Spintested: 02/28/11

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

Monday, February 28, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP