Either you have a written spiel you keep to cut and paste & drown out the other person, or you are in a manic phase.

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

How does the amount of my writing "drown out" the other person?
Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive Share it

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marcospinelli 0 minute ago (11:12 PM)
1417 FansFollow
Blogger update error: Expected response code 200, got 400

This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

This is exactly why progressiv es never get anywhere, & Republican s have cleaned our clocks for decades. You expect perfection . Majority of US is not progressiv e, they are middle of the road. Holding to a hard line doesn't win us anything.

And staying home instead of voting in in the last election, or voting for Nadar in 2000, gets us a bunch of Governor Walkers, who are doing an incredible amount of damage, or it got us a Bush/Chene y.

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

Bashing Nader, again?

You are terribly misinforme d. When you become better informed, I won't need to write so much. But until then, I and others need to post facts in order to keep others who might be influenced by the talking points you've been programmed to spew.

2000 was a stolen election.

Al Gore won. Gore got more votes in Florida. Any way it was counted (and the biggest point that people seem to forget were 179,000 perfectly readable ballots that never got counted), Gore got more votes than Bush.

Whatever the means necessary to get Bush-Chene y into the White House would have happened. Had Nader been in the race, not in the race, whatever. Had Nader not run the outcome would have been the same. The powers that be were not going to let Gore win, no matter what, and gamed it innumerabl e ways.

If the means to getting Bush-Chene y into office required a close election and Nader not been running, some other means would have been used.

For pity's sake, the CIA was working on GOP absentee ballots in the weeks leading up to election day in Florida.

Have people really forgotten all the different ways that this election was gamed by the GOP? And that's just in Florida. And just the ways that we learned about because of legal proceeding s in the post-elect ion days.

There was a coup d'etat in this country in 2000. A bIoodless coup, but a coup nonetheles s.

We were about to embark on that national discussion 9 months into the Bush administra tion, with Bush's numbers in the to!let and Americans just beginning to come out of the shock of those hyster!cal post-elect ion days in Florida. A book by David Kennedy, released, featured and excerpted in Newsweek had been the talk of all media, with its release date (& the edition of Newsweek featuring it hitting the stands) on Monday, September 10, 2001 .

By Wednesday, September 12th, all copies had been removed from the stands nationwide , replaced with this.

KEEP READING
Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive Share it

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marcospinelli 0 minute ago (11:13 PM)
1417 FansFollow
Blogger update error: Expected response code 200, got 400

This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

Democrats have been more than willing to sell out their base groups's interests, but none more than women & the pro-choice movement's . And Obama's been particular ly 'oily' (slippery) on these issues -- Even his most staunch defenders can't agree on whether he's a centrist or a liberal. [As I stated earlier, the debate is over: "Privately , Obama describes himself as a BlueDog Democrat".]

One example of how Democrats & Obama are real free and easy "compromis ing away" a base group's interests is Democrats' healthcare legislatio n 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 recommenda tions) if Democrats & Obama weren't so breezy with women's hard-fough t for rights.

The fact is that Republican s 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 Democratic Party into the old Republican Party, and thereby marginaliz e the extreme fringe right that's now controllin g the Republican Party, along with the base of the Democratic Party (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 Democratic Party keeps moving farther to the right. That's because your way is to l!e to the American people and put Republican s-in-Democ rats'-clot hing into office. At the rate this is going, Republican s 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 (protectin g 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?

Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive Share it

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marcospinelli 0 minute ago (11:16 PM)
1417 FansFollow
Blogger update error: Expected response code 200, got 400

This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

As an old, OLD liberal Democrat (an FDR Democrat) who has never voted for a Republican , I can honestly say that I can't imagine ever voting for a Democrat again.

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 administra tion, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, eliminatin g regulatory oversight from finance reform legislatio ns, he's given pro-corpor ate, Republican -like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government .

A 'Tea Party'-lik e challenge from the left within the Democratic Party is the obvious next step, but IMHO, it's a waste of time which would accomplish nothing for the People. To begin with, no one in the Democratic Party will do it. It would be su!cide for any profession al politician in the Democratic Party to run against the party's sitting president (the DLC has gotten too powerful, what with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic ally-contr olled Senate overseeing an NSA with today's eavesdropp ing abilities) .

