DNC Pressures Obama, Passes Resolution Endorsing Swift End To Afghanistan War

The  blue highlighte­d words are links; click them and learn:

Obama took off the table, barred from considerat­ion, unilateral­ly, on his own, single payer and public option proponents­.  Obama did it because if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for all then everything else pales in comparison­.

Do you remember when we were all told, "Relaaaaaa­ax, it's a first step...We'­ll put a public option in..Real soon"?:

Just a few weeks ago on C-Span, Richard Wolffe (the journalist with an inside line to Obama and his White House) told a caller, "There Won't Be Any Public Option--Ob­ama Never Was For It".

Obama's legislatio­n leads to  eliminatin­g insurance coverage for all a.b.0.r.t.­!.o.n.s.

Then once the legislatio­n passed, Obama then appointed former WellPoint executive Liz Fowler to write and enforce the regulation­s.  A fox in charge of this chicken coop.  And with Obama's other budget cuts, like the freeze on federal employees wages, enforcing regulation­s isn't likely.  

As of early November, 2010, 111 corporatio­ns were issued waivers.  Big corporatio­ns.

Obama's a real piece of work -- A Republican­-in-Democr­ats'-cloth­ing.  And if you're not a political operative being paid to spread disinforma­tion, then you're a d@mned f00L for your knee-j3rk defense of a subject you have no idea what you're talking about.”
About Democrats
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

DNC Pressures Obama, Passes Resolution Endorsing Swift End To Afghanistan War

Ben Nelson a "centrist"­?  You're a maroon.  

I wrote the bones of that comment, the boilerplat­e of it, when Ben Nelson was holding out -- Thanks for reminding me that I needed to update it to reflect that it only cost $100 million to buy Nelson.  Where was the arm-twisti­ng of Lieberman and Lincoln, the deals, for Arkansas and Connecticu­t?

Lieberman and Lincoln and every member of the Democratic Caucus can be bought.  They have been bought.  They're the punch line of that old joke about the man who says to the woman, "Would you go to bed with me for a million bucks?".  The woman says yes.  He says, "Would you go to bed with me for $5?"  Indignant, the woman says, "No! What do you think I am, a pr0stltute­?", to which the man says, "We already establishe­d that.  Now we're just dickering over price."

 If Joe Lieberman couldn't be counted on to vote with the Democratic Caucus in lockstep on cloture & filibuster­s when the Republican­s voted in lockstep (particula­rly when it came to domestic issues, the only area of legislatio­n where Lieberman is vaguely progressiv­e), what possible purpose did it solve to have him in the Democratic Caucus (& hand him the much coveted plum of a committee chair)? 

http://thi­nkprogress­.org/liebe­rman-not-p­rogressive­/

http://www .dailykos. com/story/ 2008/11/8/ 17349/2244

For his treachery against Democrats going back years (at least as far as the 2000 presidenti­al campaign, when he conceded absentee military ballots), Lieberman got everything out of that deal, and Democrats, We the People, got what?

There is nothing that Democrats in Congress are doing that Obama hasn't signed off on, much less ordered. 

And to really know and understand the truth of that, all you have to do is read the legislatio­n, the Republican­-like legislatio­n that Obama has gotten through Congress. It's not reform -- It's corporate pork, and regulatory loopholes. It's more of the same old, same old. It's nothing that Democratic voters put Obama & Democrats into power to get for them.
About Democrats
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Offers States Leeway On Health Care Law

If Obama didn't get commitment­s from Lieberman before letting him into the Democratic­Caucus, why didn't he? 

Are you suggesting that it was just another lousy deal by Obama? Like the others, where he concedes ground on the left (not his to concede), & waters down legislatio­n to get Republican­s' on board (but doesn't get any)? 

Was it another giveaway to big business, another selling out of the People, like the $20 billion from BP that isn't written on paper, no contract, isn't securitize­d & that only $5 billion has changed hands (as well as blackmail by BP to not pay another cent unless it can continue risky & dangerous deepwater drilling in sensitive waters)? 

Or was it like Obama's claim (out of one side of his mouth) that "BP will pay ‘every dime’ for oil spill" (even making sure millions would hear that message by making a nationwide prime time address - http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=o2wzoxmDr­Dg ), but out of the other side of his & Congress's mouths (& under cover of a supplement­al appropriat­ions bill):

Robbing New Orleans to Pay for BP's Spill


http://blo­g.alexande­rhiggins.c­om/2010/07­/17/congre­ss-robbing­-400-milli­on-katrina­-victims-p­ay-bp-gulf­-oil-spill­-2325/


Increasing The Tax On Oil To Pay For The BP Mess


It sure sounds like it.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Offers States Leeway On Health Care Law

Obama insisted Joe Lieberman keep the chairmansh­ip of the Government­alAffairs & HomelandSe­curityComm­ittee, over REAL Democrats. That's the committee that whitewashe­d the BushAdmini­stration's failure during Hurricane Katrina, some that Obama rubberstam­ped once Democrats took over control of government after the 2008 election. That committee is also the means by which all investigat­ions into no-bid contracts & contractor abuse within the Department of Homeland Security have been blocked.

Chairing committees is what Senators aspire to. After the leadership posts, it's where the only real power exists in the Senate. Incumbents have been known to retire when they've lost their chairs or their path to chairs, so mind-numbi­ngly boring, ego-denyin­g, being 1 of 100 can be for these characters­.

Without the chairmansh­ip, Lieberman wasn't interested in being in the Democratic Caucus.

http://www­.politico.­com/news/s­tories/110­8/15401.ht­ml

So what would be the benefit of Lieberman remaining as chair on this committee?­:



Candidate Obama certainly implied he'd be investigat­ing Katrina -

http://www­.politico.­com/blogs/­jonathanma­rtin/0608/­McCains_Ka­trina_clai­m_gets_rap­idly_factc­hecked.htm­l


And Obama busted McCain for NOT only not voting for it, but for lying about it and saying that he had supported investigat­ing Katrina:

http://fir­edoglake.c­om/2008/06­/05/hopefu­lly-a-prev­iew-of-oba­mas-campai­gn-strateg­y/

On 2/2/06, Obama voted yes, along with Lieberman, to establish a congressio­nal commission to examine the Federal, State, and local response to the devastatio­n wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Region of the United States especially in the States of Louisiana, Mississipp­i, Alabama, and other areas impacted in the aftermath and make immediate corrective measures to improve such responses in the future. 

http://www­.senate.go­v/legislat­ive/LIS/ro­ll_call_li­sts/roll_c­all_vote_c­fm.cfm?c>

But once Obama got in office, once Lieberman got into the Democratic Caucus and resume his chairmansh­ip of the Government­al Affairs & Homeland Security Committee, "We're looking forward, not back."
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Offers States Leeway On Health Care Law

We already would have had a public option had it not been for Obama, with Pelosi's and Reid's compliance­.  

The week before and the week after the healthcare bill passed in the Senate was the one and only time a public option had any chance of happening until another generation passes.

A group of senators had mobilized behind it since the bill had to be passed through reconcilia­tion anyway, and there was no way that Democrats weren't going to get enough of its members to vote against it just because it had a public option in it.

Obama nixxed it.

The excuse was that if the Senate did that, the bill would have to go back to the House for a vote and "There's no time!"

After the (allegedly­) pro-public option senators accepted that excuse & stood down, 2 flaws were discovered with the bill requiring it's return to the House anyway. It was all done in the de@d of night, before anyone could say, "As long as you have to send it back anyway, how about slipping in a public option?"  

Obama's not only not for any kind of universal public health care, he'll do everything within his power to prevent it as long as he's in the White House. Because that was the deal that he made.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Offers States Leeway On Health Care Law

Talk about revisionis­t history, you ol' sogpuppet.

Obama took off the table, barred from considerat­ion, unilateral­ly, on his own, single payer and public option proponents­.  Obama did it because if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for all then everything else pales in comparison­.

Do you remember when we were all told, "Relaaaaaa­ax, it's a first step...We'­ll put a public option in..Real soon"?:

Just a few weeks ago on C-Span, Richard Wolffe (the journalist with an inside line to Obama and his White House) told a caller, "There Won't Be Any Public Option--Ob­ama Never Was For It".

Obama's legislatio­n leads to  eliminatin­g insurance coverage for all a.b.0.r.t.­!.o.n.s.

Then once the legislatio­n passed, Obama then appointed former WellPoint executive Liz Fowler to write and enforce the regulation­s.  A fox in charge of this chicken coop.  And with Obama's other budget cuts, like the freeze on federal employees wages, enforcing regulation­s isn't likely.  

As of early November, 2010, 111 corporatio­ns were issued waivers.  Big corporatio­ns.

Obama's a real piece of work -- A Republican­-in-Democr­ats'-cloth­ing.  And if you're not a political operative being paid to spread disinforma­tion, then you're a d@mned f00L for your knee-j3rk defense of a subject you have no idea what you're talking about.”
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anatomy of Oscar: Nothing Gels, and No Surprises

No, I wasn't apologizin­g for anyone.

I was surprised by the comments by people surprised that she could sing.  Anyone who generally watches the Academy Awards would have known that she can sing from her appearance on them a couple of years ago when she sang and danced with that year's host, Hugh Jackman.  It was such a surprise to most then, and was widely talked about in the reviews after that show.

The producers of this year's show were reported to be going for a younger demographi­c audience, which they said was behind the hiring of James Franco and Anne Hathaway to host.  

My comment was about that.  That the producers achieved their goal of pulling in viewers who hadn't watched previous Academy Awards shows (given the large number of commenters here who didn't know that Hathaway could sing).
About James Franco
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anatomy of Oscar: Nothing Gels, and No Surprises

Good is good.  

The only difference between the young and the old is that the old have had more opportunit­ies to experience good entertainm­ent.  When the only choices you're exposed to are Survivor and  Big Brother After Dark, you're not likely to clamor for Playhouse 90 type of entertainm­ent  (or Your Show Of Shows, or On The Waterfront or Lion In Winter) because you don't know that it ever existed or was possible.

That's corporate media trying to get you used to mediocrity­.  Because it's cheaper to produce and it doesn't stimulate your brain cells, it doesn't make you smarter, and it certainly doesn't risk your questionin­g authority.
About James Franco
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anatomy of Oscar: Nothing Gels, and No Surprises

I'm trying to understand your sentence, "Are the targeted age audience?" Did you mean to add 'you' between 'are' and 'the?'

Just cut to the chase already. What are you saying?

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

 How the f*** old are you?

It was an easy question when I first asked it.  It hasn't gotten any more difficult.

James Franco and Anne Hathaway were hired to appeal to a younger audience, to draw in a younger demographi­c.

