A repository for Marcospinelli's comments and essays published at other websites.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

So you think that Obama entered into negotiations with Boehner in bad faith.

We can go 'round and 'round on this, but as disreputable as politicians are, both sides, that is not how negotiating on the Hill goes.

I really don't understand people like you, who make it up, pull it out of your butts, in order to maintain your faith in someone whose image is wholly created by public relations firms, propagandists. Some of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' are convinced he's a liberal, and others are certain he's a moderate. About his own political appeal, Obama has said:
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

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

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.

What Obama is is a run-of-the-mill, self-serving politician, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word. As in 'used car salesman' sense.

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011

Who and what Republicans are isn't news.

What is news is that Obama's 'most ardent supporters' never seem to learn.

In the summer of 2008, when Obama flip-flopped on FISA, people like you said, "If he had kept his promise, Republicans would have accused him of being weak on security and he would lose the independent voters in the general election. You'll see, once he's in office, he'll be a reliable liberal."

Now you're making wild and unsubstantiated claims about Obama's motives and intentions again when the best predictor of Obama's future behavior is Obama's past behavior. His record. He's flip-flopped as much if not more than Romney, and has given no indication of having "learned his lesson" when it comes to 'bipartisanship'.

As a matter of fact, right before the 2010 midterms, Obama and Democrats made it clear that no matter what the outcome of the election, they would still work in a bipartisan manner, watering down legislation, making it Republican-like.

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 WhiteHouse, 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 supports voting third parties, even when it risks Democratic turnout.

Blue Dogs took a beating (liberals lost only 3 seats) in the 2010 midterms and Obama took it as a mandate to move even farther to the right.

NObama 2012

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


So Obama's offer to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and cut Social Security and Medicare, that's what you think shows caring about the country?  
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


Back to "hoping", are you?

It's Obama's supporters who need a spine.  
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


The only "clowns" at this point are Obama's 'most ardent supporters', those who think they can read his mind, that he's playing 11th dimensional chess.  

All that Obama's been doing is trying to save unregulated capitalism and the lock that the 1% has on the other 99%.

With Obama's deal to preserve Bush's tax cuts for the rich (making it Obama's tax cuts for the rich), 99ers were cut off.  Of the 6 million people who were then currently receiving unemployment benefits, Obama's deal covered only 2 million, and many of them got crumbs from his deal because, in spite of the 13-month extension, benefits were cut off for many of those when they reached 99-weeks.  And only 25 states out of 53 states/territories in/of the US have 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, so that's even fewer still.

David Cay Johnston on Democracy Now! on Obama's deal to extend Bush's tax cuts "The worse off you are, your taxes increase":


"The bottom roughly 45 million families in America or households in America—and there are a little over 100 million households—they’re going to actually see their taxes go up.  Republicans got an extraordinarily good deal, that raises, I think, basic questions about the negotiating skills of the President."
The payroll tax 'holiday' in the deal sets SocialSecurity up for its end.  That's what Bush and GroverNorquist planned and why Bush believes he'll be vindicated as a great conservative in history: For ending the GreatSociety programs, by having bankrupted the nation so there's no way to pay out those benefits.  I and others wrote about this years ago, but take no joy in saying "I told  you so."

Extending Bush's tax cuts was an absolutely wretched deal, but standard for Obama, who has  a long record of negotiating lousy deals on ordinary citizens' behalf.  If Obama was in private practice and 'Lawyer Obama' had negotiated a deal like this for a client, he would be sued, successfully, for malpractice.

The purpose of the deal was so that Democratic political operatives could say, "Obama helped the unemployed"; most readers won't know the actual facts of how Obama sold out the American people.  Again.  Obama and Democrats have no jobs plan either.  Both parties are thinning the herd.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


I've already answered this numerous times. 
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


Here are two - Virginia Democratic state senators Charles Colgan and Phil Puckett.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


Then it wouldn't matter who was elected, from any party.

A vote for president is not a vote for compromise, just as a vote for a senator or representative to Congress isn't a vote for compromise.  When a politician wins an election, even if it's by one vote, it means that the policies that the politician ran on and his party's platform got the power to implement them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


I think Obama's "led" brilliantly. He's managed to deliver to his Corporate Masters while convincing his 'most ardent supporters' that he's either too nice, inept, or that his failures are because of Republicans,  [pick your excuse].

Talk of Democratic politicians having no spines are greatly exaggerated, just like Obama's timidity is myth:  He's plenty tough when it comes to standing up to the Democratic base. 

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats want what they want. The DLC-controlled DemocraticParty gives lip service to all populist issues (like jobs, civil rights protections, restoring habeas corpus, ending the wars, public healthcare, WallStreet reform, environmental and energy issues, etc.). 

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless in doing what politicians and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer, never back away, you'll wear the opposition down.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish Clinton's machine (to get the nomination) and the oldest, most experienced politicians in US history (including the RoveMachine) by not having mastered these skills. Nor do Democratic politicians (more incumbents than ever, in office longer) not know how to do it. How do you think Democrats managed to keep impeaching BushCheney off the table, have us still reelecting them, not marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks?

Obama and Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it. 

The trick for them has been to keep the many different populist groups believing that they really do support our issues, but they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them despite their failure to achieve our alleged shared objectives.

Getting Democratic voters (and Obama's 'most ardent supporters') to understand that Democratic politicians have been taking us all for suckers and patsies is the most immediate problem and the challenge.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


The thing is, there was another bill out there. It would not only have made the technical fix of Ledbetter, but updated the Equal Pay Act of 1963, closed loopholes and made a much bigger difference in closing the pay gap. There was no reason why the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act could not have been combined with the Paycheck Fairness Act back at the beginning of the first term, in 2009. But while the bill passed the House quickly, Democrats in the Senate didn’t get around to taking up the Paycheck Fairness Act until the lame duck session of 2010, and it predictably failed 58-41, with all Republicans opposing. There’s obviously no guarantee that the Paycheck Fairness Act could have passed earlier in the term. But it’s plausible to argue that leveraging Lilly Ledbetter, which was a campaign issue, into a real advance on equal pay could have paid off. As it is, the Senate quickly got filibustered with little fanfare in the lame duck.

The point is there were other options. But the legislation that could have made a difference was left behind. And it severely damages the credibility of the Administration and its allies to keep waving the bloody shirt of Lilly Ledbetter when it actually did pretty much nothing for the larger cause of equal pay and equal work.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


Apparently you do.  Their records are virtually identical.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


Why would you think that?  What gives you that idea?  Certainly nothing in his actions to date.  

Just in the last weeks, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/abdulelah-haider-shaye-yemen-journalist_n_1348354.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/bank-tarp_n_1335006.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/afghanistan-torture-transfer-detainees_n_1363835.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/barack-obama-gay-rights-dnc-democratic-platform_n_1346454.html?ref=politics

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_bipartisan_nuclear_bailout_20120307/


http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/03/05/the-worst-administration-on-foia/

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/obamas-watch-first-permit-to-shoot-american-eagles/question-2518831/

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/08-8


Obama is no Democrat, no defender of the faith.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Seriously, Baloney, what do you think Obama would do if given a second term?  Do you really want Americans to buy a pig in a poke?  Or more accurately, a Republican in Democrats' clothing?  Again?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


If reelected, what do you think Obama will believe he has a mandate to do?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


BullLoney, there is nothing that Republicans did that Democrats didn't sign onto.  From Bush's tax cuts to the wars, Democrats have been right on board.  
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


Lily Ledbetter has been at the top of Obama's 'most ardent supporters' lists of his "accomplishments" and has gone unchallenged  because 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 and saying Obama won the Le Mans.  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 and 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've been agreed to by Democrats in the first place in 1964. Lily Ledbetter really had nothing to do with "landmark sex 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 the filing of 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.  Being able to find out what everyone else is getting paid.  It's a joke without it.  It's like taking you to a Michelin star restaurant, blowing the aromas from the kitchen in your face, but not letting you eat anything at all.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


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.

Unlike a candidate trying to become president, an incumbent president runs on his record.  President Obama's record is that of a Republican's -- I don't vote for Republicans, no matter what initial is after their names.  

I tell people that they'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.

