A Failure Of Leadership, Or Just A Betrayal? - Obama, The Democratic Party, ACA, Single Payer, Public Option, Liberal/Progressive Policies

It doesn't matter how much greater the majority was or is -- Obama had enough to accomplish the goals that he and Democratic politician­s were put into office to achieve and he refused to.  He didn't even need 60 to pass healthcare with a public option -- He passed his insurance and pharmaceut­ical grand giveaway through reconcilia­tion. 

Obama and Democrats fight when they want to, when it comes to an issue or keeping an office that they want.  When Democrats needed to extend unemployme­nt benefits and Jim Bunning threatened to filibuster if it came to the floor of the Senate, Harry Reid called the GOP's bluff (after 2 previous times that Reid caved to the threat); Bunning, Mitch McConnell and Republican­s in the Senate folded and unemployme­nt benefits were extended.  

The same could have been done with the DISCLOSE Act (forcing a filibuster­), although "disclosin­g" isn't the problem -- Private money in our public elections is the problem.  

Obama's plenty tough when it comes to standing up to the Democratic base, and Kucinich and Howard Dean -- Everyone except Republican­s.

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.  

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 Democratic politician­s 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.

And after the 2010 midterms, Obama had the audacity to say that voters wanted Republican policies, and more caving to the right.

Read more...

This is 'SMACK YA IN THE SIDE OF THE HEAD'-stuff coming out of Obama's mouth:

"This is the public option debate all over again. So I pass a signature piece of legislation where we finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats have been fighting for for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn't get that would have affected maybe a couple million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people, and the potential for lower premiums for 100 million people, that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise."

Obama didn't get health care for all Americans -- He sold insurance policies on behalf of insurance companies using Americans' money. Over-priced, lousy insurance policies, at that. Having insurance doesn't mean getting health care. BIG DIFFERENCE.

And there are no cost controls in what Obama got. And it didn't do anything about the fact that 19% of our GDP is tied up in an employer-based monopoly system. Ending employment-based insurance was what everybody wanted.

Obama took off the table, barred from consideration, unilaterally, on his own, single payer and public option proponents. Do you remember when we were all told, "Relaaaaaaax, it's a first step...We'll put a public option in..Real soon"?:

Two weeks ago on C-Span, Richard Wolffe (the journalist with an inside line to Obama and his White House) said, "There Won't Be Any Public Option--Obama Never Was For It".

And Obama's legislation leads to eliminating insurance coverage for all ab0rt!ons.

Then once the legislation passed, Obama then appointed former WellPoint executive Liz Fowler to write and enforce the regulations. A fox in charge of this chicken coop. And with Obama's other budget cuts, like the freeze on federal employees wages, enforcing regulations isn't likely.

This guy's a real piece o'work.

Read more...

Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan: 1,200 People Approved So Far

The only reason that we don't have a strong healthcare bill is Obama. And we won't have any kind of real healthcare reform until he's out of office.



The week before & the week after the healthcare bill (or, more accurately, 'The Insurance & Pharmaceutical Industries Windfall Act') passed in the Senate was the one & 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, & there was no way that Democrats weren't going to get enough of its members to vote against it just because it had a PublicOption 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 & "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 de@d of night, before anyone could say, "As long as you have to send it back anyway, how about slipping in a PublicOption?"



http://www.huf fingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/byrd-rule-sends-health-care-back-to-house_n_512609.html



Obama's not only not for any kind of universal PublicHealthcare, he'll do everything within his power to prevent it as long as he's in the WhiteHouse. Because that was the deal that he made.
About Health
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Health Care Speech: It's Time To Act

Nader also swung NH Bush's way & had Gore won NH, Florida would have been irrelevant.

And had Kerry won New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, yada yada.

There is a sense of entitlement, an arrogance, that the political parties have, that we the People buy into, that really doesn't serve us (the People). I happen to think it conflicts with the very core of democracy It's that somehow only the candidates of these two parties are legitimate and "How dare anybody else challenge them?"

If we've learned nothing else from the last 20 years in American politics, it's that when you are not at the table, you're on the menu. And those in power do everything they can do to keep the interests of the individual American citizen off the table.

We make a lot of excuses for Democratic politicians. We hate to admit that Bill Clinton was not a friend to the People, to the little guy, and helped lay the foundation for Republicans' vision of our country & the world, & for what Bush&Cheney managed to do.

For whatever the reasons that Nader ran in either 2000 or 2004, his candidacy resonated with many voters whose interests were being ignored by both parties. So why blame Nader?

Only 50% of those who are eligible to vote in the US actually vote. If everybody voted, perhaps the People's interests would be served instead of the interests of transnational corporations. I think that if that 50% did vote (and voted for the candidate who would govern in their best interests), it would likely be Nader and not Yin (a DLC-controlled Democrat) Yang (a Republican).

We can go around and around (and I think it merits doing, discussing it, considering all of the angles), but I ultimately keep coming back to the same conclusion: A President Gore and a President Kerry just wasn't meant to be. Whatever the reason, neither wanted it enough, neither had the right stuff to make it happen. And, had it happened, perhaps there wouldn't have been a war in Iraq or the annihilation of New Orleans, but there would have been other catastrophes with plenty to complain about, just like during Clinton's time and Carter before him.

"... said the Zen Master"
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Progressive Hardball

Obama's timidity is myth -- He's plenty tough when it comes to standing up to the Democratic Party's base.



Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama&Democrats want public health care. The DLC-controlled Democratic party gives lip service to this and all populist issues.



If the Bush years taught us nothing else, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid & relentless in your sales pitch & tactics. It's not that Bush&R0ve were geniuses & knew something that nobody else knew; Bush&R0ve were just more ruthless (clumsy & careless many political graybeards would say) in doing what politicians & the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans.



Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine & the oldest, most experienced politicians in our nation's history (including the Rove machine) 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 the impeachment of Bush&Cheney off the table & have us still reelecting them, not marching on Washington with torches&pitchforks?



Obama&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 that they're merely inept. And to get us to keep voting for them in spite of their failure to deliver on any of our alleged shared objectives.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Was Obama Lying?

In 2003:

Read more...