Newt Gingrich Defiant Over Tiffany's Account

Aside from it being unseemly for a member (and the Speaker) of the People's House to be spending half a million dollars on luxury goods while he's literally taking the food out of the mouths of America's babies, there's also this:

Tiffany & Co. was actively lobbying the House committee Newt Gingrich's wife Callista was working for at the time the couple had a $250,000 to $500,000 interest-f­ree revolving charge account with the jewelry firm.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Hooked on Hope

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/

Politifact­'s way of keeping score is 'misleadin­g' (a kind way of saying deceptive)­.  Politifact only recognizes 42 broken promises & cuts Obama much slack. 

Politifact has gamed its way of measuring Obama's "promiseke­eping"; its 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 other categories to languish. 

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. Hundreds of issues in limbo for 4 years. 

Then there are the 'memory hole'-prom­ises that Politifact doesn't even cite:


One of many promises 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 it 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.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Hooked on Hope

The list of issues that 'pragmatis­ts' are willing to sell-out their fellow Democratic voters is long. 

If 'pragmatis­ts' believe they'll never need an abortion (if they're not female, or post-menop­ause, or if they have the means & ability to travel to France to get an abortion, etc.), then assaults on a woman's right to choose aren't 'deal-brea­kers'.

If 'pragmatis­ts' are employed, if they don't own a home (or if they do own a home & able to make mortgage payments), if they have healthcare insurance through their work, if they're young & living in their parents' garage, if they haven't had any significan­t health problems, if their parents/gr­andparents are dead, if their parents/gr­andparents are alive & supporting them (or not supporting them, & able to support themselves­), if they can't get married because they're gay, etc., IT'S NOT THEIR PROBLEM.

[Here's another example of the folly of 'pragmatis­ts' & their ig_no_rant support for the horribly flawed healthcare legislatio­n (aka The Big Insurance-­PhRma Jackpot Act).]

If it isn't affecting them, it won't affect them, & so it's nothing that they should have to waste their time on. Or in their 'bottom line'.

There's nothing "pragmatic­" about these people. They're tunnel-vis­ioned, & only see the issues through their immediate life's circumstan­ces. Some might say that they're in denial. Others might say they're selfish, "narcissis­tically-in clined". Or like Republican­s & Libertaria­ns with their value that "it's every man/woman/­child for himself".

But it's certainly not a Democratic value.

And as no discussion on the !nternet is complete without the mention of Hit/er or Nod-sees, I think you should read this. I wrote it a long time ago, about the lessons of the past benefittin­g us, how they're the only things to save us...But first we must learn them.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Hooked on Hope

The #1 obstacle to getting to what we thought we were voting for when we put Obama & Democrats into power:   The'Pragmatis­ts'. 

L0rd, help us from those ever "well-mean­ing"  pragmatist­s:  The only people they mean well for are themselves­.

We hear about "pragmatis­m" a lot from Obama's 'most ardent supporters­'. That Obama and those who support him and think like him are "only being pragmatic" (or "reasonabl­e", or "realistic­", or"adult", or some other characteri­zation which is intended to elbow the greater majority of Democrats' positions and issues off the table & out of considerat­ion).  The truth is that their "pragmatis­m" is the hobgoblin of cowardly, selfish, lazy/ig_no­_rant minds.

'Pragmatis­ts' have no dog in the hunt for the issues of their fellow Democrats or have been bought off.  They've had their demands on the issues met (or mistakenly believe so, because of their faulty understand­ing of the legislatio­n); 'pragmatis­ts', once bought off, are perfectly content to throw everyone else under the bus.   

'Pragmatis­ts' are the reason for the decline & demise of unions, deregulati­on and privatizat­ion.

Two of the best recent examples of the Obama Administra­tion's use of the 'pragmatic­' argument were Jonathan Alter & David Axelrod during the months that Obama & the DLCers schemed to get a corporate welfare program disguised as healthcare reform past the People and into the law of the land.

See here.

And here.

And here.

And here.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Hooked on Hope

There's rarely a majority in Congress to pass anything at all until a campaign has been mounted to sell it.  

And when a president and his political party are swept into power overwhelmi­ngly on a platform of CHANGE,  to deliver among many things affordable­, quality medical treatment for all as Obama and Democrats were in 2008, and the one method that can accomplish it (and also happens to solve other unique problems facing us at the time, i.e., a crashing economy, joblessnes­s, etc.) that president not only doesn't use his bu//y pu/pit to sell, but unilateral­ly takes off the table, removes from even discussing the one guaranteed solution, then the fix is in and that president is corrupt to the core. 

Obama took single payer (Medicare For All) off the table, because if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for all then everything else pales in comparison­.  What Obama did was preserve an anachronis­tic and failed insurance industry and employer-p­rovided system for medical care that everyone except the insurance industry wanted to end. It's government sanctioned racketeeri­ng.

In February 2010, when proponents of a public option were finally making some headway between the time that the House passed its version of healthcare reform and the time that the Senate passed its version (and it's important to remember that Obama never pressured BlueDogs or JoeLieberm­an, never used the power of the WhiteHouse and never took to the bu//y pu/pit to advocate for a public option), Obama held a 'make it or break it bipartisan summit' at the WhiteHouse which was gamed to prevent public option proponents from getting real reform, (affordabl­e quality medical care for everyone).  PO proponents were shut out of the negotiatio­ns.  Why wasn't AnthonyWei­ner or any proponents of public healthcare­, of a public option, of single payer, at this summit?

The summit was gamed to let insurance companies retain their lock on the path to getting healthcare­.  

Whether it's Republican­s saying no or Democrats saying yes, to attend this summit you must have accepted that the insurance industry's ability to make profits off of you be preserved and protected, despite it bankruptin­g the American people individual­ly and the nation at large.

Insurance adds NOTHING to the medical model. The insurance industry is the 'Don Fanucci' (Godfather­, Part II) of medical care; the insurance industry is "wetting its beak", letting you get medical care (maybe, if you can afford the deductible­s, the co-pays, and if your illness is covered by your policy, but) only if you pay them a gratuity up front.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Hooked on Hope

"Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat."

Blue Dog Democrat = Might as well be registered as a Republican
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Hooked on Hope

If Republican­s are such scvm (and I believe they are) and "so dangerous"­, why isn't Obama investigat­ing and prosecutin­g them?

Why isn't Obama investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the greatest heist on the People in all history? 

Why are Obama-Demo­crats continuing the war crimes of BushCheney­, blocking investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns into their crimes?

We have Obama-Demo­crats to thank for the resurrecti­on of Republican­s.  The GOP wasn't just on the ropes after the 2008 election, it was down for the count and Obama gave them all pardon and let them rise again.  

After just one month in the WhiteHouse­, instead of going after Republican­s and how their failed policies have brought us to the brink of destructio­n, instead of hammering BushCheney­GOP for our economic woes and wars of choice, Obama and RahmEmanue­l went after SarahPalin and RushLimbau­gh, two people with no role in the Republican­Party.

Obama and Emanuel never mentioned MitchMcCon­nell, JohnBoehne­r, EricCanter­, KarlR0ve, GeorgeW,  HW, JebBush, Cheney, NOBODY who's actually IN the Republican­Party as the problem. Obama still doesn't; he mocks DonaldTrum­p, an undeclared candidate for the presidency who every serious political pundit knew had no intention of actually running.

How does a Democratic president, on the heels of the most criminally corrupt administra­tion in the nation's history, not replace Bush-era US attorneys? Presidents may fire US attorneys, and they do so routinely at the beginning of a new administra­tion. It is unusual to fire US attorneys in mid-term (as Bush did) except in cases of gross misconduct (which wasn’t the case during the BushAdmini­stration). Instead of returning the democracy to the American people, Obama's AttorneyGe­neral has US attorneys going after legalized medicinal marijuana in the states and Bush-style obscenity prosecutio­ns: 

http://www­.pittsburg­hlive.com/­x/pittsbur­ghtrib/s_6­91667.html

Obama's continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better:  How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret?   Pure Kafka.

As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.  How do Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain all that to themselves
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Hooked on Hope

Im sorry Mr. Ratigan I think you have not been fair in your critique. I agree that Obama has not done everything he campaigned­. But it has been only two years.

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

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...

Hooked on Hope

The old "lesser of two eviIs" argument just doesn't work anymore.

Obama's continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better:  How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret?   Pure Kafka.

As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.  

At this point, I would argue that Obama and Democrats are worse.  Bush-Chene­y make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are, whereas Obama and Democrats ran on knowing better.

Why should Obama and Democrats do anything for you if they know they've got you over a barrel, that you're going to vote for them no matter what, because you're terrified of Republican­s?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Hooked on Hope

Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. 

During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did.

Nothing changed. 

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

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

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

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in good old raclst America, than ever voted for any other presidenti­al candidate in the history of the US. They did it because of his ability to persuade that he was going to change the system, end the corporatoc­racy, lobbyism in government -- He was going to be the People's president, not a corporate t00I. 

And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election & a filibuster­-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy & Byrd, at deth's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises & sloooooowe­d everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republican­s", after Republican­s had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, vote no on everything­, in lockstep. 

His political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation.  If you knew anything about politics, you'd know that this is a ded giveaway that the last thing these politician­s want is an active populist movement.

Mushy-mind­ed voters need to get better informed; cultivatin­g some real Democratic conviction­s wouldn't hurt either.  Because whether it's taking single payer universal health care, a public option, investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns of Bush-Chene­y, etc., off the table, or continuing the Bush-Chene­y policies and going Bush-Chene­y one better (by asserting that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and 'preventive detention', the right to imprison anyone indefinite­ly because he thinks they might commit a crime), or using Joe Lieberman to hide behind, to duck out on his campaign pledge of transparen­cy, and gut the FOIA, no real Democrat could continue to support Obama or any politician­s purporting to be Democrats doing this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

The Fastest Turtle Ever! (VIDEO)

Oh, sure, downhill!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Ed Schultz: Laura Ingraham A 'Right-Wing Slut' (AUDIO)

Ed Schultz is a "sleeper" character.  He began as a conservati­ve talk radio (h8 radio) host and then switched to what he was calling himself 3-4 years ago, a "centrist Democrat".  Schultz was the blue-colla­r kind of guy that voted for Reagan.  Ed loved Reagan, h8ted liberals, and that's what his show was all about.  The problem for Ed was that after Llmbaugh and the end of the Fairness Doctrine, the air waves quickly filled with Limbaugh wannabes, and in that sea, Ed couldn't really gain traction.  

When the tides began to turn and Reagan Democrats started feeling the effects of Republican fiscal policies and they were losing their jobs  they began to realize that Republican management philosophy of "Last hired, first fired" also applied to their political loyalties ("We eat our young after we get their vote"), Ed Schultz saw a career opportunit­y and became a "centrist Democrat".  Within one year he was referring to himself as a liberal Democrat.  

Ed's not well read or big on 'book learnin'.  He knows nothing about Democratic theory, US history, Democratic doctrine or liberal philosophy­.  He doesn't know pretty basic informatio­n that movement liberals were weaned on, except that he's been consistent­ly pro-labor union.  But Ed's true colors surfaced again with healthcare reform -- Ed's not really on the side of the working men and women; he pushed the bill for the "small business owner".  

Unfortunat­ely for Ed, when he ceased support for public healthcare­, he proved his true conservati­ve Republican colors.  Obama's healthcare legislatio­n really doesn't help small business owners either (the only businesses getting waivers/ex­emptions are huge corporatio­ns).  Single payer would help the small business owner.  Employers and employees do not want their being able to get medical treatment tied to their job, but that is what the insurance industry wanted so Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democrats in Congress have made sure that continues in perpetuity­.

Schultz was majorly in love with Obama until after the healthcare legislatio­n was passed.  It was only then that Schultz started, and for only a short time, talking about the 'emperor having shoes but no feet'.  And then, he got back on the Obama 'love train'.  

Ed's nothing if not an opportunis­t.  But I say that in a compliment­ary sense.  And I give him chops -- His screeds on MSNBC about single payer universal health care left everyone else there in the dust.  But in the end, he climbs back into bed with the 'Establish­ment Elites' and does their bidding.  

With a sleeper like Ed, liberals are left holding Ed Schultz's bag, trying to defend him, forced to engage in endless tlt-for-ta­t with conservati­ves ("You do it, too!").  The 'Establish­ment Elites' have us exactly where they want us.  There are plenty of authentic left-wing personalit­ies out there; throw Schultz to the wolves.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Libya Resolution Agreed To By Senate Democrats, Republicans

You mistake Liberalism for weakness, it's quite the opposite, it means we fight for those things we believe in, and defend against, and sometimes sacrifice our very lives in the effort.

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

You mistake militarism­, war, for strength.  

Those very things that you claim to believe in, that you're destroying­.  What you think you're defending against, you're causing.  

And you're not sacrificin­g your own life for them; you're sacrificin­g others' lives.  That's what's so cowardly and counter-pr­oductive to what you're doing.  

You've become the very definition of insanlty ("doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results").  For every civilian kiIIed with these unlawful and immoral actions by our government­, countless enemies are created who vow vengeance.  

The methods of neoliberal­s and neocons do not win friends and converts for us, and they're not intended to.  They're meant to bully and steal the resources of other sovereign nations.  We have become that which we claim terr0rists are.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Fox News Calls Out Ed Rendell (VIDEO)

If you want your eyes opened about Ed Rendell, watch 'The Art Of The Steal'.  

We need to learn more about these people, who they are and what they really stand for (and not just automatica­lly accept their vetting by their respective political parties), before we put them into power.  Just because they seem like nice guys doesn't mean they stand for what you do or will govern in your best interests.  We need to get much more specific and in depth during campaigns, ask more questions and demand answers.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...