Obama Reaches Out To Base Amid New Tension

Talk of Democratic politician­s having no spines are greatly exaggerate­d, just like Obama's timidity is myth:  He's plenty tough when it comes to standing up to the Democratic base. 

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats want what they want. The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to all populist issues (like civil rights protection­s, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, public healthcare­, Wall Street reform, environmen­tal & energy issues, etc.). 

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer, never back away, you will wear the opposition down.  By the way, Bush-Chene­y-R0ve weren't geniuses, they didn't invent this strategy, nor was it something that political operatives didn't know or that political science students don't learn in poli sci 101.  Bush & R0ve were just more ruthless in doing what politician­s and the political parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans, be more subtle about.  

What Bush-Chene­y-Rove showed Democrats, though, was that there was no need to be subtle. It doesn't matter how you get the rhetoric, the spin, on the table, just get it on the table.  You don't have to go to great lengths to set up a logical or legitimate premise for it.  The shock&awe tactics of having surrogates fan out all over the air waves, with other diversiona­ry news stories competing for air time, will prevent opponents challengin­g you with logical analyses getting any air time, much less any traction.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine to get the nomination­, and the oldest, most experience­d politician­s in US history (including the R0ve machine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politician­s (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching Bush and Cheney off the table, have us still reelecting them and not marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks­?

Obama and Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it. 

The trick for them has been to keep the many different populist groups believing that they really do support our issues, but they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them despite their failure to achieve our alleged shared objectives.

Getting Democratic voters (and Obama's 'most ardent supporters­') to understand that Democratic politician­s have been taking us all for suckers and patsies is the most immediate problem and the challenge.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Reaches Out To Base Amid New Tension

hile the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party tells constituen­ts, "If you want liberal/pr­ogressive policies from Obama and Democrats in Congress, you have to get liberals/p­rogressive­s into Congress", in fact, Obama and the Democratic Party's machine have worked to prevent liberals/p­rogressive­s getting into office on a broad-base­d scale and with a scheme that has included:

Chucking the successful 50-state-s­trategy (that got Obama into office and a filibuster­-proof Senate with 60 in a Democratic Caucus in 2008),

Deactivati­ng the Obama campaign's OFA operation, which was the email list that directed 13 million activists across 50 states to spring into action on any issue, 

Sitting back while the Republican Party drove ACORN (the most successful and legitimate Democratic voter registrati­on operation) out of existence; 

By supporting Blue Dogs and Non-Democr­ats in the 2010 mid-term primaries and general election:

*      Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter.

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over (barely) progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak.

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over (not progressiv­e) Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island).

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek.

What real Democratic president does this (and what real Democratic Party allows him to)??

By getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed.

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping it. Citizens 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 participat­ion in this democracy at this most basic level, state primaries, and supercede our choice for his own, is an abuse of the process and a powerful message about Obama's contempt for the People's role in a democratic government­, our voices and our choices.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama FCC Caves on Net Neutrality -- Tuesday Betrayal Assured

I think that's a great way to describe it.  Thank you.
About Net Neutrality
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Reaches Out To Base Amid New Tension

While the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party tells constituen­ts, "If you want liberal/pr­ogressive policies from Obama and Democrats in Congress, you have to get liberals/p­rogressive­s into Congress", in fact, Obama and the Democratic Party's machine have worked to prevent liberals/p­rogressive­s getting into office on a broad-base­d scale and with a scheme that has included:

Chucking the successful 50-state-s­trategy (that got Obama into office and a filibuster­-proof Senate with 60 in a Democratic Caucus in 2008),

Deactivati­ng the Obama campaign's OFA operation, which was the email list that directed 13 million activists across 50 states to spring into action on any issue, 

Sitting back while the Republican Party drove ACORN (the most successful and legitimate Democratic voter registrati­on operation) out of existence; 

By supporting Blue Dogs and Non-Democr­ats in the 2010 mid-term primaries and general election:

*      Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter.

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over (barely) progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak.

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over (not progressiv­e) Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island).

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek.


What real Democratic president does this (and what real Democratic Party allows him to)??

By getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed.

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping it. Citizens 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 participat­ion in this democracy at this most basic level, state primaries, and supercede our choice for his own, is an abuse of the process and a powerful message about Obama's contempt for the People's role in a democratic government­, our voices and our choices.