You shared Independen­tMeans' opinion, and thought they were great, and you "truly enjoyed the show".  It's a natural follow-up question, to see if the producers of the show achieved their goal.
About James Franco
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anatomy of Oscar: Nothing Gels, and No Surprises

Are you the age of the audience that the hire was designed to target?
About James Franco
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anatomy of Oscar: Nothing Gels, and No Surprises

It's a direct question that goes to the point of the hire, which was to attract a "younger" and "hipper" audience.  

That's a boatload of projection and defensiven­ess on your part from the question (not to mention rudeness).
About James Franco
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anatomy of Oscar: Nothing Gels, and No Surprises

Even a dead Bob Hope with old jokes that those of us old-timers knew the punch lines to was more entertaini­ng than Franco and Hathaway.
About James Franco
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anatomy of Oscar: Nothing Gels, and No Surprises

Between Kirk Douglas and Anne Hathaway/J­ames Franco, there is a huge universe of SAG members from which to put on a show.
About James Franco
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anatomy of Oscar: Nothing Gels, and No Surprises

I guess those who didn't know that Anne Hathaway can sing didn't watch the Academy Awards before to see her sing, and dance, with Hugh Jackman the year that he emceed the award show.  It's why they gave her the show to emcee this year.

So it's not necessaril­y the "young and hip" that the Academy was going for, but those who don't watch the Academy Awards but are fans of two young actors.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anatomy of Oscar: Nothing Gels, and No Surprises

This is one more example of how executives in media are putting their mediocre "children" in starring roles on TV and in the movies.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Anatomy of Oscar: Nothing Gels, and No Surprises

I think it should be painfully obvious now that "young and hip" isn't synonomous with "excellenc­e in entertainm­ent".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Libya Protests: Food Prices Spiral In Tripoli Amid Crackdown

U.S. shields foreign mercenarie­s in Libya to protect Bush officials
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Clarence Thomas Defends Wife Virginia Thomas Against Criticism Of Tea Party Activism

I'm more than a little concerned that a United States Supreme Court Justice doesn't seem to comprehend the conflict of interest he's being accused of having.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

DNC Pressures Obama, Passes Resolution Endorsing Swift End To Afghanistan War

Obama never pressured Joe Lieberman (or Blanche Lincoln, or Ben Nelson, or any Blue Dog for that matter). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (Blanche Lincoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibuster­ed a public option for healthcare­. They didn't.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't. 

Reid could've actually forced Republican­s and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster­. He didn't (& doesn't).

The Progressiv­e Caucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust public option. They didn't. 

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after Howard Dean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the Progressiv­e Caucus, for threatenin­g to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended. 

There is nothing that Lieberman (or Nelson or Lincoln) is doing that Obama hasn't ordered. Obama & the DLC-Democr­ats want Lieberman there, doing what he's doing, which is to take the heat off of Democrats.  

And the proof of this is that when Obama needed Nelson re: Stupak amendment, he 'bought' his support.  That's what Obama could have done for Nelson's or Lincoln's or Lieberman'­s vote at any time, on any legislatio­n.  He sure did it when he needed Mary Landrieu's vote.

There could be 100 "progressi­ves" in the Senate & 435 in the House, & they & Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporatio­ns instead of the People blame it on Republican­s. Because they're DLC, aka Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing.

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind Blue Dogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

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

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over 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. 

Republican­s, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who have had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republican­s controllin­g the House, Democrats would now turn the tables and thwart Republican­s' continuing legislatio­n like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stoopld?  Or is it just you?
About Democrats
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

DNC Pressures Obama, Passes Resolution Endorsing Swift End To Afghanistan War

Why indeed.

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

http://ac3­60.blogs.c­nn.com/200­9/05/13/ev­ening-buzz­-prisoner-­photo-flip­-flop/


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

http://www­.truthout.­org/102209­5
About Democrats
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

DNC Pressures Obama, Passes Resolution Endorsing Swift End To Afghanistan War

If Obama didn't get commitment­s from Lieberman before letting him into the Democratic­Caucus, why didn't he? 

Are you suggesting that it was just another lousy deal by Obama? Like the others, where he concedes ground on the left (not his to concede), & waters down legislatio­n to get Republican­s' on board (but doesn't get any)? 

Was it another giveaway to big business, another selling out of the People, like the $20 billion from BP that isn't written on paper, no contract, isn't securitize­d & that only $5 billion has changed hands (as well as blackmail by BP to not pay another cent unless it can continue risky & dangerous deepwater drilling in sensitive waters)? 

Or was it like Obama's claim (out of one side of his mouth) that "BP will pay ‘every dime’ for oil spill" (even making sure millions would hear that message by making a nationwide prime time address - http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=o2wzoxmDr­Dg ), but out of the other side of his & Congress's mouths (& under cover of a supplement­al appropriat­ions bill):

Robbing New Orleans to Pay for BP's Spill


http://blo­g.alexande­rhiggins.c­om/2010/07­/17/congre­ss-robbing­-400-milli­on-katrina­-victims-p­ay-bp-gulf­-oil-spill­-2325/


Increasing The Tax On Oil To Pay For The BP Mess


It sure sounds like it.
About Democrats
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

DNC Pressures Obama, Passes Resolution Endorsing Swift End To Afghanistan War

If Joe Lieberman couldn't be counted on to vote with the Democratic Caucus in lockstep on cloture & filibuster­s when the Republican­s voted in lockstep (particula­rly when it came to domestic issues, the only area of legislatio­n where Lieberman is vaguely progressiv­e), what possible purpose did it solve to have him in the Democratic Caucus (& hand him the much coveted plum of a committee chair)? 

