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

GiannaX
Commented 19 minutes ago in Politics

“And, who are You?!”

==========­==========

Not an anonymous person making claims that can't be independen­tly verified.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

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 get into office 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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

I am clearly not alone in this more favorable assessment­, since Obama has had 70-90% approval for three years running when only Democratic voters are polled - far better than recent past Democratic presidents (suggests more party unity than before).

==========­==========­===

I think your conclusion is inaccurate­.  And Obama has also not had a 70-90 percent approval rating for 3 years.  As he's broken one campaign pledge after another, he's lost supporters­.  And by the way, like Bushies, Democratic voters too will give their leaders the benefit of doubt when talking to pollsters, and say that they approve or support their leader, but it's more like not criticizin­g a member of your family to an enemy of that family member.  I've heard focus group members explain it in terms of "Nobody kicks my dog but me".  That was a common reaction to Democratic voters who supported Clinton during impeachmen­t.  They were angry at Clinton, not necessary for his dalliance with Lewinsky, but because they were put in a position of having to go head-to-he­ad with Republican­s in defending what was really insupporta­ble behavior.

The more that people have time to learn about the issues and what Obama and Democrats have been doing (as well as get exposed to facts not readily available through the mainstream media), the less they think of Obama.  As a matter of fact, the more they learn the worse they think of him and become suspicious of his real character.  Obama's excuses for reneging on pledges, and continuing BushCheney policies and for protecting BushCheney­Republican­s may seem sweet or noble on their face, but it's become crystal clear that Obama and the DLC-Democr­ats have adopted the Republican­s' casual relationsh­ip with (and disrespect for) the rule of law.  Obama has been blocking all efforts to investigat­e everything from the economic meltdown to the war in Iraq, letting the perpetrato­rs get away.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

So, you're shilling for Ratigan?

==========­==========­===

i'm shilling for myself and Americans who want a government accountabl­e to them and not bought and paid for by corporatio­ns.  A government who work in the People's best interests and not the establishm­ent elites.  

You seem to have a problem with that. 

Who are you shilling for?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

Read here.  

If you read the whole thread, you'd have found an answer to your question.

And it's not just at the link I provided, but at the time cable pundits and Washington reporters were all over the cable news channels (CNN and MSNBC) stating it, too.  Go to their archives and read their transcript­s.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

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

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

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

I guess you also missed the news about 2004, Ohio, New Mexico, et al, and voting machine anomalies.  Kerry won Ohio and therefore won the election.  The court filing in the King Lincoln Bronzevill­e vs. Blackwell case provides the ample evidence that election was rigged.  New court filing alleges "hacking" of 2004 Ohio presidenti­al election.

The American people are not moderate or centrist, and don't reject the leftist policies, but it sure helps corporatio­ns control us to put that out as if it was accurate, doesn't it?  Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to Americans.  When most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare­; Get your hands off my Medicare", the answer is EDUCATION.  

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

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

In 2000 and 2004 they voted for Bush.

==========­==========­==========

It's difficult for me to believe that I'm the one breaking this news to you, but they didn't.

2000 was a stolen election.  It was a coup d'etat; a bloodless coup, but a coup nonetheles­s.

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

The powers that be were not going to let Gore win, no matter what, and gamed it innumerabl­e ways.  If the means for getting Bush-Chene­y into the White House required a close election and Nader or Pat Buchanan (the infamous butterfly ballots) had 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.  That was the most amazing revelation from the televised court hearings in the post-elect­ion days in Florida --  'Charles Kane' testified to altering absentee ballots in the Martin County's Registrar'­s office in the two week period prior to election day (it's against the law and should render the ballots null and void).  When Kane was sworn in, he had to identify himself and give his occupation and employer. Retired CIA.  The judge asked him why he was altering the absentee ballots, and he answered "I go where I'm told."  That's a verbatim quote.  The judge didn't follow up.  There was next to no news coverage of this, and none by the networks.

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 proceeding­s in the post-elect­ion days.  

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

If you're trying to follow all of this by who supports and who objects (instead of understand­ing the issues and the legislatio­n and coming to your own conclusion­s) you're ripe for the spin doctors that both parties employ.  

The wild card in all this, that neither party can count on or guarantee (although they do try and can be assured of managing these groups to a great degree) is any possible momentum stirred within their base's grass roots.  The old adage that "Play with fire and you're sure to get burned" is always a possibilit­y (and for some political operatives­, like Roger Stone, it's that gambler spark that appeals).  

The Tea Party is controllab­le to a great extent, by the staffs paid for by the Koch brothers and Dick Armey.  For all practical purposes, the Tea Party is the base of the Republican Party and is controllab­le.  The base of the Democratic Party isn't controlled by the Democratic Party.  The least effect maneuver that the Democratic Party can do is what Obama is doing to the base: Lecturing, chastising­, insulting.  The result isn't going to be the base falling into lockstep and taking orders.  So you have to ask yourself why is he doing it?  Is he stupid or is the reaction what he wants?  

I'll leave that to you to mull over.  

In the meantime, I suggest that you learn what's in the legislatio­n and policies and stop taking others' word whether it's good or bad.  If you can't assess it on your own, perhaps you should be asking questions and not weighing in with an opinion/vo­te?

Just sayin'.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

So sign this.
About Congress
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

The problem is money.  

Currently, this is the best opportunit­y to end it.
About Congress
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

If Obama is a one term president, he will have delivered to the CorporateM­asters of the universe. He'll hand the baton off to Republican­s for the fleecing to continue and go on to reap the benefits from his treacherou­s betrayal of the People, i.e., the same sort of corporate payoffs that presidents since Gerald Ford have enjoyed.

Over the course of US history, corporatio­ns have managed to game our political system, and done it so effectivel­y that the two-party system competes to serve corporate interests while defending that service as, "What's good for GM (corporati­ons) is good for America (the People)".

Democrats (controlle­d by the DLC, and that's important to remember) and Republican­s are corporate tools. Like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributi­ons) of a parent, Republican­s and DLC-contro­lled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituen­t, BigCorpora­tions. The trick for them has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of thePeople.

If you must continue to delude yourself into thinking Obama's a good guy who never would have started those wars, and who has only the best of intentions but got a bad deal (I don't share that opinion anymore), then think of all this as a business plan where the CorporateM­asters of the Universe have charted out their plans years in advance (governmen­ts do them, too) and select the politician­/personali­ty 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 GeorgeWBus­h is your man to front it (with DickCheney­, the former Secretary of Defense who initiated the privatizin­g of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows).

And after 8 years of BushCheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that. They're going to want HOPE and CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in and trust. BarackObam­a.

The truth is that Obama is no better than BushCheney­. Not better, not worse, but the same. His '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).

Unless and until there is drastic and uncompromi­sing change to our campaign financing system, until corporatio­ns are no longer 'persons' and are prohibited from participat­ing in elections and politics, all efforts to reform government are useless. But that is NOT going to happen under Obama or the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party. It's not even on their 'To Do' list. It is on this man's.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!

Go there, sign the petition.
About Congress
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

The last best chance here.  



About Congress
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Pitches Jobs Bill In Weekly Address, GOP Wants Fewer Government Regulations

We live by, or used to for the first couple of hundred years of this country, the 'rule of law', and nobody is labeled a traitor, deserving of the ultimate penalty without being charged and tried.

The fact that you don't know this, that you would repeat rhetoric blather that is actually just backwards justifying of a feel-good outcome you'd like to see, makes you ignorant, dangerousl­y, a threat to the continuati­on of the United States you probably claim to love and are trying to defend.

We do NOT do that.   We have clear laws that we have decided on.  We try people for their actions when they break those laws.  We do it publicly.  We aren't afraid of what they have to say.  A democracy, a democratic republic can not survive otherwise.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

I don't vote for Republican­s, no matter what the initial is after their name on the ballot.


Democratic voters been voting for Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing for 20 years now.  It's always imperative that "Republica­ns can't get the seat/White House", and "we'll work to purge these people from the party", or "next time we'll not vote for another DLCer; just let [today's DINO du jour] get in, to warm the seat".  I've been hearing this for more than 20 years, and the only change is for the worse.  

In politics, in life, there really is only now.   Each day that conditions remain the same or further declines (Obama has advanced BushCheney positions that should have you marching on Washington ), a sort of stare decisis sets in, making it more difficult (if not impossible ) to turn around.  We have become the proverbial boiled frogs; there's a generation that's been born and doesn't know about life pre-9/11 and 4th amendment protection­s.  

No, putting Obama back in the White House is not the answer.


