What got changed was the only provision from which US citizens are exempted is the “requireme
This section does not exempt US citizens from the presidenti
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
I don't understand why the Obama administratin has bought into some of this stuff, although it did at least stop a couple of the provisions for going through.
Do you remember retired army colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief-of-s
Look at what he's said about Obama and the NDAA.
"Obama's Codificati
WILKERSON: . . . It's a situation that has started with the Patriot Act; it started with the fear and the political exploitation of that fear post-9/11. And now, it's some years later, we're doing this, which is really perplexing ! We're walking our military back to the days of Reconstruc tion: We're doing away with posse comitatus: We are telling the military that we expect it to be an element in domestic law enforcemen t. This is nonsense!
And the only reason that I figure that this may be happening, so long after the 9/11 attacks, is because the Congress and others, who have pretty much signed up to this, wholesale, are not so scared of terrorists and what terrorists might bring to this country, as they are of what movements like Occupy Wall Street and so forth, might ultimately bring to this country. That's the only way I can see it: They're worried about what Americans, what the domestic situation might be like, given their inability to do anything about the wealthiest people in this country, running this country.
And so, they're taking measures right now, to make sure they can protect themselves in the future. And who are "they"? "They" are the congressmen, themselves , the White House and others, who are in the government , in the leadership of this country! And ultimately , those in the oligarchy who are running this country: the corporatio ns, big food, big oil, big pharmacy, and so forth, that really have the intrinsic power in this country to make it go one way or another.
That's the only way I can explain it! Otherwise, it's utterly perplexing to me, why we would be going back to Reconstruction days, to martial law, if you will, to handle law enforcemen t in this country. . . .
#6 - Continue the Insanity, meaning we keep doing the same thing* over and over again hoping for a different outcome.
[* - Same thing = Continue to refuse to believe our own 'lyin' eyes', keep doing what we've been doing for the past 20 years, continue voting for DLC-contro
Clue: There aren't any grown-ups to save us; we're 'it'.]
What happens when millions are out of work, no jobs, no money, no hope. London, Philadelph
"Quickly Brad, there are thousands of lives at stake... Brad any answer..." - Roy Neary, 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
#4 - A Third Party Challenge
We're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republican
#5 - The "Oh, F R I C K it, let's get it over with - Vote for Republican
The horse is out of the barn and we should just let the radical right have its way. It's not like Obama and the gutless Dems are going to stop them.KEEP READING
It would be carnage for a few years, people eating other people (though that really only happens in the southern tier of states), old people dying (why are we so eager to keep them alive, anyway?) and cats and dogs living together...
Let it all come crashing down--but let's make sure to kill Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare. These Tea Partiers should be allowed to pay what the market will bear, right?
By the way, while our Tea-Party/Real Men (or whatever those guys who wouldn't pay taxes a few years ago are called) friends talk about how they'd like to keep more of their hard earned money and give less to the idiots who "gave us Vietnam and Iraq," perhaps they'd like to pick up the bill for the grading and paving of the road that leads from their home to their office--ca n't be what, more than $60K a year.
While they're at it, maybe they'd like to cut a check for the police and fire people they'd have to employ to protect their home and valuables from damage. If they could get one guy for another $30K, they'd be lucky. Oh, and then there's that water and waste service, if you've got that.
Really, just let these frickers get what they want.
#3 - Primary Obama
Here are two powerful arguments for challengin
Michael Lerner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.
Ralph Nader's very powerful case for primarying Obama (and no, he's not running again).
Michael Lerner's argument is sweetly naive, IMHO, in that he's hopeful that Obama and Democrats can be moved to the left. I don't think that's true anymore. I think the party and the culture of Washington
Up until a couple of weeks ago I was saying that, to begin with, no one in the Democratic Party would do it. Due to the hierarchic
Liberals/p
The DLC has gotten too powerful, what with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic
As I said, that was up until a couple of weeks ago. Word has it that a challenge is coming, but it's really not a serious one, not intended for anyone to get the nomination from Obama.