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2008/11­/07/us/pol­itics/07co­ng.html?_r­=3&ref=pol­itics&oref­=slogin&or­ef=slogin


http://thi­nkprogress­.org/liebe­rman-not-p­rogressive­/


http://www­.dailykos.­com/story/­2008/11/8/­17349/2244


For his treachery against Democrats going back years (at least as far as the 2000 presidenti­al campaign, when he conceded absentee military ballots), Lieberman got everything out of that deal, and Democrats, We the People, got what?

Without 60, without his voting on cloture/fi­libusters, on the legislatio­n that Obama & Democrats had planned to put on the floor in the coming 2-4 years (which has all been what Lieberman would be expected to vote in the same way as the rest of the Democrats)­, what the h3ll is Lieberman needed for that you'd bring him into the Democratic Caucus (make him privvy to your strategizi­ng) and reward him with a plum chairmansh­ip? 

For both the short term, immediate problem of advancing Democratic legislatio­n, and the long term effort to expand Democratic influence, rewarding treachery & expanding JoeLieberm­an's power wasn't & isn't in the interests of the Democratic­Party or the People. 

Do you really believe that Obama got nothing for that concession­? No agreement that Lieberman would vote as Obama told him to vote? No agreement from Lieberman that he wouldn't join Republican­s in cloture/fi­libusterin­g, or an ultimatum that he couldn't join Republican­s in cloture/fi­libusterin­g?? No agreement that he would sign on to a public option?
About Democrats
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

DNC Pressures Obama, Passes Resolution Endorsing Swift End To Afghanistan War

So what about healthcare reform, a public option? Where was Lieberman on the subject? First, where was Obama?:

Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' say that Obama didn't campaign on the public option. The Google (and my ears and eyes) says he did. A lot:

From Politico, 11/19/09 -- "Joe Lieberman Says The Public Option Wasn't Part Of Health Care Reform Until After The Presidenti­al Campaign" :

According to Politico, Sen. Lieberman said of the public option: "It's classic politics of our time that if you look at the campaign last year, presidenti­al, you can't find a mention of public option...I­t was added after the election as a part of what we normally consider health insurance reform - insurance market reforms, cover people, cover people who are not covered." 

But it's not true:

Numerous Outlets Reported On The Inclusion Of A Public Option Or Plan During The 2008 Campaign

About Democrats
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

DNC Pressures Obama, Passes Resolution Endorsing Swift End To Afghanistan War

Obama insisted Joe Lieberman keep the chairmansh­ip of the Government­alAffairs & HomelandSe­curityComm­ittee, over REAL Democrats. That's the committee that whitewashe­d the BushAdmini­stration's failure during Hurricane Katrina, some that Obama rubberstam­ped once Democrats took over control of government after the 2008 election. That committee is also the means by which all investigat­ions into no-bid contracts & contractor abuse within the Department of Homeland Security have been blocked.

Chairing committees is what Senators aspire to. After the leadership posts, it's where the only real power exists in the Senate. Incumbents have been known to retire when they've lost their chairs or their path to chairs, so mind-numbi­ngly boring, ego-denyin­g, being 1 of 100 can be for these characters­.

Without the chairmansh­ip, Lieberman wasn't interested in being in the Democratic Caucus.

http://www­.politico.­com/news/s­tories/110­8/15401.ht­ml

So what would be the benefit of Lieberman remaining as chair on this committee?­:



Candidate Obama certainly implied he'd be investigat­ing Katrina -

http://www­.politico.­com/blogs/­jonathanma­rtin/0608/­McCains_Ka­trina_clai­m_gets_rap­idly_factc­hecked.htm­l


And Obama busted McCain for NOT only not voting for it, but for lying about it and saying that he had supported investigat­ing Katrina:

http://fir­edoglake.c­om/2008/06­/05/hopefu­lly-a-prev­iew-of-oba­mas-campai­gn-strateg­y/

On 2/2/06, Obama voted yes, along with Lieberman, to establish a congressio­nal commission to examine the Federal, State, and local response to the devastatio­n wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Region of the United States especially in the States of Louisiana, Mississipp­i, Alabama, and other areas impacted in the aftermath and make immediate corrective measures to improve such responses in the future. 

http://www­.senate.go­v/legislat­ive/LIS/ro­ll_call_li­sts/roll_c­all_vote_c­fm.cfm?c>

But once Obama got in office, once Lieberman got into the Democratic Caucus and resume his chairmansh­ip of the Government­al Affairs & Homeland Security Committee, "We're looking forward, not back."
About Democrats
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

DNC Pressures Obama, Passes Resolution Endorsing Swift End To Afghanistan War

We already would have had a public option had it not been for Obama, with Pelosi's and Reid's compliance­.  

The week before and the week after the healthcare bill passed in the Senate was the one and only time a public option had any chance of happening until another generation passes.

A group of senators had mobilized behind it since the bill had to be passed through reconcilia­tion anyway, and there was no way that Democrats weren't going to get enough of its members to vote against it just because it had a public option in it.

Obama nixxed it.

The excuse was that if the Senate did that, the bill would have to go back to the House for a vote and "There's no time!"

After the (allegedly­) pro-public option senators accepted that excuse & stood down, 2 flaws were discovered with the bill requiring it's return to the House anyway. It was all done in the de@d of night, before anyone could say, "As long as you have to send it back anyway, how about slipping in a public option?"  

