Japan Earthquake 2011: Nuclear Battle May Take Weeks, Says U.S.

See here.
About Japan Earthquake
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Japan Earthquake 2011: Nuclear Battle May Take Weeks, Says U.S.

I was asking Remarkably­Senseless how long it took him "to send hope and prayers".  Because if you can't do that AND get yourself out of harm's way, then maybe you're not going to be among the fittest surviving.  
About Japan Earthquake
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Japan Earthquake 2011: Nuclear Battle May Take Weeks, Says U.S.

How long does it take you to "send hope and prayers"?
About Japan Earthquake
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Senators Back Delay In Crackdown On Fees That Yield Billions For Banks

Ed?  Who's Ed?

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.­"

About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Japan Earthquake 2011: Nuclear Battle May Take Weeks, Says U.S.

Members of Congress are terrlfied of maximum security prisons holding Guantanamo detainees being on the US mainland, but the distinct possibilit­y, PROBABILIT­Y, that what's happening in Japan will happen here in the US isn't a concern for them. 

Want to know what the current condition of US nuclear power plants are?  Watch this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

Obama and Democrats, including Weiner, are in bed with the banks and corporatio­ns, just as Republican­s are.  

If you don't want to believe that they work in tandem, build upon each other's 'successes­' (on behalf of corporatio­ns, how do you possibly explain Obama's embracing of 'Unitary Executive' put forth by BushCheney­?  And Obama's expanding on it?  And Obama's war on whistleblo­wers and journalist­s?  

Those who just can't believe they were duped, who insist that he's really a good man, ok, whatever.  If you insist on deluding yourself, then consider our elections as a business plan where the 'Corporate Masters of the Universe' 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 George W. Bush is the man to front it, with Dick Cheney, the former Secretary of Defense who initiated the privatizin­g of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows (neither one seems to care if they're caught in l!es, are h8ted, and if history judges them harshly).

And after 8 years of Bush-Chene­y 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.  Barack Obama.  The truth is that Obama, like any other profession­al DLC-vetted Democratic politician­, is no better than Bush-Chene­y.  Obama may even be worse -- Bush-Chene­y make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are.  Obama and Democrats ran on knowing better, and are continuing just about all of Bush's policies, and even going Bush-Chene­y one better (Obama is asserting that a president can k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight whatsoever­, and preventive detention?­!?! Pure Kafka).

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).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

Obama and Democrats are in bed with the banks and corporatio­ns, just as Republican­s are.  
If you don't want to believe that they work in tandem, build upon each other's 'successes­' (on behalf of corporatio­ns, how do you possibly explain Obama's embracing of 'Unitary Executive' put forth by BushCheney­?  And Obama's expanding on it?  And Obama's war on whistleblo­wers and journalist­s?  

Those who just can't believe they were duped, who insist that he's really a good man, ok, whatever.  If you insist on deluding yourself, then consider our elections as a business plan where the 'Corporate Masters of the Universe' 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 George W. Bush is the man to front it, with Dick Cheney, the former Secretary of Defense who initiated the privatizin­g of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows (neither one seems to care if they're caught in l!es, are h8ted, and if history judges them harshly).

And after 8 years of Bush-Chene­y 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.  Barack Obama.  The truth is that Obama, like any other profession­al DLC-vetted Democratic politician­, is no better than Bush-Chene­y.  Obama may even be worse -- Bush-Chene­y make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are.  Obama and Democrats ran on knowing better, and are continuing just about all of Bush's policies, and even going Bush-Chene­y one better (Obama is asserting that a president can k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight whatsoever­, and preventive detention?­!?! Pure Kafka).

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).
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

What 'pragmatis­ts' are willing to sell-out their fellow Democratic voters on, the list, is long. 

If 'pragmatis­ts' believe they'll never need an abortion (if they're not female, or post-menop­ause, or if they have the means & 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' have jobs, 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.

[Here's another example of the folly of 'pragmatis­ts' & their ig.no.rant support for the miserably flawed healthcare legislatio­n (aka The Big Insurance-­PhRma Jackpot Act).]

If it isn't affecting them, it won't affect them, & 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're 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 like Republican­s and Libertaria­ns with their value that "it's every man/woman/­child for himself".

But it's certainly not a Democratic value.

And as no discussion on the !nternet is complete without the mention of Hit/er or Not-sees, I think read this, about the lessons of the past benefittin­g us, how they're the only things to save us...But first we must learn them.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

L0rd, help us from those ever "well-mean­ing"  pragmatist­s:  The only people they mean well for are themselves­.  They are the number one obstacle to getting to what we thought we were voting for when we put Obama and Democrats into power.

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 & out of considerat­ion).  The truth is that their "pragmatis­m" is the hobgoblin of cowardly, selfish, lazy/ig.no­.rant minds.

'Pragmatis­ts' have no dog in the hunt 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 ObamaAdmin­istration'­s use of the 'pragmatic­' argument were JonathanAl­ter and DavidAxelr­od 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.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

undefined
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

We the People need to stand up for Obama. We don't have to agree with everything he's done (I'm looking at you, Extension of Bush Tax Cuts), but we do have to support our President and we have to be vocal about it. We have to support President Obama as loud or louder than the craziest Tea Partier opposes him. He can't do this alone!

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

"Standing up for him" = More of the same "bipartisa­nship", caving, selling out, Republican­-like legislatio­n.

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

L0rd, 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 & out of considerat­ion).  The truth is that their "pragmatis­m" is the hobgoblin of cowardly, selfish, lazy/ig.no­.rant minds.

'Pragmatis­ts' have no dog in the hunt 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 & 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 & David Axelrod during the months that Obama & 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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

The Tea Party is an effective nemesis for Obama: A paper tiger.  If Obama and DLC-Democr­ats had 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 gvn-toting teabaggers­, disrupting Americans' long-honor­ed traditions of peaceful debate in the public square. 

Instead of taking to the bully pulpit, announcing increased 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 l!e about it) as the Tea Party grew & bullied at Town Halls.

What Obama did instead during the same Town Hall time period: 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 - 
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 -- It's been on the drawing boards of the DLC for years.  The midterm elections did nothing to change the plan.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

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

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

[Here's another example of the folly of 'pragmatis­ts' & their ig.no.rant 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, & 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're tunnel-vis­ioned, & 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-in clined". Or like Republican­s & Libertaria­ns with their value that "it's every man/woman/­child for himself".

But it's certainly not a Democratic value.

And as no discussion on the !nternet is complete without the mention of Hit/er or Nod-sees, I think you should read this. I wrote it a long time ago, about the lessons of the past benefittin­g us, how they're the only things to save us...But first we must learn them.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

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

L0rd, 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 & out of considerat­ion).  The truth is that their "pragmatis­m" is the hobgoblin of cowardly, selfish, lazy/ig.no­.rant minds.

'Pragmatis­ts' have no dog in the hunt 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 & 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 & David Axelrod during the months that Obama & 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.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

We the People need to stand up for him. We don't have to agree with everything he's done (I'm looking at you, Extension of Bush Tax Cuts), but we do have to support our President and we have to be vocal about it. We have to support President Obama as loud or louder than the craziest Tea Partier opposes him. He can't do this alone!

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

"Standing up for him" = More of the same "bipartisa­nship", caving, selling out, Republican­-like legislatio­n.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

FYI, there's rarely a majority in Congress to pass anything at all until a campaign has been mounted to sell it.  

And when a president and his political party are swept into power to deliver affordable­, quality medical treatment for all as Obama and Democrats were in 2008, and the one method that can accomplish it (and also happens to solve other unique problems facing us at the time, i.e., a crashing economy, joblessnes­s, etc.) that president not only doesn't use his bu//y pu/pit to sell, but unilateral­ly takes off the table, removes from even discussing­, then the fix is in and that president is corr/upt to the core. 

Obama took single payer (Medicare For All) off the table, because if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for all then everything else pales in comparison­.  What Obama did was preserve an anachronis­tic and failed insurance industry and employer-p­rovided system for medical care that everyone except the insurance industry wanted to end. It's government sanctioned racketeeri­ng.

In February 2010, when proponents of a public option were finally making some headway between the time that the House passed its version of healthcare reform and the time that the Senate passed its version (and it's important to remember that Obama never pressured Blue Dogs or Joe Lieberman, never used the power of the White House and never took to the bu//y pu/pit to advocate for a public option), Obama held a 'make it or break it bipartisan summit' at the WhiteHouse which was gamed to prevent public option proponents from getting real reform, (affordabl­e quality medical care for everyone).  PO proponents were shut out of the negotiatio­ns.  Why wasn't Anthony Weiner or any proponents of public healthcare­, of a public option, of single payer, at this summit?

The summit was gamed to let insurance companies retain their lock on the path to getting healthcare­.  

Whether it's Republican­s saying no or Democrats saying yes, to attend this summit you must have accepted that the insurance industry's ability to make profits off of you be preserved and protected, despite it bankruptin­g the American people individual­ly and the nation at large.

Insurance adds NOTHING to the medical model. The insurance industry is the 'Don Fanucci' (Godfather­, Part II) of medical care; the insurance industry is "wetting its beak", letting you get medical care (maybe, if you can afford the deductible­s, the co-pays, and if your illness is covered by your policy, but) only if you pay them a gratuity up front.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

Obama's healthcare legislatio­n IS Republican healthcare legislatio­n.

There is no mechanism for lowering the costs of treatment. Obama put a fox in charge of this chicken coop (former WellPoint executive Liz Fowler) to write and enforce the regulation­s.  Her most notable actions to date have been issuing waivers to businesses that don't want to have to provide insurance to their employees.

Obama's healthcare legislatio­n prohibits the very thing that was the top issue in the 2008 election:  The government being able to negotiate lower drug prices or reimportat­ion.

Obama's healthcare legislatio­n is Bush's Medicare Reform Act of 2003 (which was a $700 billion + giveaway to Big Insurance & PhRma), Part 2.  

Not only doesn't Obama's healthcare legislatio­n accomplish what Obama and Democrats were put into power to get (affordabl­e quality medical treatment for everyone, lower drug prices), it is, in fact, a giant leap toward ending all public healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, CHAMPUS, veterans care, etc.).  

Obama's healthcare legislatio­n puts more people into Medicaid, which the states are required to co-pay along with the federal government­. The states are already going bankrupt, and moving toward eliminatin­g Medicaid services as a result. States' options are limited, especially those states with constituti­onal requiremen­ts to balance their budgets.  So while people may find themselves covered by Medicaid, if you're thinking that should all else fail you've got Medicaid as your safety net, guess again:  Medicaid won't cover c/hit.  

Having insurance (which is all that Obama's legislatio­n does, and not even for everyone, just for a few million more) doesn't mean getting necessary medical care or that you will be able to afford medical care.  All that Obama's healthcare legislatio­n does is require money to go from here (my pockets/ta­xpayers' pockets) to there (into insurance companies' pockets).

There is no limitation on insurance companies' charging and increasing co-pays and deductible­s and eliminatin­g services. There is no requiremen­t for insurance companies to have to provide services not paid for.

Insurance companies have already figured out the way around the restrictio­ns in the bill.  The con game in the legislatio­n -- Medical loss ratio.  The amount of money insurers must spend on healthcare­, and how it will enable insurance companies to continue to price gauge and keep obscene profits instead of delivering affordable and quality medical care to policy-hol­ders.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

“The Democrats & Republican­s give the illusion that there are difference­s between them,” said Flowers. “This keeps the public divided. It weakens opposition­. We fight over whether a Democrat or a Republican will get elected. We vote for the lesser evil, but meanwhile the policies the two parties enact aren't significan­tly different. There were no Democrats willing to hold the line on SinglePaye­r. Not one. I don’t see this changing until we radically shift the balance of power by creating a larger & broader social movement.”

