Obama 
Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 11:23:17 AM CST
|
LANGUAGE WARNING: Today’s story is uncharacteristically blunt, and from this moment forward we will be using lots of inappropriate language in making our points.
Gentle Reader, you have been officially...warned.
With that in mind, if you take offense when confronted with language strong enough to knock a fuckin’ buzzard off a shitwagon, please stop reading now.
It is by now fairly well known that Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s White House Chief of Staff, had a bit of a blow-up with liberals who were ready to start running ads against “blue dog” Democrats who were working very hard to shut down the health care reform effort.
Now we’re not gonna get in the middle of that argument today; instead, since we’re finally getting a chance to talk, I figured me and Rahm could get a few other things out of the way that have been on everyone’s mind for the past year or so.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 1395 words in story)
|
|
Sun Feb 14, 2010 at 10:27:12 AM CST
|
|
From the article: "Franklin Roosevelt, the president we hoped that Obama would be like, had a huge advantage over our new president. At FDR's disposal were powerful mass movements – Huey Long's "Share the Wealth", Father Coughlin's radical racist anti-capitalist broadcasts, the elderly Townsend Clubs, the veterans' bonus marchers and militant labour unions with their sit-down strikes – that were an effective threat, a countervailing force to rich rightwingers eager to destroy the New Deal. FDR's good angel, his wife Eleanor, constantly reported to him about just how bad it was in the real world of the Great Depression. But Roosevelt told Eleanor and anyone else who came to him with demands for progressive change: "OK, you've convinced me. Now go out and put pressure on me." Read the full piece.
|
|
Discuss
:: (11
Comments)
|
|
Thu Feb 11, 2010 at 18:24:15 PM CST
|
The Republicans don’t want the President Obama administration to get credit for anything. They are at the core a southern and racist party. The idea of a black president causes their brains to gag. The presidency was one position that they felt would remain a white man’s position for a few generations more.
My test is two questions?
Were the protestors against the Vietnam war who carried Viet Cong flags traitors?
Were the supporters of the Confederacy traitors?
We are either Americans, act as Americans are Constitutionally supposed to act, or we are traitors.
No ifs, no buts.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Sun Feb 07, 2010 at 22:20:24 PM CST
|
( - promoted by mooncat)
If there could be any doubt, a recent vote in the US Senate is proof positive that Republicans in DC are not negotiating in good faith and not interested in acting in a bipartisan manner -- instead, the are just the "party of no." In the vote, seven GOP co-sponsors of legislation for a fiscal responsibility panel withdrew their support after word leaked that Obama supported the proposal. How can you withdraw support of a bill when you are a co-sponsor? To put it one way, they were for it before they were against it. As Wonkette put it, "It became a problem when Barack Obama endorsed it and Republicans had to find a way to (a) make sure it didn’t pass ever and (b) blame Obama for not passing it from his legislative chair in the executive branch." The bill was officially described as a bill to take "responsible fiscal action, to assure the long-term fiscal stability and economic security of the federal government of the United States, and to expand future prosperity and growth for all Americans." The vote in the Senate was actually 53 in favor to 46 oppossed, but these days it takes 60 votes to pass any bill. After the vote failed, Obama has signaled in his State of the Union address that he will create the commission by Executive Order sometime this week. Unlike the Senate bill's commission, there can be no requirement that Congress vote on the recommendations of the President's commission. What deeply bothers me about all this is that Republicans have made an issue of the escalating national debt -- it is even the chief issue of the Teabaggers, but when they finally have a chance to do something about it -- they back out. Put simply, it shows they are phonies: they are acting in bad faith. Instead of taking action that could the problem, they will likely complain of a lack of bipartisanship and complain that the President has no concern for the issue. That is Republican dishonesty, that is what Chris Matthews while on the Rachel Maddow show aptly called "treachery". It shows that Republicans are not patriots; indeed, they would rather see the Country fail than our President succeed. I am disheartened. Republican hyberbole and distortion won't solve any problems. So, when the Repubs start along these phony complaints of partisanship by the President and Democratic leaders, I, for one, will remember this vote and I will throw it back in their face.
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 13:02:54 PM CST
|
|
New Yorker senior editor, Hendrik Hertzberg, writes about Obama's first year in office in the Nation this week: No-Drama Obama--remember him? Remember that admirable temperament, that ability to peer over the horizon, that poker player's cool? That chess player's sense of where the game will be several moves ahead? That matter-of-fact, unsentimental empathy? That serene immunity to the 24/7 cable/talk-radio/Internet hysteria machine? These qualities of mind and character, which I admired in candidate Obama, I still admire in President Obama. Perhaps that's why I don't see his first year in terms of high points and sharp disappointments. There have been some of each, of course, but he's still up on the bridge, holding a steady course in a violent storm, even as many of the rest of us are clutching the railings and puking over the side. I seldom miss a chance to bitch and moan about the flaws of our wheezing, rusted-out, barely functioning electoral and governmental machinery. So I haven't been terribly surprised at how difficult it has proved for Obama to get his modest, moderately liberal program through Congress, especially the Senate. These difficulties are not his fault. Blaming him--accusing him of cowardice, of not having "balls," of being a corporate shill, etc.--is infantile. To the extent that the left component of the center-left is indulging in that sort of self-destructive, misdirected petulance--well, I guess that's my "sharpest disappointment" of this president's first year.
It's easy to write him off as a east coast liberal or establishment figure, etc. etc. But we heard much the same argument at the Morgan County Democratic Executive Committee meeting in Decatur on Tuesday. Union member (not sure which one), Rodney Gladden, provided a retrospetive of the last decade or so. He began by discussing how the economy has affected his family, reminded everyone of the "clean plate" that Bush II inherited from Clinton and scoffed at bit at those who expected Obama to clean up the huge mess he inherited from Bush in only a year: (the video is on the flip) "It don't work like that."
No it doesn't. It's disturbing to me to watch this playing out because it's just too reminiscent of 1993-1994. After 12 years of Republican presidents, Clinton swept into office with a bold, popular agenda that Congress basically chewed up and spit back at him. And this was a Democratic Congress. The weeping and wailing and endless "self-destructive, misdirected petulance" from many Democrats began almost immediately. I subscribed to a magazine called "The Progressive" at the time. By the end of Clinton's first year, you'd have thought from their articles and editorials that we'd elected a cross between Herbert Hoover and Hitler. By the end of that year, I had cancelled my subscription. As there were no blogs at the time, CNN was filled with disappointed commentary about what a "failure" the administration had been. Now, this wasn't only right-wingers: there were many liberal leaders saything it too. Clinton hadn't changed things enough quickly enough. He was to willing to listen to other sides and compromise. He was weak. He couldn't control Congress (newsflash: only Lyndon Johnson had that particular superpower). The drumbeat went on and on and on. The base was depressed. The opposition was energized. Congress was beset with scandal. And the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress. There was plenty of blame to go around: - Entrenched Congressional "leaders" more interested in personal power and perks killed legislation, porked it up, and disgusted the electorate with their banking scandal.
- President Clinton totally underestimated the difficulty of dealing with Congress and foolishly expected cooperation from members of his own damn party.
But I was most disappointed in those on the left who were just too darn impatient and negative. Change takes time. You have to slow an aircraft carrier before you can stop it and the US government is much, much harder to steer. Obama isn't perfect and I haven't been thrilled by much of what he's done. But consider the alternative: McCain/Palin. God help us all. And consider the ramifications of endless negativity, allegations that Obama is a "useless president," and threats to stay home on election day. Just remember how well that strategy worked in 1994 and that other president who was forced sharply to the right after his first midterm elections. If history repeats itself, Obama shouldn't be the only one who gets the blame. h/t to Ivan for forwarding the Nation article....
|
|
There's More...
:: (40
Comments, 81 words in story)
|
|
Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 10:10:00 AM CST
|
|
In the wake of the devastating Haitian earthquake, nations around the world are racing against time to provide lifesaving rescue equipment, food, and medicine. Few have stopped to wonder why a tragedy of this magnitude has been visited on the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. That's why we have Pat Robertson, who blames the quake on Haitians "deal with the devil." "They said, 'We will serve you if you get us free from the French.' True story." That's right: Robertson seems to suggest the Haitians brought the earthquake on themselves, in a deal with Satan. "And so, the Devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out," he went on. "You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after another."
Why was he discussing this? Oh, it's because he was asking viewers to contribute to relief efforts! Hey, Pat, maybe you should work on your technique a little bit, buddy. Of course, it's not the first time Robertson has blamed Divine (or demonic) intervention in world and national affairs: - He agreed with Jerry Falwell's statement that the 9/11 attacks were a punishment for America's "secularization."
- Israeli Prime Minister Arial Sharon suffered a stroke, according to Robertson, as punishment for cedeing land to Palestinians.
- Hurrican Katrina was a result of legal abortion and gay pride parades in the city.
"We have killed over 40 million unborn babies in America. … Some of the attacks that are coming against us either by terrorists or now by natural disaster, could they be connected in some way?" he said.
If you'd like to donate to earthquake relief, I suggest not doing it through any organization with ties to Robertson and instead using this post from the Atlanta Journal Constitution as a starting point. Oh, and while we're talking about compassion, let's not forget Rush Limbaugh's statement: "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax."
Truly... what's wrong with these people?
|
|
Discuss
:: (9
Comments)
|
|
Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 10:31:56 AM CST
|
|
I couldn't have said it any better, and I'm not even going to try... I encourage you to read the whole thing, but here are a few of my favorite lines: Where is the complete ideological overhaul of the entire federal government? Where is the Gandhi-like pacifism? Why are we sending 30K more troops to Afghanistan? What about my new job, my single-payer health care and my tiny car that runs on sunflowers and hemp popsicles? Indeed, rabid impatience has combined with impossible expectation to give many liberals a free ticket to the land of nonstop bitching. Alas. Conversely, there is all manner of incoherent noise spewing like radioactive urine from the far right, a nonstop wail of childlike panic claiming that, because Obama behaves with unnerving calm, shakes hands with foreign dignitaries and doesn't seem interested in bombing everyone in a turban, he must be a socialist Muslim Nazi hell-bent on banning machine guns and killing all old Republicans in their sleep and replacing them with French-speaking hip-hop jazz musicians. The good news is, both sides are wildly, fantastically, delightfully wrong. As Slate's Jacob Weisberg rightly points out, Obama has had a very first good year indeed, spectacular even, far better than most in major media acknowledge (but they will, they will). [...] Nearly everything Bush tore down and decimated and humiliated to its very core, Obama has either restored, is in the process of restoring, or is set to restore. Even Afghanistan appears to have a coherent framework now (we shall see). And that's just the beginning. [...] But somehow, as I delved in a bit more deeply, as I scanned those lists and noted all the changes in a single year, I found myself reenergized, invigorated, slapped awake at the new tone and direction, the sheer scale of all the changes, and how we are no longer the rogue macho cowboy laughingstock jackass of the world.
Awesome!
|
|
Discuss
:: (7
Comments)
|
|
Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 18:43:50 PM CST
|
( - promoted by mooncat)
We strive to be, if anything, a participatory space around here, and I’ve had a question come to my inbox that is very much deserving of our attention.
To make a long story short, our questioner wants to know why, on the one hand, despite the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, also known as the “stimulus”), unemployment in the construction industry continues to increase, and, on the other hand, why there is such a giant disparity, on a state-by-state basis, in the cost of saving a job?
They’re great questions, and, having done a bit of research, I think I have some cogent answers.
|
|
There's More...
:: (5
Comments, 1427 words in story)
|
|
Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 05:26:00 AM CDT
|
( - promoted by mooncat)
So we are now finding out the answers to some of our questions about which members of Congress actually represent We, the People...and which ones represent, Them, the Corporate Masters.
We have seen a Democratic Senator propose a policy that would put people in jail for not buying health insurance and a Democratic President who has taken numerous public beatings from those on the left side of the fence for his inability to ram something through a group of people...and yes, folks, the entendre was intentional.
But most of all, we've been asking ourselves: "why would Democratic Members of Congress who will eventually want us to vote for them vote against something that nearly all voting Democrats are inclined to vote for?"
Today's conversation attempts to answer that question by looking at exactly how money and influence flow through a key politician, Montana's Senator Max Baucus-and in doing so, we examine some ugly political realities that have to be resolved before we can hope to convince certain Members of Congress to vote for what their constituents actually want when it really counts.
|
|
There's More...
:: (9
Comments, 994 words in story)
|
|
Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 22:42:32 PM CDT
|
|
Or, it could happen to you.
Let's say you purchase a new home in a development with restrictive covenants and a HOA (Home owners association) with yearly dues of $600.00 and you've been paying said dues for the past two years.
Let's say there are 100 dues paying homeowners.
Let's say the developer is in control of the dues and responsible for maintenance and up keep until the development is 100% owner occupied.
Let's say before the development is 100% owner occupied the developer goes bankrupt because the bank isn't making mortgage loans, or because the bank foreclosed on the developer because of the economy and the meltdown of the mortgage industry.
What happens to the Home owners, the HOA and the dues?
Answer below the fold. Warning, it ain't pretty.
|
|
There's More...
:: (11
Comments, 203 words in story)
|
|
Sun Sep 27, 2009 at 18:47:16 PM CDT
|
( - promoted by mooncat)
With a hat tip to Redeye,I'm making this a separate post 'cause there was just too much rolling around in my head about this phony ACORN thing. Anyway, here goes.
"Everything old is new again" so the saying goes. And, it seems that those opposed to change are pulling out the old names for these new (?) times. Some of us are old enough to remember the names that those involved with the Civil Rights movement were called. Think for a minute. Remember now? Communist, Socialist, N-lover, race traitor, etc. So here we are again.
Anyway, what follows are some interesting bits that address this phony outrage over ACORN. ACORN stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. (I'm guessing that the "community organizations' part is why the Right chose to use this particular group's activities to help them bash Mr. Obama.) However, I invited you to read about their history - http://www.acorn.org/index.php... - and what they do, just to be sure of why you may like them or not (form your own opinion :) Never forget that ACORN works hard to empower the poor and minorities; among their many facets is voter registration. Many of those whom they register wind up voting for Democrats. Don't forget that the fake "pimp and prostitute" went to several ACORN offices before getting a bite for their 'film.' Which would mean more offices than not were operating according to standard. They finally get one bite for their scheme, and Congress votes to 'defund.' However, as Jeremy Scahill and Rachel Maddow point out, there may be a constitutional issue that hangs up that effort. Click here to understand 'bill of attainder," - http://www.techlawjournal.com/... - but Rachel explains it better in her piece about ACORN from last week. Also, ACORN is suing, because hidden cameras are illegal in Maryland. Click here to read about the conservative strategy of "defunding the left."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
In 2007, MoveOn.org was chastised for their advertisement which took issue with General Petraeus' assessment of the Iraq war 'Surge.' Click here for more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
In 2004, the NAACP was audited - http://www.commondreams.org/he... - after its former chairman, Julian Bond, had a few choice words about then President Bush's policies. Here is a good chronology of that episode and how it ended.
http://www.ombwatch.org/node/2281
Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh devise all manner of evil talk and nefarious political rallies, and Glen gets the cover of Time magazine and a Katie Couric interview on the CBS Evening News; Rush gets interviewed by Jay Leno. Corporate media and its conservative operators strike again.
(Roger Ailes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Jeff Ballabon
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/ne...
Jeff Ballabon
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2... )
Progressives/Liberals/Democrats are still getting pounded because the national conversation is still being framed by the Right (re-reference corporate media links above). WE HAVE GOT TO CHANGE THAT. The push-back examples in the pieces that follow are good ways to start.
Jeremy Scahill article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Scahill on Rachel Maddow Show
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26...
(video; 30 commercial comes up before the piece begins; about 11 minutes long)
"The Media Fails ACORN" - Rachel Maddow
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26...
(about 11:30)
There is great information in both video pieces; you may want to take notes for snappy factual comebacks at the water cooler - or you can just print out Mr. Scahill's article :) Just remember - this is not about ACORN. It is a political strategy and a devious means to an end. http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
|
|
Discuss
:: (7
Comments)
|
|
Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 06:07:37 AM CDT
|
Missile defense has always struck me as a kind of whiz-bang Maginot Line: a colossally expensive way of lulling ourselves into a false sense of nuclear security. But I live near Redstone Arsenal, an important center of missile defense development, so when I saw an AP story saying that Obama is expected to cancel the Europe-based "missile shield," my first question was how it would affect the part of the state where I live. |
|
There's More...
:: (9
Comments, 219 words in story)
|
|
Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 12:24:40 PM CDT
|
|
I am calling President Barack Obama out! How's that for a news flash? Yes, I am a huge fan of the O man, and I support practically everything he does, (although waliking around all buff and half nude is pretty tasteless, when the rest of us are falling prey to the ravages of age and gravity.) But, calling Kanye West a "jacjass"goes too far. As a proud honorary representative of the barnyard culture, I have to defend the lovely jackass. (I also played one once in the "Mark Twain Show") Kanye West was and is a lout and an overweening egotist, a charge that cannot be leveled at Eeyore or his ilk. Personal stuff below the fold.
|
|
There's More...
:: (8
Comments, 174 words in story)
|
|
Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 12:28:45 PM CDT
|
( - promoted by mooncat)
Read a very good article by Adele Stan that connects a lot of dots regarding this "new" Tea Party movement and its origins. It's a really good read; please take some time to do so... and then pass it along.
"The men behind the religious right make a comeback with the Tea Party movement. Glenn Beck will tell you that this weekend's march of right-wing activists on Washington was six months in the making. Don't believe a word of it. Try 40 years."
"After the 2008 election, liberal pundits declared the religious right dead, as if its primary focus ever was religion. It was not: its primary focus is, and always was, power -- power that ultimately serves the interests of Big Business via the goal of defunding and disempowering those forces that argue for regulation and a social safety net -- in other words, the forces that enact the ideals of liberals and progressives."
http://www.alternet.org/politi...
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 08:17:53 AM CDT
|
( - promoted by mooncat)
So it's the day of the big speech, Mr. President, and we got trouble with a capital "T" right here in Health Care City.
What are you gonna do? Do we follow the traditional Democratic Party legislative process of passing...something...at any cost, assuming the entire time that the Left and the Netroots will "go along with the program", or is there a risk that the calculus doesn't work as well today as it did in 1994 and 1996?
Well, lucky for you, I'm a fake consultant, and I know a few things about your "target market", so before you answer that question...we need to talk.
|
|
There's More...
:: (7
Comments, 1297 words in story)
|
|
Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 12:34:46 PM CDT
|
|
All this time we thought that Glenn Beck was sooooo eff-ing crazy that he just had to be on his way out. Even other Repugs are making fun of him and admitting that his nuttiness goes too far. But Glenn has a friend who will restore him to relevance. I wish our planet and our health care system, and our gay and lesbian community had such a good friend. Van Jones, the so-called "Green Czar" has been forced to resign because of a crusade of lies and mis-information headed up by...yep, you guessed it! Glenn Beck. And who is his ally in this shame and disgrace? You guessed it, President Barack Obama. As Rachel would say..."Yeah, I know". But follow me.
|
|
There's More...
:: (11
Comments, 364 words in story)
|
|
Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:22:12 AM CDT
|
( - promoted by mooncat)
We are coming down to the home stretch on healthcare, and we have seen the results of the first couple of rounds of crazy that have been sent forth in an effort to stop the process.
In addition to the Town Halls, opponents are flooding the email inboxes of America's "low information" voters with no end of lies. Those emails are getting passed around and around and around, and by now some of them have probably appeared in your inbox.
But it's summer...and who has time to respond to this stuff?
Well, guess what, Gentle Reader: I've already done the hard work for you.
Today's story is an email response that you can send right back to your "inbox friends". It's a reminder of some of the frustrations that we all share in this country and some explanations of what's being proposed...and a few words about socialism, to boot.
So get out there and copy and paste and forward and reply, and let's see if we can't fight the madness, one email at a time.
|
|
There's More...
:: (5
Comments, 1779 words in story)
|
|
Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 18:02:27 PM CDT
|
from Bold Progressives.org ... according to news reports, "although House leaders have said their members will demand the inclusion of a public insurance option, Obama has no plans to insist on it himself." In response, we got a truly depressing email from Christian S. in Texas: "Your recent health care ads are great, they hit home. But Obama has decided to drop the public option and for breaking his campaign promise I am dropping out of political activism for the time being." This fight is absolutely not over, but Christian's feelings are real. If Obama doesn't stand firm on the public option, millions of people will lose hope. So today, we're launching a petition to President Obama signed by those who volunteered, staffed, voted for, or donated to Obama's campaign in 2008, asking him to please stand firm on the public option. If that's you, can you sign this petition today? The petition says: "We worked so hard for real change. President Obama, please demand a strong public health insurance option in your speech to Congress. Letting the insurance companies win would not be change we can believe in."
I'd like to go one better: don't sell out to corporate interests Clinton-style. The people who chose you over Hillary were hoping that your shorter record would mean that you had less ties to big business than perhaps almost any candidate in recent history. This isn't about Them, it's about us - the People. Remember us? The ones who are still dying of cancer because we can't afford the drugs? The ones who are going bankrupt at the rate of 2,000,000 a year due to medical bills? Stand up for US, Mr. President. We stood up for you. Big Pharma and Big Insurance did everything they could to keep you out of the White House. We stand together. We voted for change. If that change becomes too much like business as usual, I predict that most Progressives and some moderates will split the Democratic Party in two.  The "trigger option" will be used to shoot the Donkey in the head. RNC will be laughing all the way to the White House.
|
|
Discuss
:: (19
Comments)
|
|
Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 16:50:47 PM CDT
|
http://www.investors.com/NewsA... reports:
Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama...has said he won't support HR 3200 in its present form. That means Democrats need the support of at least 15 Blue Dogs to reach the 218 votes required to pass the health care bill.
HR 3200 is the Health Care Reform bill. Given Davis's history with Obama, one has to wonder what's going on here. Could Davis be positioning himself right of center to appeal to moderate Republicans?
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 14:49:44 PM CDT
|
This is what reform is about. If you don't have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don't believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor - not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies.
The long and vigorous debate about health care that's been taking place over the past few months is a good thing. It's what America's all about.
For complete article see
New York Times Op-Ed by
President Barack Obama
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08...
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