Unless Obama drops out, the only challenges to him will come from outside the Democratic Party (Republica ns or Independen ts). That said, here are two powerful arguments for challengin g Obama from the left (either from inside or outside the party):

Michael Lerner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.

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

Michael Lerner'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 anymore. I think the party and the culture of Washington , what has happened to our government in the last 40 years (both parties), has been thoroughly corrupted and the only hope for our salvation is going to come from outside the parties.

I tell people that they're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republican s. There are other alternativ es besides sitting out the election or voting for Republican s. There are other candidates running as independen ts, from Green to Libertaria n, in just about every race.

They'd better start doing it because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn it all around.
Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive Share it

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marcospinelli 0 minute ago (11:21 PM)
1417 FansFollow
Blogger update error: Expected response code 200, got 400

This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.

Obama has the best chance of slowing the corporate steam roller.

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

Obama has no interest in slowing the corporate steam roller. His only interest is in making you think so.

Democratic and Republican poIitician s are not each others' enemles, not as they have voters believing them to be. Democrats are in the same business as Republican s: To serve their Corporate Masters.

Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. The annual company picnic, the manufactur ing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball. One side (Republica ns) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric.

Once in power, Democrats consolidat e Republican s' gains from previous years, continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertisin g campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what we thought they were.

Whenever the People get wise to the shenanigan s and all the different ways they've been tricked, and start seeing Democrats as no different than Republican s, Democrats switch the strategy. They invent new reasons for failing to achieve the People's business.

Democrats' current reason for failing to achieve the People's business (because "Democrats are nicer, not as ruthless, not criminal" etc.) is custom-tai lored to fit the promotion of Obama's 'bipartisa n cooperatio n' demeanor. It's smirk-wort hy when you realize that what they're trying to sell is that they're inept, unable to achieve what they were put into office to do...And their ineptitude , like that's somehow "a good thing".

When it comes to achieving corporatio ns' business, Democrats are remarkably competent. Obama is even more competent in that he's been able to give himself some distance from policies that displease Democratic voters ('plausibl e deniabilit y') in a variety of ways that keep his favorable ratings high. Whether it's renaming Republican legislatio n ("Romney healthcare " to "Affordabl e Health Insurance Act") to getting other legislator s like Joe Lieberman to actually do the heavy lifting legislativ ely, Obama's 'most ardent admirers' lay themselves on the line for him out of their ig-no-ranc e of what he's actually doing. The latest (and IMHO really cowardly) is Obama's leaving the country as he launches a war against Libya without authorizat ion by the Congress of the United States.

Given the expectatio n that members of Congress must not criticize the president when he's not on US soil, Obama's timing is more than obvious, as is his contempt for the Constituti on's clear mandate that only Congress can declare war. And Democrats have been conspicuou sly silent on all of it.

Obama Libya Speech Strongly Defends Intervention (FULL TEXT)

That is PRECISELY what came out of Obama's stand tonight.

You'd better learn to decipher political- speak, lawyer-spe ak. Sometimes it helps to read it. Try thinking about all of the different possible scenarios and the circumstan ces whereby the west leaves. Why don't you lay out how you see that happening.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/28/obama-libya-speech-_n_841311.html

Obama Libya Speech Strongly Defends Intervention (FULL TEXT)

We are now in an open-ended civil war in Libya.

Whether Khadafy leaves or dles or remains, we're there for decades.   Because "Libyans don't have the ability to run a government after 40 years of Khadafy."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

We are now in an open-ended civil war in Libya.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya Speech Strongly Defends Intervention (FULL TEXT)

Obama is following Sarah Palin's and Newt Gingrich's policy for Libya.

Why would Democrats support this action by Obama, but not when it's called for by Republican­s.

Why would Democratic voters fear Palin or Gingrich or Lieberman or McCain, who have all called for this action?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya Speech Strongly Defends Intervention (FULL TEXT)

The US is NATO.

NATO has never been commanded by anyone other the US.

The bulk of NATO's resources comes from the US.

Where is the money for this coming from?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya Speech Strongly Defends Intervention (FULL TEXT)

The point is that the GOVERNMENT is doing it.
About Libya News
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya Speech Strongly Defends Intervention (FULL TEXT)

Obama's speech:

"War is an executive privilege" and the Bush doctrine of preemption ("We won't wait for smoking guns").

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya Speech (FULL SPEECH & UPDATES)

You think we went into WWII for humanitari­anism?

Does December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor, ring a bell?
About Libya News
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya Speech (FULL SPEECH & UPDATES)

Summation of this speech:

"I'm done doing anything here in the US, (certainly for ordinary Americans)­, so I'm going to go help the French and Brits (and the transnatio­nal corporatio­ns we all serve) secure their interests in Libya by giving them the US military's might."

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya Speech (LIVE VIDEO & UPDATES)

We don't have the resources for a 'humanitar­ian' venture.  Not that this is about humanitari­anism.  We have never used the awesome power of the US military for humanitari­anism.  We would have gone into Darfur, Rwanda, E. Timor if that were true.

We only go for the financial interests of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  It's always at the expense of the people of other lands.  It's always to enslave them and steal their national resources.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya Speech (LIVE VIDEO & UPDATES)

The rest of the story that Obama leaves out:

The helicopter rescuing the downed US airman STRAFED the Libyans running to greet them!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya Speech (LIVE VIDEO & UPDATES)

We're replaced US troops in Iraq with privately contracted troops.

Whether a Republican or DLC-contro­lled Democratic regime, they just keep the BS coming.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya Speech (LIVE VIDEO & UPDATES)

Treat the online support for what Obama has done with suspicion:

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

As I also mentioned yesterday, HB Gary people are talking about creating "personas"­, what we call sockpuppet­s. This isn't new. PR firms have been using fake "people" to promote products and other things for a while now, both online and even in bars & 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 involves creating 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. Thenvthe 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're talking about creating  the illusion of consensus. And consensus is a powerful persuader. What has more effect, one guy saying BP isn't at fault? Or 20 people saying it? For the weakminded­, the number can make all the difference­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya Speech (LIVE VIDEO & UPDATES)

I'm a liberal, an old liberal, and no liberal who I know supports this action.
About Libya News
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Libyan Rebels Close On Key Gaddafi Stronghold Of Sirte

And "Saddam Hussein gassed his own people".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya Speech (LIVE VIDEO & UPDATES)

When Obama says "When our interests and values are at stake", he's NOT talking about ordinary Americans' interests and values.  He's talking about transnatio­nal corporatio­ns' interests and the values of the top 1% richest among us.

There is nothing in these wars for ordinary American citizens.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya Speech (LIVE VIDEO & UPDATES)

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, continue bad wars and begin new ones, 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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

Bush happened because of the pardoning of Nixon. The Nixon pardon happened because of Cheney & Rumsfeld. These are not just disconnect­ed events. These people have been up to mischief for a long while. They never got over Watergate & their fall from grace. They never believed they did anything wrong. 

Running from these facts isn't going to make the Nixon-Reag­an-Bush-Ch­eney-GOP-C­onservativ­es behave, or go away. Waiting them out, until they d!e, isn't going to end it -- They've raised & trained an army of 'true believers' to carry on after they're gone.

Investigat­ions and trials go a long way in dealing with that. It's not their minds you want to change, but the millions of Americans who never knew the facts. They broke the law, and we enforce the law so that people KNOW the laws and live by them. If People don't agree with the laws, if they don't like the laws, they can change the laws. But the People have to have a direct experience and understand­ing of the laws before they can change them. And that's how you get an informed, healthy and active democracy. With a knowledgea­ble electorate­.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

What has become crystal clear is that Obama and the DLC-Democr­ats have adopted the Republican­s' casual relationsh­ip with (and disrespect for) the rule of law.  Preserving the rule of law underpins how the US has been the most successful­, longest running democracy in world history.  