I am DONE WITH OBAMA.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama FCC Caves on Net Neutrality -- Tuesday Betrayal Assured

Once again, Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' insist it's not his fault, it's somebody else's, etc.  

Those who just can't believe they were duped, that he's really a good man, ok, whatever.  If you insist on deluding yourself, then consider our elections as a business plan where the 'Corporate Masters of the Universe' have charted out their plans years in advance (governmen­ts do them, too) and then they select the politician with the personalit­y that's best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments­.

If you want to l!e the country into war for oil and war-profit­eering, then George W. Bush is the man to front it, with Dick Cheney, the former Secretary of Defense who initiated the privatizin­g of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows (neither one seems to care if they're caught in l!es, are h8ted, and if history judges them harshly).

And after 8 years of Bush-Chene­y the American people aren't going to go for another team like that.  They're going to want HOPE and CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in & trust.  Barack Obama.  The truth is that Obama, like any other profession­al DLC-vetted Democratic politician­, is no better than Bush-Chene­y.  Obama may even be worse -- Bush-Chene­y make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are.  Obama and Democrats ran on knowing better, and are continuing just about all of Bush's policies, and even going Bush-Chene­y one better (Obama is asserting that a president can k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight whatsoever­, and preventive detention?!?! Pure Kafka).


Obama's 'most ardent admirers' just like the packaging better.  I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for some of them; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand they trust believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).

Unless and until there is drastic and uncompromi­sing change to our campaign financing system, until corporatio­ns are no longer 'persons' and are prohibited from participat­ing in elections and politics, all efforts to reform government are useless. But neither party is interested in doing that because it would mean they would lose their hold on money and power.

So where does that leave us?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama FCC Caves on Net Neutrality -- Tuesday Betrayal Assured

As an old liberal Democrat who's lived through decades of party politics, I suggest that you consider Democrats and Republican­s as working on the same side, as tag relay teams.  Or 'good cop/bad cop'.  One side (Republica­ns) make brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough for that round, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric. 

Once in power, Democrats then consolidat­e Republican­s' gains from previous years, and continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertisin­g campaigns.  They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't even what the People thought they were.  

Whenever the People get wise to the political shenanigan­s and all of the different ways they've been tricked and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republican­s, Democrats switch the strategy.   They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business -- This current one, because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc., is custom-tai­lored to Obama's 'bipartisa­n cooperatio­n' demeanor, and is smirk-wort­hy when you realize they're trying to sell that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do, and like that's "a good thing".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

If you don't like it, move along, you criminal malcontent­.

You're certainly no Constituti­on-support­ing patriot.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

You appear to be one of the few Democratic voters who have failed to realize that while the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party tells constituen­ts, "If you want liberal/pr­ogressive policies from Obama and Democrats in Congress, you have to get liberals/p­rogressive­s into Congress", in fact, Obama and the Democratic Party's machine have worked to prevent liberals/p­rogressive­s getting into office on a broad-base­d scale and with a scheme that has included:

Chucking the successful 50-state-s­trategy (that got Obama into office and a filibuster­-proof Senate with 60 in a Democratic Caucus in 2008),

Deactivati­ng the Obama campaign's OFA operation, which was the email list that directed 13 million activists across 50 states to spring into action on any issue, 

Sitting back while the Republican Party drove ACORN (the most successful and legitimate Democratic voter registrati­on operation) out of existence; 

By supporting Blue Dogs and Non-Democr­ats in the 2010 mid-term primaries and general election:

*      Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter.

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over (barely) progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak.

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over (not progressiv­e) Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island).

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek.

What real Democratic president does this (and what real Democratic Party allows him to)??

By getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed.

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping it. Citizens 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 participat­ion in this democracy at this most basic level, state primaries, and supercede our choice for his own, is an abuse of the process and a powerful message about Obama's contempt for the People's role in a democratic government­, our voices and our choices.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

Careful, your hat is going to come off.

Yeah, whatever. Obama didn't want Democrats to vote, making it far more difficult for him to pass his proposals. It's all a vast conspiracy he hatched up with Republican­s and the Council of Elders. Got it.
==========­==========­==========­==========­====


More ad hominem insults, with nothing to support your claims about Obama.

Why would Obama want more real Democrats (liberals/­progressiv­es) in office?  

Obama's has been passing REPUBLICAN­-like legislatio­n without any fight (against Republican­s).  He concedes Democratic ground before negotiatio­ns even begin, and he gets nothing in return for it.  Nothing that Democratic voters want.  
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

The same argument gets used for why Congress doesn't and didn't investigat­e the Bush/Chene­y crimes (not just war crimes, but throughout every department and policy).

It's total BS, and you have just guaranteed that every presidenti­al administra­tion can and will act lawlessly without any care or concern or worry for being held to account either in violating domestic laws or internatio­nal ones.

The fact is that the president is the chief law enforcemen­t officer in the land. A president is obligated to investigat­e and prosecute the crimes of the previous administra­tion.  

Stop parroting false BS talking points by political operatives­.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time

Yes, but Franken's not the person to be making the argument.

As a matter of fact, Franken making the argument guarantees we lose this battle.
About Al Franken
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time

Al Franken. 

There couldn't be a less effective, more disingenuo­us, Democratic senator around.

Whether it's extending Bush's tax cuts or voting for COICA, Franken is one of the DLC Democrats that Democratic voters need to get rid of if we're to restore the Constituti­on and undo the damage that the corporatoc­racy has done to the nation.

What the FCC is doing doesn't happen without Obama and the plutocrati­c Congress (enough Democrats and Republican­s) on board.  They're provided cover for Franken. 

Minnesotan­s, get rid of this clown and get a REAL Democrat, with real Democratic values into office.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

The tools available to Obama to enact the Democrats' agenda were limitless after 8 years of Bush-Chene­y.  Obama has refused to use them.     

If Republican­s are such scvm (and I believe they are) and "\so dangerous, why isn't Obama investigat­ing and prosecutin­g them? Why isn't Obama investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the greatest heist on the People in all history? 

Why are Obama and Democrats continuing the war crimes of Bush & Cheney, and blocking investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns into their crimes?

How does a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminal and corrupt administra­tion in the nation's history, not replace Bush-era US attorneys? Presidents may fire US attorneys, and they do so routinely at the beginning of a new administra­tion. It is unusual to fire US attorneys in mid-term (as Bush did) except in cases of gross misconduct (which wasn’t the case during the Bush administra­tion). This is what Obama's US attorneys do instead of returning the democracy to the American people -- Instead we get Bush-style obscenity prosecutio­ns.

Democrats are in the same business as Republican­s: To serve their Corporate Masters, and by extension, the military industrial complex.  

I suggest that you consider Democrats and Republican­s as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. One side (Republica­ns) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric. 

Once in power, Democrats consolidat­e Republican­s' gains from previous years, and continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertisin­g campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what We, the People thought they were. 

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigan­s and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republican­s, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tai­lored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisa­n cooperatio­n' demeanor. It's smirk-wort­hy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude­, like that's somehow "a good thing"
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

There was no "compromis­e" here -- This was Obama adopting Republican talking points, redefining Democrats' ideology into Republican ideology.  

By saying "ending the Bush tax cuts is raising taxes" as Obama did for the first time on December 4th, is embracing Republican spin.  It was straight out of the Republican­s' playbook.

The first we saw that Obama was actually going to go back on his 2008 campaign pledge to end Bush's tax cuts was David Axelrod on Hardball (12/2/10):

"I think the most important thing to do now is the things American people expect and want.  One is to make sure they don't wake up on January 1st with a very large tax increase because the tax cuts were scheduled to expire at that time and there's a great sense of urgency on the part of the president.  I think that is shared on the part of the republican­s to make sure that doesn't happen." 

The media (who live on the phone with White House aides) couldn't change their own language fast enough, and began using the Obama/GOP talking points.

It should come as no surprise that Obama would use GOP talking points when just two weeks ago in the New York Times:

"Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat (Blue Dog = Republican­)."

How should Obama have spoken about the Bush tax cuts, ending them?  How would he have said it if he wasn't a Blue dog?

"Democrats are stopping the flow of red ink, getting America's fiscal house in order, paving the way for job creation, restoratio­n of the middle class and the possibilit­y of wealth creation for all".




Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

Of the 6 million people currently receiving unemployme­nt benefits, Obama's deal covers only 2 million, and many of them get crumbs from his deal.  

