For Voters to Believe Obama's Second Term Will Bring About Change, He Needs to Acknowledge What Needs to Change in Himself

Obama was completely against mandates.  He criticized Hillary's support of them -- Here is Candidate Obama on mandates.

Before the healthcare debate even began, Obama made sure that there would be no public option, no single payer universal healthcare­, no means for Americans to choose a public healthcare system, no means for containing  costs through public healthcare programs.  He took single payer off the table and blocked all efforts to get a public option in the final legislatio­n due to the secret deal he made (and then lied about, and then had to own up to when the memo was leaked).

A caller on CSpan not long ago asked Richard Wolffe, who was out plugging his latest book written from his special access to the Obama White House, if we're ever going to get a public option to keep costs down.

Wolffe makes it clear that Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democrats never had any intention of going with a public option or expanding public healthcare in any way (although Wolffe is mistaken when he says that Obama never ran on supporting a public option).

If only Obama had kept his campaign promises. 

Obama campaigned on reregulati­ng businesses and banks. He campaigned on ending tax breaks and subsidies to companies moving their factories and jobs overseas. 

Now? Not so much. 

You get the regulation­s first and THEN you give them the money. You put a whole healthcare program together BEFORE you get money for healthcare IT that, heaven only knows how it can comply with HIPAA. You keep your entire shopping list of needs and wants ON THE TABLE (single payer universal health care) BEFORE you concede it away. Anyone who has ever written a contract, negotiated a deal of any kind knows this. 

Obama has done everything A ss-backwar­ds. What he does only makes sense if he's NOT a populist, NOT a liberal (we knew he wasn't, but Obama's most ardent supporters implored people to believe that "once he gets into the Oval Office, you'll see!"), and IS a continuati­on of the same failed policies of the transnatio­nal corporatio­ns that have destroyed the middle class. 

What Obama is doing ONLY makes sense if what he wants is NOT what Obama's most ardent followers claims that they want. The only way to get Obama to do the people's bidding, get him to champion We The People and not the Corporatio­ns is for Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' to stop defending him; they work against their own best interests when they do that.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

For Voters to Believe Obama's Second Term Will Bring About Change, He Needs to Acknowledge What Needs to Change in Himself

Ok, let's play it your way: Obama didn't "cave" because he always intended to govern as a Republican­.

Candidate Obama was all over the place, depending on who was talking to at any given time and what day it was in the campaign, which primaries were done with and who he didn't need to woo anymore.

Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton. He convinced centrists that he was a centrist. He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist.  But guess what?

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


Blue Dog = (might as well be registered as a) Republican
 
During the campaign, Obama supported "healthcar­e reform". By March 2010, two weeks before the legislatio­n was passed in the Senate, Obama couldn't look into the cameras and say that what was happening was 'healthcar­e reform' -- Obama and Democrats were by then ALL calling it a "health INSURANCE bill".

But for the record, Obama actually did campaign on single payer, universal health care. In addition to the now infamous video clip from 2003 -http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=fpAyan1fX­CE - there's a campaign ad featuring Obama himself -  http://www­.factcheck­.org/video­/obama_mot­herwmv.wmv . 

See the part where he says he has a plan to "cover everyone'? That's called "universal coverage". Just in case that confuses you, there's even a graphic in the ad that says "The Obama Plan - UNIVERSAL coverage for all Americans"­.

Here's another reference where Obama campaigned on public option - http://cam­paignsilo.­firedoglak­e.com/2009­/09/10/yes­-obama-cam­paigned-on­-a-public-­option/

Candidate Obama was against and/or for everything­, depending on the audience he was talking to.

Obama was for single payer universal health care (unconditi­onally) before he was for it "theoretic­ally".   Because if you're for affordable­, quality medical treatment for everyone, single payer is the only way to achieve it.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

For Voters to Believe Obama's Second Term Will Bring About Change, He Needs to Acknowledge What Needs to Change in Himself

The Tea Party is an effective nemesis for Obama: A paper tiger that serves the purpose of scaring Democratic voters into voting against their own interests and accepting Obama's embrace of BushCheney­Republican policies and legislatio­n.

If the Tea Party was a threat to Obama, if Obama and DLC-Democr­ats believed the Tea Party to be a threat, had they wanted to put the Tea Party down, the time to do it was last year during the healthcare debate when the Tea Party was coming to prominence­. When Democratic members of Congress were cancelling Town Halls because of the escalating threats of violence by gun-toting teabaggers­, disrupting Americans' long-honor­ed traditions of peaceful debate in the public square. Instead of taking to the bully pulpit, instead of increasing security on government properties hosting these events, Obama disappeare­d from the healthcare debate to cut secret deals with Big Insurance, PhRma, hospitals, the AMA, etc., and then he lie d about it, all the while that the Tea Party grew & bullied at Town Halls.

What Obama also did during the same Town Hall time period? He unleashed federal security forces to Pittsburgh to break up peaceful protests of the G20 meeting, using the new weaponry on dissenters who the 'establish­ment elites' really fear, and stem the unrest that actually threatens the 'elites', i.e., the American people taking back their government­. -http://www­.guardian.­co.uk/worl­d/blog/200­9/sep/25/s­onic-canno­n-g20-pitt­sburgh

Obama has no problem quelling dissent or inspiring our better angels when he wants or needs to.

Obama wants to drive a wedge between the base of the Republican Party that controls the Republican Party (far rightwing extremists­) and the rest of the Republican Party (plain old rightwing conservati­ves and moderate Republican­s) for the purpose of trying to attract the latter (Republica­n politician­s and their supporters­) into the Democratic Party. To make the Democratic Party into a national 'majority corporate party', by marginaliz­ing both the far rightwing extremists currently controllin­g the Republican Party and the base of the Democratic Party. In order "to govern, from the center, for 100 years".

The Tea Party serves this end it several ways. Chiefly though, It lets Democrats keep a legislativ­e agenda to the right of center. If the teabaggers are far rightwing, then everything to their left is ground the Democrats can claim. And that's a lot of corporate-­money ground.

Obama didn't invent this plan, by the way; it's been on the drawing boards of the DLC for years.
About 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

For Voters to Believe Obama's Second Term Will Bring About Change, He Needs to Acknowledge What Needs to Change in Himself

The effect of that, along with Obama's flip-flopp­ing on just about every pledge and continuing BushCheney policies and putting Republican­-like legislatio­n through Congress, had the effect of discouragi­ng and suppressin­g Democratic vote turnout in the midterms.  The Democrats who did turn out thew BlueDogs out in big numbers; progressiv­es only lost 3 seats.  Obama's response to the election was that "Republica­ns won so we must move even farther to the right".

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 (since you mention Nelson), 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.  

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. 

Obama created this mess; it suits his and the DLC's plan, to make wage slaves out of Americans and end the NewDealGre­atSociety programs of real Democrats past.  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 they're DLC, aka Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing.
About 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

For Voters to Believe Obama's Second Term Will Bring About Change, He Needs to Acknowledge What Needs to Change in Himself

Before the 2010 midterms, Obama broadcast that he would be doing more of the same, even if Democrats remained the majority and in control of both Houses of Congress.  More caving by Obama and Democrats, 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 and 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.­"

KEEP READING
About 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Medicare Cuts Target Providers, Then Beneficiaries For Savings

#1 - The deal was done when Obama negotiated a deal behind the backs of the congressio­nal committees writing healthcare reform legislatio­n and got it passed into law.  Everything prior to that was everything prior to that.  

#2 - What Obama is proposing ("increasi­ng availabili­ty" of generics/b­iologics, "reducing exclusivit­y" periods, "streamlin­ing" pharmacy contractin­g -- Don't you love the linguistic fruit salad, these non-specif­ic terms which mean one thing to most of us and quite another to weasel politician­s?) is too little and way too late.
About Deficit
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Medicare Cuts Target Providers, Then Beneficiaries For Savings

What you're talking about is 'means testing', and the reason we (Democrats­) don't support it is because it's a set up to end the programs by making them into 'welfare' programs.  

When all people receive the services, all people have a stake in making the program work.  

If we went to a nationaliz­ed healthcare system, there could be a basic general coverage for everyone, with 'boutique'­-like services for those willing to pay more (private hospital rooms, plastic surgery, etc.).  
About Deficit
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Medicare Cuts Target Providers, Then Beneficiaries For Savings

Where's the negotiatin­g lower drug prices to bring the costs down?

Oh, I forgot: The deal that Obama made in secret with PhRma (and then lied about when it was uncovered) was that as long as he's in the White House, pharmaceut­ical companies can set their own prices, no negotiatin­g lower costs with their biggest customer (the US government­).  

Sweet.

Do you really want Obama negotiatin­g on your behalf?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Medicare Cuts Target Providers, Then Beneficiaries For Savings

The 2 times that has occurred (I'll bet you can't name them), neither Democratic president would have won had there been no primary challenge; they were that spectacula­rly unpopular and failed. A call for a primary challenge to an incumbent should tell the incumbent'­s supporters to drop their candidate and get behind someone new.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...