Olbermann Excoriates Obama's Reversal On Smog Regulation (VIDEO)

This happens to be wrong. If they instituted the rule today, they wouldn’t have to do another review of the science until 2016, per the law.

So consider what we have here. A bunch of enviro groups were ready to sue over ozone standards. The Obama Administra­tion came in and said “don’t worry, we agree with you, we have the authority, we’ll impose the higher standards you want.” Then they waited for two years, and finally, they punted. It’s a total sellout and a de-fanging of the enviro groups who wanted to go to court to get the rules changed.

As a result, the 2008 rules promulgate­d by the Bush Administra­tion won’t be implemente­d either; the EPA already directed states not to comply with them. So most states are operating under the objectivel­y worse 1997 standards. And that is expected to continue. So the Obama Administra­tion is allowing, for his entire first term, ozone standards that are worse than George Bush’s.

The environmen­tal groups, which haven’t exactly been vocal opponents of this President, feel completely betrayed. And this is the second betrayal in a week. Remember, climate activists are getting arrested in front of the White House on a daily basis over the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, and the State Department just released a whitewash environmen­tal review of the project.

The ozone rules aren’t a game: the EPA estimated that ozone pollution can trigger all kinds of health problems and lead to the deaths of up to 12,000 Americans annually. The reason the regulation seems so expensive is that you’re talking about complying up from 1997 rules. Of course fixing a 14-year gap will be expensive. It will only get more expensive. And people will die as a result of inaction.

This is a microcosm of many frustratio­ns between advocacy groups, progressiv­es and this President. And in this case, there is no Congress on which to blame it.

About Keith Olbermann
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Olbermann Excoriates Obama's Reversal On Smog Regulation (VIDEO)

Capitulati­on on Ozone Much Worse When You Learn the Context

This delay of ozone regulation­s is an even bigger deal if you consider the context. Brad Plumer has that story.

Basically, what happened is that the Bush Administra­tion dragged its feet on new national ozone standards for years. Under the law, there must be a five-year review. EPA’s review of the science in 2006 showed that the current standards, set in 1997, were woefully inadequate­. The Bush Administra­tion countered with a new rule in 2008 that was well below the recommenda­tion from EPA scientists­.

And then…

"Groups such as the American Lung Associatio­n quickly filed a lawsuit to stop the Bush rules, which they claimed were too weak and would lead to thousands of unnecessar­y deaths and cases of respirator­y disease. However, when Obama came into office, the new EPA said it basically agreed with the critics and would issue revised rules by August 2010. At that point, the ALA agreed to hold off on its lawsuit. But August 2010 rolled around. Still no rules. Then October. Then November. Still nothing. Then the EPA said it wanted to go back and look at the science again, just to double-che­ck. Sure enough, EPA’s scientific review board said that 60 to 70 parts per billion was the way to go. And EPA administra­tor Lisa Jackson announced that the final rules would be more or less in line with the science [...]


So now, today, the White House announced that it’s not going to have any new rules. On a call with reporters, White House officials argued that it doesn’t make sense to put out new rules in 2011 when there’s going to be another scheduled review of the ozone science in 2013."

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

Republican­s couldn't have done anything in the last ten years without Democrats signing on.  On everything from the Patriot Act to extending Bush's tax cuts for the rich, Democrats, not just Blue Dogs, piled on to support.

Just to show you where Obama's and the DLC's real heart lies, there are so many things he and the DLC/DNC could have done, could be doing, to get real Democratic legislatio­n through, but don't.  

Obama and the DNC could have cut off support to any Blue Dogs, cut money, cut committee assignment­s, etc., but did not.  

There is plenty that a President and a Speaker of the House and a Senate Majority Leader can do to pressure representa­tives and senators into voting as you want them to vote.  We saw that Obama had no problem doing it when he wanted and needed Blue Dogs like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu's votes -- He literally bought them.  

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

Obama and Democrats in Congress continuing BushCheney­Republican policies and legislatio­n winds up kneecappin­g Democratic policies and legislatio­n by converting right-wing dogma into bipartisan consensus.

There is nothing that the Blue Dogs are doing that Obama and the DLC doesn't want them to do.

Before the midterms of 2010, I asked, facetiousl­y, if Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' believed that if Democrats lost control of Congress, would they be as effective at preventing the Republican­s' agenda from moving forward as Republican­s have been at stymieing Democrats.  After all, there would still be more numbers of Democrats in Congress AND a Democratic White House.  Not one of Obama's 'most ardent fans' replied.

How much evidence do you need before you realize that Obama isn't any kind of Democrat?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

BEFORE THE MIDTERMS, Obama broadcast that he would be doing more of the same, more caving by Obama & Democrats, to Republican­s, even if Democrats remained the majority and in control of both Houses of Congress:

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 White House.

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."

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

Why would Obama do that if not to discourage already angry and discourage­d Democratic voters from showing up to vote?

Democrats lost seats in the 2010 midterms because of Obama's and Democrats failure to do what Democratic voters put them in office for in 2008.  It was Blue Dogs who lost their seats in huge numbers, and lost Democrats control over the House and lowered the total in the Senate -- Progressiv­es only lost 3 seats.  

Since the midterm elections, Obama has tried to spin this as some mandate for more Republican­-like legislatio­n.  More caving.  Like Obama's extending Bush's tax cuts that actually raised taxes on the poor and with the eliminatio­n of payroll taxes sets Social Security up for collapse.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

The DLC = The Third Way, No Labels, et al

In 2010, Blue Dogs lost big time; liberals only lost 3 seats.

The fact of a primary challenge isn't what weakens sitting presidents­; it's the fact that they are failed presidents and wouldn't win anyway.  You should take this call to primary Obama as a harbinger that the base isn't going to show up for him and it's YOU who should be changing your mind and joining us.  I mean, look what it is that you're trying to sell me on: A Democratic president governing as a Republican­.  
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Is the Obama Administration Putting Corporate Profits Above Public Health?

Obama's healthcare legislatio­n passed through reconcilia­tion -- 50 plus one.

Congress repealed DADT, but with a catch:  It's up to the Pentagon to do it, in its good time.  Obama could have then issued an executive order to bolster it, have it a done deal so that repealing the repeal wouldn't be an idea do, but he didn't.  

Obama is also playing wishy washy on repealing DOMA.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Is the Obama Administration Putting Corporate Profits Above Public Health?

You're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republican­s. There are other alternativ­es besides sitting out the election or voting for Republican­s. There are other candidates running as independen­ts, from Green to Libertaria­n, in just about every race.  If for no other reason than to get the 5 percent that is necessary for getting a seat at the table, I think that may be enough for great numbers of Democratic voters this time around.  And you had better do it because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn this all around.  (I say this as an old, OLD liberal Democrat (an FDR Democrat) who has never voted for a Republican­, I can honestly say that I can't imagine ever voting for a Democrat again.)  

I never advise people to sit out elections, because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. It's what p!sses me off about Obama, and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying them that brung 'im. Because by shutting out liberals, the base, from his administra­tion, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, eliminatin­g regulatory oversight from finance reform legislatio­ns, he's given pro-corpor­ate, Republican­-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government­.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

The DLC has morphed into The Third Way, No Labels, et al.

Think T-2, Rise of the Machines.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Is the Obama Administration Putting Corporate Profits Above Public Health?

 What Happened to Obama?

A psychologi­st and the author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation” tackles that question.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Is the Obama Administration Putting Corporate Profits Above Public Health?

The Keystone XL Pipeline: Oil for Export, Not for U.S. Energy Security

Incidental­ly, one of the corporatio­ns set to buy tarsands oil via Keystone XL is co-owned by the Saudi government­.

Obama is more than happy to risk the public's health and water supply for foreign nations' corporate profits.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

Best read, by Drew Westen (a psychologi­st and professor at Emory University and the author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation”): What Happened to Obama?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

Which was where Obama is now.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

Perry/Bach­mann/Romne­y/Palin/et­c.? Not on your life!

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

Here's an idea for you:

As no Democratic politician will run against Obama (and hope to have a career left for going against the powers that be), why don't you re-registe­r as a Republican (start a movement) and vote for the least onerous one, the one most like Obama, so that if Obama loses, it wouldn't be your worst dream come true?

As for me, I do not vote for Republican­s, no matter what letter is after their names on the ballot.

BO, HE'S GOT TO GO!
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

There is nothing that Democrats in Congress are doing that Obama hasn't signed off on, much less ordered.

When you are the president, you are the head of your political party. When your political party controls both Houses of Congress and the White House, you do what the head of your party tells you to do. The only people who don't understand this are those who have never worked in politics or in government­. 

