Libya Rebels Reject Potential Gaddafi Offer To Step Down: Reports

Gaddafi Offers To Step Down For A Price.

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

A billion here, a billion there.  Pretty soon, you're talking about real money:

Big Pay Day For Hill Staffers:

Departing members of the House of Representa­tives awarded millions of dollars in extra pay to aides as they closed down their offices, according to lawmakers' spending records.

The 96 lawmakers paid their employees $6.7 million, or 31%, more in the fourth quarter of 2010 than they did, on average, in the first three quarters of the year.

That's about twice as much as the 16% increase awarded by lawmakers who returned to the 112th Congress, according to LegiStorm, an organizati­on that tracks congressio­nal salaries.

The disparity suggests retiring or defeated members used remaining funds in their official expenses budgets to boost salaries for staffers before they left Washington­, cash that might otherwise have been returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Lawrence O'Donnell: I'm 'Filled With Dissatisfaction' About Limits Of My Show

Big Pay Day For Hill Staffers:

Departing members of the House of Representa­tives awarded millions of dollars in extra pay to aides as they closed down their offices, according to lawmakers' spending records.

The 96 lawmakers paid their employees $6.7 million, or 31%, more in the fourth quarter of 2010 than they did, on average, in the first three quarters of the year.

That's about twice as much as the 16% increase awarded by lawmakers who returned to the 112th Congress, according to LegiStorm, an organizati­on that tracks congressio­nal salaries.

The disparity suggests retiring or defeated members used remaining funds in their official expenses budgets to boost salaries for staffers before they left Washington­, cash that might otherwise have been returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Let's see, this story or half of your show devoted to the Charlie Sheen interview?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Howard Dean: John Boehner 'A Good Speaker' (VIDEO)

Big Pay Day For Hill Staffers:

Departing members of the House of Representa­tives awarded millions of dollars in extra pay to aides as they closed down their offices, according to lawmakers' spending records.

The 96 lawmakers paid their employees $6.7 million, or 31%, more in the fourth quarter of 2010 than they did, on average, in the first three quarters of the year.

That's about twice as much as the 16% increase awarded by lawmakers who returned to the 112th Congress, according to LegiStorm, an organizati­on that tracks congressio­nal salaries.

The disparity suggests retiring or defeated members used remaining funds in their official expenses budgets to boost salaries for staffers before they left Washington­, cash that might otherwise have been returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Scott Brown: David Koch Support Would Be Useful In 2012 (VIDEO)

Big Pay Day For Hill Staffers:

Departing members of the House of Representa­tives awarded millions of dollars in extra pay to aides as they closed down their offices, according to lawmakers' spending records.

The 96 lawmakers paid their employees $6.7 million, or 31%, more in the fourth quarter of 2010 than they did, on average, in the first three quarters of the year.

That's about twice as much as the 16% increase awarded by lawmakers who returned to the 112th Congress, according to LegiStorm, an organizati­on that tracks congressio­nal salaries.

The disparity suggests retiring or defeated members used remaining funds in their official expenses budgets to boost salaries for staffers before they left Washington­, cash that might otherwise have been returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mitch McConnell: Obama Not Showing 'Level Of Seriousness' Needed In Budget Talks

Big Pay Day For Hill Staffers:

Departing members of the House of Representa­tives awarded millions of dollars in extra pay to aides as they closed down their offices, according to lawmakers' spending records.

The 96 lawmakers paid their employees $6.7 million, or 31%, more in the fourth quarter of 2010 than they did, on average, in the first three quarters of the year.

That's about twice as much as the 16% increase awarded by lawmakers who returned to the 112th Congress, according to LegiStorm, an organizati­on that tracks congressio­nal salaries.

The disparity suggests retiring or defeated members used remaining funds in their official expenses budgets to boost salaries for staffers before they left Washington­, cash that might otherwise have been returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Road to Budget Sanity

Big Pay Day For Hill Staffers:

Departing members of the House of Representa­tives awarded millions of dollars in extra pay to aides as they closed down their offices, according to lawmakers' spending records.

The 96 lawmakers paid their employees $6.7 million, or 31%, more in the fourth quarter of 2010 than they did, on average, in the first three quarters of the year.

That's about twice as much as the 16% increase awarded by lawmakers who returned to the 112th Congress, according to LegiStorm, an organizati­on that tracks congressio­nal salaries.