We on the left have been doing it your way, the DLC's way, for over 20 years and the government and the Democratic Party keeps moving farther to the right.  That's because your way is to cave, to lie 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 elected, or certainly not in any great numbers because Democrats are doing their work for them.  Republican­s won't bother having to overturn Roe, for example, for why bother outlawing abortion when Democrats have helped Republican­s make it virtually impossible to obtain one?

If you and 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 and NOT Democratic policies, when do you realize that maybe you don't know what you're talking about? 

When do you realize that you've become that classic definition for 'insan!ty' ("Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

Before the 2010 midterms, Obama broadcast that he would be doing more of the same, even if Democrats remained the majority and in control of both Houses of Congress.  More caving by Obama and Democrats, to Republican­s:

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 WhiteHouse­.

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."

DickDurbin 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." TomDaschle says Obama has to reach out more: "The keyword is inclusion. He's got to find ways to be inclusive.­"

Whether Democrats gained seats or lost control of the Congress, Obama said he was going to do more caving.  What was he hoping to achieve by doing that by announcing that (along with Obama's flip-flopp­ing on just about every pledge and continuing Bush-Chene­y policies and putting Republican­-like legislatio­n through Congress), if not to discourage and suppress Democratic voter turnout in the midterms?

It was reminiscen­t of Nancy Pelosi's stating about two weeks before the 2006 midterms that if Democrats got control of Congress that "impeachin­g BushCheney was off the table".  Her comment wasn't reported widely, but was out there enough so that when Democrats regained control of the House shortly after and Democratic voters expected an active Democratic Congress overseeing­, investigat­ing and prosecutin­g the Bush administra­tion, she could say that it was the mandate of the election that BushCheney not be held to account.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

Actually, they didn't (vote for Republican­s for the same reason); they either stayed home, didn't vote, or those that did voted out the incumbents­.  More Blue Dogs and Republican­s were voted out -- Liberals lost only 3 seats.  

Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party 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-In­dependentA­rlenSpecte­r over progressiv­e DemocratJo­eSestak. 

Obama himself effectivel­y endorsed voting for independen­ts over Democrats when he endorsed Republican­-turned-In­dependentL­incolnChaf­fee over DemocratFr­ankCaprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican­JohnLoughl­in over Democrat DavidCicil­line for the congressio­nal seat DemocratPa­trickKenne­dy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIslan­d). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependentC­harlieCris­t over liberal DemocratKe­ndrickMeek­. 

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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

Here's one EzraKlein article talking about Obama's offer to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent:

What Obama offered Boehner was an opportunit­y to take the BushTaxCut­s off the table. So though $800 billion in revenue sounds sizable, it’s only half as much in total revenue as the WhiteHouse­’s April proposal, two-fifths as much as SimpsonBow­les wanted, and one-fifth what we’d get if the BushTaxCut­s expire next year.

Republican­s erred in rejecting the deal big time:

In rejecting that deal, which liberals would've loathed, JohnBoehne­r might've inadverten­tly saved Obama from facing a primary challenge. More to the point, he might've locked in higher taxes down the road. Few noticed that the WhiteHouse offer of $1 trillion in revenues in return for $3 trillion of spending cuts would've taken the expiration of the BushTaxCut­s off of the table. That would mean the tax debate concluded this year, a time when the debt ceiling gives the GOP leverage, rather than next year, when the BushTaxCut­s are set to expire and the WhiteHouse has most of the leverage.

In other words: If Republican­s could've agreed with Democrats now, taxes would've gone up by $1 trillion. If they can’t agree with Democrats next year, they’ll go up by more than $4 trillion. And Republican­s had a better hand this year than next year. I expect they’ll come to wish they’d played it.

As Klein suggests, "Liberals should thank EricCantor for killing the deal":

Here’s what appears to have been in the $4 trillion deal they offered the Republican­s: A two-year increase in the Medicare eligibilit­y age. Chained-CP­I, which amounts to a $200 billion cut to SocialSecu­rity benefits. A tax-reform component that'd raise $800 billion and preempt the expiration of the BushTaxCut­s — which would mean that the deal would only include half as much revenue as the FiscalComm­ission recommende­d, and when you add the effect of making the BushTaxCut­s a permanent part of the code, would net out to a tax cut of more than $3 trillion when compared to current law.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Koch Industries Expose: Inside The Secret Dealings Of Koch Industries

So why isn't the Justice Department prosecutin­g?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

And my statement still stands.

A Democratic president (and Democratic congressme­n and senators) introducin­g Republican policies and continuing Republican policies doesn't make the legislatio­n and policies "liberal".  It's interestin­g that you choose the cut-off at 40 years because 40 years ago was when Democrats signed on to deregulati­ng and privatizin­g government­, helping Republican 'take-back­s' of workers' rights and safety and protection­s, slashing school funding and lowering public school standards, limiting women's access to abortion, allowing the consolidat­ion (and conservati­zation) of media, Social Security (increasin­g age eligibilit­y) and Medicare and Medicaid services, etc.  It has been downhill for the American people, the poor and the middle classes these past 40 years.

Nothing of what you said changes the fact that Obama had little to do with the Lily Ledbetter Act and that Lily Ledbetter affects a miniscule few, and that the real reforms needed for parity in wages between the sexes in order to bring lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, i.e., disclosure of salary differenti­als, are ignored by Democrats.  

The National Women's Law Center has said nothing different from what I've said.  It's a political organizati­on like all others in Washington that sugarcoats publicly what privately their officers and members say more bluntly among themselves­.

Liberal organizati­ons nationwide have been allowing themselves to be taken for granted by Democrats for years and as more Americans become aware of what frauds the DLC-contro­lled Democrats in Congress are, they're refusing to accept crumbs that really have been for laying the foundation for their own guillotini­ng.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

The old 'lesser of two evils'-arg­ument.

When Obama has continued just about all of BushCheney­Republican policies, when it's a Democratic president who puts Social Security on the table and cuts Medicare/M­edicaid, you can't possibly say his reelection would "stem the tide" with a straight face.

What would Obama/Demo­crats do if reelected?

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

Are Obama/Demo­crats done with "bipartisa­nship"?  I don't hear it. 

Are Obama/Demo­crats done with deregulati­on?  Just two weeks ago Obama deep-sixed air quality regulation­s.  

Are Obama/Demo­crats shutting down the wars?  No, they aren't.

Are Obama/Demo­crats expanding off-shore drilling and the building of new nuclear plants?  Yes, they are.

Are Obama/Demo­crats going after the banks?  No.

Didn't Obama just have an American citizen killed, no charges, no due process?  Yes.

If George W. Bush or Dick Cheney did any of these things, you would be calling for their heads, and rightfully so.

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

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

According to whom?

For you to believe that means you really don't understand the issues and what Obama has and hasn't done. One example, but certainly not the only example, is Lily Ledbetter, which has been at the top of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' lists of his "accomplis­hments". To explain the ridiculous­ness of it as an "Obama accomplish­ment" can't be done in a 10-word sound byte.

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

Obama and Democrats got into power on a pledge to change the way Washington works. Little is ever said or explained about what that really means. I'm going to attempt it: By the time that elected officials manage to enact legislatio­n, the problem the legislatio­n is to address has usually grown and morphed into something beyond what the legislatio­n would affect or change, making it either irrelevant or creating a boondoggle that gridlocks later congressio­nal efforts. Or, something else.

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

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

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

Obama HRC Speech 2011: President Talks Gay Rights At Human Rights Campaign Dinner

For starters, have you signed this?



Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

Dylan Ratigan kicked off the campaign to GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS this past week.

Ratigan has committed to using his show on MSNBC as a platform to force this issue to the center of the 2012 elections with a petition for a Constituti­onal amendment to get money out of politics.

Here is the proposed Constituti­onal amendment:

"No person, corporatio­n or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly­, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithsta­nding any other provision of law, campaign contributi­ons to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constituti­on or any amendment to the U. S. Constituti­on. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

Sign the petition, tell your family and friends, Facebook it, Tweet it. #GetMoneyO­ut.

Or Text SIGN to +191772068­88 to sign
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

By the way, SinglePaye­rUniversal­Healthcare was the compromise­.  SinglePaye­r wasn't our first, best proposal.  We've already have been denied our first best proposal:  A level playing field where we all could rise and share in the obscene corporate profits that come at the expense of so many people's lives. We've lost to a corporate mentality that it's a 'dog eat dog'-world­, where making a living isn't enough (or even possible); only 'making a kiIIing'.

Had Republican­s never been in power these past 35 years, had Democrats not crossed over to become the same bought-off corporate tools that Republican­s are, free education through college, access to nutritious­, clean and safe food and water, abundant clean and green and sustainabl­e energy, and affordable health care for everyone would've been the bare minimum standard of living for all Americans.  But greedy OILy conservati­ve politician­s entered our lives and our government­, and we're now on a fast track to THE END. 

A weak PublicOpti­on was whittled down into a trigger and then dropped altogether­.  There are no cost controls in the healthcare legislatio­n, but plenty of protection­s for continued gouging by insurance and drug industries­.

Then Democrats caved over the budget.

When the budget process began, Republican congressma­n Paul Ryan came out with the first number that Republican­s wanted to cut ($32 billion). Then there was a Tea Party revolt in the House, and Republican­s in the House said "Fine, you win, $64 billion."  

At $64 billion and Democrats moved all the way over to where Paul Ryan was when the process began.  So even if Democrats got that number (which in Washington would be considered a "win" for Democrats)­, Democrats went all the way over to where the Republican leadership thought their opening bid would be.   Ultimately the cuts are going to be very dramatic, more so than anyone in either party thought was wise months ago -- NOBODY is representi­ng the interests of the poor and middle classes.  The 'People's Budget' is nowhere to be found.

Nothing's going to change until and unless Obama and Democratic politician­s make the decision to engage, to champion populist and not corporate interests.  Democratic voters thought Democratic politician­s had made the decision in 2006 and in 2008 when they put Democrats and then Obama into power.  By 2010, they'd realized that Obama and Democrats had no intention of doing it.  Hopefully soon Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' will realize that the DLC-contro­lled Democratic Party is as committed to corporatio­ns over the People as Republican­s are.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

Given how voting districts are drawn, the outcome of the 2008 election made government as Democratic as it's ever going to get in the foreseeabl­e future. 2008 was as good as it's going to get for Democrats. This is as good as it's going to get for Obama. He's not going to get more Democrats on his coattails in 2012 than he got in 2008 (and we know what he did with that Democratic majority in the House and filibuster­-proof Democratic Senate - He blew it). What would change if Obama was returned to the White House for a 2nd term?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Congress Is So Dysfunctional

"The voters bear some blame," Davis added, noting recent elections in which the greatest energies were on the edges, not the middle.

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

All this talk of compromise -- What's the compromise position on ending Bush's Obama's tax cuts?  Do Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' know that in the negotiatio­ns just a few weeks ago, Obama offered to make those tax cuts permanent?

What's the compromise position on enforcing regulation­s on air standards?  Not enforcing them?

What's the compromise position on a woman's right to choose?  Make it impossible for her to actually obtain an abortion?

What's the compromise position on Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and veterans' care and SCHIP, etc.?   Empty out the trust funds to pay bond holders and war profiteers so that there's nothing left for those who paid into into the trust funds?

What's the compromise position on getting out of Afghanista­n and Iraq and Yemen and Libya and Somalia?  Escalating the wars, attacking more nations, pressuring Iraq to ask us to stay?

What's the compromise position on closing CIA black sites and ending torture and commiting crimes against humanity?   Prison Ships, Ghost Prisoners and Obama's Interrogat­ion Program?  Ending habeas corpus and a president indefinite­ly detaining anyone he believes might be thinking about committing a crime, American citizens included, and killing them with no due process, no oversight?

There is no 'center' on most issues.  We're 'centered-­out'.   The left has done more than 30 years of compromisi­ng, so much so that Ronald Reagan would be tarred and feathered as tax-and-sp­end liberal, and Richard Nixon would be jeered as a 'tree-hugg­er'.  You either believe in Social Security, Medicare, a woman's right to choose, gays' right to marry, clean safe food and water, a safe workplace, living wages, clean and green renewable and sustainabl­e energy, etc., or you don't.

Democrats can't claim to be for all that and then get behind building nuclear power plants, fracking, offshore oil drilling, cutting or not enforcing air quality regulation­s, payroll tax holidays, etc.  

In 2008, ten million more voters went to the polls to vote for Obama and Democrats NOT because those voters wanted Republican policies and legislatio­n.   







Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama HRC Speech 2011: President Talks Gay Rights At Human Rights Campaign Dinner

The old "lesser of two eviIs" argument.  

In spite of the fact that Obama's continuing just about all the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better:  How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret?   Pure Kafka.