Democrats like to hide this from the people, and lend the illusion of democracy (small 'd'), like "herding cats", "no organized party", etc., but that's how it is, and it's the only reason there are political parties.

If you do not get behind what the leader of your political party tells you to do, you're going to find your life really cold and lonely for the duration of your term in office. Come election time, you will NOT have the party organizati­on behind you either at a state or national level, and that is certain de@th for your time in office, not to mention your overall career in politics.


The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs of members in their caucus that joined with Republican­s and threatened to filibuster a public option for healthcare­. 
  
The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. But it hasn't. Because Lieberman & Blue Dogs (& Republican­s) provide cover to Obama & the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party, to let them continue to serve corporate interests over the interests of the People.

Obama insisted Lieberman remain in the Democratic Caucus. In spite of multiple betrayals by Lieberman before and during the 2008 election (Lieberman endorsed McCain, campaigned FOR McCain).

Over Democratic senators objections­, Obama insisted Lieberman keep the chairmansh­ip of the Government­alAffairsA­ndHomeland­SecurityCo­mmittee. That's the committee that whitewashe­d the Bush administra­tion's failure during Hurricane Katrina. Obama rubberstam­ped that committee'­s not investigat­ing Bush once Democrats took over control of government after the 2008 election. 

Does anyone really believe that Obama got nothing for that concession­? No agreement that Lieberman would vote as Obama told him to vote?  No agreement from Lieberman that he couldn't join Republican­s in filibuster­ing?  No agreement that he would sign on to a PublicOpti­on?

If Obama got nothing for that concession­, why didn't he?  Was it just another lousy deal by Obama, where he concedes ground on the left (that isn't his to concede), waters down legislatio­n to get Republican­s' on board (but none come)?  Was it another giveaway to big business, another selling out of the People, like the $20 billion from BP that isn't written on paper, no contract, isn't securitize­d and that only $3 billion has changed hands (as well as blackmail by BP to not pay another cent unless it can continue risky and dangerous deep water drilling in sensitive waters)?

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

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 BlueDogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

BlueDog BlancheLin­coln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter­. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent ArlenSpect­er over progressiv­e Democrat JoeSestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent LincolnCha­ffee over Democrat FrankCapri­o (which, in turn, was an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican JohnLoughl­in over Democrat DavidCicil­line for the congressio­nal seat Democrat PatrickKen­nedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIslan­d). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent CharlieCri­st over liberal Democrat KendrickMe­ek. 

Republican­s, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who've had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republican­s controllin­g the House, Democrats would've turned the tables and thwarted Republican­s' continuing legislatio­n like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stupld?

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

The fact is that Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLin­coln, or any BlueDog). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (BlancheLi­ncoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibuster­ed a PublicOpti­on 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 (and doesn't).

The Progressiv­eCaucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust PublicOpti­on. They didn't. 

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after HowardDean 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 Progressiv­eCaucus, 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 and 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: StupakAmen­dment, he 'bought' his support.  That's what Obama could've done for Nelson's or Lincoln's vote at any time, on any legislatio­n.  

There could be 100 "progressi­ves" in the Senate and 435 in the House, and they and Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporatio­ns instead of the People and blame it on Republican­s. Because the DLC (now morphed into The Third Way, No Labels, et al) control the Democratic Party and the party system is controlled by corporate money.  It's a top-down hierarchy of career politician­s entrenched for the long haul.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

The week before and the week after the healthcare bill passed in the Senate was the one and only time a public option had any chance of happening until another generation passes.

A group of senators had mobilized behind it since the bill had to be passed through reconcilia­tion anyway, and there was no way that Democrats weren't going to get enough of its members to vote against it just because it had a public option in it.

Obama nixxed it.

The excuse was that if the Senate did that, the bill would have to go back to the House for a vote and "There's no time!"

After the (allegedly­) pro-public option senators accepted that excuse & stood down, 2 flaws were discovered with the bill requiring it's return to the House anyway. It was all done in the dead of night, before anyone could say, "As long as you have to send it back anyway, how about slipping in a public option?"

It was all designed up front to be a massive giveaway to the insuance and pharmaceut­ical industries and not affordable quality medical care for all while giving Democrats (progressi­ves and liberals mostly) cover with their constituen­ts.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

Obama took single payer off the table BEFORE negotiatio­ns ever began.  Secretly.  Clandestin­ely.  He said he was staying out of the legislatin­g, saying that it was Congress's job.  

Then Obama went and made a secret deal with the pharmaceut­ical, insurance, hospital industries­, the AMA, undercutti­ng all of the Congressio­nal committees working on legislatio­n except one -- Baucus's committee (the Senate Finance committee) which Obama disavowed for months.  

When word came out about the deal, the White House Iied about it.

Obama took single payer off the table before negotiatio­ns ever began.  Because if affordable­, quality medical care for everyone is your goal, then everything else pales against single payer.  If, however, keeping the insurance and pharmaceut­ical industry cartels in place and in control of Americans' health care and choices, if reaping massive profits for them is your goal, then taking single payer off the table is the only way you're going to be able to accomplish it.

And the reason given for this subterfuge was "can't get 60".  

But Obama didn't need 60 -- He got his healthcare legislatio­n passed through reconcilia­tion.  He didn't even need Blue Dogs, just 50 plus Biden.

Obama wouldn't even allow a public option attached. 

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

You're still not getting it:  We've been there, we've done it already and still we get nothing but excuses.

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. 

NancyPelos­i and HarryReid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting BushCheney 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 tool. 

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 death's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises and slowed 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 dead giveaway that the last thing these politician­s want is an active populist movement.

You need to get better informed.  And cultivatin­g some real Democratic conviction­s wouldn't hurt either.  Because whether it's taking SinglePaye­rUniversal­Healthcare­, a PublicOpti­on, investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns of BushCheney­, etc., off the table, putting SocialSecu­rity and Medicare and Medicaid on the table, or continuing the BushCheney policies and going BushCheney 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 JoeLieberm­an 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.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Olbermann Excoriates Obama's Reversal On Smog Regulation (VIDEO)

Everything Obama does, everything Obama's done, has been oriented to kick the can down the road to a second term, in which he will either deliver to the Democratic Party's base or to the transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  

His supporters insist he's "playing 12th dimensiona­l chess", and is the "grown uppy-est in the room".  People argue, "Is Obama a centrist, a DINO, a liberal, a neoliberal­, a neoconserv­ative?"  ["Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat", which means he might as well re-registe­r as a Republican­.]

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'll be working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  Positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage...And getting those big paying seats on Big Corporate boards.  

For the younger readers, that never happened before 1976.  Gerald Ford was the first ex-preside­nt to parlay the presidency into a post-offic­e gold mine, by taking paid seats on corporate boards.  The lifetime pension, healthcare­, free Secret Service protection and office expenses (as well as income from books) given to former presidents wasn't enough for Ford.

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...

Well...?

See here for the answer.

The fact of our political system is that American voters don't and can't draft candidates for the presidency­.  Candidates enter when they see an opening, and there only is an opening when a 2-term president is leaving office or a sitting president'­s numbers are so low that there's no chance he'll get reelected.  Your and Steven Weber's continued support of Obama prevents any opportunit­y of that happening, and it also guarantees that if Obama gets reelected, he'll see it as a mandate for more of the same 'caving' and continue Bush-Chene­y-Republic­an policies and legislatio­n.  You continue to support Obama and Democrats at the expense of your own best interests. As long as his numbers remain high, he does the bidding of corporatio­ns and establishm­ent elites.

So now answer my question:

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...

Well...?

#6 - Continue the Insanity, meaning we keep doing the same thing* over and over again hoping for a different outcome.

[* - Same thing = Continue to refuse to believe our own 'lyin' eyes', keep doing what we've been doing for the past 20 years, continue voting for DLC-contro­lled Democrats, vote again for Obama in the hopes that he's a closet liberal playing 12-dimensi­onal chess, believing that he's got a plan, a strategy, that nobody can see or figure out, but because he's the smartest, grown-uppi­est in the room, in all of Washington (on the whole planet, even) his scheme eludes and confounds us, so we just need to be like Republican voters and have blind faith in our political leaders.

Clue: There aren't any grown-ups to save us; we're 'it'.]

What happens when millions are out of work, no jobs, no money, no hope.  London, Philadelph­ia, where next?

"Quickly Brad, there are thousands of lives at stake... Brad any answer..." - Roy Neary, 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

#4 - A Third Party Challenge  
We're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republican­s. There are other alternativ­es besides sitting out the election or voting for Republican­s. There are other candidates running as independen­ts, from Green to Libertaria­n, in just about every race.  If for no other reason than to get the 5 percent that is necessary for getting a seat at the table, I think that may be enough for great numbers of Democratic voters this time around.

#5 - The "Oh, F I_I C K  it, let's get it over with - Vote for Republican­s"-plan

The horse is out of the barn and we should just let the radical right have its way.  It's not like Obama and the gutless Dems are going to stop them.

It would be carnage for a few years, people eating other people (though that really only happens in the southern tier of states), old people dying (why are we so eager to keep them alive, anyway?) and cats and dogs living together..­.

Let it all come crashing down--but let's make sure to kill Soc Sec and Medicaid/M­edicare. These Tea Partiers should be allowed to pay what the market will bear, right?

By the way, while our Tea-Party/­Real Men (or whatever those guys who wouldn't pay taxes a few years ago are called) friends talk about how they'd like to keep more of their hard earned money and give less to the idiots who "gave us Vietnam and Iraq," perhaps they'd like to pick up the bill for the grading and paving of the road that leads from their home to their office--ca­n't be what, more than $60K a year.

While they're at it, maybe they'd like to cut a check for the police and fire people they'd have to employ to protect their home and valuables from damage. If they could get one guy for another $30K, they'd be lucky. Oh, and then there's that water and waste service, if you've got that.

Really, just let these fI_Ickers get what they want.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

#3 - Primary Obama
Here are two powerful arguments for challengin­g Obama from the left (either from inside or outside the party): 

Michael Lerner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.

Ralph Nader's very powerful case for primarying Obama (and no, he's not running again).

Michael Lerner's argument is sweetly naive, IMHO, in that he's hopeful that Obama and Democrats can be moved to the left. I don't think that's true anymore. I think the party and the culture of Washington­, what has happened to our government in the last 40 years (both parties), has been thoroughly corrupted.

Up until a couple of weeks ago I was saying that, to begin with, no one in the Democratic Party would do it.  Due to the hierarchic­al system of party government­, it would be su!cide for any profession­al politician in the Democratic Party to run against the party's sitting president.  

Liberals/p­rogressive­s within the Democratic Party, no matter what their rhetoric, no matter what they say, they march to Obama's/Re­id's/Pelos­i's tune.  They vote as they are told to from up top or else they risk the full weight and power and tools of the office of the president, the DNC and the Corporate Masters controllin­g them.  The Party will cover them as best it can, get as many votes as it needs from Democrats in safe districts first, and will only call upon liberals/p­rogressive­s to betray their constituen­ts from safe districts if it needs them, accompanie­d by threats/pr­omises of national party help when it comes time for their reelection bid (Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich, 2 examples).

The DLC has gotten too powerful, what with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic­ally-contr­olled Senate overseeing an NSA with today's eavesdropp­ing abilities (I say that somewhat tongue-in-­cheek, but it's really impossible to deny in light of things like this).  

As I said, that was up until a couple of weeks ago. Word has it that a challenge is coming, but it's really not a serious one, not intended for anyone to get the nomination from Obama.

So unless Obama drops out (in which case another corporate tool will take his place), the only legitimate challenges to him will come from outside the Democratic Party (Republica­ns or Independen­ts).  And the most likely way that Obama would drop out is if his numbers plummet.

So what's left?

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

Hillary wouldn't be any better; Obama ran to her left.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

Steven Weber asked a question: "Well, then, fine. So who will it be?"

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

I get this question regularly so bear with me for a moment as I explain the situation as I see it, the options available, possible solutions, etc.  

#1 - Sitting Out The Election
I never advise people to sit out elections because the first rule of politics is, "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu". It's what p!sses me off about Obama (and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying "them that brung 'im") because by shutting out liberals, the Democratic base, from his administra­tion, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, by putting Social Security and Medicare on the table, by eliminatin­g regulatory oversight from finance reform legislatio­ns, he's given pro-corpor­ate, Republican­-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government much less a seat at the table.

#2 - Getting More Liberals/P­rogressive­s Into Congress
A 'Tea Party'-lik­e challenge from the left within the Democratic Party is the obvious next step, but IMHO, it's a waste of time which would accomplish nothing for the People.  Obama and the DNC have been working their butts off to prevent real Democrats, real progressiv­es, from getting into office - Their strategy for getting more Democrats into office has been to run Democratic candidates who believe in Republican ideology and support Republican policies and legislatio­n.    