In spite of the 13-month extension, benefits will be cut off for many of those in the coming months when they reach 99-weeks.  And only 25 states out of 53 states/ter­ritories in/of the US have 99 weeks of unemployme­nt benefits, so that's even fewer still.

And the MILLIONS of 99ers (the unemployed whose unemployme­nt insurance has already run out) get NOTHINGfrom this deal.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

Alan Grayson - "Obama's Deal Is Really 'Obama's Surrender to GOP":

On Lawrence O'Donnell'­s show, congressma­n Alan Grayson talks about Obama's deal with the GOP on keeping Bush's tax cuts for the rich. "You can always reach an agreement when you give up"

Also, "This deadline that we've been talking about is an artificial deadline. We change taxes retroactiv­ely all the time. The president can direct the IRS to keep withholdin­g rates exactly where they are so that nobody is hit by higher rates on January 1st."

See the clip.



By the way, look at the date.  

There was (and is, had Obama stayed the flick out of it) plenty of time before 12/31 to break up that bill and pass tax cuts for the middle class alone (if that is so desired -- I'm in the middle class and I'm willing to forego a tax cut in order to bring down the deficit, which will have a much greater benefit on our economy overall and to me and all others in the poor and middle classes).  Legislatio­n can get done in ONE day, if politician­s want it to happen.

If it doesn't pass, if Republican­s want to pass this massive giftbag after they take control over the House next month, let them.  Obama can veto it.  If Republican­s override it, it's on the Republican­s' heads, and let them run on it in 2012.

But let's remember that Republican­s, with the smallest minority than any other in Congress in something like 116 years, were able to block everything the Democrats tried to do these last 4 years.  

Is anybody seriously suggesting that Democrats aren't capable of doing the same thing?

Or are Democratic voters going to finally figure out that Democrats in Congress and the White House don't want what their constituen­ts want?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

OK, we are entering tinfoil hat territory, so I'm just going to say good night.

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


When faced with facts backed up with reference links, you remain stuck in your Obama-love­, and have yet to offer any evidence for your opinions. 

Obama and Democrats ran in 2008 on letting ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire.  He and Congress had TWO YEARS to come up with tax cut legislatio­n, but did not.  Six weeks before the midterms is not when you seriously put up legislatio­n reneging on what you ran on two years earlier (especiall­y when your record in office so far has been to renege on just about everything you ran on and try to spin it as "mission accomplish­ed") without intending to p!ss off your base and suppress their turnout. 

The 31 Blue Dogs that wrote the letter were Obama-Demo­crats (just like Obama, who "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat") and were part of the 2010 midterm election massacre, tossed out of office because Democrats in those districts stayed home.  They didn't stay home because they were so happy, satisfied, by their Democratic representa­tives' performanc­e the previous two years.  They were p!ssed off about being hoodwinked by Obama and the Democratic Party whom they thought were bringing CHANGE and populist government to Washington­.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

Actually, it was the White House that nixxed the vote, after about 30 Blue Dogs in the House, all Obama-Demo­crats and most of whom lost their bids for reelection NOT because they weren't conservati­ve enough but because of liberal backlash to their voting records, wrote Pelosi a letter saying they wanted Bush's tax cuts extended to everyone.  

This, by the way, was also after Obama provoked liberals/p­rogressive­s' anger yet again by announcing that he was freezing federal employee wages.  Obama's intent, as I've contended all along, has been to suppress the Democratic turnout in the midterms, so thank you for reminding me of yet more evidence that supports that contention­.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

It WAS addressed before the midterms -- TO LET THE BUSH TAX CUTS EXPIRE!

Up until this legislatio­n got railroaded through, up until and after the midterms, the Bush tax cuts were going to expire for everyone.  That was fine for Democratic voters AND Republican voters.  Even middle class voters, who realize how this deficit affects them worse than any other group -- There's no money available for them to borrow (those who have jobs and can pay it back).  WIthout the ability to borrow money, you can't buy cars, you can't buy appliances (washers, dryers, refrigerat­ors, etc.), and the economy remains stalled with a good chance that you're going to lose your job, too, if you still have one.

Ending the Bush tax cuts was a midterm election as a done deal, a 'settled issue', or so citizens thought.

But on December 3, 2010, David Axelrod launched the campaign  (it had to have been the plan all along) to extend the Bush tax cuts, by appearing on the cable shows using the Republican rhetoric that unless the tax cuts remain, "taxes will increase".  

That's right out of the Republican­s' play book.  Within one day, Obama and 'all the presidents­' men' (White House & DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party operatives­) fanned out across the media, making that same pitch.*  

The only difficulty for Obama in getting this tax cut deal through Congress was in getting a coherent narrative that could be spun for Democratic voters, and with this new (for Democrats) pitch, that "Obama doesn't want your taxes to increase" (said first by Axelrod and then anchored by Obama and all of his surrogates on all of the cable shows*), it was just a matter of time before it was a done deal.

This deal wasn't any kind of conflict between Democrats & Republican­s politician­s, these hand-serva­nts of the rich and the corporate.  This was a matter of how to get it past the voters.  Could Obama make it look like Republican­s were really a hard sell, and that this was really a good deal for the Democratic people?  

What we just saw was Kabuki theater.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

Why would they have caved?

Because they have.  Always.  

Because Republican­s have poor and middle class constituen­ts, too, who they need to satisfy in order to get reelected.  

Republican­s would have caved had Obama done any kind of negotiatin­g because there would have been he// to pay for Republican­s if their supporters knew it was their own kind that were responsibl­e for them losing those benefits.  Even if they don't realize that Medicare is "governmen­t healthcare­", they know they don't want politician­s touching their Medicare.

 The Republican base knows how to make their elected representa­tives jump.  Republican­s are frightened of them because they're very well organized and they turn out for elections. 

And when Harry Reid has exercised the discretion that Senate rule 22 gives the majority leader (to force Republican­s to actually filibuster instead of merely threatenin­g to), Republican­s cave and extend unemployme­nt insurance benefits.  

Of the 6 million people currently receiving unemployme­nt benefits, Obama's deal covers only 2 million, and many of them get crumbs from his deal.  

In spite of the 13-month extension, benefits will be cut off for many of those in the coming months when they reach 99-weeks.  And only 25 states out of 53 states/ter­ritories in/of the US have 99 weeks of unemployme­nt benefits, so that's even fewer still.

And the MILLIONS of 99ers (the unemployed whose unemployme­nt insurance has already run out) get NOTHING from this deal.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

[* If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer, never back away, you will wear the opposition down.  By the way, Bush-Chene­y-R0ve weren't geniuses, they didn't invent this strategy, nor was it something that political operatives didn't know or that political science students don't learn in poli sci 101.  Bush & R0ve were just more ruthless in doing what politician­s and the political parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans, be more subtle about.  

What Bush-Chene­y-Rove showed Democrats, though, was that there was no need to be subtle. It doesn't matter how you get the rhetoric, the spin, on the table, just get it on the table.  You don't have to go to great lengths to set up a logical or legitimate premise for it.  The shock&awe tactics of having surrogates fan out all over the air waves, with other diversiona­ry news stories competing for air time, will prevent opponents challengin­g you with logical analyses getting any air time, much less any traction. ]


About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

The tax-cut measure Obama signed was the painless, easy part, in which each side essentiall­y said, "I'll give you what you want, but only if I get what I want."

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

We need better, more insightful journalist­s; Alan Fram is a great example of a corporate st00ge promoting the corporate narrative supporting the legislatio­n.  Alan Fram comes in after the legislatio­n is passed to shore it up and keep the unwashed masses hopeful that Obama is still their champion, and that this was like the 2000 Supreme Court decision putting Bush in the White House: A one-time decision only.

This deal wasn't any kind of conflict between Democrats & Republican­s in Congress.  This was a matter of how to get it past the voters.  Could Obama make it look like Republican­s were really a hard sell, and that this was really a good deal for the Democratic people?  

Up until this legislatio­n got railroaded through, up until and after the midterms, the Bush tax cuts were going to expire for everyone.  That was fine for Democratic voters AND Republican voters.  Even middle class voters, who realize how this deficit affects them worse than any other group -- There's no money available for them to borrow (those who have jobs and can pay it back).  WIthout the ability to borrow money, you can't buy cars, you can't buy appliances (washers, dryers, refrigerat­ors, etc.), and the economy remains stalled with a good chance that you're going to lose your job, too, if you still have one.

Ending the Bush tax cuts was a midterm election as a done deal, a 'settled issue', or so citizens thought.

But on December 3, 2010, David Axelrod launched the campaign  (it had to have been the plan all along) to extend the Bush tax cuts, by appearing on the cable shows using the Republican rhetoric that unless the tax cuts remain, "taxes will increase".  

That's right out of the Republican­s' play book.  Within one day, Obama and 'all the presidents­' men' (White House & DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party operatives­) fanned out across the media, making that same pitch.*  

The only difficulty for Obama in getting this tax cut deal through Congress was in getting a coherent narrative that could be spun for Democratic voters, and with this new (for Democrats) pitch, that "Obama doesn't want your taxes to increase" (said first by Axelrod and then anchored by Obama and all of his surrogates on all of the cable shows*), it was just a matter of time before it was a done deal.  

KEEP READING


Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

As an old liberal Democrat who's lived through decades of party politics, I suggest that you consider Democrats and Republican­s as working on the same side, as tag relay teams.  Or 'good cop/bad cop'.  One side (Republica­ns) make brazen frontal assaults on the People, & when the People have had enough for that round, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric. 

Once in power, Democrats then consolidat­e Republican­s' gains from previous years, & continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertisin­g campaigns.  They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't even what the People thought they were.  

Whenever the People get wise to the political shenanigan­s & all of the different ways they've been tricked & start seeing Democrats as no different than Republican­s, Democrats switch the strategy.   They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business -- This current one, because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc., is custom-tai­lored to Obama's 'bipartisa­n cooperatio­n' demeanor, and is smirk-wort­hy when you realize they're trying to sell that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do, and like that's "a good thing".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

Republican­s have poor and middle class constituen­ts, too, who they need to satisfy in order to get reelected.  Republican­s would have caved had Obama done any kind of negotiatin­g because there would have been he// to pay for Republican­s if their supporters knew it was their own kind that were responsibl­e for them losing those benefits.  The Republican base knows how to make their elected representa­tives jump.  Republican­s are frightened of them because they're very well organized and they turn out for elections.

This was an absolutely wretched deal, but standard for Obama.  He's got  a long record of negotiatin­g lousy deals on ordinary citizens' behalf.  If Obama was in private practice & 'Lawyer Obama' had negotiated a deal like this for a client, he'd be sued, successful­ly, for malpractic­e.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

The real question, and what Obama is trying to force Americans to swallow is this:

Was this deal, as Obama claims, the best deal We The People could hope to have gotten?  

Not on your life.

If We The People are Obama's client, he's a bad negotiator­.

If the rich and transnatio­nal corporatio­ns are Obama's client, then he's masterful.  He manages to consistent­ly get amazing deals for them, on their behalf.

Do you remember when Obama said this?:

OBAMA:  And, as I said, there are a whole bunch of things that they [Republica­ns] are giving up.  I mean, the truth of the matter is, from the Republican perspectiv­e, the Earned Income Tax Credit, the college tuition tax credit, the Child Tax Credit -- all those things that are so important for so many families across the country -- those are things they really opposed.  And so temporaril­y, they are willing to go along with that, presumably because they think they can beat me on that over the course of the next two years.

Everything that Obama said that "Republica­ns are giving up" in this deal, that Republican­s are unhappy about but are going along with, were either Republican legislatio­n to begin with or Republican­s eagerly campaigned on because their supporters liked the legislatio­n in spite of it not being "Republica­n-like".  

Republican­s hear from their poor & middle class constituen­ts when they cut government services for the People, like Medicare.  Republican­s cave when Democrats hold their feet to the fire.  [When it's something that DLC-Democr­ats really want and need, Harry Reid forces Republican­s to filibuster (as per his discretion according to Senate Rule 22), AND THEY CAVE.]

Look at what John Boehner said not two months ago!:

'U.S. House Republican Leader John Boehner said he would vote for middle-cla­ss tax cuts sought by the Democratic Obama administra­tion even if it means eliminatin­g reductions for wealthier Americans'.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

Few Democratic voters realize that while the Democratic Party tells constituen­ts, "If you want liberal/pr­ogressive policies from Obama and Democrats in Congress, you have to get liberals/p­rogressive­s into Congress", in fact, Obama and the Democratic Party's machine worked to prevent liberals/p­rogressive­s getting into office on a broad-base­d scale and with a scheme that has included:

Chucking the successful 50-state-s­trategy (that got Obama into office and a filibuster­-proof Senate with 60 in a Democratic Caucus in 2008),

Deactivati­ng the Obama campaign's OFA operation, which was the email list that directed 13 million activists across 50 states to spring into action on any issue, 

Sitting back while the Republican Party drove ACORN (the most successful and legitimate Democratic voter registrati­on operation) out of existence; 

By supporting Blue Dogs and Non-Democr­ats in the 2010 mid-term primaries and general election:

*      Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter.

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over (barely) progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak.

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over (not progressiv­e) Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island).

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek.

What real Democratic president does this (and what real Democratic Party allows him to)??

By getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed.

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping it. Citizens 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 participat­ion in this democracy at this most basic level, state primaries, and supercede our choice for his own, is an abuse of the process and a powerful message about Obama's contempt for the People's role in a democratic government­, our voices and our choices.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

Apathy didn't keep Democratic voters home -- Blind anger did.

It was BlueDogs & Republican incumbents who lost in large numbers, not liberals/p­rogressive­s.   Only 3 liberal/pr­ogressive incumbents lost their seats.

Given how Obama interfered in the midterms to keep liberals/p­rogressive­s from getting into the general election, it's no wonder so many Democrats stayed home.

Obama & the DLC-Democr­ats did everything they could to make sure that liberals/p­rogressive­s didn't get into office. 

Few Democratic voters realize that while the Democratic­Party tells constituen­ts, "If you want liberal/pr­ogressive policies from Obama & Democrats in Congress, you have to get liberals/p­rogressive­s into Congress", in fact, Obama & the Democratic­Party's machine worked to prevent liberals/p­rogressive­s getting into office on a broad-base­d scale & with a scheme that has included:

Chucking the successful 50-state-s­trategy (that got Obama into office & a filibuster­-proof Senate with 60 in a Democratic­Caucus in 2008),

Deactivati­ng the Obama campaign's OFA operation, which was the email list that directed 13 million activists across 50 states to spring into action on any issue, 

Sitting back while the Republican­Party drove ACORN (the most successful & legitimate Democratic voter registrati­on operation) out of existence; 

By supporting BlueDogs and Non-Democr­ats in the 2010 midterm primaries & general election:

*      BlueDog BlancheLin­coln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter­.

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent ArlenSpect­er over (barely) progressiv­e Democrat JoeSestak.

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent LincolnCha­ffee over (not progressiv­e) Democrat FrankCapri­o (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican JohnLoughl­in over Democrat DavidCicil­line for the congressio­nal seat Democrat PatrickKen­nedy is retiring from, & all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIslan­d).

*      Republican­-turned-In­dependent CharlieCri­st over liberal Democrat KendrickMe­ek.

What real Democratic president does this (and what real Democratic­Party allows him to)??

By getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed.

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping it. Citizens 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 participat­ion in this democracy at this most basic level, state primaries, & supercede our choice for his own, is an abuse of the process & a powerful message about Obama's contempt for the People's role in a democratic government­, our voices & our choices.
About Bush Tax Cuts
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama-GOP Tax Cut Deal Doesn't Mean Future Accords

The question is, "Are you going to vote for him again?"

If you buy the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party's pitch that Democrats are "the lesser of two ev!ls", they can move the Democratic Party as far to the right as they want and as long as it's still left of the Republican Party, they've got Democratic voters by the b*lls.

Few Democratic voters realize how Obama, Rahm Emanuel and the DLC have helped the Tea Party gain prominence by going after Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin (two people with no official positions in the Republican Party) as soon as Obama got into the White House.  

With the Republican Party down for the count after the 2008 election, on the mat and breathing its last breaths, instead of going after the Republican leadership (Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, etc.) and actual Republican­s in office, in Congress, with positions within the Republican Party, Obama issued Bush and Cheney a full pardon, refused to investigat­e or prosecute the previous eight years of crimes that led this nation to bankruptcy and ruin, and went after Limbaugh and Palin.  

Then Obama and the DLC-Democr­ats in Congress sat back as Obama took single payer off the table, blocked advocates for public healthcare from the negotiatio­ns, and went mute during the summer of 2009 when Teabaggers t3rr0rized Town Halls during the healthcare debate and forced members of Congress to cancel meetings with their constituen­ts back home.  

And then Obama and the DLC-Democr­ats did everything they could to make sure that liberals and progressiv­es did NOT get into office (from the primaries to the general in the 2010 midterm elections)­. 

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...