So unless Obama drops out (in which case another corporate tool will take his place), the only legitimate challenges to him will come from outside the Democratic Party (Republica
So what's left?
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
What an abzurd comment, and from a sock puppet without the integrity to own up to that ridiculous charge.
I get this question regularly from you and the other Obama/DNC paid operatives around here, so I hope those reading this thread (not the corporate tools like you, on the parties' payrolls, who post propaganda to sway the squishy-mi
#1 - Sitting Out The Election
I never advise people to sit out elections because the first rule of politics is, "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu". It's what p!sses me off about Obama (and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying "them that brung 'im") because by shutting out liberals, the Democratic base, from his administra
#2 - Getting More Liberals/P
A 'Tea Party'-lik
One variation on this is if, A) Obama doesn't pull an LBJ (drop out) or, B) another Democrat or third party candidate doesn't challenge him, then take the money and shoe leather that you were planning on spending for Obama and use it to make both Houses of Congress overwhelmi
Given how effective Republican
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Any doubt that this was the WhiteHouse’s only concern with the bill is now dispelled by virtue of the President’ s willingnes s to sign it after certain changes were made in Conference between the House and Senate. Those changes were almost entirely about removing the parts of the bill that constraine d his power, and had nothing to do with improving the bill from a civil liberties perspectiv e. Once the sole concern of the White House was addressed — eliminatin g limits on the President’ s power — they were happy to sign the bill even though (rather: because) none of the civil liberties assaults were fixed. As Mother Jones‘ Adam Serwer explained:
This morning I wrote that by making the mandatory military detention provisions mandatory in name only, the Senate had offered the administration an opportunit y tosee how seriously it takes its own rhetoric on civil liberties. The administra tion had said that the military detention provisions of an earlier version of the NDAA were “inconsist ent with the fundamenta l American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”
The revised NDAA is still inconsistent with that fundamenta l American principle. But the administra tion has decided that fundamenta l American principles aren’t actually worth vetoing the bill over.
That’s because, as Serwer explained in a separate post, Congress (in response to the veto threat) made changes “addressing the security concerns, but not the ones related to civil liberties and the rule of law” (by “security concerns,” the WhiteHouse means: don’t restrict what the President can do). That the WhiteHouse cared only about the former (president ial discretion ), and not at all about the letter (civil liberties) , is proven by its willingnes s to sign the bill when only objections to the former have been addressed. For more proof on this point (and the perfect encapsulat ion of it) see this comment here.
Second, Obama’s veto threat was never about substantivKEEP READINGe objections to the detention powers vested by this bill; put another way, he was never objecting to the bill on civil liberties grounds. Obama is not an opponent of indefinite detention; he’s a vigorous proponent of it, as evidenced by his continuous , multi-face ted embrace of that policy.
Obama’s objections to this bill had nothing to do with civil liberties, due process or the Constitution. It had everything to do with Executive power. The WhiteHouse ’s complaint was that Congress had no business tying the hands of the President when deciding who should go into military detention, who should be denied a trial, which agencies should interrogat e suspects (the FBI or the CIA). Such decisions, insisted the White House, are for the President, not Congress, to make. In other words, his veto threat was not grounded in the premise that indefinite military detention is wrong; it was grounded in the premise that it should be the President who decides who goes into military detention and why, not Congress.
Even the one substantive objection the WhiteHouse expressed to the bill (mandatory military detention for accused AmericanTe rrorists captured on US soil) was about Executive power, not due process or core liberties. The proof of that, the definitive , conclusive proof, is that CarlLevin has several times disclosed that it was the WhiteHouse which demanded removal of a provision in his original draft that would have exempted US citizens from military detention. In other words, this was an example of the WhiteHouse demanding greater detention powers in the bill by insisting on the removal of one of its few constraint s (the prohibitio n on military detention for Americans captured on US soil). That’s because the WhiteHouse ’s NorthStar on this bill was Presidenti al discretion : they were going to veto the bill if it contained any limits on the President’ s detention powers, regardless of whether those limits forced him to put people in military prison or barred him from doing so.