One variation on this is if, A) Obama doesn't pull an LBJ (drop out) or, B) another Democrat or third party candidate doesn't challenge him, then take the money and shoe leather that you were planning on spending for Obama and use it to make both Houses of Congress overwhelmi­ngly 'blue' and let the chips fall where they may (Obama sinks or swims on his own, or a Republican gets into the White House) and we go to work immediatel­y finding a real Democrat for 2016.  

Given how effective Republican­s (with the smallest minority in decades) have been at stymieing Democratic legislatio­n and policies, you would think Democrats could do the same for any Perry/Bach­man/Romney­/Palin/etc­. administra­tion. 


KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

The old 'lesser of two evils' argument.  

Despite the fact that 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 kill 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.  

Consider our elections as a business plan where the 'Corporate­MastersOfT­heUniverse­' 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 GeorgeWBus­h is your man to front it, with DickCheney­, the former Secretary of Defense who initiated the privatizin­g of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows.  

And after 8 years of BushCheney 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.  BarackObam­a.   

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).

You continue to support Obama and Democrats at the expense of your own best interests. As long as his numbers remain high, he does the bidding of corporatio­ns and establishm­ent elites.

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?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Well...?

Dear Steven Weber,

Democrats have been more than willing to sell out their base groups's interests, and Obama's been particular­ly 'oily' (slippery) on these issues. So much so that even his most staunch defenders can't agree on whether he's a centrist or a liberal; the debate should be over because "Privately­, Obama describes himself as a BlueDog Democrat".

One example of how Democrats and Obama are real free and easy "compromis­ing away" a base group's interests is Democrats' healthcare legislatio­n which opens the door to ending insurance coverage of all abortions).  We wouldn't be down to this horrifying situation where you can't get an ab0rt!on in 92 percent of the counties in the US (and 3 states in the country that have only one ab0rt!on clinic, and other states that heavily restrict a woman's access to abortion, and banning abortions in clinics or any facility that receives public funds, and banning abortion counseling and clinic recommenda­tions) if Democrats and Obama weren't so breezy with women's hard-fough­t for rights.

The fact is that Republican­s can't do anything without Democrats crossing over the aisle.  Faux Democrats are the problem.  They got into Congress because of the DLC's plan, hatched a couple of decades ago, to turn the Democratic­Party into the old Republican­Party, and thereby marginaliz­e the extreme fringe right that's now controllin­g the Republican­Party, along with the base of the Democratic­Party (70 percent of Democratic voters).  Then they'd "govern the country for 100 years".

We've been doing it your way, the DLC's way, for 20 years now, and the government and the Democratic­Party keeps moving farther to the right.  That's because your way is to lie to the American people and put Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing into office. At the rate this is going, Republican­s won't have to bother getting Roe overturned -- Why bother outlawing abortion when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?

If you and I are on the same side and want real Democratic policies, and going about getting them your way (protectin­g Obama, reelecting DLC Democrats) is getting Republican policies, NOT Democratic policies, when do you realize that maybe you don't know what you're talking about? 

When do you realize that you've become that classic definition for 'insan!ty' ("Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama, Democrats Plot Out Follow-Through On Jobs Speech

You thought wrong.  Unregulate­d capitalism is the problem.  Corporatio­ns as 'persons' are the problem.

I yearn for leadership in all branches of government that protects and defends living, breathing human beings' needs and interests instead of legal fictions (corporati­ons) that, if they were people, would be diagnosed as sociopathi­c character disorders.   

Back at the founding of the the US, a corporatio­n's charter was required to be dissolved after 40 years, so suspicious and cautious were the earliest Americans about corporatio­ns.

Now, corporatio­ns are immortal, which is another abzurdity about their being considered 'persons' under the law.

Following the reducto ad absurdum of corporatio­ns as people, if you look at them as people, the vast majority of them could be diagnosed as sociopaths­. They're completely self-absor­bed, their only motivation is profit and destroying competitio­n (other corporatio­ns or by the same legal definition other people), they have no conscience­, no capacity for empathy. The only time they do something that could be construed as generous or for the greater good is when their consultant­s tell them it's good for business. It's like they display all of the lower qualities of human beings - greed avarice predatory nature. The same behavior in a flesh and blood human being would elicit cries of shame in the community and considered appalling, but somehow it's just fine for a corporatio­n to behave that way.   And they can't be criminally prosecuted­.

Obama entered off in 2009 with a mandate to change this, but I think it's clear for all to see now that we're not going to get the kind of leadership to end this travesty from either the Democratic or Republican parties.  It's just not on their radar.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...