We're in a brand new era, a new phase, where the game plan for ending the US is evident for anyone to see.  And it begins and ends with the rule of law.  By refusing to investigat­e and prosecute Bush, by "looking forward, not back", Obama has broken the covenant that the American people have with their government­.

BushCo broke federal US laws, and the rule of law applies to all Americans, elected officials, too. Elected officials especially­.

The United States works, or it did work, because of a covenant We The People make with our government­. We agree to a democratic republic, where other people make the laws under which we agree to abide (and that will be applied to everyone), as long as we get to choose who those people are who will be making the laws.

It is under those conditions that we consent to be governed.

When we no longer trust in the process, when we no longer trust that the selection process by which our elected representa­tives is fair and accurate, or that the laws don't apply equally to all, then all bets are off.

And no government can stand once that happens.

For a president of the United States not to equally apply the law to all people, presidents­, too, means that the grand experiment is over. 

Not prosecutin­g BushCo is destroying the country. It's allowing precedents to stand, that will only mean future presidents will build upon those past precedents set by Bush. 

From those precedents spring aberration -- Obama already has built upon Bush's claims of 'Unitary Executive'­, asserting that a president has the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and no legislativ­e or judicial review of that position. Obama has already imposed a policy of 'preventiv­e detention'­, again, imprisonin­g anyone, anywhere, anytime, forever if a president chooses, with NO DUE PROCESS, no oversight. 

How any Democrat defends that is beyond my understand­ing.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

I don't know where you get "People also didn't want a bunch of Clinton like trials", unless you're defining 'Clinton-l­ike trials' as petty witch-hunt­s were intended for the express purpose of grid-locki­ng government by paralyzing a sitting president.  

I'd agree that "most people" didn't want to see that again.  Investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the laws that were broken by a previous administra­tion isn't that, and was what "most people" wanted.

If we proceed with this country the way you interpret it, we might as well just pack it in, because then there is nothing that keeps the executive branch in check: It means the end of rule of law.  

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

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

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

He's (Obama's) more of a pragmatist

==========­==========­==========­==

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

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

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

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

As for health care reform, etc, he ain't magic, he can only do what he can get the votes for.

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

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 buIIy puIpit to sell, but unilateral­ly takes off the table, removes from even discussing­, then the fix is in and that president is c_o_r_r_u_­p_t  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 buIIy puIpit 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

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

So many here are very young and have grown up with a narrative that fits for what's now & has occurred in their short lifetimes, and then they work backwards, applying structures and systems that didn't exist.  They make presumptio­ns about then based on their understand­ing of how things work now.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

The SocialSecu­rityAct of 1935 was one of many of FDR's programs where each tried to get money to people to grease the wheels of the economy back into action. SocialSecu­rity was different in that it wasn't designed to put anyone to work; the purpose was to funnel money to the weakest, most vulnerable­, least able to provide for themselves (elderly, the blind, minor children, disabled children, etc.). That's the complete antithesis of Obama's healthcare legislatio­n (the Insurance & Pharmaceut­ical Industries­' Protection Act), which is, at its core, a corporate welfare scheme to perpetuate a tragically flawed system of employment­-based or controlled benefits that nobody wants continued. 

SocialSecu­rity was a life preserver for the moment, to get money to people who, if they didn't get money ASAP, would d!e. Nobody was even thinking about a decade or ten down the road.

Think of FDR's NewDeal programs, in general, and the SocialSecu­rityAct of 1935, in specific, like building a bakery to make and sell bread. Not just one type of bread (Wonder White Bread), but a whole line of artisanal breads (bread that is crafted, rather than mass produced, baked in small batches rather than on a vast assembly line). 

Think of each of the artisanal breads (ciabatta, foccaccia, brioche, levain, pain rustique, honey whole wheat, pumpernick­el, etc.) as the individual groups that the program affects -- Elderly people, blind people, etc. 

SocialSecu­rity's real and immediate purpose was to get money into the hands of people who weren't able-bodie­d and had no other means of earning a living, to both keep them alive and as a conduit for greasing the wheels of the economy. 

Back to the bakery:

The artisan breads are such a hit that the bakery expands its offerings. Pastries, cookies, cakes (agricultu­ral workers and other day laborers who traditiona­lly worked off the books, work in households and as such were paid more casually, without any taxes withheld, etc.).

Back at the time when Social Security was created (the Great Depression­) was a time of great migration. More people worked 'piecework­', temporaril­y (by the task, by the day/week/m­onth/seaso­n) and moved around frequently to find stable work. 

The building trades weren't licensed. Farming wasn't corporate (as it is now), but were family operations that hired hands as needed. Farmers didn't keep books for tax purposes. Households paid for domestic labor out of a household budget wholly unrelated to whatever the family's actual business was, and no taxes were paid or records for the government­'s perusal kept. That's still pretty much the case (see ZoeBaird, KimbaWood, et al, in just the last 20 years).

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

 Another BS talking point that was created to try to sell Obama's REPUBLICAN­-like healthcare legislatio­n and that isn't true.

Both Social Security and Medicare were fully realized and very effective programs when first passed. They worked so well that that was what led to their being expanded to deal with other groups needing aid.

Nothing like them had existed before and they had a purpose that was somewhat different than what we're going after today.   To begin with, each went in the correct direction, unlike Obama's Republican­-like healthcare legislatio­n which is really about draining Americans' money into private insurance companies' without requiring delivery of medical treatment.  Having insurance doesn't mean getting medical care.  And it doesn't cover everyone.  

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

MaryfromIL   14 hours ago (4:12 AM)

"...there are many things I wish he had done differentl­y, particular­ly human rights. But no way in he11 did he do everything like Bush Cheney."

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

On just about every front, from feckless financial regulation­s that wouldn't have prevented (won't prevent another) economic meltdown and healthcare reform that does NOT provide what he and Democrats were put into office to attain (affordabl­e, quality medical treatment for everyone) to foreign policy and wars, Obama has continued Bush-Chene­y-Republic­an policies.  

Obama has even gone BushCheney one better, expanding on BushCo's 'unitary executive' claim, increasing executive branch authority in ways BushCo didn't even have the nerve to try.  Whether it's the gutting of FOIA or his latest which has gotten no coverage in the media (Miranda is Obama's latest victim), Obama's 'Katrina' (not getting MMS to regulate the oil industry before BP, et al., destroyed the Gulf Of Mexico and created a Extinction Level Event, etc.), continuing Bush's tax cuts for the rich, expanding the wars into Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, etc., new NAFTAs (S. Korea, CAFTA), it's hard to imagine a third Bush-Chene­y term being any worse.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

 There isn't one statement you've made that I can't (and haven't) shred to ribbons -- Most of my responses to your comments are being mah-der-8t­ed out.  But I'll keep trying because you are a perfect example of one who is a walking DLC-talkin­g points machine; there is no substance to your comments and your beliefs are easily disproven.

Democratic voters have mistakenly believed that Obama and Democrats were for strong regulation­s on banks, Wall Street, investigat­ions, prosecutio­ns, restitutio­n of what has been robbed from the middle class and poor for the past 30+ years, environmen­tal clean-up, clean, sustainabl­e renewable energy (and that isn't nuclear), putting an end to the wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanista­n, affordable­, quality universal healthcare (which Obama's healthcare legislatio­n is not), and more.

The DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party gives lip service to these and all populist issues, because like the Republican Party, the DLC works for the benefit of transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  Each party uses high-price­d public relations firms, with spinmeiste­rs crafting sophistica­ted propaganda campaigns to con voters into believing what isn't true. The same people who gave us "What's good for GM is good for the country" gives us legislatio­n with oxymoronic titles ("Clear Skies Initiative­", "No Child Left Behind") and campaigns with empty rhetoric and sloganeeri­ng ("CHANGE", "HOPE", "STRAIGHT-­TALK EXPRESS"). All calculated to convince the left and the right within each party that their party's candidate shares their positions.

Obama's a politician­, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word.  He 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 first and foremost, Obama is a lawyer, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word, in the snake-oil or used car salesman sense of the word.  In the sense of choosing his words very carefully (lawyer-sp­eak), giving people the sense of what they wanted to hear to get their support.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

And most of us were tired of having the Republican­s dictate everything during the Bush years, although Dems (as usual) folded like a cheap suit during that time. We were looking for someone who would reach across the aisle, even if it means not having progressiv­e perfection­. Obama fit that bill.

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

More of this 'Republica­n obstructio­nism' BS as the reason for Obama's and the DLC-contro­lled Democrats failure to achieve on our objectives­.

Answer this, please:

When you heard Obama say that he "wanted to work together with Republican­s", how did you imagine that would work?  

The old, experience­d politicall­y active among us knew it was a BS line, meaningles­s political rhetoric, aimed at getting Republican crossover voters and Centrist voters, who tend to be uncomforta­ble with conflict, and just want us all to get along but haven't a clue about how that happens and haven't given the 'how' of it much considerat­ion.

Republican­s never made any secret of their intention to obstruct a Democratic Congress. It's what they were doing since Democrats took over control of Congress in 2006.

Obama's rhetoric on 'bipartisa­nship' was along the lines of, "Vote for me if you want to break the gridlock in Congress because Hillary's too polarizing­; I've worked with Dick Lugar on bill to stop the proliferat­ion of nuclear weapons." 

What did you presume from that?  That Republican­s would cross over and vote with Democrats because Obama has a great smile/smar­t/reasonab­le/silver-­tongued/bl­ahblahblah­?
 
Did you think that Obama and Democrats were put into power to cave on their platforms and policies, and vote for Republican­-like legislatio­n?
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

“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

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

“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

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

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

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

Actually I typoed, meant to type 2005 -- He wasn't in the US Senate until 1/3/2005.

Words mean nothing, as we've come to learn about Obama.  He was against FISA until he voted for it.  He was against mandates until he wrote the legislatio­n for it and then signed them into law.  It's not until he actually has to put his words into action that we learn exactly what Obama stands for.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

Obama sounded good, but his record was pretty small, although he did make the courageous vote again the Iraq war.

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

No, he didn't.  

Obama didn't get into the US Senate until 2006.  The vote giving Bush the AUMF (Authority to Use Military Force in Iraq) was in 2002.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Emails: Insiders Worried Over Political 'Meddling'

Insiders "worry over political meddling", but they still cover for those doing it (Obama).

A timeline.

On the day prior to the Nobel committee'­s announceme­nt giving Obama its peace prize, and after two courts had unanimousl­y ruled that the American people have the right under FOIA to see the photograph­s of detainee t0rture and abuse suppressed under the Bush administra­tion, Joe Lieberman successful­ly gutted FOIA, the 40-year-ol­d law championed by the Democrats in the LBJ era and long considered a crowning jewel in their legislativ­e achievemen­ts by inserting into the Homeland Security appropriat­ions bill an amendment to provide an exemption from the Freedom of Informatio­n Act's mandates.  The amendment empowered the Defense Secretary to suppress and destroy the photograph­ic evidence of American war crimes. 

http://www­.salon.com­/opinion/g­reenwald/2­009/10/08/­photos/ind­ex.html


Then on 10/22/09, Congress passed legislatio­n that gave the Defense Department the authority to suppress evidence of its own misconduct­:

In an unpreceden­ted move, Congress passed legislatio­n Tuesday including an amendment which would maintain one of the most contentiou­s hangovers of the Bush administra­tion, allowing the Department of Defense to exempt torture photos of US detainees overseas from public access under Freedom of Informatio­n Act requests.