Obama's a freakin' fraud.
Persistent myths circulatin
First, while the powers this bill enshrines are indeed radical and dangerous, most of them already exist. That’s because first the BushAdminiKEEP READINGstration and now the ObamaAdmin istration have aggressive ly argued that the original 2001 AUMF already empowers them to imprison people without charges, use force against even US citizens without due process (Anwar Awlaki), and target not only members of AlQaeda and the Taliban (as the law states) but also anyone who “substanti ally supports” those groups and/or “associate d forces” (whatever those terms mean).
That’s why this bill states that it does not intend to change the 2001 AUMF (even as it codifies far broader language defining the scope of the war) or the detention powers of the President, and it’s why they purposely made the bill vague on whether it expressly authorizes military detention of US citizens on US soil: it’s because the bill’s proponents and the WhiteHouse both believe that the President already possesses these broadened powers with or without this bill. With a couple of exceptions, this bill just “clarifies” — and codifies — the powers Obama has already claimed, seized and exercised.
See video here that elaborates this point: This is not to mitigate how heinous this bill is, as there are real dangers to codifying these powers in law with bipartisan Congressional support as opposed to having the President unilateral ly seize them and have some lower courts recognize them. Instead, it’s a reflection of how horrible the civil liberties status quo has become under the Bush and Obama administra tions. This is the reason why civil libertaria ns have been so harshly critical of this President. It’s the reason civil liberties groups have been saying things like this even when saying them was so unpopular: it’s because Obama has, for three years now, been defending and entrenchin g exactly the detention powers this law vests, but doing it through radical legal theories, warped interpreta tions of the 2001 AUMF, continuiti es with the BushCheney template, and devotion to EndlessWar and the civil liberties assaults it entails. See the newspaper excerpts below for more proof of this.
Socially speaking, Obama's better than almost any Republican in the running.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Why is Obama leaving the grass roots on the sidelines?
By Sam Graham-Felsen
Obama entered the White House with more than a landslide victory over Sen. John McCain. He brought with him a vast network of supporters, instantly reachable through an unpreceden ted e-mail list of 13 million people. These supporters were not just left-wing activists but a broad coalition that included the young, African Americans, independen ts and even Republican s - and they were ready to be mobilized.
There have been several what I call "telling moments" about the true nature and intention of Obama and DLC-contro
Of course, the first most obvious of them was Obama's flipfloppi
So in February 2008 Obama implied he would have voted no, and in July 2008, after liberal activists had already "fueled the financial engines of his presidenti
His campaign's 'damage control'-e
The substance and style of that Obama flip-flop has been repeated on one issue after another over the past 3 years.
Never was Obama's treachery more evident than during the healthcare debate, when a whole slew of strategies were employed by the White House to make sure that the insurance and pharmaceut
Instead of what Americans put Obama and Democrats into power to get (affordabl
Having health insurance ≠ medical treatment.
We all know by now how Obama took single payer off the table before the debate ever began (few realize how that was necessary in order to prevent getting a public option in any final legislatio
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama never claimed to be a Liberal; he's more like a Moderate "R" in some respects. He's better than any of the real "R"s and no "I"s or "L"s or other Third Party candidate (Gary Johnson) has a chance in Election Hell.
No, a couple of judges are rejecting the puny settlement agreements
Here's one article about the pressure from the Obama administra
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
What makes you believe that?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Cheadle's error is in presuming Obama to be a Democrat, and a liberal one at that. He's not. Obama's not even a centrist Democrat: "Privately, Obama describes himself as a BlueDogDem
BlueDogDem
Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to Americans. When most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare
The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReag
When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characteri
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 Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless doing what politician
But Obama only does that to progressiv
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish Clinton's machine (to get the nomination
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
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
What the Bush years taught us: If you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics, anyone can sell anything to Americans.
It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless in doing what politician
KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
undefined
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
It's perfectly legal to crash the global economy
How many of you believe that Obama is against the indefinite detention, even execution, of American citizens without any due process (no charges, no trial, no courts), just on a president'
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Talk of Democratic politician
Democratic and Republican poIitician
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 manufactur
Once in power, Democrats consolidat
Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigan
Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tai
The "thinning of the herd" is what's happening. Obama was put into power by the CorporateM
Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats want what they want. The DLC-contro
KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Third, the most persistent and propagandistic set of myths about Obama on detention issues is that he tried to end indefinite detention by closing Guantanamo , but was blocked by Congress from doing so. It's true that Congress blocked the closing of Guantanamo , and again in this bill, Congress is imposing virtually insurmount able restrictio ns on the transfer of detainees out of that camp, including for detainees who've long ago been cleared for release (restricti ons that Obama's now going to sign into law). But, and this is not a hard point to understand , while Obama intended to close Guantanamo , he always planned, long before Congress acted, to preserve Guantanamo ’s core injustice: indefinite detention.
Long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. That’s what makes the apologias over Obama and GITMO so misleading : the controvers y over Guantanamo wasn't that about its locale (that it was based in the CaribbeanS ea) so that simply closing it and then relocating it to a different venue would address the problem. The controvers y over Guantanamo was that it was a prison camp where people were put in cages indefinite ly, for decades or life, without being charged with any crime. And that policy's one that Obama wholeheart edly embraced from the start.
Totally prior to and independent of anything Congress did, Obama fully embraced indefinite detention as his own policy. He's a proponent — not an opponent — of indefinite detention. Just review the facts, the indisputab le facts:
NewYorkTimes, May 23, 2009
NewYorkTimes, January 22, 2010
NewYorkTimes, February 21, 2009
ACLU, December 15, 2009
This is why even some progressive senators such as RussFeingo ld and BernieSand ers ultimately voted to deny funding to the closing of Guantanamo : not because they favored GITMO, but because they wanted first to see Obama’s plan for what would replace it, because they did not want to allocate funds to a plan that would simply relocate GITMO and its defining injustice, indefinite detention, onto US soil.
Can any rational person review these events and try to claim that Obama is some sort of opponent of indefinite detention? He is one of American history’s most aggressive defenders of that power. As HumanRightsWatch put it: “Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.” There is no partisan loyalty or leader-rev erent propaganda strong enough to obscure that fact.
Any doubt that this was the WhiteHouse’s only concern with the bill is now dispelled by virtue of the President’ s willingnes s to sign it after certain changes were made in Conference between the House and Senate. Those changes were almost entirely about removing the parts of the bill that constraine d his power, and had nothing to do with improving the bill from a civil liberties perspectiv e. Once the sole concern of the White House was addressed — eliminatin g limits on the President’ s power — they were happy to sign the bill even though (rather: because) none of the civil liberties assaults were fixed. As Mother Jones‘ Adam Serwer explained:
This morning I wrote that by making the mandatory military detention provisions mandatory in name only, the Senate had offered the administration an opportunit y tosee how seriously it takes its own rhetoric on civil liberties. The administra tion had said that the military detention provisions of an earlier version of the NDAA were “inconsist ent with the fundamenta l American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.”
The revised NDAA is still inconsistent with that fundamenta l American principle. But the administra tion has decided that fundamenta l American principles aren’t actually worth vetoing the bill over.
That’s because, as Serwer explained in a separate post, Congress (in response to the veto threat) made changes “addressing the security concerns, but not the ones related to civil liberties and the rule of law” (by “security concerns,” the WhiteHouse means: don’t restrict what the President can do). That the WhiteHouse cared only about the former (president ial discretion ), and not at all about the letter (civil liberties) , is proven by its willingnes s to sign the bill when only objections to the former have been addressed. For more proof on this point (and the perfect encapsulat ion of it) see this comment here.
Second, Obama’s veto threat was never about substantivKEEP READINGe objections to the detention powers vested by this bill; put another way, he was never objecting to the bill on civil liberties grounds. Obama is not an opponent of indefinite detention; he’s a vigorous proponent of it, as evidenced by his continuous , multi-face ted embrace of that policy.
Obama’s objections to this bill had nothing to do with civil liberties, due process or the Constitution. It had everything to do with Executive power. The WhiteHouse ’s complaint was that Congress had no business tying the hands of the President when deciding who should go into military detention, who should be denied a trial, which agencies should interrogat e suspects (the FBI or the CIA). Such decisions, insisted the White House, are for the President, not Congress, to make. In other words, his veto threat was not grounded in the premise that indefinite military detention is wrong; it was grounded in the premise that it should be the President who decides who goes into military detention and why, not Congress.
Even the one substantive objection the WhiteHouse expressed to the bill (mandatory military detention for accused AmericanTe rrorists captured on US soil) was about Executive power, not due process or core liberties. The proof of that, the definitive , conclusive proof, is that CarlLevin has several times disclosed that it was the WhiteHouse which demanded removal of a provision in his original draft that would have exempted US citizens from military detention. In other words, this was an example of the WhiteHouse demanding greater detention powers in the bill by insisting on the removal of one of its few constraint s (the prohibitio n on military detention for Americans captured on US soil). That’s because the WhiteHouse ’s NorthStar on this bill was Presidenti al discretion : they were going to veto the bill if it contained any limits on the President’ s detention powers, regardless of whether those limits forced him to put people in military prison or barred him from doing so.
First, while the powers this bill enshrines are indeed radical and dangerous, most of them already exist. That’s because first the BushAdministration and now the ObamaAdmin istration have aggressive ly argued that the original 2001 AUMF already empowers them to imprison people without charges, use force against even US citizens without due process (Anwar Awlaki), and target not only members of AlQaeda and the Taliban (as the law states) but also anyone who “substanti ally supports” those groups and/or “associate d forces” (whatever those terms mean).
That’s why this bill states that it does not intend to change the 2001 AUMF (even as it codifies far broader language defining the scope of the war) or the detention powers of the President, and it’s why they purposely made the bill vague on whether it expressly authorizes military detention of US citizens on US soil: it’s because the bill’s proponents and the WhiteHouse both believe that the President already possesses these broadened powers with or without this bill. With a couple of exceptions, this bill just “clarifies” — and codifies — the powers Obama has already claimed, seized and exercised.
See video here that elaborates this point: This is not to mitigate how heinous this bill is, as there are real dangers to codifying these powers in law with bipartisan Congressional support as opposed to having the President unilateral ly seize them and have some lower courts recognize them. Instead, it’s a reflection of how horrible the civil liberties status quo has become under the Bush and Obama administra tions. This is the reason why civil libertaria ns have been so harshly critical of this President. It’s the reason civil liberties groups have been saying things like this even when saying them was so unpopular: it’s because Obama has, for three years now, been defending and entrenchin g exactly the detention powers this law vests, but doing it through radical legal theories, warped interpreta tions of the 2001 AUMF, continuiti es with the BushCheney template, and devotion to EndlessWar and the civil liberties assaults it entails. See the newspaper excerpts below for more proof of this.
Obama's NDAA signing statement does not address indefinite detention powers, but his ability to transfer from Gitmo. And FWIW, even if Obama's signing statement had declared NDAA null and void, it wouldn't commit future presidents
[A]fter spending months threatening to veto the NDAA, Obama announced that he would instead sign it into law (this is the same individual , of course, who unequivoca lly vowed when seeking the Democratic nomination to support a filibuster of “any bill that includes retroactiv e immunity for telecom[s] ,” only to turn around (once he had the nomination secure) and not only vote against such a filibuster , but to vote in favor of the underlying bill itself, so this is perfectly consistent with his past conduct).
The ACLU that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the US military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.”
HumanRightsWatch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”
Both groups pointed out that this is the first time indefinite detention has been enshrined in law since the McCarthy era of the 1950s, when — as the ACLU put it — “HarryTruman had the courage to veto” the InternalSe curityAct of 1950 on the ground that it “would make a mockery of our Bill of Rights” and then watched Congress override the veto. That Act authorized the imprisonme nt of Communists and other “subversiv es” without the necessity of full trials or due process (many of the most egregious provisions of that bill were repealed by the 1971 Non-Detent ion Act, and are now being rejuvenate d by these War on Terror policies of indefinite detention) . Obama, needless to say, is not HarryTruma n. He’s not even the CandidateO bama of 2008 who repeatedly insisted that due process and security were not mutually exclusive and who condemned indefinite detention as “black hole” injustice.
...he [Obama] had to sign them in order to help normal Middle Class Americans from going under.
Talk of Democratic politicians having no spines is greatly exaggerate d, just like Obama's timidity or "failure to lead" are myths: He's plenty tough when it comes to standing up to the Democratic base. I think Obama's "led" brilliantl y. He's managed to deliver to his Corporate Masters while convincing his 'most ardent supporters ' that he's either too nice, inept, or that his failures are because of Republican s, [pick your excuse].
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 jobs, civil rights protection s, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, public healthcare , WallStreet reform, environmen tal and 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 Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove 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, never back away, you'll wear the opposition down.
Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish Clinton's machine (to get the nomination) and the oldest, most experience d politician s in US history (including the RoveMachin e) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politician s (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching BushCheney off the table, have us still reelecting them, 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 politician s have been taking us all for suckers and patsies is the most immediate problem and the challenge.
Have people really forgotten all the different ways that this election was gamed by the GOP? And that's just in Florida. And just the ways that we learned about because of legal proceeding
We were about to embark on that national discussion 9 months into the Bush administra
By Wednesday, September 12th, all copies had been removed from the stands nationwide , replaced with this.
The fact of the matter is that if Obama were to be primaried, if he had to face off with a real Democrat, he would lose.
I'm not voting for Obama.
Nobody I know is voting for Obama.
If a real Democrat doesn't get into the White House, it'll be due to the hubris of people like you who insist on keeping a Republican
I've done decades of compromisi
NO MORE!
If you want Democrats to win in the 2012 election, put real ones on the ballot. Including the top of the ticket.
About Iowa Caucus 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Nader again? Nader didn't do anything to Gore that Harry Browne, Pat Buchanan, Howard Phillips, et al (other party candidates
The fact is that 2000 was a stolen election. It was a coup d'etat; a bloodless coup, but a coup nonetheles
Gore won. Gore got more votes in Florida. Any way it was counted (and the biggest point that people seem to forget is that there were 179,000 perfectly readable ballots that never got counted), Gore got more votes than Bush.
Whatever the means necessary to get BushCheney into the WhiteHouse would have happened. Had Nader been in the race, had he not in the race, whatever. Had Nader not run, the outcome would have been the same. The powers that be were not going to let Gore win, no matter what, and gamed it innumerabl
If the means for getting BushCheney into the WhiteHouse required a close election and Nader not been running, some other means would've been used.
For pity's sake, the CIA was working on GOP absentee ballots in the weeks leading up to election day in Florida. That was the most amazing revelation from the televised court hearings in the post-elect
KEEP READING
About Iowa Caucus 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
You already have a Republican in the WH.
About Iowa Caucus 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
There is nothing that Republican
Obama put Social Security and Medicare on the table for cuts - There's no getting around that.
Obama and Democratic leadership have already indicated they're on board with Social Security cuts, privatizin
Obama packed his own Deficit Commission with Social Security looters. And here. And here.
When Obama wants something, he's shown he can go all Rove-like, relentless
Obama's in the Oval Office to mellow-tal
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
All that Obama is doing is trying to save unregulate
With Obama's deal to preserve Bush's tax cuts for the rich (making it Obama's tax cuts for the rich), 99ers were cut off. Of the 6 million people currently receiving unemployme
David Cay Johnston on Democracy Now! on Obama's deal to extend Bush's tax cuts "The worse off you are, your taxes increase":
"The bottom roughly 45 million families in America or households in America—and there are a little over 100 million households —they’re going to actually see their taxes go up. Republican s got an extraordin arily good deal, that raises, I think, basic questions about the negotiatin g skills of the President. "
The payroll tax 'holiday' in the deal sets SocialSecu
People who voted for Obama and Democrats voted to get affordable
Yet that is precisely what Obama and the DLC-contro
Meet The New 1%: - Healthcare CEOs replace bankers as America's best paid:
Pity Wall Street's bankers. Once the highest-paid bosses in the land, they are now also-rans. The real money is in healthcare and drugs, according to the latest survey of executive pay. One example is Joel Gemunder, CEO Omnicare, who had a total pay package in 2010 worth $98m.
There is no 'center' on most issues. We're 'centered-
What's the compromise position on ending Bush's Obama's tax cuts? Do Obama's 'most ardent supporters
What's the compromise position on enforcing regulation
What's the compromise position on a woman's right to choose? Make it impossible for her to actually obtain an abortion?
What's the compromise position on Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and veterans' care and SCHIP, etc.? Empty out the trust funds to pay bond holders and war profiteers so that there's nothing left for those who paid into into the trust funds?
What's the compromise position on getting out of Afghanista
What's the compromise position on closing CIA black sites and ending torture and commiting crimes against humanity? Prison Ships, Ghost Prisoners and Obama's Interrogat
There is no 'center' on most issues. We're 'centered-
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Cenk had a segment on tonight about Americans' perception of Obama as a liberal -- It seems Americans believe him to be very liberal and themselves as conservati
There's no "extreme" or "far left" in the Democratic
Obama's not even a centrist; "Privately, Obama describes himself as a BlueDogDem
BlueDogDem
Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to Americans. When most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare
The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReag
When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characteri
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 Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless doing what politician
But Obama only does that to progressiv
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to prevent more progressiv
Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv
Republican
Republican
Republican
By the way, 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 Constituti
Obama and the DNC could have cut off support to any Blue Dogs, cut money, cut committee assignment
This is exactly the bunch that Obama and the puppet-mas
Reform isn't on the agenda of either party.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Obama did everything he could to discourage Democratic voter turnout in 2010. From flip-flopp
Aides say that the president’ s been spending “a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0,” brainstorming with administra tion officials about the best way to revamp the strategies and goals of the White House.
And despite the predictions that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislatin g power, including perhaps control of the House and even Senate, Obama isn’t thinking of the next two years as a period that’ll be marked with the same obstructiv e nature from the GOP.
“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republicans] feel more responsibl e, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipate d, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them,” Obama says. “Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”
Dick Durbin says Obama’s post-election agenda “will have to be limited and focused on the things that are achievable and high priorities for the American people.” Tom Daschle says Obama has to reach out more: “The keyword is inclusion. He’s got to find ways to be inclusive. “
Obama did everything he could to discourage Democratic voter turnout in 2010. From flip-flopp
Aides say that the president’ s been spending “a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0,” brainstorming with administra tion officials about the best way to revamp the strategies and goals of the White House.
And despite the predictions that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislatin g power, including perhaps control of the House and even Senate, Obama isn’t thinking of the next two years as a period that’ll be marked with the same obstructiv e nature from the GOP.
“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republicans] feel more responsibl e, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipate d, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them,” Obama says. “Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”
Dick Durbin says Obama’s post-election agenda “will have to be limited and focused on the things that are achievable and high priorities for the American people.” Tom Daschle says Obama has to reach out more: “The keyword is inclusion. He’s got to find ways to be inclusive. “
Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv
Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv
Republican
Republican
Republican
By the way, 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 Constituti
Obama and the DNC could have cut off support to any Blue Dogs, cut money, cut committee assignment
This is exactly the bunch that Obama and the puppet-mas
Reform isn't on the agenda of either party.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