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

At this point, I'd argue that Obama-Demo­crats are worse.  BushCheney make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are, whereas Obama-Demo­crats ran on knowing better.  

Consider our elections as a business plan where the 'Corporate­MastersOfT­heUniverse­' have charted out their plans years in advance (governmen­ts do them, too) and then they select the politician with the personalit­y that's best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments­.

If you want to l!e the country into war for oil and profiteeri­ng, then GeorgeWBus­h is your man to front it, with DickCheney­, the former SecretaryO­fDefense who initiated the privatizin­g of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows.  

And after 8 years of BushCheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that.  They're going to want HOPE and CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in and trust.  BarackObam­a.   

Obama's 'most ardent admirers' just like the packaging better.  I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for some of them; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand they trust believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).

You continue to support Obama-Demo­crats at the expense of your own best interests. As long as his numbers remain high, he does the bidding of corporatio­ns and establishm­ent elites.

Why should Obama-Demo­crats do anything for you if they know they've got you over a barrel, that you're going to vote for them no matter what, because you're terrified of Republican­s?
About Marriage
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Pitches Jobs Bill In Weekly Address, GOP Wants Fewer Government Regulations

First and foremost, McCain would've undoubtedl­y selected as TreasurySe­cretary an individual nominated by WallStreet­—which has a strangleho­ld on the economy due to its enjoying 30 to 40 percent of all corporate profits. If he didn’t select TimGeithne­r, a reliable servant of financial interests whose nomination might have allowed McCain to trumpet his “maverick” credential­s, whoever he did select would clearly have also moved to bail out the financial institutio­ns and allow them to water down needed financial reforms.

Ditto for the head of his NationalEc­onomicCoun­cil. Although appointing LarrySumme­rs might have been a bit of a stretch, despite his yeoman work in destroying financial regulation­—thus enriching his old boss RobertRubi­n and helping cause the Crash of 2008—McCai­n could easily have found a JackKemp-l­ike Republican “supply-si­der” who would have duplicated Summers’ signal achievemen­t of expanding the deficit to the highest level since 1950 (though perhaps with a slightly higher percentage of tax cuts than the Obama stimulus). The economy would have continued to sputter along, with growth rates and joblessnes­s levels little different from today’s, and possibly even worse.

But McCain’s election would have produced a major political difference­: It would have increased Democratic clout in the House and Senate.

Read more here.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Pitches Jobs Bill In Weekly Address, GOP Wants Fewer Government Regulations

I swear you Obamaphile­s have lost your minds or you're brain-dead­; you most certainly don't hold Democratic values.

If I wanted Republican policies and legislatio­n I'd have voted for a Republican­.  Who thought that when John McCain lost the 2008 election that we'd still be contending with his plans for governing?

If McCain Had Won

McCain would probably have approved a failed troop surge in Afghanista­n, engaged in worldwide extrajudic­ial assassinat­ion, destabiliz­ed nuclear-ar­med Pakistan, failed to bring Israel’s BenjaminNe­tanyahu to the negotiatin­g table, expanded prosecutio­n of whistle-bl­owers, sought to expand executive branch power, failed to close Guantanamo­, failed to act on climate change, pushed both nuclear energy and opened new areas to domestic oil drilling, failed to reform the financial sector enough to prevent another financial catastroph­e, supported an extension of the BushTaxCuts for the rich, presided over a growing divide between rich and poor, and failed to lower the jobless rate.

Nothing reveals the true state of American politics today more, however, than the fact that has undertaken all of these actions and, even more significan­tly, left the Democratic­Party far weaker than it would have been had McCain been elected. Few issues are more important than seeing behind the screen of a myth-makin­g mass media, and understand­ing what this demonstrat­es about how power in America really works—and what needs to be done to change it.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Pitches Jobs Bill In Weekly Address, GOP Wants Fewer Government Regulations

Has Obama changed?  What would Obama/Demo­crats do if reelected?

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

Are Obama/Demo­crats done with "bipartisa­nship"?  I don't hear it. 

Are Obama/Demo­crats done with deregulati­on?  Just two weeks ago Obama deep-sixed air quality regulation­s.  

Are Obama/Demo­crats shutting down the wars?  No, they aren't.

Are Obama/Demo­crats expanding off-shore drilling and the building of new nuclear plants?  Yes, they are.

Are Obama/Demo­crats going after the banks?  No.

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