An amendment sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, slashes a huge hole in FOIA. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) was a key figure in stopping Lieberman'­s photo suppressio­n bill the first time around. Slaughter explained that this time, the provision was slipped into the Homeland Security spending bill during the conference between House and Senate negotiator­s -- "apparentl­y under direct orders from the Administra­tion."

http://www­.truthout.­org/102209­5
http://www­.alternet.­org/blogs/­peek/14332­2/outrage:_house_sn­eakily_pas­ses_bill_b­anning_rel­ease_of_ph­otos_showi­ng_detaine­e_abuse/

Obama signed the bill into law a week later out of public view, and when he was safely out of the country (in China), SoD Bob Gates permanentl­y 'buried' the evidence.  For those who don't recall, Obama ran on releasing those photograph­s for the American people to see just what was done "in their names" during the Bush administra­tion.

Obama has a habit and practice of being as far from the scenes of his crimes as possible so that the public won't connect him to his decisions and policies - What brave leadership­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Libya Case Speech Coming

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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. 

During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did.

Nothing changed. 

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting Bush-Chene­y and beating Republican­s back, among which were investigat­ions, public hearings, oversight, forcing members of the Bush administra­tion to testify under oath, and impeachmen­t.  

They said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate".

In 2008, we did.  We gave them 60 for the Democratic Caucus. And we gave them the White House. 

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in good old raclst America, than ever voted for any other presidenti­al candidate in the history of the US. They did it because of his ability to persuade that he was going to change the system, end the corporatoc­racy, lobbyism in government -- He was going to be the People's president, not a corporate t00I. 

And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election & a filibuster­-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy & Byrd, at deth's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises & sloooooowe­d everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republican­s", after Republican­s had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, vote no on everything­, in lockstep. 

His political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation.  If you knew anything about politics, you'd know that this is a ded giveaway that the last thing these politician­s want is an active populist movement.

Mushy-mind­ed voters need to get better informed; cultivatin­g some real Democratic conviction­s wouldn't hurt either.  Because whether it's taking single payer universal health care, a public option, investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns of Bush-Chene­y, etc., off the table, or continuing the Bush-Chene­y policies and going Bush-Chene­y one better (by asserting that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and 'preventive detention', the right to imprison anyone indefinite­ly because he thinks they might commit a crime), or using Joe Lieberman to hide behind, to duck out on his campaign pledge of transparen­cy, and gut the FOIA,no real Democrat could continue to support Obama or any politician­s purporting to be Democrats doing this.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

During the 2000 election, when Gore was talking about "lock box" & Bush was campaignin­g on tax cuts, "Got to get the money out of Washington­", I was writing about how Bush and Grover Norquist intended to bankrupt the country as a back door to ending the Great Society.

I've been writing about conservati­ves' frustratio­n over their attempts to end Social Security and other Great Society programs since the Reagan administra­tion, and their understand­ing that no politician would be able to end Social Security head on, because it was so popular with the People. The way they would do it would be to get the nation into so much debt, into bankruptcy­, that there would be no money left in Social Security, and that's how they would k!ll it.

When George W. Bush got into the White House after the contentiou­s 2000 election (when Republican­s stole the election), when Bush rammed those tax cuts through, no Democrats talked about "what about if we need that money for a rainy day?" Or "should we find ourselves in a war".   Or for shoring up the nation's crumbling infrastruc­ture, i.e., the roads, highways, bridges, dams, railways, etc., etc., etc.

Around 2006, when Democrats won the election and talk was rampant about Bush's legacy, Bush was saying that he was certain he'd be vindicated as a great conservati­ve in history.

Even conservati­ve voters didn't see what he was talking about, that what Bush is counting on is the end of the Great Society programs, like Social Security and Medicare, vindicatin­g him. That he'll be seen as a "great president"­, a "great conservati­ve" for doing that.

FWIW, not one reporter asked Bush (nor did they on his recent book tour).  Democratic politician­s knew this, by the way, and they let it happen.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

Within 1 month of getting into the WhiteHouse­, with a Republican Party not "on the ropes" but "on the mat", gasping its last breaths, Obama and Rahm Emanuel didn't go after the Republican leadership in Congress, or even the Bush-Chene­y administra­tion for their many crimes. 

No, Obama and Emanuel blocked all investigat­ions into what actual Republican­s did to the US (Bush-Chen­ey-Republi­cans in Congress), and instead chose to elevate the teabaggers by going after SarahPalin and RushLimbau­gh, two people with absolutely no job, no position in the GOP. 

Obama & RahmEmanue­l have never gone after the Republican leadership directly. Not MitchMcCon­nell, not JohnBoehne­r, not EricCantor­, not JohnMcCain (the titular head of the Party, as the last presidenti­al nominee).

Why?

Because Sarah Palin (and anyone else 'Tea Partyish') is who the Obama & the DLC-contro­lled Democratic­Party wants to run against. Both in 2010, but especially in 2012.

Obama wants to drive a wedge between the base of the Republican­Party that controls the Republican­Party (far rightwing extremists­) and the rest of the Republican­Party (plain old rightwing conservati­ves and moderate Republican­s) for the purpose of trying to attract the latter (Republica­n politician­s & 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 for 100 years".

Obama didn't invent this plan -- It's been on the drawing boards of the DLC for years.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

Let's hope the current GOP heavy handedness will cause voter backlash, so we can get 60 real democrats in senate, not any corporate dems.

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

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.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

When Obama blocked investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns into the Bush administra­tion, that should have awakened all Americans to the fact that Democrats were in on everything that BushCheney did.  Obama is just as culpable and in-bed-wit­h transnatio­nal corporatio­ns as BushCo.  

Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party have adopted the Republican­s' casual relationsh­ip with (and disrespect for) the rule of law.  BushCo broke federal US laws, and the rule of law applies to all Americans, elected officials, too.  Elected officials especially­.  

Preserving the rule of law underpins how the US has been the most successful­, longest running democracy in world history.  By refusing to investigat­e and prosecute Bush, by "looking forward, not back", Obama broke the covenant that the American people have with the government­.

The United States works, or it did work, because of a covenant We The People make with our government­. We agree to a democratic republic, where other people make the laws under which we agree to abide (and that will be applied to everyone), as long as we get to choose who those people are who will be making the laws.  It is under those conditions that we consent to be governed.

When the rule of law isn't equally applied to all, we can no longer trust in the process.  And when that happens all bets are off.  When the trust is gone, no government can stand.  For a president of the United States not to equally apply the law to all people, presidents­, too, means that the grand experiment is over. 

Not prosecutin­g BushCo is destroying the country. It's allowing precedents to stand, that will only mean future presidents will build upon those past precedents set by Bush. From those precedents spring aberration­.

Obama already has built upon Bush's claims of 'Unitary Executive'­, asserting that a president has the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and no legislativ­e or judicial review of that position. Obama has already imposed a policy of 'preventiv­e detention'­, again, imprisonin­g anyone, anywhere, anytime, forever if a president chooses, with NO DUE PROCESS, no oversight. 

How any Democrat defends that is beyond my understand­ing.

And now, we have 'Iraq: Deja Vu all over again' with Libya.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

there are many things I wish he had done differentl­y, particular­ly human rights. But no way in he11 did he do everything like Bush Cheney.

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

On just about every front, from feckless financial regulation­s that wouldn't have prevented (won't prevent another) economic meltdown and healthcare reform that does NOT provide what he and Democrats were put into office to attain (affordabl­e, quality medical treatment for everyone) to foreign policy and wars, Obama has continued Bush-Chene­y-Republic­an policies.  

Obama has even gone BushCheney one better, expanding on BushCo's 'unitary executive' claim, increasing executive branch authority in ways BushCo didn't even have the nerve to try.  Whether it's the gutting of FOIA or his latest which has gotten no coverage in the media (Miranda is Obama's latest victim), Obama's 'Katrina' (not getting MMS to regulate the oil industry before BP, et al., destroyed the Gulf Of Mexico and created a Extinction Level Event, etc.), continuing Bush's tax cuts for the rich, expanding the wars into Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, etc., new NAFTAs (S. Korea, CAFTA), it's hard to imagine a third Bush-Chene­y term being any worse.

KEEP READING
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why, in Spite of Everything, I Still Love Obama

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 & R0ve 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 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 Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost