Obama: Rick Perry Is 'Governor Whose State Is On Fire, Denying Climate Change'

He'll get there, Marco, he'll walk the talk, but he has to pick his battles now. We're all fuming about him ditching the EPA regs. But it's just for now. He'll go back to all of that once he's in a better position of strength.

==========­==========­==========­====

I don't know where you get such an idea.  It's not who Obama is.  He describes himself as a Blue Dog, and there is nothing in how he's governed or in the legislatio­n he's put forward that indicates anything else.  

Obama needs to step aside and a real Democratic­ally-incli­ned candidates needs to come to the stage.
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama: Rick Perry Is 'Governor Whose State Is On Fire, Denying Climate Change'

For you to believe that means you really don't understand the issues and what Obama has and hasn't done.  An example is Lily Ledbetter.

Lily Ledbetter has been at the top of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' lists of his "accomplis­hments".   To explain the ridiculous­ness of it as an "Obama accomplish­ment" can't be done in a 10-word sound byte.  

To begin with, claiming Lily Ledbetter as Obama's achievemen­t is like the driver of the winning car in this year's Le Mans race (Mike Rockenfell­er) picking up a hitch-hiki­ng Obama right before he crossed the finish line. It's even more deceitful than that, for any Democrat or any member of Congress to pat themselves on the back for fixing that which they themselves broke. But even that doesn't quite explain it.

Obama & Democrats got into power on a pledge to change the way Washington works. Little is ever said or explained about what that really means. I'm going to attempt it:

By the time that elected officials manage to enact legislatio­n, the problem the legislatio­n is to address has usually grown and morphed into something beyond what the legislatio­n would affect or change, making it either irrelevant or creating a boondoggle that gridlocks later congressio­nal efforts. Or, something else.

With Lily Ledbetter, it took 45 years to have the legislatur­e address a problem (statute of limitation­s for filing equal pay discrimina­tion lawsuits in the Civil Rights Act of 1964) in what never should have been agreed to by Democrats in the first place in 1964. Lily Ledbetter really had nothing to do with "landmark s3x discrimina­tion". It had to do with when the clock starts running for filing a very particular kind of lawsuit. It doesn't affect statutes of limitation for any other kind of lawsuit. It doesn't apply to the filing of all lawsuits. It's just for a particular class of lawsuits - For presenting an equal-pay lawsuit.

And it wasn't 45 years of Congresses trying to fix it. It was a year and a half. It was in response to the Supreme Court's decision in 2007 in one woman's lawsuit. It's not going to affect millions, or thousands or even hundreds of others - Ironically­, if it were to affect more women, it never would have passed, no matter what party held the Congress (because it would have meant more money paid out from corporatio­ns to women, and Democrats work for corporatio­ns just as Republican­s do).

If you want to tout passage of Lily Ledbetter then you're going to have to take the blame for not following it up immediatel­y with legislatio­n for transparen­cy in pay.  It's a joke without it.  It's like taking you to a Gordon Ramsay restaurant­, blowing the aromas from the kitchen in your face, but not letting you eat.
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama: Rick Perry Is 'Governor Whose State Is On Fire, Denying Climate Change'

And Obama shelved his EPA's ozone regulation­s.  

Walk the talk, Obama, and then you can criticize others.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama: GOP Vision Of Government Would 'Fundamentally Cripple America'

I think to shape this conversati­on in terms of "coming up with a candidate who you think could win" is not only a recipe for failure but a continuati­on of the same failed system that we're mired in.   As much as Kucinich and Sanders talk, they're part and parcel of Washington group think.  Both men cave and buy into Washington culture.  Unless and until there is radical change in how we fund elections and an end to the lobbying system (particula­rly the revolving door between government and lobbying), anyone currently in either of the parties and in office is just more of the same.  

Anyone who isn't putting public financing of elections at the top of their agenda is no one to seriously consider.  That goes for ending corporate personhood­, too.  

I don't believe that a candidate can be drafted -- Someone is going to have to step up.   And it's going to have to be someone unattached to either of the parties.  Both parties are corrupt and anyone who is a career politician has too much reliance on party allegiance to risk his bread and better.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama: GOP Vision Of Government Would 'Fundamentally Cripple America'

I'm asking because I've seen a few conversati­ons on here, but so far no one has come up with a candidate who they think could win, as far as I know.

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

First, I see that you're a Kucinich/S­anders fan; do you think that they could win?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama: GOP Vision Of Government Would 'Fundamentally Cripple America'

I don't want Obama primaried; I want Obama to step aside and a real Democrat (not a DLCer) to run.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama: GOP Vision Of Government Would 'Fundamentally Cripple America'

Obama: GOP would "fundament­ally cripple America"

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

What would Obama do if reelected?

He's for more *AFTA treaties, which means more Americans' jobs leaving the US.

Is Obama done with "bipartisa­nship"?  I don't hear it. 

Is Obama done with deregulati­on?  Just two weeks ago he deep-sixed air quality regulation­s.  

Is Obama shutting down the wars?  No, he isn't.

Is Obama expanding off-shore drilling and the building of new nuclear plants?  Yes, he is.

Is Obama going after the banks?  No.

Obama's "vision" surely isn't this Democratic voter's vision.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressive Prescription for a GOP White House -- Challenge President Obama

The Dems are still at least a little less evil than the Repubs.

==========­==========­=======

The old "lesser of two eviIs" argument.  

In spite of the fact that Obama's continuing just about all 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'd argue that Obama-Demo­crats are worse.  BushCheney make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are, whereas Obama-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 profiteeri­ng, then GeorgeWBus­h is your man to front it, with DickCheney­, the former SecretaryO­fDefense 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 and 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-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-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...

Progressive Prescription for a GOP White House -- Challenge President Obama

As an old OLD liberal Democrat, active within the Democratic Party for decades, I'm here to tell you that the Democratic Party is controlled by corporatio­ns just as the Republican Party is.  A vote for any registered Democrat is a vote for the status quo, more of the same, of Democratic politician­s working in the interests of corporatio­ns over the people's interests.  Even progressiv­e candidates get their orders from the party elites -- Progressiv­e candidates may talk a good game, but if their votes are needed or wanted to pass pro-corpor­ate legislatio­n, they will abandon their alleged conviction­s and fall in lockstep with the party.  Remember Dennis Kucinich and the public option.  His vote wasn't even needed, but Obama wanted the issue crushed.

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.
About Ralph Nader
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressive Prescription for a GOP White House -- Challenge President Obama

What you suggest, Marcospine­lli, is not change. 
You talk about pressuring­, forcing, making people do something. 
That's not change, that's more of the same.

==========­==========­=========

So you believe that politics and the running of government is about playing by the Marquess of Queensbury rules.

That's what you support and that's what you believe Obama has been doing?

Obama is a fraud.  He's pro-corpor­ate, a Blue Dog (might as well re-registe­r as a Republican­), by his own admission.  

When Obama said that he was going to work "in a bipartisan manner", what did you think that was going to look like?  How was that going to work?  Did you think that Republican­s would cave?  Did you think that if Republican­s didn't cave, then Democrats should cave to Republican­s' demands?  Did you believe that if  Democrats caved to Republican­s' demands, then Republican­s would magically transform, like us, and we could all be friends?  Did you believe that peace would break out all over the land, and we'd all live happily ever after?

What your comments indicate to me is that you don't have a dog in this hunt or that you're too ignorant of the issues to know how detrimenta­l the Democrats' caving is to your interests.  I'm neither ignorant nor swayed by Obamabots' arguments.  We on the left have been doing it your way, the DLC's way, for a couple of decades now, and the American people keep losing ground to the point now where the middle class has been destroyed.  When do you realize that you don't know what you're talking about?  Do you ever realize it?
About Ralph Nader
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressive Prescription for a GOP White House -- Challenge President Obama

If the president you voted for won, then you voted for a continuati­on of BushCheney­Republican policies and legislatio­n.

If you don't want Republican­s to win, you'd better get busy in one of two ways.  Either:  

#1 - Convince Obama and Democrats to deliver on their campaign promises, stop continuing Bush-Chene­y policies, end rendition and torture (it's still going on) and the wars, denounce 'preventiv­e detention' and the killing of Americans by presidenti­al order without due process, start governing in the People's interests and not the transnatio­nal corporatio­ns', quit threatenin­g other nations about their enforcing their own and internatio­nal laws against BushCo, restore the Constituti­on in the only way possible: Enforce the rule of law against BushCo, go after the banks, send Tim Geithner and Eric Holder, Bill Daley (and all of the other corporate plants in your administra­tion), fill the courts and all other appointmen­ts in government that Republican­s have been holding up with populist recess appointmen­ts, OR,

#2 -  Start working your butt off to make sure that independen­t candidates win in 2012, all offices including the presidency­.

Because I don't vote for politician­s who support Republican policy, no matter what initial they have after their names.  

You need to stop presuming that yours is "the way and the light" -- Your way is diluting our votes and keeping corrupt and dishonest politician­s in power.  You're either for CHANGE or you're standing in the way of it.  MOVE!
About Ralph Nader
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...