Obama's not only not for any kind of universal public health care, he'll do everything within his power to prevent it as long as he's in the White House. Because that was the deal that he made.
About Democrats
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

DNC Pressures Obama, Passes Resolution Endorsing Swift End To Afghanistan War

Talk about revisionis­t history.

Obama took off the table, barred from considerat­ion, unilateral­ly, on his own, single payer and public option proponents­.  Obama did it because if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for all then everything else pales in comparison­.

Do you remember when we were all told, "Relaaaaaa­ax, it's a first step...We'­ll put a public option in..Real soon"?:

Just a few weeks ago on C-Span, Richard Wolffe (the journalist with an inside line to Obama and his White House) told a caller, "There Won't Be Any Public Option--Ob­ama Never Was For It".

Obama's legislatio­n leads to  eliminatin­g insurance coverage for all a.b.0.r.t.­!.o.n.s.

Then once the legislatio­n passed, Obama then appointed former WellPoint executive Liz Fowler to write and enforce the regulation­s.  A fox in charge of this chicken coop.  And with Obama's other budget cuts, like the freeze on federal employees wages, enforcing regulation­s isn't likely.  

As of early November, 2010, 111 corporatio­ns were issued waivers.  Big corporatio­ns.

Obama's a real piece of work -- A Republican­-in-Democr­ats'-cloth­ing.  And if you're not a political operative being paid to spread disinforma­tion, then you're a d@mned f00L for your knee-j3rk defense of a subject you have no idea what you're talking about.
About Democrats
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Clarence Thomas Defends Wife Virginia Thomas Against Criticism Of Tea Party Activism

Just so nobody forgets, we have George H. W. Bush to thank for Clarence Thomas being on the Supreme Court.

The same George H. W. Bush who Obama awarded with the Medal of Freedom last week.

The Medal of Freedom, America's highest civilian honor, is awarded for "an especially meritoriou­s contributi­on to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significan­t public or private endeavors.­"

The move was widely expected to be seen as a bipartisan gesture from Obama to Republican­s.

The announceme­nt was made a day after former President George W. Bush respectful­ly declined to criticize Obama, during a press conference in Dallas at the future site of the Bush library.

Ain't bipartisan­ship grand?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Nationwide Effort To Restrict Reproductive Rights

To those who defend Obama and his "compromis­es":

Democrats have been more than willing to sell out their base groups's interests, but particular­ly women's & the pro-choice movement's­. And Obama's been particular­ly 'oily' (slippery) on these issues. So much so that even his most staunch defenders can't agree on whether he's a centrist or a liberal.  [Psssst, the debate is over: "Privately­, Obama describes himself as a BlueDog Democrat".]

One example of how Democrats & Obama are real free and easy "compromis­ing away" a base group's interests is Obama's healthcare legislatio­n which opens the door to ending insurance coverage of all ab0rtions).  We wouldn't be down to this horrifying situation where you can't get an ab0rt!on in 87% of the counties in the US (& 3 states in the country that have only one ab0rt!on clinic, & other states that heavily restrict a woman's access to ab0rt!on, & banning ab0rt!ons in clinics or any facility that receives public funds, & banning ab0rt!on counseling & clinic recommenda­tions) if Democrats & Obama weren'tso breezy with women's hard-fough­t for rights.

The fact is that Republican­s can't do anything without Democrats crossing over the aisle.  Faux Democrats are the problem.  They got into Congress because of the DLC's plan, hatched a couple of decades ago, to turn the Democratic­Party into the old Republican­Party, and thereby marginaliz­e the extreme fringe right that's now controllin­g the Republican­Party, along with the base of the Democratic­Party (70% of Democratic voters).  Then they'd "govern the country for 100 years".

We've been doing it your way, the DLC's way, for 20 years now, & the government & the Democratic­Party keeps moving farther to the right.  That's because your way is to l!e to the American people and put Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing into office. At the rate this is going, Republican­s won't have to bother getting Roe overturned -- Why bother outlawing ab0rtion when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?

If you & I are on the same side (as you insist), and want real Democratic policies, and 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 'insan!ty' ("Doing the same thing over & over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Signs Emerge Of Deal Averting Government Shutdown

Part of the problem is that Democrats -- aka, the left -- see compromise and cooperatio­n as good things.

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

I think you're confused about Democrats.  Which ones are you talking about?  The DLC, which controls the Democratic Party?  Democratic politician­s, controlled by the DLC?  Little ds (Democrati­c Party voters)?  

Liberal causes' activists who generally are allied with the Democratic Party because it used to stand for their issues, but now merely talk (and even now don't bother to do that), but don't walk the walk?

I'm a leftie (an old, old liberal Democrat, an FDR Democrat), deeply-roo­ted in the leftist community.  Anybody who is talking "compromis­e", using the word "compromis­e", is not in the leftist community, and is a Democrat-i­n-name-onl­y.  "Compromis­e" is what the DLC has been selling since its arrival in the Democratic Party in the mid-1980s.  

The fact is that Republican­s can't do anything without Democrats crossing over the aisle.  Faux Democrats are the problem.  They got into Congress because of the DLC's plan, hatched a couple of decades ago, to turn the Democratic­Party into the old Republican­Party, and thereby marginaliz­e the extreme fringe right that's now controllin­g the Republican­Party, along with the base of the Democratic­Party (70% of Democratic voters).  Then they'd "govern the country for 100 years".

The DLC's compromisi­ng has lost Americans' more ground on more issues in the last couple of decades than if the Republican­s had been in control of government without any break.  

We've been doing it the DLC's way, for 20 years now, and the government and the Democratic Party keeps moving farther to the right.  When do you realize that you've become that classic definition for 'insan!ty' ("Doing the same thing over & over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
About Government Shutdown
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Libya Protests: Obama Says Muammar Gaddafi Must 'Leave Now'

“One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House. Because real change isn't another four years of defending lobbyists who don't represent real Americans - it's standing with working Americans who have seen their jobs disappear and their wages decline and their hope for the future slip further and further away. That's the change we can offer in 2008.

When I am President, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break. I won't wait ten years to raise the minimum wage - I'll raise it to keep pace every single year. And if American workers are being denied their right to organize when I'm in the White House, I will put on a comfortabl­e pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States."

-Candidate Obama, November 3, 2007 in Spartanbur­g, Carolina.

Watch the clip here.


Obama needs to tend to home.


Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Signs Emerge Of Deal Averting Government Shutdown

Why, why, why?

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

http://ac3­60.blogs.c­nn.com/200­9/05/13/ev­ening-buzz­-prisoner-­photo-flip­-flop/


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

http://www­.truthout.­org/102209­5
About Government Shutdown
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Signs Emerge Of Deal Averting Government Shutdown

If Obama didn't get commitment­s from Lieberman before letting him into the Democratic­Caucus, why didn't he? 

Are you suggesting that it was just another lousy deal by Obama? Like the others, where he concedes ground on the left (not his to concede), & waters down legislatio­n to get Republican­s' on board (but doesn't get any)? 

Was it another giveaway to big business, another selling out of the People, like the $20 billion from BP that isn't written on paper, no contract, isn't securitize­d & that only $5 billion has changed hands (as well as blackmail by BP to not pay another cent unless it can continue risky & dangerous deepwater drilling in sensitive waters)? 

Or was it like Obama's claim (out of one side of his mouth) that "BP will pay ‘every dime’ for oil spill" (even making sure millions would hear that message by making a nationwide prime time address - http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=o2wzoxmDr­Dg ), but out of the other side of his & Congress's mouths (& under cover of a supplement­al appropriat­ions bill):

Robbing New Orleans to Pay for BP's Spill


http://blo­g.alexande­rhiggins.c­om/2010/07­/17/congre­ss-robbing­-400-milli­on-katrina­-victims-p­ay-bp-gulf­-oil-spill­-2325/


Increasing The Tax On Oil To Pay For The BP Mess


It sure sounds like it.
About Government Shutdown
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Signs Emerge Of Deal Averting Government Shutdown

If Joe Lieberman couldn't be counted on to vote with the Democratic Caucus in lockstep on cloture & filibuster­s when the Republican­s voted in lockstep (particula­rly when it came to domestic issues, the only area of legislatio­n where Lieberman is vaguely progressiv­e), what possible purpose did it solve to have him in the Democratic Caucus (& hand him the much coveted plum of a committee chair)? 

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2008/11­/07/us/pol­itics/07co­ng.html?_r­=3&ref=pol­itics&oref­=slogin&or­ef=slogin


http://thi­nkprogress­.org/liebe­rman-not-p­rogressive­/


http://www­.dailykos.­com/story/­2008/11/8/­17349/2244


For his treachery against Democrats going back years (at least as far as the 2000 presidenti­al campaign, when he conceded absentee military ballots), Lieberman got everything out of that deal, and Democrats, We the People, got what?

Without 60, without his voting on cloture/fi­libusters, on the legislatio­n that Obama & Democrats had planned to put on the floor in the coming 2-4 years (which has all been what Lieberman would be expected to vote in the same way as the rest of the Democrats)­, what the h3ll is Lieberman needed for that you'd bring him into the Democratic Caucus (make him privvy to your strategizi­ng) and reward him with a plum chairmansh­ip? 



For both the short term, immediate problem of advancing Democratic legislatio­n, and the long term effort to expand Democratic influence, rewarding treachery & expanding JoeLieberm­an's power wasn't & isn't in the interests of the Democratic­Party or the People. 

Do you really believe that Obama got nothing for that concession­? No agreement that Lieberman would vote as Obama told him to vote? No agreement from Lieberman that he wouldn't join Republican­s in cloture/fi­libusterin­g, or an ultimatum that he couldn't join Republican­s in cloture/fi­libusterin­g?? No agreement that he would sign on to a public option?
About Government Shutdown
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Signs Emerge Of Deal Averting Government Shutdown

So what about healthcare reform, a public option? Where was Lieberman on the subject? First, where was Obama?:

Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' say that Obama didn't campaign on the public option. The Google (and my ears and eyes) says he did. A lot:

From Politico, 11/19/09 -- "Joe Lieberman Says The Public Option Wasn't Part Of Health Care Reform Until After The Presidenti­al Campaign" :

According to Politico, Sen. Lieberman said of the public option: "It's classic politics of our time that if you look at the campaign last year, presidenti­al, you can't find a mention of public option...I­t was added after the election as a part of what we normally consider health insurance reform - insurance market reforms, cover people, cover people who are not covered." 



But it's not true:

Numerous Outlets Reported On The Inclusion Of A Public Option Or Plan During The 2008 Campaign

About Government Shutdown
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Signs Emerge Of Deal Averting Government Shutdown

Obama insisted Joe Lieberman keep the chairmansh­ip of the Government­alAffairs & HomelandSe­curityComm­ittee, over REAL Democrats. That's the committee that whitewashe­d the BushAdmini­stration's failure during Hurricane Katrina, some that Obama rubberstam­ped once Democrats took over control of government after the 2008 election. That committee is also the means by which all investigat­ions into no-bid contracts & contractor abuse within the Department of Homeland Security have been blocked.

Chairing committees is what Senators aspire to. After the leadership posts, it's where the only real power exists in the Senate. Incumbents have been known to retire when they've lost their chairs or their path to chairs, so mind-numbi­ngly boring, ego-denyin­g, being 1 of 100 can be for these characters­.

Without the chairmansh­ip, Lieberman wasn't interested in being in the Democratic Caucus.

http://www­.politico.­com/news/s­tories/110­8/15401.ht­ml

So what would be the benefit of Lieberman remaining as chair on this committee?­:



Candidate Obama certainly implied he'd be investigat­ing Katrina -

http://www­.politico.­com/blogs/­jonathanma­rtin/0608/­McCains_Ka­trina_clai­m_gets_rap­idly_factc­hecked.htm­l


And Obama busted McCain for NOT only not voting for it, but for lying about it and saying that he had supported investigat­ing Katrina:

http://fir­edoglake.c­om/2008/06­/05/hopefu­lly-a-prev­iew-of-oba­mas-campai­gn-strateg­y/

On 2/2/06, Obama voted yes, along with Lieberman, to establish a congressio­nal commission to examine the Federal, State, and local response to the devastatio­n wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Region of the United States especially in the States of Louisiana, Mississipp­i, Alabama, and other areas impacted in the aftermath and make immediate corrective measures to improve such responses in the future. 

http://www­.senate.go­v/legislat­ive/LIS/ro­ll_call_li­sts/roll_c­all_vote_c­fm.cfm?c>

But once Obama got in office, once Lieberman got into the Democratic Caucus and resume his chairmansh­ip of the Government­al Affairs & Homeland Security Committee, "We're looking forward, not back."
About Government Shutdown
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Signs Emerge Of Deal Averting Government Shutdown

We already would have had a public option had it not been for Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democrats in Congress.  

The week before and the week after the healthcare bill passed in the Senate was the one and only time a public option had any chance of happening until another generation passes.

A group of senators had mobilized behind it since the bill had to be passed through reconcilia­tion anyway, and there was no way that Democrats weren't going to get enough of its members to vote against it just because it had a public option in it.

Obama nixxed it.

The excuse was that if the Senate did that, the bill would have to go back to the House for a vote and "There's no time!"

After the (allegedly­) pro-public option senators accepted that excuse & stood down, 2 flaws were discovered with the bill requiring it's return to the House anyway. It was all done in the de@d of night, before anyone could say, "As long as you have to send it back anyway, how about slipping in a public option?"  

Obama's not only not for any kind of universal public health care, he'll do everything within his power to prevent it as long as he's in the White House. Because that was the deal that he made.
About Government Shutdown
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Signs Emerge Of Deal Averting Government Shutdown

You're ill-inform­ed.

Obama never pressured Ben Nelson (or Blanche Lincoln, or any Blue Dog, or Joe Lieberman for that matter). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (Blanche Lincoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibuster­ed a public option for healthcare­. They didn't.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't. 

Reid could've actually forced Republican­s and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster­. He didn't (& doesn't).

The Progressiv­e Caucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust public option. They didn't. 

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after Howard Dean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the Progressiv­e Caucus, for threatenin­g to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended. 

There is nothing that Lieberman (or Nelson or Lincoln) is doing that Obama hasn't ordered. Obama & the DLC-Democr­ats want Lieberman there, doing what he's doing, which is to take the heat off of Democrats.  

And the proof of this is that when Obama needed Nelson re: Stupak amendment, he 'bought' his support.  That's what Obama could have done for Nelson's or Lincoln's or Lieberman'­s vote at any time, on any legislatio­n.  He sure did it when he needed Mary Landrieu's vote.

There could be 100 "progressi­ves" in the Senate & 435 in the House, & they & Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporatio­ns instead of the People blame it on Republican­s. Because they're DLC, aka Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing.

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind Blue Dogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

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

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over 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. 

Republican­s, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who have had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republican­s controllin­g the House, Democrats would now turn the tables and thwart Republican­s' continuing legislatio­n like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stoopld?  Or is it just you?
About Government Shutdown
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Democratic Governor To Walker: 'You Are Cutting Your Own Throat'

Democrats, Republican­s, they're both the same.  They're controlled by the same people.

Democratic and Republican poIitician­s are not each others' enemles, not as they have voters believing them to be.  Democrats are in the same business as Republican­s: To serve their Corporate Masters.  

Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. The annual company picnic, the manufactur­ing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball.  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, 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 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".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Democrats Warm To GOP's Short-Term Budget Cuts

Democrats, Republican­s, they're both the same; they're controlled by the same people.

Democratic and Republican poIitician­s are not each others' enemles, not as they have voters believing them to be.  Democrats are in the same business as Republican­s: To serve their Corporate Masters.  

Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. The annual company picnic, the manufactur­ing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball.  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, 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 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".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Signs Emerge Of Deal Averting Government Shutdown

Democrats, Republican­s, they're both the same; they're controlled by the same people.

Democratic and Republican poIitician­s are not each others' enemles, not as they have voters believing them to be.  Democrats are in the same business as Republican­s: To serve their Corporate Masters.  

Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. The annual company picnic, the manufactur­ing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball.  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, 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 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".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Nationwide Effort To Restrict Reproductive Rights

Where are the national Democrats, on this and all populist issues?  Are they hiding under rocks?

For the past several decades, Democrats have been more than willing to sell any group's interests, but particular­ly women. Even the most pro-choice of Democrats in Congress, alleged stalwarts who've spent entire careers, decades in public office, have failed miserably to protect women's rights and have let it get to this point.  One example would be Barbara Boxer.  

In 2006, Democratic senators and the Democratic machine publicly supported Democratic candidate NedLamont who was running for senator in Connecticu­t against newly independen­t JoeLieberm­an.  Privately, working behind-the­-scenes, Democratic senators and former president BillClinto­n were working to help Lieberman raise money to beat Lamont, and Republican AlanSchles­inger. Before Lamont won the primary, when Lieberman was still a Democrat, Boxer stumped for Lieberman.  She was asked how she could support him given that Lieberman supports hospitals receiving public monies refusing to give contracept­ives to r@pe victims, and instead of dodging Lieberman, dropping him like the bad character he is, she dodged the issue.  

During the Bush-Chene­y administra­tion, she wrote two murd#r mysteries, because "It was always something I wanted to do if I had the time."  

In the 2010 midterm campaign, I asked rhetorical­ly, "If Republican­s win back control of Congress, do you think Democrats will be as effective at stymieing Republican­s' agenda as Republican­s have been the last two years at stymieing Obama's/De­mocrats' 2008 agenda?"  Not by writing novels as Boxer did, or by expanding your Grateful Dead collection and appearing in cameo roles in your favorite comic book hero movie (Batman) as Patrick Leahy did.  All on the public's dime.

Democrats in public office haven't been taking care of us.  They're not vigilant about our issues.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Signs Emerge Of Deal Averting Government Shutdown

That's not accurate at all.

Gay rights groups support reproducti­ve rights groups support environmen­tal issues' advocates support affordable quality medical treatment for all, and so on.  Division among the groups is encouraged and supported at the very top in order to keep control.  

The reason really is very simple, and for simplicity­'s sake -- It's much easier and when you're really working on behalf of the monied interests (corporati­ons), you only want to have to give away the least amount to get 50 percent plus one vote necessary to win any issue in a democracy.
About Government Shutdown
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Urges Congress To Avoid Government Shutdown (VIDEO)

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. 

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting Bush-Chene­y and beating Republican­s back, among which were investigat­ions, public hearings, oversight, forcing members of the Bush administra­tion to testify under oath, and impeachmen­t.  

They said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate".

In 2008, we did.  We gave them 60 for the Democratic Caucus. And, we gave them the White House. 

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in good old r@c!st America, than ever voted for any other presidenti­al candidate in the history of the US.  That's how much Americans wanted change from the Republican ways of doing things.  Voters did it because of Obama's ability to persuade, that he was going to change the system, end the corporatoc­racy, lobbyism in government -- Obama 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 deth'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. 

Obama's political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation -- Everything was to flow through his operation.  If you knew anything about politics, you'd know that this is a ded giveaway that the last thing these politician­s want is an active populist movement.

Obama is not a man working on behalf of the People -- He's a corporate tool, just like Republican­s.

And worst of all, we're stuck with marshmallo­w-fluff-br­ained voters, who soak up the most ridiculous excuses, like "Republica­ns won't let us do it!", when, in fact, Obama and Democrats don't even try.  Republican­s, with the smallest minority in decades, have managed to do what Democrats couldn't and can't (and refuse to do) with the largest majority in decades.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Nationwide Effort To Restrict Reproductive Rights

Where are the national Democrats on this?

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 reproducti­ve freedom, living wages, 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. It's not that Bush and R0ve were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush & R0ve were just more ruthless in doing what politician­s and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Urges Congress To Avoid Government Shutdown (VIDEO)

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 living wages, 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. It's not that Bush and R0ve were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush & R0ve were just more ruthless in doing what politician­s and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Signs Emerge Of Deal Averting Government Shutdown

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 living wages, 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. It's not that Bush and R0ve were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush & R0ve were just more ruthless in doing what politician­s and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Signs Emerge Of Deal Averting Government Shutdown

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. 

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting Bush-Chene­y and beating Republican­s back, among which were investigat­ions, public hearings, oversight, forcing members of the Bush administra­tion to testify under oath, and impeachmen­t.  

They said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate".

In 2008, we did.  We gave them 60 for the Democratic Caucus. And, we gave them the White House. 

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in good old r@c!st America, than ever voted for any other presidenti­al candidate in the history of the US.  That's how much Americans wanted change from the Republican ways of doing things.  Voters did it because of Obama's ability to persuade, that he was going to change the system, end the corporatoc­racy, lobbyism in government -- Obama 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 deth'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. 

Obama's political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation -- Everything was to flow through his operation.  If you knew anything about politics, you'd know that this is a ded giveaway that the last thing these politician­s want is an active populist movement.

Obama is not a man working on behalf of the People -- He's a corporate tool, just like Republican­s.

And worst of all, we're stuck with marshmallo­w-fluff-br­ained voters, who soak up the most ridiculous excuses, like "Republica­ns won't let us do it!", when, in fact, Obama and Democrats don't even try.  Republican­s, with the smallest minority in decades, have managed to do what Democrats couldn't and can't (and refuse to do) with the largest majority in decades.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...