BP Deepwater Horizon project, MMS in the Shell case had issued an exemption from the legal requirement that an environmental impact study be conducted before the drilling project could be approved, notwithstanding numerous, serious concerns raised even by Bush Interior Department officials about the impact of the Shell project.
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
That excuse made very little sense to me as soon as I heard it. It seems highly unlikely that Congress -- which is not exactly notorious for imposing excessively rigorous regulations on the oil industry -- would enact a statutory requirement which, self-evidently, would be too rigorous to meet. But even if that were true -- even if Congress really did impose an impossible-to-meet 30-day period for conducting environmental reviews -- why didn't the Obama adminstration, whose party controls the Congress, ever ask that the law be amended to provide 6o or 90 days, or however much time is needed to complete the review? Or why didn't Interior officials tell the oil industry that they would refuse to issue these permits until the industry had their lobbyists instruct Congress to change the law to allow for a more reasonable timeframe? Instead, faced with a supposedly impossible-to-meet statutory requirement of conducting environmental reviews, the Interior Department just threw its hands up and circumvented the spirt of the law by oh-so-reluctantly and helplessly handing out exemptions like candy to any oil company that asked? Is that at all believable?
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Do you remember Obama's excuse at the press conference after the explosion in the Gulf, about why his Interior Department issued exemptions to BP:
"[T]here is a thorough environmental review as to whether a certain portion of the Gulf should be leased or not. . . . .Under current law, the Interior Department has only 30 days to review an exploration plan submitted by an oil company. That leaves no time for the appropriate environmental review. The result is, they're continually waived. And this is just one example of a law that was tailored by the industry to serve their needs instead of the public's."
Only it's not true.
http://www
http://www
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
"Obama Agenda All At Risk"
==========
Obama's agenda as perceived by Republicans who claim he's a socialist?
Or Obama's agenda as perceived by liberals and progressives, as pro-corporate, and a continuation of Bush-Chene
This is how the oligarchs get away with it. This imprecision in language.
We need to get some shared and common definitions for the words and phrases we're using.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
It also doesn't fix the base or inherent problem: Transparency in workplace pay. And in the economic times like what we're experiencing today (and in the long term foreseeable future), expect the pendulum to swing back to pre-equal pay legislation when people are faced with homelessness and hunger. It's like fixing the Corvair's drift problem in an age of Priuses.
Also ironically, the same kind of problem (administrative or 'housekeeping' issues) has been written into every other piece of legislation that is on your list of Obama's 'accomplishments'. It's most notably in Obama's healthcare legislation, and it's what's going to enable Republicans to enact tort reform legislation in the near future, which Obama & Democrats will "compromise" (cave) on.
I look askance at those who tout Obama's 'accomplishments', because I know they're hapless saps, the victims of propaganda campaigns who aren't seeing that while the house is burning to the ground, instead of calling the fire department, instead of picking up a fire extinguisher or a hose and spraying water on it, instead of running inside to rescue trapped people & pets, Obama has been unscrewing the address plate from the mailbox.
I don't know what it's going to take to get through to Obama's 'most ardent supporters', and it's becoming disconsoling.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
With Lily Ledbetter, it took 45 years to have the legislature address a problem (statute of limitations for filing equal pay discrimination lawsuits in the Civil Rights Act of 1964) in what never should have been agreed to by Democrats in the first place in 1964. Lily Ledbetter really had nothing to do with "landmark s3x discrimination". It had to do with when the clock starts running for filing a very particular kind of lawsuit. It doesn't affect statutes of limitation for any other kind of lawsuit. It doesn't apply to the filing of all lawsuits. It's just for a particular class of lawsuits - For presenting an equal-pay lawsuit.
And it wasn't 45 years of Congresses trying to fix it. It was a year and a half. It was in response to the Supreme Court's decision in 2007 in one woman's lawsuit. It's not going to affect millions, or thousands or even hundreds of others - Ironically, if it were to affect more women, it never would have passed, no matter what party held the Congress (because it would have meant more money paid out from corporations to women, and Democrats work for corporations just as Republicans do).
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
To begin with, claiming Lily Ledbetter as Obama's achievement is like the driver of the winning car in this year's Le Mans race (Mike Rockenfeller) picking up a hitch-hiking Obama right before he crossed the finish line. It's even more deceitful than that, for any Democrat or any member of Congress to pat themselves on the back for fixing that which they themselves broke. But even that doesn't quite explain it.
Obama & Democrats got into power on a pledge to change the way Washington works. Little is ever said or explained about what that really means. I'm going to attempt it:
By the time that elected officials manage to enact legislation, the problem the legislation is to address has usually grown and morphed into something beyond what the legislation would affect or change, making it either irrelevant or creating a boondoggle that gridlocks later congressional efforts. Or, something else.
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
But I mention it just so you know why including it on a list of a Democratic administration's accomplishments isn't going to get the automatic standing ovation from Democrats that you think it should get.
Certainly not the automatic standing ovation that the repeal of DADT & DOMA would get. And that's because there is a downside to the Matthew Shepard Act (aside from what I've already mentioned): The unintended use of provisions in this act being used in investigations having nothing to do with the prosecution of hate crimes against gays. 'Mission creep', i.e., political prosecutions by Justice and political agencies.
I notice that you have left out the other "accomplishments" touted on the main list where you got these items, like "closed Gitmo", which is to your credit, but I mention it because the DLC-accolytes are taking advantage of the naivete and ig.no.rance of so many of their 'most ardent supporters'.
Lily Ledbetter has been at the top of their lists, too, and remains because to explain the ridiculousness of it as an "Obama accomplishment" can't be done in a 10-word soundbyte. The reasons are so numerous.
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Here:
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act,
Signed: Thursday, October 22, 2009
==========
This is the 100-things list that Obama's done that's close to your point of view?
You have to be doing some real fancy 'convenient rationalizing' to be putting the Matthew Shepard Act on your list after Obama's shameful behavior on DADT & DOMA.
As a staunch (rabid) defender of gays and proponent for the advancement of gay rights' issues (all people's civil rights actually), I have to tell you that not all of us are on the same page about hate crimes legislation (the creation of laws and a special class of crimes against one group of Americans actually increasing discrimination and violence).
The explanation for why that's true is long reply of its own & better left for another day, as it's a complicated issue, where trade-offs (compromises) made in order to get it passed may have unintended consequences which we're going to regret.
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