A 'TeaParty'-like challenge from the left within the DemocraticParty would have been the obvious next step, but it's a waste of time which would accomplish nothing for the People. To begin with, no one in the DemocraticParty will do it. It would be su!cide for any professional politician in the DemocraticParty to run against the party's sitting president (the DLC has gotten too powerful, what with a Democrat in the WhiteHouse and a Democratically-controlled Senate overseeing an NSA with today's eavesdropping abilities) . 

Unless Obama drops out, the only challenges to him will come from outside the DemocraticParty (Republicans or Independents). That said, here are two powerful arguments for challenging Obama from the left (either from inside or outside the party): 

MichaelLerner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.

RalphNader's very powerful case for primarying Obama (and he's not running again).

MichaelLerner'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. I think the party and the culture of Washington, what has happened to our government in the last 40 years (both parties have been thoroughly corrupted), the only hope for our salvation is going to come from outside the parties -- And it better happen soon because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn it all around.

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' need to get on the correct side, the real Democratic side of these issues (which the Democratic Party isn't on), or join the RepublicanParty (and take the DLC and Obama with them).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


There's no "extreme" or "far left" in the DemocraticParty.  They left long ago, and can be found bombing animal testing labs and burning down suburban subdivision sites being built on land where ancient forest have been clear cut.  If they vote at all anymore, it's as Independents and rarely for Democrats.

Obama's not a centrist; "Privately, Obama describes himself as a BlueDogDemocrat."

BlueDogDemocrat = Might as well re-register as a Republican

Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to Americans.  When most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare; Get your hands off my Medicare", the answer is EDUCATION.  

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReagan, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism, and how liberals were responsible for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgunned by election dirty tricks and fraud. 

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characterize themselves as far-anything or extreme, but mainstream. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicament of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to k!ll babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritarian intimidation are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless doing what politicians had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


I didn't ask what YOUR expectations or wants are;  I asked what you believe Obama and Democrats would think their mandate was if reelected.  

As to what my solution is, look a couple of comments above yours ("Read this thread").  Neither I nor anyone Democrat I know is voting for Obama.  As an old OLD and politically active Democrat in a very left-leaning district/region of the country, I know a good number of Democrats both locally and nationally, so I find that very significant.  A fair number of Republicans whom I'm acquainted with professionally have said that they're voting for Obama.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


No source, you just have a hunch.

That would be quite a risk for Obama to take, don't you think?

Had Boehner taken him up on it, what do you think Obama would have done?  Reneged?  "I take it back, Boehner, I was only testing you"?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


Actually, Republicans just threatened to filibuster.  HarryReid could've actually forced Republicans and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster. He didn't (& doesn't).

Democrats had all manner of tools at their disposal to achieve our alleged shared goals, but refused to use them.  Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLincoln, or any BlueDog, or JoeLieberman for that matter). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (BlancheLincoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibustered a public option for healthcare. They didn't.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't.

The ProgressiveCaucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust public option. 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 & 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: Stupak amendment, he 'bought' his support.  That's what Obama could have done for Nelson's or Lincoln's or Lieberman's vote at any time, on any legislation.  He sure did it when he needed Mary Landrieu's vote.

There could be 100 "progressives" in the Senate & 435 in the House, & they & Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporations instead of the People blame it on Republicans. Because they're DLC, aka Republicans-in-Democrats'-clothing.

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 Arlen Specter over progressive Democrat Joe Sestak. 

Republican-turned-Independent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsement of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressional seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island). 

Republican-turned-Independent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek. 

Republicans, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who have had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republicans controlling the House, Democrats would now turn the tables and thwart Republicans' continuing legislation like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stupld?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


Insults aren't likely to win converts to your position.

Read this thread.  Or don't.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


A gambit?

Got a source for that?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


When Obama Obama first openly put cuts the Medicare and Social Security benefits on the table during the debt ceiling negotiations many of his defenders went full 11th dimensional chess. The claimed Obama wasn’t so much putting these on the table because he wanted them cut right now, but to prove he was the more sensible adult in the room when Republican rejected this grand bargain. On this one point I agree with David Brooks and think we all just need to take Obama at his word. From David Brooks:

According to widespread reports, White House officials talked about raising the Medicare eligibility age, cutting Social Security by changing the inflation index, freezing domestic discretionary spending and offering to pre-empt the end of the Bush tax cuts in exchange for a broad tax-reform process.

The Democratic offers were slippery, and President Obama didn’t put them in writing. But John Boehner, the House speaker, thought they were serious. The liberal activists thought they were alarmingly serious. I can tell you from my reporting that White House officials took them seriously.


There is no super secret plan to trick Republicans or play the media. The administration has been totally honest when it has repeatedly state Obama wants the large austerity package possible.
Obama put cuts to these programs on the table because he wants to sign a package with cuts to these programs. His stated goal is a large deficit reduction package that is mostly spend cuts with very few tax increases. The only way he can get that without making major cuts to the Pentagon is by cutting the social safety net. If Obama actually wanted an equally large deficit reductions package that was mostly tax increases, he could easily already gotten that by vetoing any extension of the Bush tax cuts. He only wants to reduce the deficit if it is mostly through cuts.

The truly historic importance of what is happen right now can’t be repeated enough. It is a Democratic President who is the driving force now behind cutting Medicare and Social Security. It is a Democratic President who feels that deficit reduction during a recession and keeping tax rates near historic laws are both much more important policy goals than protecting Social Security and Medicare Benefits.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


I'm an old, OLD liberal Democrat and the "lesser of two evils"-argument just doesn't work anymore.

How can you say (and expect to be taken seriously) that Republicans are by far worse when 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 kill American citizens with no due process, no oversight, NDAA, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparency of anything a president asserts should be his secret?  It's Pure Kafka.

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

And it's Obama who's put SocialSecurity and Medicare and Medicaid on the table.

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 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 lie 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...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


I've asked Obama's 'most ardent supporters' a dozen different ways and they all keep dodging answering these questions. It looks like they all keep dodging even THINKING about these questions:

How do you think a win by Democrats in November would be interpretted by Obama, Democrats and the media? What do you think they will think they have a mandate to do?

Criticism and failing numbers in the polls have done nothing to persuade this president or this Congress to move to the left. What makes you think they're going to do in the next 2-4 years with less of a majority that they refused to do with a filibuster-proof senate?

Right before the midterms in 2010, Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress said that even with a Democratic victory they'd be caving more to the right.  It was Obama who put Social Security and Medicare on the table, and now I see an article on HP where Ron Wyden is trying to sell his working with Paul Ryan as a good thing.   

We've been doing it your way (the DLC's way) for 20 years now, and the government and the Democratic Party keeps moving farther to the right. 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 and 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 'insanity' ("Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


Obama is a Progressive Hero- deal with it

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

In 'Audacity Of Hope', Obama said of his own political appeal:
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

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
 
 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.  

What Obama is is a run-of-the-mill, self-serving politician, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word.  As in 'used car salesman' sense.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


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

If 'pragmatists' aren't on Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, or don't have relatives or friends on any of these programs, Obama's cutting these benefits don't matter.

If 'pragmatists' believe they'll never need an abortion (if they're not female, or post-menopause, or if they have the means and 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 and able to make mortgage payments), if they have healthcare insurance through their work, if they're young and 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 and supporting them (or not supporting them, and able to support themselves), if they can't get married because they're gay, etc., it's not their problem.

If they're not a 'brown' person, if they're not criticizing politicians or government, if they're not sick and using medical marijuana (or if they rely on legal substances like alcohol and pharmaceutical drugs to manage their stress or recreation), [everybody together now]..."IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM!"

[Here's another example of the folly of 'pragmatists' and their ignorant 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, and 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 (and you) are tunnel-visioned, and 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-inclined". Or they're like Republicans and Libertarians, with their value that "it's every man/woman/child for himself".

But they're certainly not about Democratic values.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

How Obama Tried To Sell Out Liberalism In 2011


You are just the flip side to the Tea Party. Rigid and purist, totally out of touch with reality.

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

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

Lord, 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 and out of consideration).  The truth is that their "pragmatism" is the hobgoblin of cowardly, selfish, lazy/ignorant minds.

'Pragmatists' have no dog in the race 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 and 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 and David Axelrod during the months that Obama and 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.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP