President Obama: The Same As He Ever Was
In the wake of President Barack Obama’s premature capitulation in the tax wars to the Republicans -- a party who I might remind you controls neither congressional chamber at this moment (they will take over the House in January) -- once-muted criticism of the Commander-in-Chief on the Left has suddenly erupted into a full-scale flurry of condemnation.
There have been calls for other Democrats to primary him in 2012, jeremiads that Progressives should have been treating him as an adversary, and a feeling on the Left, put into words by a Congressman (Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York), that Democrats "can’t trust him."
So you could say it’s been a somewhat bad month for the president - although that might be akin to saying the guys attending South Carolina's "Secession Ball" will only be missing some of their teeth. The president has not only caved on eliminating budget-busting tax cuts for people who have toilet plungers more expensive than your house, but has backed off long-delayed (but promised) environmental regulations to govern smog and toxic emissions from industrial boilers.
He also negotiated a new Korea Free Trade Agreement that isn’t free from deleterious affects on American workers, enacted a freeze in pay for federal employees for reasons nobody can figure out, and was ready to listen to recommendations to cut Social Security from a committee of rich, irrelevant Beltway primates so old they look like they should be starring in Weekend at Bernie’s 3.
This turn of events would probably explain why in a new McClatchy Poll, President Obama’s approval among liberals has fallen from 78% to 69%, while his disapproval among self-described Democrats has nearly doubled, from 11% to 21%.
That Obama doesn’t have much of a stomach for a rumble as president, this much many liberal commentators can agree upon. Yet, perhaps for political reasons, or maybe due to the glorious rose shade the passage of time can deliver to one’s glasses, many have looked admiringly back to a moment that never existed to call on Obama to be someone he never really was.
A Fighter.
Recently, I have read essay after essay asking Obama to "return to who he was during the campaign." To stand up strong to GOP bullies! To bring us back to the glory days when he rode through the badlands of a never-ending campaign and apparently had the fortitude and purpose of General Sherman on a scenic gallop through Georgia.
Now, it's true he took stronger positions during the election, but that was simply a rhetorical exercise. It is also true that he was a much better communicator back then, one with an actual message. But what many pundits and progressives are forgetting is that during those heady days of Campaign 2008, much like today, he refused to hit back when viciously attacked by John McCain. Then as now he saw himself as above the fray.
It was his Achilles Heel then, just as it is now.
In fact, that may have been the very reason that up until the world economy went splat in September of 2008, a presidential race that should have been almost impossible to lose, against a party whose sitting President was just slightly less popular than scurvy, was neck-and-neck. So much so, that a month before the big economic crash, Chuck Schumer , Democratic senator, offered a none-too-subtle nudge to Obama to start fighting back when he said, "when they say, 'he's not one of us,' you don't say, 'here's our plan on health care.'"
Democratic Strategist and Clinical Psychologist Drew Westen summed this up perfectly in an August 2008 (or pre-economic meltdown) Huffington Post piece:
Obama has a voice, and he has the microphone to say anything he wants anytime he wants to say it. But as his opponent "distracts" the media - and hence the public - daily with a relentless drumbeat about what's wrong with Obama - that he isn't strong, that he isn't American, that he isn't patriotic…that he is the most liberal member of the United States Senate, that he isn't "one of us" - what story has Barack Obama told that could possibly catch the public attention? That he has a slightly amended plan for dealing with the energy crisis? And what story is his campaign telling about why voters should worry as much about John McCain as they are beginning to worry about Barack Obama?
Why do I point all of this out? Because now is as good a time as any to be realistic about what the president is made of. There will be many battles over the next 2 years. If we are to analyse the problem, and what to do about it, we have to begin by acknowledging the facts.
In other words, when progressives and moderates decide how to confront President Obama's propensity for playing dead at the outset of legislative negotiations over the next two years, one might want to - for once - think like former Donald Rumsfeld, the former secretary of defense. "You go into policy fights with the President you have. Not the one you wish you had."
[Editor's note: This is Cliff's weekly column for Al Jazeera English.]
End the wars.
End the MICC.
End the national security state.
Prosecute the war criminals.
Prosecute the wall street criminals.
End corporate welfare.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
but poor President Obama looks more like Millard Fillmore reincarnated every day, an empty figurehead servling of less-than-benevolent interests hiding in plain sight.
Barack Ronald Reagan Obama
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
AMEN!
I just wish SOMEBODY in charge would actually do that. You know, someone in a pretty high position that they were elected to. But...WHO???
NOBODY 2012
(... and I'm not even Christian.)
Thanks for the succinct, but relatively thorough list.
I might have included "Audit, then end, the Federal Reserve", but your line regarding "Prosecute the wall street criminals", if thoroughly done, would include the Fed as well.
;^)
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
..You know, we got health care reform that's gonna' make the health care providers wealthier, we got DADT repealed, they extended tax cuts for the wealthy, they did all this stuff, WHEN THE F ARE THEY GONNA' START WORKING ON MORE JOBS?????
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
settle back now into the raptures of flat screen high-def 3-D TV and imagine that we're like the characters in Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life - which, by the way, in case you never noticed, is a story about a banker who gets into big trouble.
Be careful, Cliff. You're gonna make Susie cry in her angry place.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
running with more than half a brain who won't bend over for Weepy John Boehner and the minions of Goldman Sachs?
Keep us posted if you find anyone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSBLUJP_9_0
Donald Rumsfeld was talking about going into war with Iraq, something that was put upon the American people through FRAUD and DECEIPT.
Dude, you are seriously in error to refer to that criminal in any way.
Except that aspect which bears direct resemblance, Obama's campaign was also based in FRAUD and DECEIT.
It was classic BAIT and SWITCH.
For me, his FISA vote treachery told me everything I needed to know.
You all voted for a mother phucker who wanted to surveil you big-time.
And escalate the war in Afghanistan.
And bail out the banks.
Etc etc etc
Why weren't you paying attention then, BEFORE you voted for him.
Did you actually BELIEVE the campaign propaganda.
I DIDN'T. I didn't vote for him.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Some out here swallowed the lines about "Hope & Change©", or at least thought that voting for the "lesser of two evils" was a Good Thing™.
Too bad "Hope & Change©" turned into "No Hope" and "Small Change".
BTW: Buried in the second page of USA Today, Obama is quoted as saying that he "believes in American Exceptionalism", as if his actions in the ME, with Af-Pak, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere, special deals for the crony corporations, TBTF banks, & the Wall Street Mobsters didn't already confirm that Obama is an Imperial Corporatist. Obama IS GW Bush's 3rd term -- pretty much the same as a McGramps regime would have been (excepting Georgia).
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
America is exceptional, but not for the reasons that phrase invokes. I have my own, much less pleasant, list.
far left loon >.<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzRUH819eZs
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
in this despicable mess is McCain and Palin haven't been in charge the past two years.
Because, after this, it's going to be nearly impossible to get anyone who isn't a teabagger, no label, or what the fuck gopper elected in 2012. If this carnage were rep[ublican carnage, they'd been the stake in the gopper heart, I think. I mean, afterall, we didn't get stuck with McCain, but, then, we sorta did get stuck with him (in a metaphorical way.)
hit a few months after Hoover was elected and we went down hill from there, until FDR was elected in 1932. We would have been better off with McCain and Palin because then in two years we might hope that someone who could deal with the situation might be elected. Today we cannot hope for anything good coming out of the next election at all.
...get worse in order to get better. Somehow, that's twisted...but nice...in a cynical kinda' way.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
the biggest twist is that many of us thought we hit rock bottom while GWB was in charge, and how could it possibly get worse? Perhaps the silver lining -- that really isn't a silver lining -- is that its not actually getting worse, its just not getting any better....and never will. Oh who am I kidding, of course its getting worse!
Yeah, it sounds like an aspiring third world dictator's dream. Forget incremental progress. We have to give it a "hands off" approach and let the whole world self destruct before everyone "gets it" and sees the glory of our true Utopic vision.
Count me among the additional 10% or so of Democrats who previously (way back when) supported Obama but now disapprove. And thanks, Cliff, for helping answer the question pasted across the back window of my car: “Wimp or Liar?” I thought the answer had to be one or the other but now see that it is BOTH. WIMP for his “propensity for playing dead” and LIAR for being nothing more than a politician with “rhetorical exercise.”
(I should have been playing closer attention and not allowed myself to be influenced by this man’s pretty words.)
I voted for "Brand Obama" was because of the other option. I would felt better right now if I hadn't of voted at all.
...unless maybe you're talking about the primary.
Thanks for playing!
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
The criticism from the Right has been more along the lines of "tax and spend" and "government takeovers" and "the Deficit!"
Don't recall much about "Wimp" and "Liar" though.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
You'll find that a common theme. The "progressives" are now meeting in the middle with the GOP.
Talk about bipartianship!
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
If they're "talking points" they should be everywhere.
But teh Google can't seem to find any.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
and others comments here and you'll find plenty.
and primary him, no question. Time for a person of conviction (they're rare) to step up and get all the support that the useless Obomba used and abused. Time for Obomba to resign.
"resign" - riiight
think like former Donald Rumsfeld, the former secretary of defense. "You go into policy fights with the President you have. Not the one you wish you had."
Did the Democratic strategist that came up with this gem to try and move the meme away from screaming at progressives to "STFU and get in line" conjur it up while jerking off Bill Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, or did he take a break first?
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
we can all vote for the "President we wish we had" instead of the "President the MSM says can win."
NYT (exclusive)
In an effort to prevent the secession of Southern States over the issue of slavery President Obama has negotiated a settlement that will prevent the outbreak of civil war, at least for the moment. The agreement will allow the Southern States to maintain the institution of slavery and require the return of all run away slaves now residing in Northern States. In return for this, slaves will henceforth count as 2/5 of a person.
To some degree it matters who's in office, but it matters more how much pressure they're under from the public. - Noam Chomsky
The polling must be looking pretty sucky for the President, if the spinmeisters are flooding the blogosphere with this "my President right or wrong" bullshit.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
at this point that Obama's approval is at 69%. Of course these polling firms always chose dimwits to participate in them.
Yeah, I'm with you because these polls are all bullshit and even if they are right I'm not voting for Obama because of one thing he refuses to do and that is to prosecute All the folks in the Bush White House who had ANY part in torturing enemy conbatants! That's all it takes for me to say to Obama: thanks for nothing you back-stabbing piece of human garbage!
much?
for 'premature capitulation'. There's also a klop upside the head.
I will be voting for WHOEVER runs against Obama in '012 and that includes republicans , democrats, and independents! I still can't believe Obama cut the payroll tax by 2%( the beginning of the end of social security) and that tells me that Obama is nothing more than Bush "LIGHT"! This candy-assed wimp just pisses me off and I don't see Obama doing much for the middle class now or in the future! Why organized labor is still supporting this piece of shit is beyond ME!
Obama cut the payroll tax by 2%( the beginning of the end of social security)
Exactly right, and of course never touched on here at C&L.
It's the "starve the beast" strategy. It has been done with every major agency within the government related to quality of life...EPA, FCC, FDA...of course...no cuts for the military.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Obama is better than Bush Light. Bush couldn't accomplish some of his wacky shit (SS reform) because the Democrats could rightly say that the policy was complete nonsense and a giveaway to Wall Street.
Now when our dear leader proposes the same plan, we'll need to stand behind him because he's the president we've got.
Pass.
Way off base, Cliff.
As I said quite some time ago. It will be a Democrat that destroys Social Security.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Daragh Murphy, is that you? Go PUMA PAC!
Yeah, that's how Christie got elected governor and that's how he'll get elected President. Good luck with that!
From now on, I will not vote for anyone who calls himself a progressive if this is what progressivism is. If a candidate wants my vote, he must use the label "liberal." If he's scared of that, then, he's not who I want.
feel better and be able to avoid guilt complex, self punishment, and depression if you don't vote at all.
That's what I'm thinking, the only winning move is not to play.
