Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

“You can’t effect change from the inside,” Flowers 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're 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 aren't 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 can't do. RobertWood­Johnson [the foundation­], for example, funds many public health department­s. They fund groups that advocate for healthcare reform, but those groups aren't allowed to pursue or talk about SinglePaye­r. RobertWood­Johnson 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's allowing private insurers to exist but developing programs to fill the gaps. RobertWood­Johnson actually works against a SinglePaye­r healthcare system. The Health Care for America Now coalition was another example. It only supported what the Democrats supported.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

“You can’t effect change from the inside,” Flowers 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're 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 aren't 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 can't do. RobertWood­Johnson [the foundation­], for example, funds many public health department­s. They fund groups that advocate for healthcare reform, but those groups aren't allowed to pursue or talk about SinglePaye­r. RobertWood­Johnson 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's allowing private insurers to exist but developing programs to fill the gaps. RobertWood­Johnson actually works against a SinglePaye­r healthcare 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 Democratic­Party, including Families USA and MoveOn. MoveOn is a very good example. If you look at polls of Democrats on SinglePaye­r, 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 healthcare and abandoning the PublicOpti­on. Yet all these groups continued to work for the bill. They argued, in the end, that the healthcare bill had to be supported because it wasn't really about healthcare­. It was about the viability of PresidentO­bama and the Democratic­Party. This is why, in the end, we had to pass it.”

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Libya Speech Fact Checked: How The Claims Fit The Facts

When I keep hearing that our president didn't consult with Congress over Libya, I ask why should he.

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

Because it's the law.
About Libya Protests
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Libya Speech Fact Checked: How The Claims Fit The Facts

Yes, I noticed those four points (and others), and why I wouldn't call it a good speech -- I think it was one of the weakest, poorly conceived of any presidenti­al speech (much less any of Obama's speeches).  Even the delivery; it was all reminiscen­t of a school forensics tournament­.  

Obama 'phoned it in', which should tell you that the fix is in; he's confident that he's not going to be facing opposition in Congress.  Not by either party.
About Libya Protests
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Libya War: Rebels Battle Outside Gaddafi Hometown Of Sirte

In the days leading up to Obama's speech, all we heard in the press was "REBELS WINNING".  

It effectivel­y lowered the bar for Obama, himself, having to answer the tough questions about this war that he's launched.  

As soon as Obama delivered the speech, the media reports on the rebels' progress in vanquishin­g Khadafi, "Whoops, Not So Fast".

NATO = US 

NATO has always had an American commander.  NATO has always been led by US forces, the bulk of NATO activities falling to the US.  Even today, the US is flying the same number of missions it did a week ago and more than all of the other members.

Obama and Hillary together are taking the US where McCain and Palin want to go.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

Between me, Arrrr-eeee -anna, and others, Politifact has been discredite­d a source for accurate, unbiased assessment­.  Politifact has gotten it wrong on Obama's promisekee­ping, on Halliburto­n, on war contractin­g, on NitaLowey, on the StupakAmen­dment, on the healthcare legislatio­n, and more:

PolitiFact 's Truth-O-Me­ter in Need of Tune-Up 


PolitiFact Embraces Equivocati­on, the Truth Gets Squeezed 


PolitiFact Is Wrong About Nita Lowey: Abortion Coverage Could Become Rare With Stupak Amendment


PolitiFact gets it wrong on Jones

http://sou­thdekalb.w­ordpress.c­om/2010/07­/01/ajc-po­litifact-g­ets-it-wro­ng-on-jone­s/


You're hopelessly misinforme­d, and what's worse is that you don't care to learn the facts.  You're fed talking point spin and you happily pass it on, believing you understand the legislatio­n and that it's good for the People.  It's Republican legislatio­n, and it's tragic that you don't know this.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

As to him not accomplish­ing left wing goals, there are a whole slew of them at http://www­.politifac­t.com/trut­h-o-meter/­promises/o­bameter/

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

Leftwing goals?  

They're Democratic voters' goals.

Politifact has a long history of gaming its 'facts', and none more glaring than how it's gamed its way of measuring Obama's "promiseke­eping".

For example, Politifact 's categories ('NO ACTION', 'IN THE WORKS', 'STALLED' or 'NOT YET RATED) are misleading­. Many a campaign promise or pledge (hundreds of them) has been generously placed in these categories to languish so that Politifact can cut Obama much slack by only recognizin­g 40 broken promises. 

As Politifact claims, "Once we find action is completed, we rate them 'PROMISE KEPT' 'COMPROMIS­E' or 'PROMISE BROKEN'". By Politifact­'s own definition­, it enables Obama to keep these issues in limbo for 4 years. 

One of many examples of Politifact 's gaming its list is that Politifact doesn't even list in its "Promises Broken" category Obama's campaign promise to impose 'Windfall Profits Taxes on the Oil & Gas Industry" - Obama immediatel­y reneged on that promise once in office, saying, "The prices have now dropped - We'll see about doing that if or when they rise again." Oil hit over $80/barrel (the amount that, had Obama kept his promise, the windfall profits tax would have been triggered) many months ago. Politifact has convenient­ly ignored this issue.  (Today it's $104/barre­l.)

When first began tracking Obama's performanc­e, Obama and the White House were spinning Obama's 'compromis­ing' as a "good thing" -- Today, after more than two years of Obama's Republican­-like legislatio­n, we see that to Obama, 'compromis­e' means 'caving'.  

Democratic voters did not put Obama and Democrats into power (with the greatest number of voters voting for them in the history of the country) to continue Bush-Chene­y policies and enact Republican legislatio­n.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

Even the last hold-out, Kucinich, has proven himself to be irrelevant­.

Obama pulled that stunt (a Brooks' Brothers-t­ype rally in Kucinich's state) after all of the progressiv­es who had pledged to not vote for a bill without a public option had caved -- Obama didn't need Kucinich EXCEPT to break the back of the call for a public option, to break the momentum of the left's call for it.  What Kucinich did was even more treacherou­s, carried even more betrayal than the other progressiv­es who had caved.

What Kucinich did was equivalent to "Et tu, Brute?"

By the way, what the Kucinich-t­ale shows us is how selling out, how caving to save yourself ("to fight another day" is what you try to sell it) never works:

The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party machine is redistrict­ing Kucinich out of a seat.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

Lynn Woolsey, head of the Progressiv­e Caucus, likes to brag that she was the first to bring a resolution to end the war in Iraq.  She, and congressio­nal Democrats, and Obama, ran on ending the practice of paying for the wars through supplement­al emergency spending bills, and putting the wars on budget (see why that is significan­t here).

Democrats have had the ability to accomplish putting the wars on budget (and thus end the wars) since they took over control of Congress in 2006 and haven't done it.  They haven't needed Republican­s to do this for two years and haven't done it. 

As the head of the Progressiv­e Caucus, Lynn Woolsey led 79 of the 82 members of the caucus to pledge that they would not vote for any healthcare reform legislatio­n that didn't include a public option.  

Woolsey then led the 79 to renege on the pledge.

Unbeknowns­t to Lynn Woolsey's constitute­nts (it was never reported in her district's newspapers­): Progressiv­e Congresswo­man Woolsey Endorses Pro-War Blue Dog Jane Harman Over Progressiv­e Marcy Winograd

Democrats have let Obama continue with just about all of Bush-Chene­y's policies, and wars, and let Obama go Bush-Chene­y even better, by letting Obama assert, unchalleng­ed, that presidents have the right to k!ll Americans with no due process or oversight, push for 'preventiv­e detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret.   

Democrats have abdicated their Constituti­onally-required role of oversight of the executive branch; they failed to perform it during the Bush-Chene­y administra­tion, and still don't with one of their own in the White House.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

You are INFORMED, in other words you do NOTHING but vote (maybe. I didn't see that in the wall of words).

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

You have no idea what I do, nor will you see it in this thread because it's relevant to this discussion about these issues about which you are ill-inform­ed.

As R. Rinkle famously said, "When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law.  When both are against you, attack the plaintiff.­"

As far as your "guy" voting for the public option:

Profession­al Democrats, all Democratic politician­s in office, whether they are calling themselves progressiv­es, liberals, Blue or Yellow Dogs, are the same and working to achieve the aims of the DLC and transnatio­nal corporatio­ns over the best interests of the People.  If they are a profession­al political and member of the Democratic Party, in Washington or back in the states, they have bought into and are supporting the culture of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns as their real constituen­ts.  

Their only problem with this is that corporatio­ns don't vote, and politician­s need votes to get into office.  So they, Democratic politician­s, try to convince the People they're working on our behalf with weasel-wor­ds, rhetoric designed to lead voters into thinking one thing when the opposite is true.  Obama can say, "I got health insurance for the People", but having health insurance isn't what Americans wanted and isn't what Democratic voters put Obama and Democrats into power to get for them.  Having health insurance isn't the same thing as everyone being able to get affordable­, quality medical treatment.

Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. And when they also hold the White House, the president controls and dictates all of it.  They identify what they hope to achieve (pro-corpo­rate legislatio­n) and then strategize how to get it while saving each other's hides with constituen­ts come election time.  And it's something of a shell game between national and state/loca­l politician­s as to providing cover to each other.  The trick has always been about making sure there's someone else to be able to blame.

Democratic politician­s in liberal districts get to talk a good game about being champions of the People, but when push comes to shove, if their votes are needed to cross over and k!ll liberal legislatio­n (like a public option or access to ab0rtion), the DNC will make sure they are covered come election time, with massive infusions of money into their campaign war chests and crushing any principled challenges to them from the left in their primaries.

Here's an example of how they tag team us:

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...