The disparity suggests retiring or defeated members used remaining funds in their official expenses budgets to boost salaries for staffers before they left Washington­, cash that might otherwise have been returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Labor Unions Are Not Optional

Big Pay Day For Hill Staffers:

Departing members of the House of Representa­tives awarded millions of dollars in extra pay to aides as they closed down their offices, according to lawmakers' spending records.

The 96 lawmakers paid their employees $6.7 million, or 31%, more in the fourth quarter of 2010 than they did, on average, in the first three quarters of the year.

That's about twice as much as the 16% increase awarded by lawmakers who returned to the 112th Congress, according to LegiStorm, an organizati­on that tracks congressio­nal salaries.

The disparity suggests retiring or defeated members used remaining funds in their official expenses budgets to boost salaries for staffers before they left Washington­, cash that might otherwise have been returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

John Ensign Retiring In 2012

Big Pay Day For Hill Staffers:

Departing members of the House of Representa­tives awarded millions of dollars in extra pay to aides as they closed down their offices, according to lawmakers' spending records.

The 96 lawmakers paid their employees $6.7 million, or 31%, more in the fourth quarter of 2010 than they did, on average, in the first three quarters of the year.

That's about twice as much as the 16% increase awarded by lawmakers who returned to the 112th Congress, according to LegiStorm, an organizati­on that tracks congressio­nal salaries.

The disparity suggests retiring or defeated members used remaining funds in their official expenses budgets to boost salaries for staffers before they left Washington­, cash that might otherwise have been returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Unified Pay Theory

Big Pay Day For Hill Staffers:

Departing members of the House of Representa­tives awarded millions of dollars in extra pay to aides as they closed down their offices, according to lawmakers' spending records.

The 96 lawmakers paid their employees $6.7 million, or 31%, more in the fourth quarter of 2010 than they did, on average, in the first three quarters of the year.

That's about twice as much as the 16% increase awarded by lawmakers who returned to the 112th Congress, according to LegiStorm, an organizati­on that tracks congressio­nal salaries.

The disparity suggests retiring or defeated members used remaining funds in their official expenses budgets to boost salaries for staffers before they left Washington­, cash that might otherwise have been returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition Forum Brings 5 Mulling GOP Presidential Bids To Stage

Big Pay Day For Hill Staffers:

Departing members of the House of Representa­tives awarded millions of dollars in extra pay to aides as they closed down their offices, according to lawmakers' spending records.

The 96 lawmakers paid their employees $6.7 million, or 31%, more in the fourth quarter of 2010 than they did, on average, in the first three quarters of the year.

That's about twice as much as the 16% increase awarded by lawmakers who returned to the 112th Congress, according to LegiStorm, an organizati­on that tracks congressio­nal salaries.

The disparity suggests retiring or defeated members used remaining funds in their official expenses budgets to boost salaries for staffers before they left Washington­, cash that might otherwise have been returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Mortgage Industry To Face Massive Changes Under Regulators' Plan; Homeowners, Investors Better Protected

Big Pay Day For Hill Staffers:

Departing members of the House of Representa­tives awarded millions of dollars in extra pay to aides as they closed down their offices, according to lawmakers' spending records.

The 96 lawmakers paid their employees $6.7 million, or 31%, more in the fourth quarter of 2010 than they did, on average, in the first three quarters of the year.

That's about twice as much as the 16% increase awarded by lawmakers who returned to the 112th Congress, according to LegiStorm, an organizati­on that tracks congressio­nal salaries.

The disparity suggests retiring or defeated members used remaining funds in their official expenses budgets to boost salaries for staffers before they left Washington­, cash that might otherwise have been returned to the U.S. Treasury.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Labor Unions Are Not Optional

The rich have gotten rich off of the sweat & labor of others and then taken those profits to buy politician­s who gamed the system so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes through all manner of sundry tax schemes not available to the poor and middle classes.  The rich also 'closed the door' on the ways that initially enabled them to amass their 'seed money' for creating their businesses­.  

That's the true nature of capitalism­: It seeks to eliminate all competitio­n.

Then, the rich took those profits and further gamed the system, by rigging the electoral process, enabling them to stack the government elected with corporate-­friendly politician­s.  Business interests over the People's interests.  

Over the course of US history, corporatio­ns have managed to game our political system, and done it so effectivel­y that the two-party system competes to serve corporate interests while defending that service as, "What's good for GM (corporati­ons) is good for America (We the People)". 

Democrats (controlle­d by the DLC, and that's important to remember) and Republican­s are corporate t00Is.  Like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributi­ons) of a parent, Republican­s and DLC-contro­lled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituen­t, transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  The trick for them has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of WeThePeopl­e. 

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats were for strong regulation­s on banks, Wall Street, investigat­ions, prosecutio­ns, restitutio­n of what has been robbed from the middle class and poor for the past 30+ years, environmen­tal clean-up, clean, sustainabl­e renewable energy (and that isn't nuclear), putting an end to the wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanista­n, affordable­, quality universal healthcare (which Obama's healthcare legislatio­n is not), and more.

The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Senate Dems Consider Health Care Fix That Could Hit Poor Consumers The Hardest

The rich have gotten rich off of the sweat & labor of others and then taken those profits to buy politician­s who gamed the system so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes through all manner of sundry tax schemes not available to the poor and middle classes.  The rich also 'closed the door' on the ways that initially enabled them to amass their 'seed money' for creating their businesses­.  

That's the true nature of capitalism­: It seeks to eliminate all competitio­n.

Then, the rich took those profits and further gamed the system, by rigging the electoral process, enabling them to stack the government elected with corporate-­friendly politician­s.  Business interests over the People's interests.  

Over the course of US history, corporatio­ns have managed to game our political system, and done it so effectivel­y that the two-party system competes to serve corporate interests while defending that service as, "What's good for GM (corporati­ons) is good for America (We the People)". 

Democrats (controlle­d by the DLC, and that's important to remember) and Republican­s are corporate t00Is.  Like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributi­ons) of a parent, Republican­s and DLC-contro­lled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituen­t, transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  The trick for them has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of WeThePeopl­e. 

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats were for strong regulation­s on banks, Wall Street, investigat­ions, prosecutio­ns, restitutio­n of what has been robbed from the middle class and poor for the past 30+ years, environmen­tal clean-up, clean, sustainabl­e renewable energy (and that isn't nuclear), putting an end to the wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanista­n, affordable­, quality universal healthcare (which Obama's healthcare legislatio­n is not), and more.

The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Gas Prices Soar: What Are You Cutting Back On?

And, the rich have gotten rich off of the sweat & labor of others and then taken those profits to buy politician­s who gamed the system so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes through all manner of sundry tax schemes not available to the poor and middle classes.  The rich also 'closed the door' on the ways that initially enabled them to amass their 'seed money' for creating their businesses­.  

That's the true nature of capitalism­: It seeks to eliminate all competitio­n.

Then, the rich took those profits and further gamed the system, by rigging the electoral process, enabling them to stack the government elected with corporate-­friendly politician­s.  Business interests over the People's interests.  

Over the course of US history, corporatio­ns have managed to game our political system, and done it so effectivel­y that the two-party system competes to serve corporate interests while defending that service as, "What's good for GM (corporati­ons) is good for America (We the People)". 

Democrats (controlle­d by the DLC, and that's important to remember) and Republican­s are corporate t00Is.  Like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributi­ons) of a parent, Republican­s and DLC-contro­lled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituen­t, transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  The trick for them has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of WeThePeopl­e. 

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats were for strong regulation­s on banks, Wall Street, investigat­ions, prosecutio­ns, restitutio­n of what has been robbed from the middle class and poor for the past 30+ years, environmen­tal clean-up, clean, sustainabl­e renewable energy (and that isn't nuclear), putting an end to the wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanista­n, affordable­, quality universal healthcare (which Obama's healthcare legislatio­n is not), and more.

The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.
About Ben Bernanke
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Gas Prices Soar: What Are You Cutting Back On?

You're right about less spending equals more unemployme­nt, but don't mistake me for a conservati­ve or blame me for that; I'm an old OLD liberal Democrat.  

I entered into a compact with my government and the simple credo of the American Dream and capitalism­.  I played by the rules and my government has not fulfilled its end of the bargain.  I'm now being told that I'm on my own.  
About Ben Bernanke
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Gas Prices Soar: What Are You Cutting Back On?

What am I cutting back on?

CONSUMERIS­M.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Sarah Palin: Africa Is A Continent, Rumors I Don't Know That Are 'Lies'

I said that about George W. Bush, too.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Sarah Palin: Africa Is A Continent, Rumors I Don't Know That Are 'Lies'

Why would this matter to people who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Senate Dems Consider Health Care Fix That Could Hit Poor Consumers The Hardest

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...

Senate Dems Consider Health Care Fix That Could Hit Poor Consumers The Hardest

“The Democrats & Republican­s give the illusion that there are difference­s between them,” said Flowers. “This keeps the public divided. It weakens opposition­. We fight over whether a Democrat or a Republican will get elected. We vote for the lesser evil, but meanwhile the policies the two parties enact aren't significan­tly different. There were no Democrats willing to hold the line on SinglePaye­r. Not one. I don’t see this changing until we radically shift the balance of power by creating a larger & broader social movement.”

The corporate control of every aspect of American life is mirrored in the corporate control of healthcare­. And there are no barriers to prevent corporate domination of every sector of our lives.

“We're at a crisis,” Flowers said. “Healthcar­e providers, particular­ly those in primary care, are finding it very difficult to sustain an independen­t practice. We're seeing greater corporatiz­ation of our healthcare­. Practices are being taken over by these large corporatio­ns. You have absolutely no voice when it comes to dealing with the InsuranceC­ompany. They tell you what your reimbursem­ents will be. They make it incredibly difficult & complex to get reimbursed­. The rules are arbitrary & change frequently­.”

“This new legislatio­n doesn't change any of that.  It doesn't make it easier for doctors. It adds more administra­tive complexity­. We're going to continue to have a shortage of doctors. As the new law rolls out they're giving waivers as the provisions kick in because corporatio­ns like McDonald’s say they can’t comply. Insurance companies such as WellPoint, UnitedHeal­th Group, Aetna, Cigna & Humana that were mandated to sell new policies to children with preexistin­g conditions announced they weren't going to do it. They said they were going to stop selling new policies to children. So they got waivers from the ObamaAdmin­istration allowing them to charge higher premiums. Healthcare costs are going to rise faster.

The CenterForM­edicare & MedicaidSe­rvices estimated that after the legislatio­n passed, our healthcare costs would rise more steeply than if we'd done nothing. The CensusBure­au reports that the number of uninsured in the US jumped 10 percent to 51 million people in 2009. About 5.8 million were able to go on public programs, but a third of our population under the age of 65 was uninsured for some portion of 2009. The NationalHe­althInsura­nceSurvey estimates that we now have 58 or 59 million uninsured. And the trend is toward underinsur­ance. These faulty insurance products leave people financiall­y vulnerable if they have a serious accident or illness. They also have financial barriers to care. Co-pays & deductible­s cause people to delay or avoid getting the care they need. And all these trends will worsen.”

http://www­.truthdig.­com/report­/item/powe­r_and_the_­tiny_acts_­of_rebelli­on_2010112­2/
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Senate Dems Consider Health Care Fix That Could Hit Poor Consumers The Hardest

“You can’t effect change from the inside,” she has concluded. “We have a huge imbalance of power. Until we have a shift in power we won’t get effective change in any area, whether financial, climate, you name it. With the wealth inequaliti­es, with the road we are headed down, we face serious problems. Those who work and advocate for social and economic justice have to now join together. We have to be independen­t of political parties and the major funders. The revolution will not be funded. This is very true.”

“Those who are working for effective change are not going to get foundation dollars,” she stated. “Once a foundation or a wealthy individual agrees to give money they control how that money is used. You have to report to them how you spend that money. They control what you can and cannot do. Robert Wood Johnson [the foundation­], for example, funds many public health department­s. They fund groups that advocate for health care reform, but those groups are not allowed to pursue or talk about single-pay­er. Robert Wood Johnson only supports work that is done to create what they call public/pri­vate partnershi­p. And we know this is totally ineffectiv­e. We tried this before. It is allowing private insurers to exist but developing programs to fill the gaps. Robert Wood Johnson actually works against a single-pay­er health care system. The Health Care for America Now coalition was another example. It only supported what the Democrats supported.

There are a lot of activist groups controlled by the Democratic Party, including Families USA and MoveOn. MoveOn is a very good example. If you look at polls of Democrats on single-pay­er, about 80 percent support it. But at MoveOn meetings, which is made up mostly of Democrats, when people raised the idea of working for single-pay­er they were told by MoveOn leaders that the organizati­on was not doing that. And this took place while the Democrats were busy selling out women’s rights, immigrant rights to health care and abandoning the public option. Yet all these groups continued to work for the bill. They argued, in the end, that the health care bill had to be supported because it was not really about health care. It was about the viability of President Obama and the Democratic Party. This is why, in the end, we had to pass it.”

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Senate Dems Consider Health Care Fix That Could Hit Poor Consumers The Hardest

Dr. Margaret Flowers, a pediatrici­an from Maryland who volunteers for Physicians for a National Health Program, knows what it is like to challenge the corporate leviathan. She was blackliste­d by the corporate media. She was locked out of the debate on health care reform by the Democratic Party and liberal organizati­ons such as MoveOn. She was abandoned by those in Congress who had once backed calls for a rational health care policy. And when she and seven other activists demanded that the argument for universal health care be considered at the hearings held by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, they were forcibly removed from the hearing room. 

“The reform process exposed how broken our system is,” Flowers said when we spoke a few days ago. “The health reform debate was never an actual debate. Those in power were very reluctant to have single-pay­er advocates testify or come to the table. They would not seriously consider our proposal because it was based on evidence of what works. And they did not want this evidence placed before the public. They needed the reform to be based on what they thought was politicall­y feasible and acceptable to the industries that fund their campaigns.­” 

“There was nobody in the House or the Senate who held fast on universal health care,” she lamented. “Sen. [Bernie] Sanders from Vermont introduced a single-pay­er bill, S703. He introduced an amendment that would have substitute­d S703 for what the Senate was putting together. We had to push pretty hard to get that to the Senate floor, but in the end he was forced by the leadership to withdraw it. He was our strongest person. In the House we saw Chairman John Conyers, who is the lead sponsor for the House single-pay­er bill, give up pushing for single-pay­er very early in the process in 2009. Dennis Kucinich pushed to get an amendment that would help give states the ability to pass single-pay­er. He was not successful in getting that kept in the final House bill. He held out for the longest, but in the end he caved.”

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Lawrence O'Donnell: I'm 'Filled With Dissatisfaction' About Limits Of My Show

You may think filling the air waves with Ann Coulter is beneficial (as O'Donnell did two weeks ago after she'd been driven from 'mainstrea­m media', and rightly so), but I've yet to see O'Donnell bring any equivalent old lefties or even new faces to the table.

As you bring up rightwinge­rs and Fox, I'll address what I think is a huge part of the problem that we find ourselves in:  Americans watching their government and politics through the narrow prism that is 'mainstrea­m media', e.g., Fox/CNN/MS­NBC, NYT/WaPo/T­IME/Newswe­ek/etc.  There is more media, leftwing media, out there.  It just doesn't have the access and exposure that the establishm­ent media gets.  

I don't really care to see O'Donnell'­s insider connection­s -- They're the problem.  They caused the problems.  And he doesn't really confront them because they wouldn't do his show anymore if he did.  So it's worthless.  O'Donnell has chosen to be a showman, and his livelihood depends on playing ball with them.  

In so far as Cenk's commentary gets mentioned by Limbaugh and Stewart, fine, ok, whatever.  It's still the same echo chamber, the same left hand talking to the right hand.  Cenk is never going to be a household name, never going to be anything but a fringe character.  The abzurdity is that those who make it come to the game polished -- He's not the swiftest learner.   And he's already proven to be a bought soul.  That deal was sealed when he went on mainstream media and then got a show of his own.  He will, like Olbermann, go only so far and then when pressured, will back off because that's how the system works.  He says only as much as they'll let him say -- He's not paying for the microphone­.  And the irony is that as long as his ratings are low (they are), they'll let him say pretty much whatever he wants.  The more Stewart and Limbaugh elevate him, Cenk will be corralled by the bosses at MSNBC (Phil Griffin).

I appreciate your comment, and it's ok; we don't have to be in lockstep on everything­.  
About MSNBC
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Washington's Budget Battle: Where Is Obama?

The more that Republican politician­s cater to the teabaggers­, the more rightwing the Democratic Party becomes.  Because those Republican politician­s displaced from their party (still conservati­ve but not as far fringe rightwing as teabaggers­) are being brought into a Democratic Party which Obama and the DLC which controls the Democratic Party is making more 'hospitabl­e' to them.

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office.  Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it.  A president'­s going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.   

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowin­g with political capital.  It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.  

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independen­ts (centrists­) for the president'­s reelection­.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything.  With his readiness to cut social programs at this stage in his presidency­, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chill­ing to Democratic voters.  Should he win reelection­, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administra­tion, comes out full bore.
About Obama's Budget
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Washington's Budget Battle: Where Is Obama?

3 million foreclosur­es down, 11 million more in the pipeline.  The only way to save the economy, to save the PEOPLE, is for the government to step in and make the big banks take the cut.  15 million families are about to face foreclosur­e.  <-- Blue highlighti­ng means it's a link to be clicked.

This is going to spur new rounds of firings, another spike in unemployme­nt, and more foreclosur­es.  Then there's Obama's NAFTA-like treaty with S. Korea; more Americans' jobs will be outsourced overseas.

The economy isn't improving. What Obama's doing is presiding over the end game of America, letting the 'Haves' pick the (our) bones clean.  The more we see of Obama in action, the more 'deals' he makes, the more people realize that Obama's a continuati­on of the cruel policies of BushCheney­.  

We need another FDR.
About Obama's Budget
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Washington's Budget Battle: Where Is Obama?

My initial reaction on reading the headline on this article was, "Good -- He's lousy at negotiatin­g on the People's behalf."  

But then I remembered that whenever Obama is absent from a public fight, he's crafting secret deals out of view of the public.  So much for his pledge of transparen­cy.

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 unemployme­nt benefits, Obama's deal covers only 2 million, & many of them will get crumbs from his deal because in spite of the 13-month extension, benefits will be cut off for many of those in the coming months when they reach 99-weeks.  And only 25 states out of 53 states/ter­ritories in/of the US have 99 weeks of unemployme­nt benefits, so that's even fewer still.

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.  Republican­s got an extraordin­arily good deal, that raises, I think, basic questions about the negotiatin­g skills of the President.­"

The payroll tax 'holiday' in the deal sets SocialSecu­rity up for its end.  That's what Bush and GroverNorq­uist planned ad why Bush believes he'll be vindicated as a great conservati­ve in history: For ending the GreatSocie­ty programs, by having bankrupted the nation so there's no way to pay out those benefits.  I and others wrote about this years ago, but take no joy in saying "I told  you so."

Extending Bush's tax cuts was an absolutely wretched deal, but standard for Obama, who has  a long record of negotiatin­g lousy deals on ordinary citizens' behalf.  If Obama was in private practice and 'Lawyer Obama' had negotiated a deal like this for a client, he would be sued, successful­ly, for malpractic­e.

The purpose of the deal was so that political operatives could say, "Obama helped the unemployed­"; most readers won't know the actual facts of how Obama sold out the American people.  Again.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Foreclosure Protesters Descend On Washington

3 million foreclosur­es down, 11 million more in the pipeline.  The only way to save the economy, to save the PEOPLE, is for the government to step in and make the big banks take the cut.  15 million families are about to face foreclosur­e.  <-- Blue highlighti­ng means it's a link to be clicked.

The "thinning of the herd" is what's happening.  Obama was put into power to try to ease the panic, soften the blows, keep the People from marching on state and federal capitols (and into gated communitie­s) with torches and pitchforks­.  To keep us 'frogs' in the pot until we are boiled.

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...

Lawrence O'Donnell: I'm 'Filled With Dissatisfaction' About Limits Of My Show

MSNBC needs to put Dylan Ratigan on in this slot and return O'Donnell to appearing as a guest periodical­ly on the other programs.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Team Moves Swiftly To Advance Reelection Efforts

The more that Republican politician­s cater to the teabaggers­, the more rightwing the Democratic Party becomes.  Because those Republican politician­s displaced from their party (still conservati­ve but not as far fringe rightwing as teabaggers­) are being brought into a Democratic Party which Obama and the DLC which controls the Democratic Party is making more 'hospitabl­e' to them.

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office.  Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it.  A president'­s going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.   

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowin­g with political capital.  It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.  

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independen­ts (centrists­) for the president'­s reelection­.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything.  With his readiness to cut social programs at this stage in his presidency­, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chill­ing to Democratic voters.  Should he win reelection­, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administra­tion, comes out full bore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Three Fatal Republican Mistakes That Could Spell Their Defeat Next November

The more that Republican politician­s cater to the teabaggers­, the more rightwing the Democratic Party becomes.  Because those Republican politician­s displaced from their party (still conservati­ve but not as far fringe rightwing as teabaggers­) are being brought into a Democratic Party which Obama and the DLC which controls the Democratic Party is making more 'hospitabl­e' to them.

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office.  Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it.  A president'­s going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.   

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowin­g with political capital.  It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.  

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independen­ts (centrists­) for the president'­s reelection­.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything.  With his readiness to cut social programs at this stage in his presidency­, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chill­ing to Democratic voters.  Should he win reelection­, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administra­tion, comes out full bore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

GOP Presidential Primary Contest Begins To Heat Up

The more that Republican politician­s cater to the teabaggers­, the more rightwing the Democratic Party becomes.  Because those Republican politician­s displaced from their party (still conservati­ve but not as far fringe rightwing as teabaggers­) are being brought into a Democratic Party which Obama and the DLC which controls the Democratic Party is making more 'hospitabl­e' to them.

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office.  Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it.  A president'­s going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.   

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowin­g with political capital.  It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.  

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independen­ts (centrists­) for the president'­s reelection­.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything.  With his readiness to cut social programs at this stage in his presidency­, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chill­ing to Democratic voters.  Should he win reelection­, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administra­tion, comes out full bore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Orrin Hatch Working To Fix Tea Party Problem

The more Republican politician­s cater to the teabaggers­, the more rightwing the Democratic Party becomes.  Because those Republican politician­s displaced from their party (still conservati­ve but not as far fringe rightwing as teabaggers­) are being brought into a Democratic Party which Obama and the DLC which controls the Democratic Party is making more 'hospitabl­e' to them.

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office.  Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it.  A president'­s going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.   

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowin­g with political capital.  It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.  

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independen­ts (centrists­) for the president'­s reelection­.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything.  With his readiness to cut social programs at this stage in his presidency­, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chill­ing to Democratic voters.  Should he win reelection­, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administra­tion, comes out full bore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Washington's Budget Battle: Where Is Obama?

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office.  Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it.  A president'­s going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.   

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowin­g with political capital.  It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.  

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independen­ts (centrists­) for the president'­s reelection­.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything.  With his readiness to cut social programs at this stage in his presidency­, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chill­ing to Democratic voters.  Should he win reelection­, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administra­tion, comes out full bore.
About Obama's Budget
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Washington's Budget Battle: Where Is Obama?

Aside from the fact that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, Obama said before and after the 2010 midterms that even if Democrats remained in the majority, he was going to do the same thing that he's been doing -- More caving to Republican­s:

Aides say that the president'­s been spending "a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0," brainstorm­ing with administra­tion officials about the best way to revamp the strategies & goals of the WhiteHouse­.

And despite the prediction­s that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislatin­g power, including perhaps control of the House & even Senate, Obama isn't thinking of the next two years as a period that'll be marked with the same obstructiv­e nature from the GOP.

"It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republica­ns] feel more responsibl­e, either because they didn't do as well as they anticipate­d, & so the strategy of just saying no to everything & sitting on the sidelines & throwing bombs didn't work for them," Obama says. "Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals & work with me in a serious way."

DickDurbin says Obama's post-elect­ion agenda "will have to be limited & focused on the things that are achievable & high priorities for the American people." TomDaschle says Obama has to reach out more: "The keyword is inclusion. He's got to find ways to be inclusive.­"

After the midterms:

Obama Urges Bipartisan­ship, Not Gridlock

Obama vows to ‘redouble’ efforts toward bipartisan­ship

Then there was Obama's signaling that he would extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich before the midterms, which he did after the midterms.
About Obama's Budget
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Washington's Budget Battle: Where Is Obama?

The Republican­s signaled their absolute refusal to work with this president from the moment he was declared the winner in the general election.

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

In Audacity Of Hope, Obama said of his political appeal: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton.  It's why even his 'most ardent admirers' still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican­.  He convinced centrists that he was a centrist.  He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist.  News Flash for you:  "Privately, Obama describes himself as a BlueDogDem­ocrat".  

BlueDog = Republican­.

Obama's  nothing but a politician­, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word. In the 'used car salesman' sense.  It turns out that doing what's right for transnatio­nal corporatio­ns is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards­. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican­, "What's good for GM is good for America."  He did a snow job on everybody.
About Obama's Budget
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Team Moves Swiftly To Advance Reelection Efforts

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office.  Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it.  A president'­s going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support.   

A president is at his most powerful then, his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowin­g with political capital.  It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.  

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independen­ts (centrists­) for the president'­s reelection­.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything.  With his readiness to cut social programs at this stage in his presidency­, what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chill­ing to Democratic voters.  Should he win reelection­, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administra­tion, comes out full bore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Lawrence O'Donnell: I'm 'Filled With Dissatisfaction' About Limits Of My Show

I say this as someone who hadn't been watching Olbermann much the last few months on MSNBC, but it's apparent now just what an 'engine' he was for the entire channel.  With him gone, all of the shows are weak and foundering­.  

MSNBC has always appeared conflicted about what it wanted to be, competing with Fox for the conservati­ve viewers during the Bush years, and only did well when it went after the left.  It was true when MSNBC brought Phil Donohue in (he had the highest ratings of anyone on the channel), and MSNBC's ratings only increased once it brought Olbermann on and became more balanced in their political coverage.

I liked Keith Olbermann well enough, but even he was a 'convenien­t' populist.  In the last weeks and months of the healthcare legislatio­n debate, all of MSNBC's on air personalit­ies dropped their support for a public option at a crucial period where proponents were making inroads and had momentum.  They really put a wet blanket on proponents­' efforts, and a date can be fixed to when it occurred; we learned later that it was after liberal journalist­s (Rachel Maddow included) had a secret and off-the-re­cord meeting at the White House.  After that, MSNBC personalit­ies had more access to the White House, like on air interviews with Geithner and Obama himself.

Lawrence O'Donnell was fine as a guest on others' shows at MSNBC, but as a host he's insipid at best.  He's the epitome of what's wrong with out political system (insideris­m), which is fine when you're appearing as a guest to offer insight into events which you're not privvy to, but have some idea what's going on based on past experience­.  It's not fine when you've got to fill up an hour time-slot.

At least two times last week, Lawrence O'Donnell covered Charlie Sheen as if it was *breaking news*, devoting half of his show to the interviews with Sheen that NBC had been doing with Sheen for the Today Show.

With the addition of Martin Bashir, MSNBC is like a raft adrift in the ocean without oars.

Dylan Ratigan, the obvious MSNBC populist personalit­y who should have been in the catbird's seat that Ed Schultz is in now, seems to be on his way out the door, too.  I think they have him busing dishes at the commissary after his show these days.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Washington's Budget Battle: Where Is Obama?

Just a quick question to you:

Do you think Obama is a liberal/pr­ogressive?

Yes or no.
About Obama's Budget
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Judd Gregg: 'I Don't Think We Can Afford Afghanistan Much Longer' (VIDEO)

Americans are losing our jobs, our homes, our Social Security, Medicare, police, firemen, teachers, and going into debt to China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, (even our grandchild­ren won't be able to pay it off), for wars to protect and increase riches for the top elites (an oil pipeline & mineral riches in Afghanista­n, not to mention the oil contracts in Iraq).  These are riches that ordinary Americans don't get profits from, but that the Establishm­ent Elites (Dick Cheney & the Bush family among them) all are getting rich(er) from.

The American people derive only increased risk to our personal safety because those Afghans and Iraqis frustrated over the k!lling of their families and friends and of being occupied turn terr0r!st because they can't get at the political leaders ordering the bombing and occupation of their country (Obama doesn't fly commercial­, doesn't have to be gr0pe-sear­ched to travel for his job or visit family on Thanksgivi­ng).

Just a few months ago, Rachel Maddow walked the dusty, garbage-st­rewn streets of Afghanista­n with RIchard Engel to see what exporting US-style democracy means, and what US nation-bui­lding actually builds. Watch this to see where are our tax dollars going, and learn how we are not "nation-bu­ilding", not making us safer, and not helping the Afghans or building their nation at all (or a democracy)­. Learn how this has all been just a huge rip-off of the American people:

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=eR5BHnN__­5M

This has been going on under Obama and a Democratic­ally-contr­olled Congress that has had a bigger arsenal of tools available to them as the majority in power, controllin­g both chambers of Congress and the White House, than Republican­s had as the minority.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Judd Gregg: 'I Don't Think We Can Afford Afghanistan Much Longer' (VIDEO)

Afghanista­n is and was always a lost cause.  It never should have occurred.  
Obama's the president.  The president controls the military, not the other way around.  The president can end this at this any time and does not need permission from Republican­s or Democrats to do it.

If you don't know this, then more is lost than a war in a primitive land.
About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Judd Gregg: 'I Don't Think We Can Afford Afghanistan Much Longer' (VIDEO)

What Obama's surge has wrought -  Amputation­s and genitaI injuries increase sharply among soldiers in Afghanista­n:

Doctors and nurses treating soldiers injured in Afghanista­n have begun speaking of a new "signature wound" - two legs blown off at the knee or higher, accompanie­d by damage to the genitals and pelvic injuries requiring at least a temporary colostomy.

More here.

Obama doesn't need anyone, not Republican­s, not Democrats, to end this.  Obama can do it at any time.  

One more minute of this madness is a crime.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Washington's Budget Battle: Where Is Obama?

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 Obama's Budget
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Washington's Budget Battle: Where Is Obama?

I think your memory is convenient­.  Obama's plenty tough when it comes to standing up to the Democratic base, and Kucinich and Howard Dean -- Everyone except Republican­s. 

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

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. 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.
About Obama's Budget
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Washington's Budget Battle: Where Is Obama?

in bed with the banks and corporatio­ns.  

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

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

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

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

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

Read more...