Labels, labels, labels, labels…
James Kwak, Baseline Scenario (not a flaming radical by any means):
here
on the post by Arnold King, here
reviewing the work of Murray Edelman: The Symbolic Uses of Politics.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
In the article, Kwak said, "If everyone believed that government was simply a tool for the rich and powerful, the entire system would break down and would have to be maintained by force, if at all."
History has always confirmed that so-called 'leaders' - even the dumb ones - figured out basic human psychology and used ploys, propaganda, lies, labels, symbols, whatever to keep the proles in line; and, when those failed (i.e., the proles finally caught on and made moves to change the status quo), they resorted to force.
It's just that, these days, the 'symbols' are so much easier to deeply ingrain into the minds of the masses as many are hidden in entertainment and 'news'. I am not hopeful that we can get to the point where a majority of folks understand who's really in charge - based upon many interactions with family and friends, who though intelligent and educated, just don't think! Therefore, they are unwilling (or unable) to entertain any notion that the government is corrupt beyond belief.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
with and a memory to go with it, is that the media, previously reflecting the voice of the people - majority (especially after the 2000) election, clearly isn't listening to the majority of the electorate because we don't pay enough so that means, grass roots organizing that is probably the only choice, to wit: organize, organize, organize!
wem
You should look into the Murray Edelman piece cited.
It is astute political science, shades of Karl Marx.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Two essential videos. The first on where we are, and the second on where we are going to be.
The Ad and the Ego here
A Crude Awakening here
Our industrial civilization has a populace that is mesmerized by advertising, which is the real means of social education and social engineering by the forces of reaction.
The result in a nutshell, our industrial civilization is doomed by peak oil, resource depletion and ecological destruction. There will be massive economic and social dislocation with inevitable political turmoil on a scale never seen.
In the Great Depression which was itself the result of the robber barons plunder, FDR moved to the left as a pragmatist who saw the alternative realities of Germany and the Soviet Union.
He was forced by the radicals of the left. Today after seventy years of potent reaction the radicals have been mostly eliminated.
FDR himself in his WWII planning for post war American hegemony was at the helm of the future reaction.
This time the jig is going to be up but good.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Well put.
Once you get passed the media designed and manipulated labels and down to issues, this is simply not a "center right" nation. Though the word "liberal" has been dragged through the mud enough to make many disown the term, supposedly "radically liberal" concepts like "Medicare for All or getting our troops out of the Iraq and Afghanistan or prosecuting fraudulent bankers seem pretty middle of the road in their public support.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Pareto's theory of cycling elites.
Pareto was a fascist.
Nice to see you using fascist political theory to support this sham of a democracy.
Good move, Ace.
Now go home and think about that.
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
tell us who the liberal commentators are.
I feel like an idiot voting for Obama now. Didn't know I was voting for a Reuplican. Also feel like a jerk because I got a couple of others-who were non voters-to vote. Now they will never vote again.
I once thought of myself as someone who was too smart to be conned-not anymore.Now I know how people who get scammed feel-like crap!
LET'S LOOK AT OBAMA “PRAGMATICALLY”..... AND PLEASE DON’T OFFER UP THE MEANINGLESS EXCUSE THAT HE IS THE LESSER EVIL
As the leader of the Democratic Party, Obama has been an abject failure. Democrats have become MARGINALIZED since Obama was elected president. Republicans have made him look like a helpless co-dependent.
As the Commander-In-Chief, Obama has been an abject failure. Iraq and Afghanistan are no more stable today than they were when Bush was president. Americans and innocent civilians CONTINUE to die for NOTHING and American taxpayers CONTINUE to have more and more hundreds of billions of dollars pi$$ed away. American drones are MURDERING hundreds of innocent civilian men, women and children in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
He is an abject failure in keeping his campaign promise to end the BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH.
He is an abject failure in keeping his campaign promise to provide Americans AFFORDABLE health care insurance. There is nothing in the health care reform bill that creates the competition necessary to drive health care insurance prices down.
He is an abject failure in keeping his campaign promises to the liberals and progressives and first-time young voters who got out the vote that got him elected to provide CHANGE they can BELIEVE in. A highly significant number of them will stay home in protest again in 2012 as they did during the midterms .
He is an abject failure in keeping his campaign promise to implement "environmental regulations to govern smog and toxic emissions from industrial boilers."
He is an abject failure in bringing to JUSTICE the crooks and liars whose greed and larceny caused our economy to nearly collapse. They are still too big to fail and too rich to go to jail.
He is an abject failure in providing government TRANSPARENCY.
He is an abject failure in helping HOMEOWNERS keep their homes.
He is an abject failure in doing anything LASTING or MEANINGFUL to improve the lives of impoverished and working class American families.
However, he has been HUGELY SUCCESSFUL in saving and or perpetuating the innumerable abuses and corruptions of the military industrial complex, of crap-shooting banks and stock brokers, of usurious insurance companies, of monopolistic oil companies, of manipulative real estate mortgage companies.....and all of their executives and the OBSCENE bonuses they feel they are ENTITLED to.
Had Obama been an idealist, would he have FOUGHT more or less to keep his campaign promises? Or would he still have chosen to "compromise" with the devil and declare to the American people that it is the "right" thing to do?
Obama is the 21st century equivalent of the plantation-era "house negro", albeit in black-face. But he still holds the master's whip. President Abraham Lincoln would be rolling in his grave to see where the Republican Party is at policy-wise today, or at the sell-out of the American "under-class" at the hands of our first black & nominally Republican President.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
You're an idiot. But this is the kind of pathetic insight I've come to expect from the petulants of the Pro Left.
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
to exclude the Obama-pologists, Reagan Democrats, and the insane.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
I can't imagine how offensive you'd be if you were intending it.
Even in this cherry-picked post there's many ABJECT FAILURES that aren't.
Completely untrue. The bill does many things to control costs INCLUDING providing more competition in the exchanges. Asside from that the bill calls for an 85% loss ratio for most companies, it calls for a mandate that, whether you like it or not DOES drive down costs, it calls for tax subsidies for those who can't afford it, it calls for all policies to pay for preventive care, the chief cost of people on insurance. This does not even include all the peripheral money savers such as digitizing all patient records etc.
Nice switchola there? Focus on ONE aspect of Obama's environmental record to make it SEEM as if he's a failure environmentally. Sean Hannity would be so proud of you (He'd LOVE the list too!). The fact is, of course, that he's probably the best environmental President since Nixon. He's passedbillions for clean tech and efficiency in the stimulus package. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), recently released its Presidential Report Card, giving President Obama a B+ on his first year in office. While it's not as high a score as I'd like (or he'd like for that matter, it was the same score he gave himself, it's certainly not a "betrayal").
Whether or not he should of or shouldn't of jailed executives for doing things that probably were (though shouldn't of been) perfectly legal (these corporations ALL have lawyers) he did take major steps to end too big to fail, including ways to arange for orderly break ups and provide consumer protections for everyone.
Last i checked i'm a working class man, and he's improved my life with allowing people to get unemployment and go to college. He also improved my life by passing 13 more months of unemployment so i can pass it. My fellow students are almost all working class and they all love obama because they can NOW get health insurance on their parents policies.
Most gays in the military are working class, they feel like he's done something for them.
You're an ABJECT failure at making a point.
Don't count on that or you'll be out in the streets pretty quick. The bill only keeps the status quo for another 13 months. After week 99 you're still screwed.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
So the people that aren't 99ers should just go fuck themeselves?
No, they shouldn't go fuck themselves. But maybe you could point out where that extension couldn't be passed on its own? Surely there was a huge filibuster over the holidays - you know, except that that would have been political suicide and simply didn't happen.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
No, it couldn't be passed on its own, remember the letter they sent? They tried to pass a three months extension just a few days earlier and failed, but what magic could a 13 month extension pass?
Also, YOU are the one guilty of the straw man here. The straw man was your bringing up the 99ers, giving people the impression that the ACTUAL bill isn't any good by bringing up things that we all wish were in it, but weren't. Since the President and the Democrats have had to fight like fiends to get REGULAR unemployment paif for, you give me a realistic plan for him to get help for th 99ers and i'll be all for it.
Ok..enough.
Here's the political reality...you can SAY that it wouldn't be passed, but I'm telling you that based on history and political reality that there was NO WAY IN HELL that the Congress was going to go on recess without passing even an emergency extension on unemployment. They were NOT going to face constituents at home not having resolved the issue.
It simply has never happened. Politicians are cowards. They have ALWAYS passed emergency measures when in this position. That's a fact. There's nothing to argue...it's a political FACT.
The President negotiated with himself...and lost.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
I guess you have a higher oppinion of Republicans than i do. I think they'd of happily stuck it to the "leeching" unemployed. I mean they fillibustered 911 responders! They've delayed extensions fo 3 months WEEKS at a time. And each time they bring it up the opposition gets stronger and stronger. At first it was just Crazy Jim Bunning, now it's 9 or ten that are willing to do it. I believe they would do it, and i think it would be criminal of the President to gamble with peoples lives.
So you nuy into the Republican tactics, hook, line and sinker. Apparently Obama does too, or pretends to.
You'll never win any battles if there's no fight.
far left loon >.<
You either know nothing about politics, or you simply want to justify the President's actions regardless of facts.
Fine. Enjoy your world of one.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Surely that would have shut down the Senate for quite a while and the public outrage would have been enormous.
When did this filibuster occur? How long did it take?
Because if it was only minutes, then it wasn't the filibuster that killed the legislation, it was the Democratic agreement to table the issue and move on to other business.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
That's not how the fillibuster works. It requires 60 votes to START debate and then 60 to end it. You don't need a quarum, all you need is to state the intention. The people in the past who had the long speeches did so for theater, not because they needed to.
I suppose you can simply refuse to bring up any legislation but A. the Republicans would LOVE that and B. that would be detrimental to the country far in excess of any political gains they MAY have got.
Your fantasy Obama doesn't work in reality.
Kind of like the reality that without the 60 votes necessary to start debate the next procedural step is to continue the debate about starting the debate unless the issue is tabled?
Kind of like that reality? And the long speeches aren't necessary; that's true. The Senate chamber can simply remain empty.
Did that happen? Nope? Why? Because Democrats tabled the issue to move on to other business.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Yeah, some of that "other business" was a repeal of DADT and the Start treaty. I find these things important. So do the gay troops and so do the troops in harms way.
Really HOW does tabling ALL legislation work in your world? Do you HONESTLY believe the Republicans would simply cave? And do you think Harry Reid and Nancy Pellosi came here to get NOTHING done?
This has been the most successful congress in generations. Unfortunately the way are system works right now is on a super-majority. Lots of great things were done in SPITE of this amazing obstructionism. But instead of blaming the people REALLY at fault you play right into Republican hands.
If the Democrats needed to ditch the 911 Responders' bill to move on to DADT, then fine. We can talk about why they waited almost two years to bring it up.
But that's the Dems, not the Republicans. This could have been brought up quite a while ago with the Republicans being put in the position of shutting down the Senate to deprive 911 responders of health care.
How long do you think that might have lasted? How well could the Dems have used that in the last election?
(btw, I've a pretty strong hunch that the 911 Responders' bill will pass soon. The shame really is too much.)
Corruption favors the wealthy.
According to Bernie Sanders, in the two years since Obama's taken office: Wells Fargo is 43% bigger; J.P. Morgan Chase is 51% bigger; and Bank of America is 138% bigger.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/b...
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Bernie Sanders did vote for the Bank reform bill. Yes he would of preferreda break up of the banks, but he also recognizes that there are legal protections that call for the break up of these organizations without damaging the rest of the economy. I know you HATE giving Obama credit for anything, and anyone who does is an "appologist" but that's reality.
On what planet?
You just claimed that Obama took major steps to end too big to fail in spite of the fact that the too big to fail banks have grown enourmously.
If they were too big to fail before, how did they magically become not too big to fail by becoming larger?
That's pretty difficult to square with "reality."
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Ignorance can be bliss (as long as isn't a major environmental disaster shortly thereafter).
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Yes, he said a stupid thing before the oil rig disaster. Since allowing more leases was meaningless and the other environmental consessions were meaningful i thought it was a decent move on Obama's part. You certainly can't blame him for the oil disaster. Unless if you're contending that a REAL president would of waived a magic wand and shut all those down in his first two weeks in office, or something.
Still, in terms of legislation passed, and investments made he's been a good environmental president, unless if you want to argue with the league of conservation voters.
The fact is, of course, that he's probably the best environmental President since Nixon.
Were you awake for the BP blowout, and aftermath, when he even went swimming in the Gulf??? I wonder if he blew all the BP CEO's too?
far left loon >.<
other than with our corporate citizens in charge we won't get anything different anytime soon. the wealthy control the media, the banks, the government, pretty much everything, most importantly the media. in the past social reform was possible because the technology did not exist to catalog every individual, or to kill people from 3,000 miles away using robots, now with our great computers, you're magnetic ink, or electrons; but we are definitely at the mercy of the modern technological police state.
the thing to remember is that this arrangement is crafted by people, actual human beings, for the benefit of the few; this is called class struggle, and "bloody barack" obama is just not that into it. it is a convenient fiction to believe that change can be accomplished through legislation of reforms and programs, but the wealthy elite will always be one step ahead; after all they control the money supply, the natural resources, the whole ball of wax.
we are truly in danger of falling into a new dark ages, where the very few have knowledge and power, and the masses are left in ignorance and poverty, the death of the elusive thing called the human spirit. one should always remember that at the end of "it's a wonderful life" potter still had the money, and the existing power structure was still firmly in place; but then that is the american myth, isn't it? just run an inequitable system a little more fairly, and everything will be hunky-dory?
to continue (because it is a very good movie), the "happy ending" was this: all the poor giving money to the even poorer guy so he could pay off his debt, accrued through no fault of his own, owed to the rich banker.
...which was brought about by the dishonest stealing of the lost funds (Potter knowingly keeping the cash as Uncle Billy feverishly searches for his misplaced funds).
As meaningful today as it was in 1946.
Barrack "Dennis Moore" Obama, steals from the poor and gives to the rich...
I'm not looking forward to our economic future, though I AM learning how to cultivate lupins.
is either a liar or a pussy. I didn't know I voted for a Republican.
NOBODY 2012
I mean, the profound insights from big thinkers here is staggering. You left out "no balls"....
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
Can you point out where the Right has used these talking points?
If they're actually "Right Wing talking points" then they should be so ubiquitous that a few examples should be easy to find.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Relax fiver. The Obamapologists are out in force and in a tizzy cause their emperor has no clothes.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
So please continue with your self-pity fest. Oh, and "OBAMA HAS NO BALLS!!!" Now I belong.
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
Calls him "wimp" on a weekly basis. The GOP freaked over his bowing, recall and called him "weak." You can find plenty of examples if you search.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-s-a-Wi...
Do you really think the pro left invented these terms for Obama? Well, they certainly are the torch bearers now. And from spindly turds like Kos to boot. And are you proud of parroting GOP talking points?
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
It doesn't say the Republicans were calling him a whimp. It said they were taking advantage of his actually being one.
Next?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909280020
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
Probably because it's not a GOP talking point at all (and one example is hardly a "talking point").
But you could have linked to where you probably started: a Google search of "rush limbaugh obama wimp"
Like this: http://www.google.com/search?q=rush%20limbaug...
While it may be a "talking point" it's hardly a Right Wing one. Just checking the first few pages of the quarter million hits makes it pretty clear that this criticism is coming from the Left not the Right.
Next?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
And since he was calling Obama "weak" and a "wimp" before the Pro Left discovered its advantages..what is your point? You want credit for calling the first African American president weak?
Some battle you've chosen!
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
Which is why you're stuck with one lousy example out of a quarter million hits - most of which disprove your point.
Oops.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Along with the other right wingers until you Pro Left folks came along to TAKE BACK THE WORD WIMP!
This is a major victory for your side -- whatever that may be.
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
Not your fault. It's hard to support an invalid premise.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I presented Rush Limbaugh calling Obama a wimp in Nov of 2009.
But glad you and Rush have found true bipartisan agreement.
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
Even in comparison to the remainder of the quarter million hits that appear to show the opposite from even the most cursory review of the first few pages?
Thanks for the lesson ;)
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Yes.
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
to ask why bringing up Obama's race is relevant?
WHO CARES? Back to his record of selling out liberals.
far left loon >.<
whatever the hell I want. Including a sellout.
NOBODY 2012
For the sake of the Democratic Party Obama needs to be a one term President. He needs to proclaim that he will not run for reelection in order for a strong Democrat can lead the party back from being the wimps they are. Also this candidate needs to speak about purging out conservative Democrats who have cause all they damage the last two years.
A politician giving up power for the good of the people? Should I start holding my breath now?
I'm hoping for a strong Democrat to turn Independent. (no, Joe Lieberman does not even come close to counting). I think running as an "I" has a lot better shot that a true 3rd party.
And the fact that most of the net's bigwigs have no clue (or don't care) that sites have been overrun with the exact same bullshit memes designed to dispirit and lead to a GOP Presidency (not that there's any difference, right!).
PURGE! Then you'll get a landslide win in 2012!
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
i read your shrill obamApologist posts and i think how lucky corporatists are to have such a lackey fighting on their behalf
Just curious. And quick, name me two presidents who achieved progressive rainbows.
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
Gotta move those goalposts pretty far to maintain the point, huh?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
although the way you frame it, "progressive rainbows", is very telling.
Maybe you should have Bill Clinton come out and insult progressives again.
It's been such a winning strategy.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Who think they are the receptacle for all of Obama's "dissing."
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
Nice projection. I'm hardly thick skinned, but you've written a dozen posts clearly revealing that your knickers are in a bunch over legitimate disagreement with this President.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
I have no problem with criticizing the president as I've done before and will do in the future.
It's the anti-reality based mindset and screaming j'accuses that he is somehow a Republican. Sure, a Republican would have put Sonia Sotomayer on the Supreme Court (she's a racist as the GOP framed her, recall?) and certainly a Republican would have attended the funeral for the Massey Mine disaster and struck new regulations for miners that the W.Virginia sued against. And repealing DADT. This is all just a smokescreen for an evil elephant! Or a moderate Democrat doing exactly what I expected - tho I never had pie in the sky fantasies about any politician unlike the fairweather voters here.
But post after post of the same childish taunts is not legitimate, especially since so many parrot right-wing attacks. Caveat Emptor.
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
I doubt that cad is a corporatist, or even a bought-and-paid-for troll of corporatists. cad is just still too filled with the Obama cult of personality (ie. has head firmly up own backside) to see reality.
And the reality is that Obama is a NeoLiberal (Corporatist) Reagan Democrat, not a liberal nor a progressive nor a populist -- a black Republican-lite turncoat who will destroy what is left of the Democratic Party of FDR if he steals a 2nd term of office.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Yes, you are a true seer. Because I live in the land of reality not oz. As if Reagan would have appointed Sotomayer or repealed DADT or declare nuclear prolifigacy the biggest danger to our planet.
And it's you folks on the Pro Left (or GOP trolls) that seek to destroy democracy. "Steals" a second term? The implication that he stole the first term must be explicated sir. I call you TROLL.
Put in Pres Palin or Christie -- then all your dreams will come true!
"Even if 50 million people say a stupid thing - it is still a stupid thing." - Anatole France
We're actually against endless war, immunity for war crimes and massive financial fraud, and tax cuts for billionaires.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I can't believe i'm saying this but, Reagan DID declare nuclear proliferation the biggest danger to our planet. This treaty pretty much mirrors reagan. Other than that i agree 100%.
Now, with his stunning tax deal, Obama is back. Holding no high cards, he nonetheless managed to resurface suddenly not just as a player but as orchestrator, dealmaker and central actor in a high $1 trillion drama.
who wrote this? chuckles mother fuckin' krauthammer
i have heard chris matthews say similar things of late.
so, the corporatists, right wingers, and media whores are rallying around obama. he'll need all the ideological allies he can get, because more and more progressives/libs are seeing obama for what he really is.
status quObama is a disaster
But it FELT good, didn’t it?
“Hope”
“Change we can believe in”
Did you get the FEELING that we are not powerless against the forces that bring us to war; that take our prosperity; that profit from our blood, sweat, toil and tears?
In reality, it’s not how you feel (nor how you make others feel), but what you do. Feelings can be rationalized and manipulated at the hands of propagandists and marketers. Actions can be hidden behind those feelings of accomplishment. But actions don’t lie; even though the marketing may tell you they are something they’re not.
Look to the actions, and results, not to the feelings and your place in the comfort zone. By his actions, by his results, I’m not comfortable with Obama.
Obama got elected by the marketers that made us feel that we had a chance. After two years, is that
feeling still there?
people who imagine themselves to be progressives or even wish to make some sort of progress something about the nature of politics. Too many of them don't seem to have a clue what they are talking about. If you don't have the votes to get the legislation you want you don't get it. The constantly recurring theme on the left is that Obama doesn't fight for what they believe he should fight for. If you ask said progressive what they mean by "fight" they get all pissy and start spouting nonsense about showing spine or gonads. Then they tell you all about this wonderful thing called the bully pulpit which magically changes the voting policies of Republicans or even blue dog Democrats to make them shamefully do the right thing and vote for policies that would be electoral suicide in the districts from which they come. If you ask them how this magical pulpit works and point out that the mildest criticism of the left by this same president provoked howls of outrage, some truly epic breast beating and Olympic class pouting and achieved nothing else, what you get is stony silence. Followed by an insult.
Now how this supposed bully pulpit is supposed to persuade Republicans to depart from their very successful strategy of obstruction by way of shame when the very same people have demonstrated (the 9/11 bill being the latest example) that they are absolutely immune from shame is something of a mystery. The fact is that the Republicans have not and will not have any responsibility for governance until the new congress is seated and they were entirely free to pursue a pure electoral strategy. They didn't have to be concerned with proper governance in difficult times when they were in opposition and they chose to exercise that freedom to the fullest. They opposed everything, every way they could. The president, and the democratic majorities, on the other hand are on the hook for governing. They have to deliver the goods and they have to do so in a timely fashion at least as far as economic policy is concerned. The democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate gave only the illusion of legislative control not real control. The Republicans always held the better negotiating hand. They didn't have to defeat every bill, they only had to delay or confuse the issue to be successful. Fortunately they had some serious help from the progressives to create the atmosphere of defeat and failure that helped them so much in the recent elections.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Peter G. Here's wishing you and MsJoanne "Happy Holidays."
See links here
The President has enormous power in the VETO, which can only be over-ridden by a super majority.
That can go a long way in keeping things from getting WORSE.
And he has regulatory oversight of the executive.
This executive is going to allow net neutrality to go down.
Possibly soon to be the end of the conversation here.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
yup. all true.
2012 will be one fcuked up election.
It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
-George Carlin
Why not? Why not withdraw support?
If the political atmosphere is that of negotiation, and appeasement, why not become the squeaky wheel?
Why not put forth the message that unless those policies that we believe in are enacted, the votes will be lost? Why not say that unless those policies which we do not believe in are repealed, the support will be?
Why not become the powerful side in the negotiation of our own future?
Yes, the Republicans have been obstructionists. They have successfully stalled most legislation from the House via the Senate. The few things that take us one step forward, accompanies other things that take us two steps back. In negotiating with Republican obstructionism, it’s a struggle to just stay in place.
So why not fight? Why not raise voices which may echo our values? Why not stay “mad as hell” in an effort to get the grease that the squeaky wheel needs to operate?
have lost virtually all pillars (and the media) of the american democratic system to special interst, corporate interest, and class interest, then the only recourse we have is demonstration (preferably short of revolution) this means, take it to the streets man/woman, get down, get funky and be's up again!
wem
I can tell you why not-
33 million people on health insurance that didn't have it before
An end to pre-existing conditions
an end to having to pay for preventive care
Major credit card reform
Major reform of overdraft fees
Stem cell research
equal pay for women acts passed
the supreme court and judiciary
For more reason go to
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
One that that particular website finds a bragging point: Obama promised to close Guantanamo.
Kind of like those 33 million people who now have health insurance, huh?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
He DID order Guantanamo closed and the Senate Blue dogs refused to fund it. Until you know WHO your enemies are you'll not fight the right battles.
I guess the force wasn't strong with this one.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
That's just out and out bullshit.
Transfer the prisoners to the United States and either give them a trial or let them go. It's what the law going back nearly 800 years through the Constitution to Magna Carta requires and "The Senate Blue Dogs" have nothing to do with that. This is purely an Executive Branch issue.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
You don't know what you're talking about. Here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
Under pressure from Republicans and concerned about the politics of relocating terrorism suspects to U.S. soil, Senate Democrats rejected President Obama's request for funding to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and vowed to withhold federal dollars until the president decides the fate of the facility's 240 detainees.
The decision represents a potentially serious setback for Obama, who as a candidate vowed to close Guantanamo and who signed an executive order beginning the process soon after he took office.
Obama had asked Congress for $80 million to close the facility, located on a U.S. military base in Cuba, by early 2010. Many Democrats see Guantanamo as an affront to the U.S. legal system and a symbol of Bush-era detainee policies, but they are increasingly wary about the next step, as yet undefined by Obama, of relocating the terrorism suspects who are detained at the site.
As recently as last week, Senate Democrats had hoped to preserve a portion of Obama's Guantanamo funding request. But their resolve crumbled in the face of a concerted Republican campaign warning of dire consequences if some detainees ended up in prisons or other facilities in the United States, a possibility that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has acknowledged.
"U.S. jails are typically for U.S. citizens," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "These are foreign terrorists, detained on the battlefield in the war on terror."
Obama will clarify and expand on his Guantanamo plans in a speech tomorrow, senior administration officials said. But his remarks will come too late to restore the funding, which he had sought as part of the emergency Iraq and Afghanistan spending bill that is moving through the Senate. The bill cleared the House last week without funding for the Guantanamo shutdown.
"We agree with Congress that before resources, that they should receive a more detailed plan," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters yesterday. He said Obama will address tomorrow whether the detainees would be transferred to U.S. prisons, sent to other countries or a combination of both.
Once those details are resolved, Gibbs added, "the president and Congress will work together on a timeline for a renewed request for whatever resources are needed." Asked whether Obama's closing date would be pushed back, he said, "There's been no change in the date from the executive order."
But prominent Democrats warned that Obama has little room to maneuver. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters yesterday that "Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president." He added, "We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States."
Reid said the Senate will make sure that any final plan includes a prohibition on the transfer of detainees to U.S. prisons. "Can't put them in prison unless you release them," he said.
To forestall a showdown with Republicans, Democratic leaders unveiled an amendment to the war funding bill that "explicitly bars" using proceeds from the legislation "to transfer, release or incarcerate any of the Guantanamo detainees in the United States."
Republicans said they will continue to press for even tougher language aimed at forcing the military to keep the Guantanamo site in operation. An amendment sponsored by Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) would take the additional step of ensuring that no funds in the spending bill could be used to improve U.S. detention facilities for the possible housing of Guantanamo prisoners. "If we do that, since we know there's no place else, I really believe we'll be able to keep a resource open," Inhofe said.
After Obama ordered the site closed, a Justice Department task force embarked on assessments of the 240 remaining detainees, many of them captured in Afghanistan. Thirty detainees have been determined to be transferable by the task force, but with the exception of one each accepted by Britain and France, the Justice Department has been unable to find countries willing to take them in.
Diplomatic sources said yesterday that any ban on resettling detainees in the United States would probably undermine the State Department's efforts to get European countries to accept those cleared for release. European officials have told their American counterparts that they are unwilling to assume a burden that the United States will not share.
Senate Democrats sought last week to include an initial $50 million in funding for Guantanamo's closure, but they quickly retreated in the face of the Republican outcry.
With few alternatives, some are even echoing the GOP assertion that the state-of-the-art facility should remain open. "We spent hundreds of millions of dollars building an appropriate facility with all security precautions on Guantanamo to try these cases," Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) said Sunday on ABC News's "This Week." Webb added, "I do not believe they should be tried in the United States."
McConnell taunted Democrats yesterday for their rapid capitulation on Guantanamo. "I understand our friends on the other side of the aisle are -- shall I say? -- moving in our direction rapidly."
But Reid said the issue will soon be revisited, noting that the war funding bill is a short-term patch that would be in effect only until the end of the current fiscal year. "We have a lot of other pieces of legislation moving through here in the next couple of months, and we can take care of it then," Reid said. "We're only talking about four months. October 1st, that's how long this bill has to go."
***************************************************************************
Plus he did reduce the NUMBER of prisoners there to just 213, down significantly from Bush. But you stay ANGRY!
You don't know what you're talking about.
Posts that begin like this aren't worth reading, so I didn't.
far left loon >.<
So his post that said "That's just out and out bullshit" was REALLY civil and entirely worth reading? Or is civility based entirely on whether you happen to agree with the person or not?
It's not a matter of personality. I see you as someone that would sell out their values for a pocket full of candy today, and neglect tomorrow.
If you're willing to accept the status quo as the best you can get, that's all you're ever going to get, but it will also get worse.
far left loon >.<
This is a law enforcement matter and the President does not need Congress to approve the transfer or trial of prisoners. How many people are arrested by the FBI or the MP's every single day? You think the DOJ needs specific congressional authorization to hold them pending trial, then to try them?
Utter nonsense.
Which, of course, you implicitly admit when you note that the prisoners have already been reduced without any congressional authorization whatsoever..
And if you're not "angry" at the denial of habeas corpus, then I might ask if there's anything at all that might bother you in the slightest?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
You are correct, he doesn't need congress to approve a transfer of prisoners, nor to order guantanamo closed, he DID that. But if you'll read the article you'll see they blocked him by refusing to FUND it. Last i checked the constitution leaves funding up to Congress.
You should really surrender gracefully since i proved you wrong.
The government is allowed to imprison anyone without charge or trial unless the Republicans authorize funding.
And apparently the Republicans must also approve funding to try each of the thousands of people tried in Federal courts each year.
And just what was the 80 million for, insipid? Cause I'm pretty sure they could have bought plane tickets for each prisoner and ten guards a piece for much less than 80 million dollars. They might have also used one of the thousands of planes that have already been funded and are under Obama's command.
They need a new re-designed prison? Why? Ever hear of Fort Leavenworth? Ever hear of the Federal prison system? Ever hear of the Federal Courts?
We have all those already. No extra funding needed.
But you'd rather just keep people imprisoned without charge or trial until Republicans specifically fund it?
Oh, and just how did he reduce the prisoners at Guantanamo without this ever so necessary funding? Hmmm?
Surrender gracefully? Why? So insipid and Obama can keep me in prison without even formally having to explain why then having to prove it in court?
You may not like the whole habeas corpus thing, but if so, you should work to change the Constitution because it's still the law.
No matter how much you and Obama disagree with it.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Look i just posted anarticle stating how Obama ordered its closing and how Blue dogs blocked it.
He reduced its numbers by either 1. letting many of the obviously innocent go or 2. putting some up for trial. But it's still demonstratably false that he needs congress to approve the funding of a guantanamo closing. Unless if you're saying that the Washington post article is just lying.
Because the only beef here is that he is still refusing to give the Guantanamo prisoners a trial or let them go.
That's it; that's all.
"No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Amendment V, Constitution of the United States.
Who cares if the damn facility stays open if the prisoners receive the due process guaranteed by the Constitution? It's the illegal imprisonment that's the problem.
But you know that, and this funding nonsense is just a red herring.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Don't forget, Obama is also a WAR TIME president, and in order to "keep you safe" and in the interests of, and under the secrecy of "national security" he has pretty much unlimited powers in these areas, just as bu$h did.
far left loon >.<
In 50 years, the intricacies and political realities of why Guantanamo wasn’t closed will be forgotten. What will be remembered is that it remained open. And this is why I hesitate to debate point-by-point whether Obama is doing a good job or not. That determination is subject to the consequences which haven’t happened yet. We can only speculate, and speculation is never ending.
In the mean-time, I want more (sorry to continue this particular alliteration, but I think it helps).
It’s not enough to get rid of the illegal prison. If my voice is to be heard, it will be heard as saying I want the entire base closed. I think it is a waste of money, resources, and extends the cold-war mentality by providing a submarine listening post to the Gulf of Mexico. I don’t think it’s necessary.
What I do like is the Coast Guard station in Cuba. I think that serves an important purpose. The rest is simply military presence that only serves the military. I want the Cuban embargo ended – after 50 years. That too serves no purpose. That is costing the Cuban people.
I’ll leave it to the politicians to enact what they deem necessary to close the prison in Cuba. I’ll tell them that only closing the prison is not enough. I want more. That is my voice.
CIA and closing guantanamo with everything else going on ever complained to their local limbaugh megastation for letting limbaugh selll club gitmo Tshirts and coffee mugs there.
if the left ever wonders how america could allow torture all they have to do is look in the mirror. they let 1000 radio stations trivialize and make excuses for torture so the bush admin and republicans can get their S&M rocks off without a single protest at one of those stations that i ever heard of.
now to blame obama for not slapping the CIA around is pretty fucking pissant.
I once overheard a public defender convince his client to accept a plea bargain by saying, “Life isn’t fair. Be happy with what you get.” The only problem was, I knew his client to be innocent. His deal was not deserved. It was not fair, and he should not be happy with it.
I want more.
I have no problem with speaking out for more. I have no problem with putting the blame on Obama for not having more. He represents me. I recognize the Republican strategy. I recognize the constraints imposed by that strategy. I recognize what has been done.
It’s not enough. This isn’t petulance. It’s not being ingrate. It’s raising a voice.
The Vietnam War wasn’t ended by recognizing the political realities. The voices against the war were not muted by reducing the number of bombs dropped. It was the collective voice of the people that finally forced an end to the war. It was the same with Civil Rights; it was the same with Suffrage.
So I say, why not? Why not continue to raise a voice?
limbaugh station (one of 600) for trivializing and making torture acceptable.
The Club Gitmo T-shirt - When America Was Safe
ECONOMIC STIMULUS! President Obama has issued an executive order closing Club Gitmo within a year. So we have adjusted to changing economic times with a new Club Gitmo design. Club Gitmo: When America Was Safe.
New Club Gitmo slogan/logo with diving board and swimming pool (Water & Board) emblazoned on front and back. Available in Institutional Orange only in sizes: S, M, L, XL, XXL, XXXL & XXXXL!
strawman thrashing 101
. . . well enough that a "Bully Pulpit" can work. Why can't Obama do the same thing? He can get on the Tee Vee and get several tens of times the audience Stewart gets. He got Fox talking about it, fer Gawd's sake.
Whassamatta, Obama?
Chicken?
a bully pulpit. That's why the term even exists. And yes, we wish he had fought harder. Are you saying he has and we just haven't noticed? Would that sentiment extend to the latest tax cut deal? We just didn't notice how hard he was fighting for average people?
And while the republicans were able to basically destroy the governance of this country - I don't seem to have heard too much about that from the White House. Perhaps they've spoken a few words equal to the disdain shown for those who got him elected.
It's not fair or equitable, but like the post says, Obama is the Middle Man.
Last I checked, the D's had 2 years to do something, push something, fight for something. They refused. They failed. THAT is what created the "atmosphere of defeat and failure". The politicians' failures, not the voters' lack of support, is to blame.
force a filibuster... make the jackass from iowa read the white pages, make them pull out the cots, etc.
The fillibuster only works like that in movies. When they did it in the past they did it for the same reason Senator Sanders did, to make a point, NOT because they had to.
Comments are closed on this entry