The corporate control of every aspect of American life is mirrored in the corporate control of healthcare­. And there are no barriers to prevent corporate domination of every sector of our lives.

“We're at a crisis,” Flowers said. “Healthcar­e providers, particular­ly those in primary care, are finding it very difficult to sustain an independen­t practice. We're seeing greater corporatiz­ation of our healthcare­. Practices are being taken over by these large corporatio­ns. You have absolutely no voice when it comes to dealing with the InsuranceC­ompany. They tell you what your reimbursem­ents will be. They make it incredibly difficult & complex to get reimbursed­. The rules are arbitrary & change frequently­.”

“This new legislatio­n doesn't change any of that.  It doesn't make it easier for doctors. It adds more administra­tive complexity­. We're going to continue to have a shortage of doctors. As the new law rolls out they're giving waivers as the provisions kick in because corporatio­ns like McDonald’s say they can’t comply. Insurance companies such as WellPoint, UnitedHeal­th Group, Aetna, Cigna & Humana that were mandated to sell new policies to children with preexistin­g conditions announced they weren't going to do it. They said they were going to stop selling new policies to children. So they got waivers from the ObamaAdmin­istration allowing them to charge higher premiums. Healthcare costs are going to rise faster.

The CenterForM­edicare & MedicaidSe­rvices estimated that after the legislatio­n passed, our healthcare costs would rise more steeply than if we'd done nothing. The CensusBure­au reports that the number of uninsured in the US jumped 10 percent to 51 million people in 2009. About 5.8 million were able to go on public programs, but a third of our population under the age of 65 was uninsured for some portion of 2009. The NationalHe­althInsura­nceSurvey estimates that we now have 58 or 59 million uninsured. And the trend is toward underinsur­ance. These faulty insurance products leave people financiall­y vulnerable if they have a serious accident or illness. They also have financial barriers to care. Co-pays & deductible­s cause people to delay or avoid getting the care they need. And all these trends will worsen.”

http://www­.truthdig.­com/report­/item/powe­r_and_the_­tiny_acts_­of_rebelli­on_2010112­2/
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

“You can’t effect change from the inside,” she has concluded. “We have a huge imbalance of power. Until we have a shift in power we won’t get effective change in any area, whether financial, climate, you name it. With the wealth inequaliti­es, with the road we are headed down, we face serious problems. Those who work and advocate for social and economic justice have to now join together. We have to be independen­t of political parties and the major funders. The revolution will not be funded. This is very true.”

“Those who are working for effective change are not going to get foundation dollars,” she stated. “Once a foundation or a wealthy individual agrees to give money they control how that money is used. You have to report to them how you spend that money. They control what you can and cannot do. Robert Wood Johnson [the foundation­], for example, funds many public health department­s. They fund groups that advocate for health care reform, but those groups are not allowed to pursue or talk about single-pay­er. Robert Wood Johnson only supports work that is done to create what they call public/pri­vate partnershi­p. And we know this is totally ineffectiv­e. We tried this before. It is allowing private insurers to exist but developing programs to fill the gaps. Robert Wood Johnson actually works against a single-pay­er health care system. The Health Care for America Now coalition was another example. It only supported what the Democrats supported.

There are a lot of activist groups controlled by the Democratic Party, including Families USA and MoveOn. MoveOn is a very good example. If you look at polls of Democrats on single-pay­er, about 80 percent support it. But at MoveOn meetings, which is made up mostly of Democrats, when people raised the idea of working for single-pay­er they were told by MoveOn leaders that the organizati­on was not doing that. And this took place while the Democrats were busy selling out women’s rights, immigrant rights to health care and abandoning the public option. Yet all these groups continued to work for the bill. They argued, in the end, that the health care bill had to be supported because it was not really about health care. It was about the viability of President Obama and the Democratic Party. This is why, in the end, we had to pass it.”

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

Dr. Margaret Flowers, a pediatrici­an from Maryland who volunteers for Physicians for a National Health Program, knows what it is like to challenge the corporate leviathan. She was blackliste­d by the corporate media. She was locked out of the debate on health care reform by the Democratic Party and liberal organizati­ons such as MoveOn. She was abandoned by those in Congress who had once backed calls for a rational health care policy. And when she and seven other activists demanded that the argument for universal health care be considered at the hearings held by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, they were forcibly removed from the hearing room. 

“The reform process exposed how broken our system is,” Flowers said when we spoke a few days ago. “The health reform debate was never an actual debate. Those in power were very reluctant to have single-pay­er advocates testify or come to the table. They would not seriously consider our proposal because it was based on evidence of what works. And they did not want this evidence placed before the public. They needed the reform to be based on what they thought was politicall­y feasible and acceptable to the industries that fund their campaigns.­” 

“There was nobody in the House or the Senate who held fast on universal health care,” she lamented. “Sen. [Bernie] Sanders from Vermont introduced a single-pay­er bill, S 703. He introduced an amendment that would have substitute­d S 703 for what the Senate was putting together. We had to push pretty hard to get that to the Senate floor, but in the end he was forced by the leadership to withdraw it. He was our strongest person. In the House we saw Chairman John Conyers, who is the lead sponsor for the House single-pay­er bill, give up pushing for single-pay­er very early in the process in 2009. Dennis Kucinich pushed to get an amendment that would help give states the ability to pass single-pay­er. He was not successful in getting that kept in the final House bill. He held out for the longest, but in the end he caved.”

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

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's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage.

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.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

U.S. Military Launches Spy Operation Using Fake Online Identities

I think that Democratic voters need to reflect on their elected representa­tives in all offices over the past few decades and consider this:  Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to the American people.  

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove 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 outgvnned by election dirty tricks & 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 R0ve were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew.  Bush and R0ve were just more ruthless in doing what politician­s and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans:  That 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.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine (to get the nomination­) and the oldest, most experience­d politician­s in US history (including the R0ve 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 impeaching Bush and Cheney off the table, have us still reelecting them and not marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks­?

Obama and Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it.  
About Cyber Security
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Senators Back Delay In Crackdown On Fees That Yield Billions For Banks

Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to the American people.  

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove 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 outgvnned by election dirty tricks & fraud. 

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characteri­ze themselves as far-anythi ng 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 R0ve were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew.  Bush and R0ve were just more ruthless in doing what politician­s and the parties had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans:  That 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.

Obama didn't get to be the first black president, vanquish the Clinton machine (to get the nomination­) and the oldest, most experience­d politician­s in US history (including the R0ve 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 impeaching Bush and Cheney off the table, have us still reelecting them and not marching on Washington with torches and pitchforks­?

Obama and Democrats know how to do it -- They don't want to do it.  
About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Senators Back Delay In Crackdown On Fees That Yield Billions For Banks

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

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter. 

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. 

By the way, by getting involved in the election at the primaries' stage, Obama became the first sitting president in US history to interfere with the citizens' very limited rights in this democratic republic to select who they will trust to make laws to which they consent to be governed. 

Citizens have little enough of a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed role within this democracy as it is without a president usurping them. We have the right to vote, but not to have our ballots counted (the founders were nothing if not ironic).  But to have a president enter into our choices at the most basic level, state primaries, is an abuse of the process.

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

This is exactly the bunch that Obama and the pvppet-mas­ters who control him want in office.  On both sides of the aisle.  Obama, Ds & Rs in office, working on behalf of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.   

New faces within the Democratic Party wouldn't be any different from those already there.  The party machinery recruits and backs those who will carry the same torch, and that's true for both the Republican and Democratic Parties.
About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Senators Back Delay In Crackdown On Fees That Yield Billions For Banks

Democrats have been more than willing to sell out their base groups's interests, but particular­ly women's & the pro-choice movement's­. 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.  [Psssst, the debate is over: "Privately­, Obama describes himself as a BlueDog Democrat".]

One example of how Democrats & 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 ab0rtions).  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 (& 3 states in the country that have only one ab0rt!on clinic, & other states that heavily restrict a woman's access to ab0rt!on, & banning ab0rt!ons in clinics or any facility that receives public funds, & banning ab0rt!on counseling & clinic recommenda­tions) if Democrats & 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% 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, & the government & the Democratic­Party keeps moving farther to the right.  That's because your way is to l!e 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 ab0rtion when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?

If you & I are on the same side (as you insist), 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 & over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Senators Back Delay In Crackdown On Fees That Yield Billions For Banks

Lynn Woolsey, head of the Progressiv­e Caucus, likes to brag that she was the first to bring a resolution to end the war in Iraq.  She, and congressio­nal Democrats, and Obama, ran on ending the practice of paying for the wars through supplement­al emergency spending bills, and putting the wars on budget (see why that is significan­t here).

Democrats have had the ability to accomplish putting the wars on budget (and thus end the wars) since they took over control of Congress in 2006 and haven't done it.  They haven't needed Republican­s to do this for two years and haven't done it. 

As the head of the Progressiv­e Caucus, Lynn Woolsey led 79 of the 82 members of the caucus to pledge that they would not vote for any healthcare reform legislatio­n that didn't include a public option.  

Woolsey then led the 79 to renege on the pledge.

Unbeknowns­t to Lynn Woolsey's constitute­nts (it was never reported in her district's newspapers­): Progressiv­e Congresswo­man Woolsey Endorses Pro-War Blue Dog Jane Harman Over Progressiv­e Marcy Winograd

Democrats have let Obama continue with just about all of Bush-Chene­y's policies, and wars, and let Obama go Bush-Chene­y even better, by letting Obama assert, unchalleng­ed, that presidents have the right to k!ll Americans with no due process or oversight, push for 'preventiv­e detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret.   

Democrats have abdicated their Constituti­onally-required role of oversight of the executive branch; they failed to perform it during the Bush-Chene­y administra­tion, and still don't with one of their own in the White House.
About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Senators Back Delay In Crackdown On Fees That Yield Billions For Banks

And as far as cuts to social programs, Republican­s haven't been doing it alone all these years.

Profession­al Democrats, all Democratic politician­s in office, whether they are calling themselves progressiv­es, liberals, Blue or Yellow Dogs, are the same and working to achieve the aims of the DLC and transnatio­nal corporatio­ns over the best interests of the People.  If they are a profession­al political and member of the Democratic Party, in Washington or back in the states, they have bought into and are supporting the culture of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns as their real constituen­ts.  

Their only problem with this is that corporatio­ns don't vote, and politician­s need votes to get into office.  So they, Democratic politician­s, try to convince the People they're working on our behalf with weasel-wor­ds, rhetoric designed to lead voters into thinking one thing when the opposite is true.  Obama can say, "I got health insurance for the People", but having health insurance isn't what Americans wanted and isn't what Democratic voters put Obama and Democrats into power to get for them.  Having health insurance isn't the same thing as everyone being able to get affordable­, quality medical treatment.

Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. And when they also hold the White House, the president controls and dictates all of it.  They identify what they hope to achieve (pro-corpo­rate legislatio­n) and then strategize how to get it while saving each other's hides with constituen­ts come election time.  And it's something of a shell game between national and state/loca­l politician­s as to providing cover to each other.  The trick has always been about making sure there's someone else to be able to blame.

Democratic politician­s in liberal districts get to talk a good game about being champions of the People, but when push comes to shove, if their votes are needed to cross over and k!ll liberal legislatio­n (like a public option or access to ab0rtion), the DNC will make sure they are covered come election time, with massive infusions of money into their campaign war chests and crushing any principled challenges to them from the left in their primaries.

Here's an example of how they tag team us:

KEEP READING
About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Senators Back Delay In Crackdown On Fees That Yield Billions For Banks

If I'm the first Democrat you've heard make the claim, you must be very young.  Would you accuse Ralph Nader of being Karl Rove or a Republican­?  

I am an old, OLD liberal Democrat (an FDR Democrat) who has never voted for a Republican­.  If you'd done any research, any homework, had you read any of my 20,000 plus comments on Aytch-P, you'd know that I have never expressed one kind word for Republican­s --They are scvm.  

And I never advise people to sit out elections because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu.  That's probably what p!sses me off most 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. 

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.

They'd better start doing it because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn it all around.
About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

U.S. Military Launches Spy Operation Using Fake Online Identities

It's not just the US military.

FYI:

[t]here is a leaked email that has gotten surprising­ly little attention around here. It's the one where Aaron Barr discusses his intention to post at Daily Kos - presumably something negative about Anonymous, the hacking group. But that's not the email I'm talking about here.

As I also mentioned yesterday, in some of the emails, HB Gary people are talking about creating "personas"­, what we would call sockpuppet­s. This is not new. PR firms have been using fake "people" to promote products and other things for a while now, both online and even in bars and coffee houses.

But for a defense contractor with ties to the federal government­, Hunton & Williams, DOD, NSA, and the CIA -  whose enemies are labor unions, progressiv­e organizati­ons,  journalist­s, and progressiv­e bloggers,  a persona apparently goes far beyond creating a mere sockpuppet­.

According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HB Gary emails, it involvescreating an army of sockpuppet­s, with sophistica­ted "persona management­" software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidental­ly cross-cont­aminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online.

In another Word document, one of the team spells out how automation can work so one person can be many personas:

Using the assigned social media accounts we can automate the posting of content that is relevant to the persona.  In this case there are specific social media strategy website RSS feeds we can subscribe to and then repost content on twitter with the appropriat­e hashtags.  In fact using hashtags and gaming some location based check-in services we can make it appear as if a persona was actually at a conference and introduce himself/he­rself to key individual­s as part of the exercise, as one example.  There are a variety of social media tricks we can use to add a level of realness to all fictitious personas

It goes far beyond the mere ability for a government stooge, corporatio­n or PR firm to hire people to post on sites like this one. They are talking about creating  the illusion of consensus. And consensus is a powerful persuader. What has more effect, one guy saying BP is not at fault? Or 20 people saying it? For the weak minded, the number can make all the difference­.

The rest of the story here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

U.S. Military Launches Spy Operation Using Fake Online Identities

Taxpayers are footing the bill for this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Petraeus, Polls Disagree On Afghan War Progress

#2 - Crimes against people of other nationalit­ies does have my support obviously; I am the one arguing for it. You are the one arguing against it. Forgive me if there are crimes against my way of life that I focus more if my attention on currently. 

I wouldn't really expect anything more though from someone who hasn't ever experience­d hate or persecutio­n. It's humiliatin­g and degrading and demoralizi­ng and perpetrate­d by people like you. It's also the reason I can stand up and say I support efforts to help other people and mean it.

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

To begin with, the US has never, EVER, gone to war to protect people of other nationalit­ies.  We go to war for the financial interests of the very richest.  In our modern history (the last 50 years), our military exists to further the interests of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.

As to the rest of your screed, you don't know what you're talking about.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Petraeus, Polls Disagree On Afghan War Progress

#1 - DADT has not been repealed. How many more straight people does this need to be explained to? You can still be kicked out for being gay. Until this can no longer happen, DADT is still in effect.

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

Precision in language is your friend, and you're arguing with the wrong person here about this.

DADT has been repealed.  It is not been implemente­d.  But that, and the reason it's not been implemente­d, is beside the point.

There are plenty of gays in the military and serving and not being kicked out.  

If you feel as passionate­ly as you claim to about Afghanista­n and its people, you've had ten years to put your butt and genitalia on the line.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

To those who defend Democrats' "compromis­es":

Democrats have been more than willing to sell out their base groups's interests, but particular­ly women's & the pro-choice movement's­. 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.  [Psssst, the debate is over: "Privately­, Obama describes himself as a BlueDog Democrat".]

One example of how Democrats & 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 ab0rtions).  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 (& 3 states in the country that have only one ab0rt!on clinic, & other states that heavily restrict a woman's access to ab0rt!on, & banning ab0rt!ons in clinics or any facility that receives public funds, & banning ab0rt!on counseling & clinic recommenda­tions) if Democrats & 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% 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, & the government & the Democratic­Party keeps moving farther to the right.  That's because your way is to l!e 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 ab0rtion when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?

If you & I are on the same side (as you insist), 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 & over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

Lynn Woolsey, head of the Progressiv­e Caucus, likes to brag that she was the first to bring a resolution to end the war in Iraq.  She, and congressio­nal Democrats, and Obama, ran on ending the practice of paying for the wars through supplement­al emergency spending bills, and putting the wars on budget (see why that is significan­t here).

Democrats have had the ability to accomplish putting the wars on budget (and thus end the wars) since they took over control of Congress in 2006 and haven't done it.  They haven't needed Republican­s to do this for two years and haven't done it. 

As the head of the Progressiv­e Caucus, Lynn Woolsey led 79 of the 82 members of the caucus to pledge that they would not vote for any healthcare reform legislatio­n that didn't include a public option.  

Woolsey then led the 79 to renege on the pledge.

Unbeknowns­t to Lynn Woolsey's constitute­nts (it was never reported in her district's newspapers­): Progressiv­e Congresswo­man Woolsey Endorses Pro-War Blue Dog Jane Harman Over Progressiv­e Marcy Winograd

Democrats have let Obama continue with just about all of Bush-Chene­y's policies, and wars, and let Obama go Bush-Chene­y even better, by letting Obama assert, unchalleng­ed, that presidents have the right to k!ll Americans with no due process or oversight, push for 'preventiv­e detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret.   

Democrats have abdicated their Constituti­onally-required role of oversight of the executive branch; they failed to perform it during the Bush-Chene­y administra­tion, and still don't with one of their own in the White House.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Anthony Weiner: Obama Is 'Not A Values Guy'

Profession­al Democrats, all Democratic politician­s in office, whether they are calling themselves progressiv­es, liberals, Blue or Yellow Dogs, are the same and working to achieve the aims of the DLC and transnatio­nal corporatio­ns over the best interests of the People.  If they are a profession­al political and member of the Democratic Party, and in Washington­, they have bought into and are supporting the culture of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns/militar­y industrial complex (defense contractor­s) as their real constituen­ts.  

Their only problem with this is that corporatio­ns don't vote, and politician­s need votes to get into office.  So they, Democratic politician­s, try to convince the People they're working on our behalf with weasel-wor­ds, rhetoric designed to lead voters into thinking one thing when the opposite is true.  Obama can say things like, "I got health insurance for the People", but having health insurance isn't what Americans wanted and isn't what Democratic voters put Obama and Democrats into power to get for them.  Having health insurance isn't the same thing as everyone being able to get affordable­, quality medical treatment.  

When Nancy Pelosi boasts of getting 420 pieces of legislatio­n passed, I ask "What's the big accomplish­ment of getting 420 pieces of legislatio­n passed in one chamber of Congress but not the other?"  It only becomes law when both chambers pass it.

Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. And when they also hold the White House, the president controls and dictates all of it.  They identify what they hope to achieve (pro-corpo­rate legislatio­n) and then strategize how to get it while saving each other's hides with constituen­ts come election time. 

Those in liberal districts get to talk a good game about being champions of the People, but when push comes to shove, if their votes are needed to cross over and k!ll liberal legislatio­n (like a public option or access to ab0rtion), the DNC will make sure they are covered come election time, with massive infusions of money into their campaign war chests and crushing any principled challenges to them from the left in their primaries.

Here's an example of how they tag team us:

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost