Obama's brought a spork to a gun fight and we're all bleeding now

[nashville_brook]

A few months ago, in June, Harper's Magazine ran a cover story entitled Barack Hoover Obama wherein the author, Kevin Baker identified a key similarity between Obama and Hoover: that both men refused radical change, instead seeking bipartisan compromise. When the article hit my desk we were only a few months into the Obama presidency and I had hoped that the inertia we were feeling was but a bump in the road -- that, perhaps Obama was working behind the scenes to bring this "change" we'd all "believed in."

This week we find out that he has indeed been sweating it out behind the scenes, only, instead of fighting for us, he's been cutting deals with pharmaceutical companies while Democratic lawmakers are being threatened with violence by angry mobs because they're trying their level best to pass some sort of health care reform, that the president is apparently negotiating away behind the scenes.

And if that wasn't bad enough, we have Rahm Emanuel attacking progressives for being "F*CKing stupid" for trying to get our message out there via television commercials. I'm sorry, but while conservatives are locked and loaded, we don't need Rahmbo sucker punching us for standing our ground.

And so, while I had hoped that Kevin Baker's essay was a premature conniption fit, it seems he was right on target. He predicts accurately that Obama will "refuse to seize the radical moment at hand," which is ironically what Rahm cautioned against when he said a "crisis is a terrible thing to waste."

Despite, or maybe because of the insane accusations of radical Socialism, and "death panels" aching to take little Trig off to the concentration camps, Obama is not approaching the current health care (or economic) crisis like an FDR. He's approaching it like a Herbert Hoover: loathe to upset the status quo.

Baker urges us to disabuse ourselves of the magical thinking that Obama is playing his cards so close to the vest that no one will see his radical turn coming. We have to face the fact that Obama has done nothing yet that's different from the conflict avoidance Democrats are famous for. If he wanted to win this fight, he might have addressed the thousands of people in Wise, Virginia last month waiting for days in line at the county fairground to be seen by Remote Area Medical doctor in an animal stall. But that would have been too "radical." Would have shown his hand, I imagine. Wouldn't want to stoke any passion, now would we?



http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/news/gallery/2007/jul/31/internationalnews/GD4090297@WISE,-VA---JU0019-3661.jpg


Reading this article one realizes the similarities between Obama and Hoover and striking. The received wisdom of the Hoover era is that he he did nothing to address the crisis at hand, but Hoover actually "plunged right in, with a response that was designed to rise above old ideological battles." Sound familiar? He met with key business leaders and had them promise to play nice (same way Pharma has promised to $8 billion in savings over 10 years -- cross their hearts and hope we die). He had a "stimulus plan" of public/private partnership for infrastructure projects, he used the new Federal Reserve to ease credit while discouraging the calling-in of stock market loans. He also created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation empowered to spend $2 billion to bailing out banks, railroads and farms. Hoover did plenty to address the crisis -- he just didn't do anything radical -- or anything that would cause any sort of "ideological conflict."

Obama isn't alone in his refusal to support anything that might excite the populace. Congress is right there with him, happy as clams in a DMZ of a deliberative body, snubbing out ANYTHING that might arouse passion. Regarding congress, TWO MONTHS AGO Baker says:

"...We have seen a parade of aged satraps from vast, windy places stepping forward to tell us what is off the table. Every week, there is another Max Baucus of Montana, another Kent Conrad of North Dakota, another Ben Nelson of Nebraska, huffing and puffing and harrumphing that we had better forget about single-payer health care, a carbon tax, nationalizing the banks, funding for mass transit, closing tax loopholes for the rich. These are men with tiny constituencies who sat for decades in the Senate without doing or saying anything of note, who acquiesced shamelessly to the worst abuses of the Bush Administration and who come forward now to chide the president for not concentrating enough on reducing the budget deficit, or for 'trying to do too much,' as if he were as old and indolent as they are.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- yet another small gray man from a great big space where the tumbleweeds blow -- seems unwilling to make even a symbolic effort at party discipline. Within days of President Obama's announcing his legislative agenda, the perpetually callow Indiana Senator Evan Bayh came forward to announce the formation of a breakaway caucus of fifteen 'moderate' Democrats from the Midwest who sought to help the country make 'the changes we need' but 'make sure that they're done in a practical way that will actually work' -- a statement that was almost Zen-like in its perfect vacuousness."

By staying out of the debate, Obama is acting as if he's got some kind of rough and ready Congress out there fighting for his proposals. Does he think we're not noticing that putting Harry Reid and Max Baucus in charge of shepherding his vision (if indeed he ever had one -- I haven't seen evidence of one) is pretty much like bringing a spork to a gun fight?

Consider the violence breaking out at the Town Hall meetings. Who here isn't feeling abandoned that high profile Democrats aren't out there on the Sunday talk shows, on the nightly news, in the streets fighting for our side. Who here can say the Obama administration has had our backs in this fight? Are they expecting us get involved in these town hall melees when our messages are attacked as "fucking stupid" by the President's Chief of Staff? Why isn't Rahm attacking the teabaggers for being "fucking stupid" for circulating absurdities like "death panels"?

As has been pointed out today, we've been punk'd. We were told to "believe in the audacity of hope." The only audacity I'm seeing is the audacity of hiding behind closed doors cutting deals with the enemy while Americans die because we can't see a doctor.

We've been kicked to the side of the road once again, and if that's not enough we're being attacked for being so "fucking stupid" as to actually think we were going to get any kind of change. Where is there to go from here?

Any ideas would be appreciated.

[DJ13]

1. K&R (but its been neg rec'ed by others)

[villager]

3. the true believer/question nothing crowd is neg rec'ing it...

n/t

[TheWraith]

15. That's because generally I unrecommend nonsensical spam.

This is the same hysterical freakout bullshit that had people bemoaning the end of western civilization over the stimulus bill, claiming it had been so "watered down" that the economy would sink into a depression.

Guess what. They were completely and totally wrong. And the same people who conveniently ignored the fact that they got it wrong last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, still haven't gathered that just maybe Obama knows more about what he's doing than they do.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Who Said That? They Said That It Would Not Cap Unemployment at 8.5%

like Summers/Geithner/Obama said it would, that a larger stimulus was needs to actually turn things around.

And they were obviously right.

[mkultra]

101. unemplyment went higher than expected because they extended bennies twice

[grahamhgreen]

105. Wrong. It went higher because we shipped all our jobs overseas and bailed out the crooks.

[mkultra]

116. sounds only mildy rooted in reason

i would agree that we ship jobs oversees. As far as im concerned, the only answer to that is to open the boarder with mexico and let them in.

[George II]

41. Thank you, I couldn't have have said it better.....

....of course, the so-called "Democrats" here have to find something to criticize about Obama on a daily basis. But, to compare Obama (after a half-year in office) to Herbert Hoover? Utterly ridiculous and bordering on a gross violation of DU rules. But, it if gives the "Democratic" masses here comfort, have at it guys!

UNRECOMMENDED in a heartbeat!

[Greyhound]

57. Speak of the Devil... n/t

[grahamhgreen]

65. But there are no jobs. Just because the banks pumped the money they stole from us into the stock mar

market does not mean the economy has turned around.

[nashville_brook]

91. the right thing to do would have been to reform the system before bailing it out.

now we have no carrots OR sticks left -- and no reform.

[debbierlus]

178. A jobless recovery is NOT a recovery.

[JDPriestly]

93. Things may be "better" on Wall Street, but nothing is "better" where I live.

My friends are still losing their jobs. Houses still sit vacant. For rent signs are everywhere. It's really bad. I can't even think about spending any money I don't have to spend, and neither can anyone else I know.

The wealthiest person I know is trying to refinance her house. Improvement is only felt by the wealthiest on Wall Street.

[grahamhgreen]

106. +1

[bkozumplik]

94. ha.

Obama knows more about what he's doing than we do? (hahaha. mmmm.)

OK Ill bite, rainbow scenario troll--How come health care is being publicly negotiated into oblivion? The mortar is already drying on doing it wrong. And you and I are watching it happen. And your contribution is that we aren't smart enough to understand? Thats a tad .... oh god what word am I looking for here.. oh never mind.

The "Wait and give it time" crowd (I like to call them the lubers) has been wrong again and again and again and again. This is "Keeping our powder dry" yet again. But you say its the "hold the feet to the fire" crowd who ALWAYS get it wrong, but I don't think you've been paying attention to the number of times you've been sold out on key issues by this congress. We should keep pressure on these guys to do the right thing, and by the way, that list circulating in these threads of Obama's successes is kind of sad. Health care, the war, the war criminals, real fiscal change, campaign finance reform, lobbyists!, Fisa, government transparency. Remember any of those promises? You cant weigh a list of things done right against a list of things done wrong and do some sort of algebra on it. You need to lead on the big issues also.

Obama's response to the fiscal crisis is a D. He hasn't changed anything, just thrown untraceable money at the problem. I want to see derivatives eliminated. We didn't need them 20 years ago, we sure as hell don't need them today. They are just a way to speculate and hide risk, not a legitimate marketplace at all. If you want to buy some good and some bad assets, you can just do that. Buy a triple A and buy some less. There, you have your own derivative, and its transparent.

I think you have your "theys" wrong as well. You accuse the progressives here of being the ones who push, "the same hysterical freakout bullshit that had people bemoaning the end of western civilization over the stimulus bill, claiming it had been so "watered down" that the economy would sink into a depression."

Thats the RedStaters, not us. (nice strawman though *YAWN*)
We're Progressives. We want our party to do what they said they'd do. We want some fucking leadership, not to hold hands with the out of power repubs. We don't need to run this place with a coalition government. We need leadership. Nancy, Harry, Obama: stop tiptoeing around changing the status quo and just do it. You are losing time and losing your party.

I want to see a pres and congress someday with the balls to cut the military budget. Tell me, do you think Obama is that man?

[grahamhgreen]

107. MUST READ! Very well said. nt

[chimpymustgo]

121. EXCELLENT post. And welcome to DU! Time to face reality.

"The mortar is already drying on doing it wrong."

You have summed it up.

[nashville_brook]

126. welcome to DU! nice to see some new progressive blood...

you make some excellent points, and i think we're both kinda dancing around an obvious way of stating the problem: we need to do our part to keep them honest.

it's not like you can just wind them up and watch them go. they're like kids: you have to stay on their ass constantly to make sure they aren't getting lost, taking candy from strangers, etc etc.

[Truth2Tell]

135. Welcome to DU! Thanks for the post.

You are not alone here.

[Gin Blossom]

162. Thank you

"You cant weigh a list of things done right against a list of things done wrong and do some sort of algebra on it."

The OP hits a nail on the head. Sporks indeed.

[QC]

200. +1

[cui bono]

202. Excellent!!! Thank you for saying it better than I.

and welcome to DU! :hi:

I don't come here much anymore, or read the comments as much when I do, because it's sickening to hear all the blind followers and their motto of complacency. What a crock. If they think they're helping they are so so wrong. They are hurting this country and helping to allow all the failure that's taking place.

[AlbertCat]

96. hysterical freakout bullshit

Bingo

Have these fake, SMALL but loud Health Care protesters turned anyone? A majority still want health Care reform. The Repugs crow and declare they are winning, the MSM reports that but is it true? The Repugs look desperate and foolish, not the Dems.

[cui bono]

203. The Dems look as spineless as ever as they water down reform so they can look polite and proper.

[pokercat999]

134. Guess what, you only have to wait a few months and YOU

will be completely and totally wrong about the "bailout my friends" bill and the faux economy.

The article was dead on. Who "got it wrong the time before that and the time before that"? Greenspan and Bernacke? It's looks more and more like Mr. Obama knows better but just can't bring himself to do anything about it.

I know it's true we are only a little over six months into his administration but we are still in two unlawful wars with no sign of withdrawal and he has been so inept at healthcare he has all but destroyed any hope for single payer.

The Bush economy is fast becoming the Obama economy and if he continues to make the same stupid moves he will be a one term president and the Democrats will be held responsible for the 2nd great depression.

No one hopes I wrong more than I do, unfortunately I can't see this any other way.

[cui bono]

201. So then what has he done to fire up passion for single payer?

For public option? Why is he meeting with big pharma behind closed doors? Seriously, can you tell me? He is bending over backwards trying to please those who oppose him and he's not even throwing us progressives a bone. If he is/has please tell me when/what it was.

And even if you want to blindly have faith in him and trust that he knows more than us, what is wrong with speaking out and making demands. It's so disheartening to see all the blind followers get so complacent just because he got elected. He's president now, it's time for us to demand what we want when we might actually get it!

[Madrone]

4. Ditto. n/t

[olegramps]

69. Why should anyone be surprised?

You only have to have read Obama's book, Audacity of Hope, to understand his present position. The major theme was that he abhorred the political divide that has been created by the radical right wing of the Republican Party. His dream was a return to the politics of civil discussion that had existed prior to the Reagan era of polarization.

I have to conclude that his hope for civility is wholly unrealistic in today's political environment. If he is committed to real change, such as in breaking the dominance of the Health Care Insurance Industry, then he will have to become as determined and his opposition. This war will not be won with appeal to cooperation, but by brutal tactics. The start should be the demonization of the CEO's of Health Insurance Companies whose only concern is protecting their mega-compensation packages. Nothing could be more effective than clearly showing how these bastards are using scare tactics to solely protect their greed and how those who are their "useful idiots" are being exploited.

Let's admit it, to date Obama is no FDR and the Audacity of Hope has far more too do with temerity than tenacity.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

159. Today's Republicans do not respect civility

At one local Dem gathering shortly after I returned to Minnesota, I spoke with an elected official who was trying to wrap his head about what had happened to the state's Republicans. He said, "In the old days, you might disagree with them, but you knew that both parties had the best interests of the people in mind, just a different approach, and no one got nasty. Now they're just plain vicious."

Since the Reagan years, the Republicans have gradually morphed into a party of bullies, and we all know how compromise works with a bully. Saying, "You can have half my lunch money, is that OK?" is the way to ENSURE a year of shakedowns.

Obama would have been more effective if he had laid down some non-negotiable principles and stuck to them without trying to negotiate with the vultures in the insurance, pharmaceutical, financial, and military industries. It's like a state legislature going to the state prison and asking the serial killers, "What favors can we do for you to stop you from killing again?"

The corporations are supposed to be subject to whatever laws the president and Congress pass. They aren't supposed to decide what those laws are. They're not supposed to.

The fact that Obama is negotiating with the corporations tells me who really calls the shots in this country. It's corporations and the financial industry and the military contractors.

[villager]

2. well, put, Nashville. If these crises aren't really big/profound enough to finally get Democrats

to act -- at long last -- in a meaningful way, then perhaps activists need to seriously ponder a "post-Democratic" strategy, rather than getting caught up, as usual, in the recurring, co-opting, empty promises...

we should know, pretty definitively, very soon...

[nashville_brook]

22. i've been holding back on these darker thoughts for a while -- have indulged in a great deal

of hoping-for-the-best, while objecting to key nominations like Geithner and Summers. bit my tongue while it seemed the public option was a poor substitute for single-payer. sat back waiting for a decent deal to come out of Congress -- and now it seems like all that "good behavior" is being paid back with a giant slap in the face.

i'm not a third-party fan -- prolly lost some good friends who voted for Nader in 2000 b/c i let them know how i felt about that (then Gore goes and puts Lieberman on the ticket, sheesh).

i guess i'm hoping for a "Wellstone-ian" democratic party that may never emerge.

[debbierlus]

177. I have said it throughout this fight- if the dems capitulate to corporate interests on health reform

They have set the table for the emergence of a third party.

Obama won the election based on the hope of true change. If he takes that hope and betrays the people, it will be at the democrats own peril.

[George II]

42. To you guys, better than a "post-democratic" strategy, why not just continue...

....your ANTI-Democratic strategy practiced here??

[liberation]

99. Wow, projecting there much?

The whole point of democracy resides (among other things) on criticism of those in power when due, not blind allegiance.

Not a hard concept to understand, really. If all the Obama sycophants have in their arsenal to defend his policies are name calling and condescending dismissal... maybe you need to look in the mirror regarding "anti-Democratic" attitudes.

[truedelphi]

112. +1. n/t

[George II]

142. Nope, not at all....read the post I responded to...

....activists are those who put Obama into office and won large majorities in both houses of Congress. The fact that they aren't the "correct" activists really irks many. This administration has been in office for just over six months and already the "nattering nabobs of negativism" are unsatisfied. Maybe we should change the constitution and make presidential terms only six months or a year?

I'm not an Obama sycophant and I'm not defending his policies. But I'm certainly not going to jump on the negative anti-Democratic bandwagon I see here.

This is the reason why it has taken so long to get Democratic majorities in Congress and why there have been Republican presidents in 28 of the last 40 years. All the Republicans have to do is sit back and watch the Democrats fight with themselves and self destruct, then swoop in for the victory.

[anaxarchos]

171. Quoting Spiro T. Agnew, are we?

Does he represent the views of the Democratic Party "center", now? Well, he had no use for "the Left" and neither does Obama. But is it really the nabobs, who have had no part of this government, no part in this program and no part in the Democrats' strategy... is it the nabobs who have made this fiasco? Or is this the work of the Pompous Professional Partisans of Pragmatic Political Pandering? Obama doesn't need the Left, remember? All he needs is Rahm, the "center" and the apparatchiks. That is precisely who he's got.

[George II]

172. William Safire......point?

[anaxarchos]

204. Irrelevant factoid...

... as irrelevant as the complaints in your post. Safire was writing speeches for Agnew as well as Richard Nixon at the time (as was Pat Buchanan). The phrase was first delivered by Mr. Alliteration at the California Republican state convention in San Diego on September 11, 1970.

He was delivering the same complaint as you: that somehow he was entitled to loyalty from those whose interests he opposed and who he had intentionally alienated. Perhaps you can call on a "Silent Majority", as well. In any case, the point is moot. While the right openly mobilizes the Fascisti, Rahm tells the Left to fuck off. OK... perhaps you can get the "center" to put on a fight. It's certain that some of them played Lacrosse or Rugby in school... or something. There is a guy down thread who wants a demonstration only for people in suits. Start there.

[George II]

206. You are grossly misrepresenting me, and it is offensively presumptious and erroneously projecting,.

"He was delivering the same complaint as you: that somehow he was entitled to loyalty from those whose interests he opposed and who he had intentionally alienated."

In your mind, what "entitled" loyalty are you speaking of, and who/how have I "intentionally alienated"??? Easy to bloviate, much more difficult to explain.

I eagerly await your explanation. Thank you.

[anaxarchos]

211. It doesn't matter whether you...

... eagerly await or nervously dread my explanation. It doesn't matter whether you are offended or not. It isn't about you. How you may choose to see yourself is as irrelevant as the Safire factoid. This is about the position you just adopted.

The OP was a criticism of the Obama strategy on health care and also reflected a more general disillusionment with the Democratic Party. Instead of addressing or answering that, you dismissed it with a series of unrelated slogans:

"Activists are those who put Obama into office and won large majorities in both houses of Congress. The fact that they aren't the "correct" activists really irks many."

"This administration has been in office for just over six months and already the "nattering nabobs of negativism" are unsatisfied."

"... I'm certainly not going to jump on the negative anti-Democratic bandwagon I see here."

"This is the reason why it has taken so long to get Democratic majorities in Congress and why there have been Republican presidents in 28 of the last 40 years. All the Republicans have to do is sit back and watch the Democrats fight with themselves and self destruct, then swoop in for the victory."

All of these are intended to change the subject to the "loyalty" of the critics, rather than to argue the content of their criticism. In this, you have used Agnew's quote appropriately. He also intended to deflect criticism by appealing to loyalty.

The rest is simply noise.

[George II]

212. I addressed YOUR post straight on.....

....but it was you who went off in an unrelated direction.

Those statements of mine that you quoted are not "slogans" (check the definition of slogan), they were statements of fact. The fact is that many here take every opportunity they can find to criticize Democrats. Not constructive criticism, which is welcome, but simply criticism - "they're bad, bad, bad" with little or no alternative position offered.

You want me to "argue the content of their criticism"? When I see some content I'll be happy to do so.

And while you're looking up the definition of "slogan", you might want to research the context of Agnew's speech written by William Safire (just threw him in since you consider it an irrelevant factoid) - what he was addressing what his perception of the negative press toward the Nixon administration and that they thought there was no substance to the press' criticism - a point that I didn't agree with then or now. He was not talking about loyalty or blind loyalty whatsoever.

The reason "nattering nabobs of negativity" is so appropriate today in this discussion is that, unlike the press' criticism of the late 1960s, the criticism of Democrats in this and other discussion are indeed, lacking content and are simply criticism conducted by just that - nattering nabobs of negativism.

[orleans]

5. rahm's message to dems: SHUT THE FUCK UP!

oh.

ok.

guess we'd better then.



fu

k&r

[bertman]

45. Orleans, you summarized my thoughts perfectly. Thank you.

I highly recommend this thread.

This is no fucking time for bi-partisanship. President Obama should be blowing the doors off the fascist mob machine with the Democratic leadership by his side. Where are they??

Oh, right. They're taking recess.

[enlightenment]

6. Kicked - I refuse to indulge in the playground politics of rec/unrec

but I do appreciate your post (well done!) and the link to the Baker article. Thank you.

[nashville_brook]

23. i totally appreciate the support considering this was unrec'd in seconds after posting.

it takes some juice to rec something once it's gone less than zero.

[slipslidingaway]

7. kick for later nt

[tritsofme]

8. Spending money attacking Democrats, as opposed to Republicans, is fucking stupid.

I can't think of a better way to put it.

But I don't know, if you're essentially complaining that you feel you were taken for a ride by a politician in presidential campaign, I can't really gather much sympathy for you. This is politics after all.

[Barack_America]

13. The "Democrats" that are being attacked aren't Democrats.

As far as I'm concerned, health care reform is THE issue of this generation, and if you're not with us on this, you're against us...period.

[tritsofme]

14. These ads are nothing but counter-productive toward getting a good bill passed.

Ads attacking these congressmen from the left may actually exert more pressure on them to oppose the legislation, lest they appear to have caved into "Washington Liberals" or some other nonsense making their reelection that much harder.

Its fucking stupid, and it sure doesn't help us get a bill passed.

[TheWraith]

16. I agree. Spend the money on winning the spin war.

The Blue Dogs lack a spine. If we smash the Republican opposition in the public square, the Blue Dogs will huddle behind us looking to kiss ass.

[Jim Sagle]

59. Rahm. is that you?

[truedelphi]

115. heh. Heh. Good one. n/t

[debbierlus]

179. These people are PREVENTING a good bill from being passed

They need to be exposed.

There will be no decent legislation, if these people are allowed to dictate the terms.

[AlbertCat]

97. if you're not with us on this, you're against us...period.

Dubya? Is that you?



:eyes:

[debbierlus]

132. Your not with us on mandated private insurance with no real public option

Then, you're against us.

Spoken like a true Bushbot. Only I guess we have to coin a new phrase...

Obamabot

Obama is a corporate frontman.

You are defending corporate fascism. Not democracy.

[nashville_brook]

24. Rahm (Dem leadership) has no biz attacking the grass roots while the reich wing is

threatening revolution.

that's just my "from where I sit" take on things. perhaps there's a "larger" project going on behind the scenes that we should all shut up and wait for. if there is, then i guess i'll just have to be marked down as being wrong on this one.

[eridani]

37. Exactly. Rahm has based his whole career on attacking Democrats

See Cegelis, Illinois, 2006.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. You call it politics but what it is is lying.

And a liar is a liar. A politician who has to lie to be elected is what you call a defrauder of the people, a cheat. A liar.

[Lorien]

73. They are NOT Democrats. They are repugs with a (D) behind their name

because their are more Dems in their districts than repugs.

[Missy Vixen]

9. I'm only sorry I can't recommend more than once

Nobody seems to want to answer my question, either: When will it be appropriate to criticize Obama's complete lack of spine in this issue? People are dying. This is not a joke. In the meantime, he and his family enjoy the best health care money can buy.

I guess if we were smart enough to run for President, we'd have the same, wouldn't we?

:sarcasm:

[nashville_brook]

27. this is a strategy designed for political gain, not meaningful policy - Eleanor Clift writes...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/211069/output/print

Much of the current impasse is a problem of Obama's own making. By leaving the writing of the legislation to Congress and his own wishes deliberately vague, he lost the clarity of message that would have helped sell voters on the need to overhaul a sixth of the economy. This is classic Obama. He doesn't show his hand and leaves people guessing as to what he'll really fight for, if anything. It's a strategy designed to allow him to take credit for whatever passes. He doesn't want a debate about how much he surrendered along the way. By keeping his counsel about critical aspects of reform and playing so much of an inside game, he gave up the bully pulpit, his most powerful tool, squandering the advantage he once held in public opinion.

He did a superb job co-opting most of the big dogs that killed health-insurance reform in 1993, keeping doctors and hospitals in the loop and negotiating an $80 billion deal with the drug companies to narrow the hole where Medicare patients lose coverage. But what he lost along the way is the hearts and minds of people who already have insurance and are scared about what they'll lose if coverage is extended to some 45 million Americans without insurance. In one of the raucous town meetings that popped up on YouTube, the lawmaker asks how many in the audience are without insurance, and not a single hand went up. The outraged voters we're seeing are getting whipped up by conservative media telling them they'll get a bigger tax bill and a smaller insurance package if Obama's ideas take hold.

[truth2power]

58. I can't get an answer to that question, either. When WILL it be appropriate

to criticize Obama? Every time someone says, "He's only been in office for..." it's like fingernails on a blackboard, to me.

Regarding health care reform, it's a time-limited issue. That is, Obama is now saying that we'll have legislation by the end of the year. If he's to be believed, then by January we'll have some sort of "non-reform reform", the way things look to be going. It will be a done-deal.

In that regard, "he's only been in office for..." will be empty rhetoric. I wonder how they'll spin it then?

[alarimer]

10. Neoliberalism does not work.

New Deal liberalism DID work (until the rethugs destroyed it).

Obama needs to study FDR, not Clinton. There are far too many Clinton retreads in this administration and too much adherence on Rubinomics.

[nashville_brook]

30. exactly -- neoliberalism is hiring foxes to fix the holes in the henhouse.

neoconism is removing the henhouse altogether.

[kenny blankenship]

74. IMO Clintonian Neoliberalism doesn't deserve its own separate name

Neoliberal economics is neoliberal economics no matter if it's practiced by Dems or Republicans. Baker says neoliberalism took hold in the Carter years. OK, but that doesn't explain Carter's desire for rational planning in response to the energy crisis that began during his predecessors' terms. Carter was still for an "industrial policy" as a matter of national strategic necessity. He wanted government to organize US industry to address our newly demonstrated dependence on foreign oil. In matters of finance, perhaps, neoliberalism established its beachhead during Carter's term. But it was not irrevocable. That fateful crossing began with Reagan. They even called it the Reagan Revolution. They recognized it as a revolutionary development at the time and they still call it the Reagan Revolution.

I go with that. Call it Neoliberalism, call it "the Washington Consensus"; in the common parlance, it is Reaganism. It is the "Reagan Era." Clinton's policies existed within the context of Reaganism. He represented continuity with Reaganism and neoliberal laissez-faire political economy, although, like Obama, he ran on slogans challenging the established order.

All Neoliberal political leaders will get as Keynesian as they need to be to save their asses when the bottom drops out of the economy. Although he eschewed rational planning of the economy, like Carter's proposals to meet America's long term energy problems, St. Ronald of Reagan had NO TROUBLE embracing "defense spending" as a fiscal stimulus program. Militarized Keynesianism, as Paul Krugman names it, ran amuck for all 8 of his years. (I always just called it National Socialism because it was not in my opinion anything new. ToMAYto-toMAHto.) As Krugman has written, the staunchest free marketeer politicians tend to be unconscious of their resort to govt. directed spending to move the economy when it is expedient or imperative to get out the money gun and spray liberally. Clinton's acquiescence to further financial deregulation and "liberalization" of trade by international treaty was perfectly congruent with the Reagan Bush years. Clinton Neoliberalism is Reagan Neoliberalism. Clinton was certainly smart enough to know he was accepting the Neoliberal leash, but too besotted with pursuing interns and focus group results to care. Obama is likewise smart enough to understand whose ideas he is following and conforming to. It is disheartening to think that he has seen the same financial Armageddon of malfeasance and fraud that the rest of us have witnessed and yet not concluded that Neoliberalism is fundamentally in error. However that is the way it looks judging from his approach to policy and politics. Clintonian Neoliberalism was Reaganite Neoliberalism and Obaman Neoliberalism has yet to distinguish itself from its forebears. Although I still hold out hope, I tend to doubt that it ever will diverge. Obama has spent his life grooming himself to be acceptable to a power establishment in which laissez-faire Neoliberalism has become more and more a sacred, unquestionable doctrine - even as the economic order it rules over has become ever more precarious and transparently fraudulent.

Ron Reagan Jr. shows that SOME of Reagan's children can grow beyond his chilling shadow. So I will hold out hope for Obama and America, though hopefully I will be doing it from the safety of somewhere else.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

160. Excellent analysis

That's exactly how I remember it.

[AlbertCat]

98. Obama needs to study FDR, not Clinton.

Now that I can agree with.

[AzDar]

11. Kick!

:grr:

[inna]

12. KR

[Turborama]

17. There's some footage of Remote Area Medical in action and an interview with Stan Brock on this vid

There's also an interview with Wendell Potter (Insurance Exec Turned Whistleblower) and Dennis Kucinich & Senator Sanders get to put their points across, too: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x349255

A very well written post, thanks a lot. :fistbump:

:kick: & R

[nashville_brook]

26. here's the Democracy Now segment on Remote Area Medical + transcript, if anyone's interested:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/22/uninsured_travel_from_across_us_for

Uninsured Travel from Across US for Free Healthcare from Relief Group Remote Area Medical

As debate continues in Washington over healthcare reform, thousands of Americans in neighboring Virginia are preparing to line up this weekend to receive free healthcare provided by a relief organization called Remote Area Medical. We speak to the group’s founder, Stan Brock.

Guest:

Stan Brock, founder and director of operations of Remote Area Medical.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org.


AMY GOODMAN: As debate continues in Washington over healthcare reform, thousands of Americans in neighboring Virginia are preparing to line up this weekend to receive free healthcare provided by a group called Remote Area Medical.
The charity was originally set up to provide doctors and medicine to isolated communities in the developing world, places like the Amazon jungle, where medical treatment is hard to come by. But the group quickly found itself having to set up in communities across the United States, where medical care is a right millions of Americans cannot afford.
Founded in 1985, Remote Area Medical is a non-profit, volunteer relief corps that provides healthcare free, dental care, eye care, veterinary services, and technical and educational assistance. It’s based in Knoxville, Tennessee, but the group frequently travels to set up relief centers, what’s called “expeditions,” across the country. This weekend they’ll be once again back in Wise County, Virginia.
Stan Brock is the founder of Remote Area Medical, joining us on the phone from Knoxville, Tennessee.
Stan, welcome to Democracy Now! Now, you are the Stan Brock of Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom, that show that was on Sunday nights for I don’t know how many years?

STAN BROCK: Yes, Sunday evenings, 7:00 p.m., as I recall, on NBC.

AMY GOODMAN: And what brought you from that, and what were you doing there, to founding Remote Area Medical?

STAN BROCK: Well, Remote Area Medical history goes back to many years when I lived in the Upper Amazon, and this is before Wild Kingdom. And I was living with a tribe of Native Americans called the Wapishana Indians, and we were—well, it was a very remote area on the northern border of Brazil in what used to be British Guiana. I had a nasty accident there with a wild horse. And while I was being pulled out from underneath the horse, one of the Wapishana said, “Well, the nearest doctor is twenty-six days on foot from here.”
It was about that time that I got the idea of bringing those doctors just a little bit closer. And that’s what we did many, many years later when I formed Remote Area Medical, but subsequently found that there were a lot of people like those Wapishanas here in the United States that didn’t have access to healthcare. And so, 64 percent of everything we do is now right here in America.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about what, for example, you’re about to do this weekend, this expedition that you’ve got in Wise, Virginia. In fact, you’re about to start sending off supplies just after we speak.

STAN BROCK: Yeah. Well, it will be the 575th Remote Area Medical expedition. The 574th ended just last Sunday. And we see many, many hundreds and often thousands of people at these operations. In fact, last year at Wise, Virginia, we did 5,586 patient encounters, with 1,584 volunteers in just two-and-a-half days. And to give you some idea of the volume of medical work that goes on in one of these RAM expeditions, we pulled 3,896 bad teeth there last year, but we did save 1,888 teeth by filling them, so that was an improvement over the year before. But—

AMY GOODMAN: How important is dental for any health plan?

STAN BROCK: Well, that’s a very good question, because even though when you look at the figures at the end of the year, and we see more patients in general medical procedures and consultations, diabetes and heart disease and so on, the dental and vision care are two items that Americans just do not have access to when it comes to affordability in this country. And so, any plan that’s going to provide any type of universal healthcare or partial universal healthcare in this country must address the issue of dental treatment and vision treatment and eyeglasses for adults, because those are the two overriding factors that are bringing people to our clinics: intense pain, so they can’t function, or the inability to be able to read or drive a motorcar or operate machinery, for which they perhaps just simply need a pair of glasses.

AMY GOODMAN: Talking about driving cars, what about doctors crossing borders from state to state? How does that work?

STAN BROCK: The greatest impediment to what we do, Amy, at Remote Area Medical is the fact that for some extraordinary reason in this country, a doctor or dentist or nurse or veterinarian licensed in one state, taking essentially the same exams and having the same qualifications, is not allowed to cross state lines to provide free care, except here in the state of Tennessee, where we had the law changed in 1995. And most of the practitioners that work at our clinics here in Tennessee are from other parts of the United States.
There is a huge reservoir of thousands and thousands of willing medical people willing to cross the country at their expense to provide free care for the underserved. And a stroke of the pen allowing doctors to cross state lines by the US government would take care of that, and it would bring access to many, many, many hundreds of thousands of additional people in this country, as long as those doctors are also protected against frivolous lawsuits. Those are the two items that can make a big difference here: doctors crossing state lines, protect them against frivolous lawsuits.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, you’ve certainly had an effect. Last week on Democracy Now!, we aired an extended interview with the former healthcare executive turned whistleblower Wendell Potter. For years, he served as head of corporate communications. He was the chief spokesperson for CIGNA, one of the nation’s largest health insurance companies. I asked him what motivated him to turn from being an industry mouthpiece to speaking out against the health insurance companies he used to work for.

WENDELL POTTER: I was very isolated, along with most insurance company executives who deal with numbers all the time—profit margins and medical loss ratios and earnings per share and how many millions of members you have, or things like that. It’s just—they’re just numbers. And I didn’t really associate that with real people as much as I should and as much as most insurance company executives should, until I went to visit my relatives in Tennessee.

And while I was there, I happened to learn about a healthcare expedition that was being held at a nearby town across the state line in Virginia. And I was intrigued, borrowed my dad’s car and drove up to Wise County to see what was going on there. And this expedition was being held at the Wise County fairgrounds, and it was being put on by this group called Remote Area Medical that got its start several years ago taking volunteer doctors from this country to remote villages in South America, where people really don’t have any access to medical care. The founder realized pretty soon, though, that the need in this country is very, very great, and he started holding similar expeditions in rural communities throughout the country. And this one was nearby. I decided to check it out.

I didn’t have any idea what to expect, but when I walked through the fairground gates, it was just absolutely overwhelming. What I saw were people who were lined up. It was raining that day. They were lined up in the rain by the hundreds, waiting to get care that was being donated by doctors and nurses and dentists and other caregivers, and they were being treated in animal stalls. Volunteers had come to disinfect the animal stalls. They also had set up tents. It looked like a MASH unit. It looked like this could have been something that was happening in a war-torn country, and war refugees were there to get their care. It was just unbelievable, and it just drove it home to me, maybe for the first time, that we were talking about real human beings and not just numbers.


AMY GOODMAN: Wendell Potter, the former chief spokesperson for CIGNA for years. Stan Brock, your response? He was there where you’re going this weekend, Wise, Virginia, at one of your expeditions.

STAN BROCK: Yeah. As a matter of fact, I’ve heard from Wendell. He’s called me several times, and he says he’s coming up there this weekend to witness this again. What I would like to suggest is that somebody from the administration, perhaps even President Obama himself—what an opportunity to come to one place where there will be—I’m going to give out 1,500 numbers every morning starting Friday and Saturday of this weekend. You’re going to have thousands of patients all gathered in one place. You’re going to have over 1,500 volunteers, doctors and support workers all in one place. What an opportunity to ask these people about their lives and what they need and their aspirations. But, unfortunately, so far, nobody seems to be taking notice of this. And we’ve done 574 of these opportunities.

AMY GOODMAN: People come to Virginia as far as Florida and Tennessee to be treated?

STAN BROCK: Oh, oh, yes, yes. They’re coming from hundreds of miles around. And, in fact, we frequently get people that come all the way from Florida. We’ve had people come all the way from places like Wisconsin, because it’s cheaper to get on Greyhound or even buy an airline ticket and come down and get what might have been $4,000 or $5,000 worth of care taken care of free of charge.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Stan, for those people who are just tuning in and may recognize your voice, again, you were one of the co-hosts of the show Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom. This is a clip of you battling an anaconda with your co-host Marlin Perkins.
STAN BROCK: His great strength seems multiplied in water. What a tremendously effective fighter he is, always on the offensive. He’s got Marlin!


AMY GOODMAN: That’s a clip from Wild Kingdom, and that was you, Stan Brock, in the water. They said, “What an effective fighter he is.” They were talking about the anaconda, right? You were talking about the anaconda, not yourself, but I think it could describe you. Now you’re living, no salary, in Knoxville in an abandoned school where Remote Area Medical is based?

STAN BROCK: That’s correct. But that’s not important, really. You know, life is like a shark. You have to keep swimming to stay alive.

AMY GOODMAN: And the budget of Remote Area Medical now per year?

STAN BROCK: Well, we don’t have a budget, per se. We don’t owe anybody any money. We don’t take any money from the state or the federal government, and would not do so. We operate within our means. We buy equipment when we can afford it. And fortunately, our costs of providing care are extremely low because of all of the volunteer base and the fact that people pay their own expenses to get to these places. One of our biggest expenses, of course, is fuel, fuel for trucks and fuel for airplanes that we have to use. And so, we really need—we could use a large oil company as a sponsor.

AMY GOODMAN: If people want to help, doctors, nurses, if people want to help in any way, where do they go online, for example?

STAN BROCK: Our website is very simple. It’s www.ramusa.org.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Remote Area Medical USA dot org, www.ramusa.org. Stan Brock, thanks so much for being with us. Good luck in your next expedition this weekend in Wise, Virginia. Yes, Stan Brock, formerly with Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom, now founder of this organization that’s spent a lot of time around the world helping people who don’t have access to medicine, now focusing right here in the United States. It’s called Remote Area Medical.

[truth2power]

61. I think David Broncaccio also did a show on this on PBS, NOW several weeks ago. n/t

edit> typo

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Politics-as-usual in a corrupt system run by corrupt politicians on the payroll.

But, tinkering with it and promising "change" works for the apologists who, as usual, preach patience and trust for politicians.

[nashville_brook]

31. seems like the only way to get legislation for the people is to outbid the lobbyists - and even then

i wonder if it would work.

[lwcon]

19. Spork?

I thought it was a spoon. And a rather dull-edged one at that.

:)

[Greyhound]

63. Spork is so much funnier, though. n/t

:rofl:

[truth2power]

66. I think that's a great image...

:P

[GreenPartyVoter]

87. This is one of those really flimsy plastic fast-food joint sporks, though.

[Skidmore]

20. Oh, BS. The one thing the American people have forgotten to do is to be citizens

and go beyond poltical gamesmanship. Obama has tried to reset the government--as in....the legislature makes the LAWS and doesn't just rubber stamp something fed to it. For the Congress to do its job we need to seize every opportunity opened to us by exposure of their political gamesmanship and hammer them (D&R, alike). This mess is the result of years...no, decades... of this type of crap. Instead of turning on one another, lets start getting into the streets and putting the boot where it will do the most good. Obama then can sign the resulting legislation...or veto it.

YOU do your job the same way we did it during the election.

[grahamhgreen]

153. We did our job. Time for him to represent us. 64% want Universal HC

[nashville_brook]

21. wow -- i expected this to sink to hell while i went to Publix. thanks for the support, ya'll.

[grahamhgreen]

155. Now look what you gone done done!

:yourock:

[Turborama]

156. This one about RAM did plummet like a lead balloon, must have been the title...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6261349&mesg_id=6261349

[scarletwoman]

25. K&R -- Excellent post!

This is the most telling part for me:

We have to face the fact that Obama has done nothing yet that's different from the conflict avoidance Democrats are famous for. If he wanted to win this fight, he might have addressed the thousands of people in Wise, Virginia last month waiting for days in line at the county fairground to be seen by Remote Area Medical doctor in an animal stall. But that would have been too "radical."

That pretty much says it all -- If the push for healthcare "reform" was REALLY about taking care of the People, Obama and the Dems would be using this event as exhibit #1 and pushing for single payer.

sw

[malaise]

32. Yep

I had the same thought.
That said, Obama can't change anything without massive demand and support from the people. Health care will not change until citizens treat it as a civil, political and economic right. There is no life, let alone liberty without health care.

[nashville_brook]

34. TPM -- A Health Care March On DC -->>

A Health Care March on Washington
August 4, 2009, 11:10PM

All this hand wringing over teabaggers at town hall meetings!

Republicans don't want a debate, they want a debacle, something to distract the media from any serious consideration of what's actually at stake. But it's futile to worry the point. The media need a narrative. Let's give them one. Let's march on Washington. (I know this idea has been raised before; if there's anything in the works I'm unaware of I invite your commentary.)

There are advantages and pitfalls to planning a march. Does sufficient interest exist? My gut tells me its out there. In spades. If that's true, and we produce the type of rally I'd expect, the teabaggers get dunked. (i agree -- brook)

We should be careful not to step on our own message. The likely participants are a diverse group with varied interests and a range of opinions on what's needed. The rallying cry, I believe, should be non-specific: "A Health Care March on Washington!" The goal is to frame only the problem, not the solution; there are better venues for that.

Imagine an endless stream of speakers taking turns at the podium, real people, each with a deeply personal story to tell. We'll hear from those who could not obtain insurance, whose claims were denied or whose policies were rescinded. We'll hear from doctors who've been thwarted in their ability to help those in need, from family members who've suffered along with a loved one, from mothers and fathers bankrupted by caring for a sick child...the list goes on and on.

How many column inches could we fill? Who would dare shout us down? This could be a watershed moment, a truly historic event. And what politician wouldn't think twice about being on the wrong side of history?

[malaise]

35. That's the only approach that will work

and not just marches in DC

[nashville_brook]

36. sure would be nice if some of our media people would hype something like this the way FIX hyped

the teabagging soires.

[grasswire]

83. this will only work if it is isn't co-sponsored by lefty fringe groups...

...like save the whales, free Leonard Peltier, and various assorted groups of puppets on stilts, drummers on weed, yada, yada, yada.

Marches usually drive Americans away from the cause because every opportunist Marxist or face-painter sees the event as a way to party.

Now, if marches resembled those of the Civil Rights era, we might get somewhere. Serious people, in their best suits and dresses, assembling, assembling, assembling as if they mean business.

That would work. It would scare the hell out of the halls of Congress and the WH.

It would work.

[JDPriestly]

95. What would we be marching for?

That, I am beginning to see, is the problem. No one really knows what kind of plan is proposed. President Obama has so mangled the health care bill process by not strongly coming out with minimal requirements for a bill and sticking to them come hell or high water that even we don't really know what we would be marching for.

[nashville_brook]

122. that particular writer cites the need to show a presence in support of reform, generally -- but,

your point is extremely well taken! i couldn't agree more that we have no idea what's what wrt a bill/plan/law/scheme/whathaveyou.

[pokercat999]

140. Maybe I'm wrong or have old-fashioned ideas but I thought that

LEADERS were supposed to fucking lead. That means take the reins, stick your neck out, kick ass, take names, be the one out in front, on point.

[FatDave]

28. So let me get this straight: Hoover's mistake was that he tried to compromise with democrats?

The Great Depression would have been averted if he'd just gone with a radical but purely republican solution? Are we out of our god-damned minds?

[nashville_brook]

29. Hoover's mistake was that he relied on "gentleman's agreements" when meaningful law was needed.

you can't be everyone's buddy and get us out of these giant crises.

[Bluenorthwest]

40. Obama's great weakness is his desire to avoid all conflict

coupled with his delusion that conflict avoidance equals conflict solution.

[nashville_brook]

48. that's the thesis of the Harper's article. Baker does a wonderful job of reminding us of Hoover's

real approach and legacy. most people think he came in without any desire for change and that's simply not true. it's just that his approach (conflict avoidance) didn't help very much.

the upside is that Hoover's inability to seize "the radical moment" galvanized the country behind FDR. did Hoover make FDR possible? that's a wonderful question. who will Obama "make possible" is also a good question. hopefully we won't see a swing back the GOP -- hopefully in 2010 we'll see people ousting the Blue Dogs, who are the real obstacles to any sort of democratic-led "change" agenda, whether it's Obama's or who he "makes possible."

[liberation]

100. That is one of the most creative strawmen I have read in a while... bravo!

.

[anaxarchos]

33. Not Hoover... Friedrich Ebert.

Ebert looked a little like Hoover (when he shaved his mustache), so it's understandable.




Meanwhile, the commentators are whining: "Why isn't the left counter-demonstrating?"

Umm... I can think of a couple of reasons.

[Ken Burch]

50. Ah yes, Friedrich Ebert...the genius that, like Rahm, armed the Freikorps

And who would do anything but ally himself with the part of the spectrum he was supposed to be representing-the socialist left.

Ebert was responsible for the murder of Rosa Luxemburg, a woman who, had she lived, would likely have saved Germany(and Europe)from both Hitler AND Stalin.

And it was all about being "moderate", "mainstream", and "respectable".

And thanks to him, Germany ended up with these guys:



That's where "moderation" always leads you folks.

[Hardrada]

164. You are right save for the fact that Ebert's fault was that he

did not disarm the Freikorps, many of which were former infantry and cavalry regiments that did not demobilize after the fall of Imperial Germany (and later were incorporated into the Reichswehr. Also on Ebert's watch.) The units had arms from the wartime and never relinquished them.

[Ken Burch]

193. OK, he didn't arm them, but he did ENCOURAGE THEM and make an alliance with them

When he should have listened to people like Rosa Luxemburg and made a clear, absolute break from the capitalist, imperial past rather than allying himself with the worst of them in order to look "moderate".

[democrank]

43. Thank you, nashville.

Since I know a thing or two about fighting for what`s right (ending the Vietnam War, civil rights, women`s rights, etc.) I`ll just ignore the go-along-to-get-along crew here that always nods no matter how inept and passive Democratic leadership is. We`d still have separate black and white water fountains if we had taken the...do whatever you want and I won`t say a word...doormat approach.

No, I don`t believe in blowing up statues or breaking store windows, but we need RED-HOT change, not the tepid make-believe makeover some Democrats are cheering. Stand for something. Hold their feet to the fire. Vote them out if they don`t listen...all of them if we have to.

[nashville_brook]

44. would be great if we could "nice" our way to positive change...

but that's not how things work. confrontation goes with the territory. especially when we have members of our own party confronting us (Rahm, Blue Dogs), it's our responsibility to stand up and stand against those who would have us move to the back of the bus.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nightrain]

46. knr. Thank you. Fantastic synthesizing article. I have that

Harpers article too, and the similarities are quite disappointingly real. I think we ought to look again at Saul Alinsky's model of change, and have some constructive conversations about where to go next. Obama sure ain't taking us where we want to go... (yet). People's Congresses to debate and hone our points/plan. He told us to "make him do it", well, let's start!

And if we think that the only place change comes from is Congress or the Presidency, we are selling ourselves very short.

[nashville_brook]

52. right on, on both counts. Alinsky - yes. Grassroots change-agency -- yes, YES.

The legislative and executive branches are driven by a survival instinct that has them seeking political cover when they should be making policy and being leaders. So be it -- lets give them the political cover they need by applying pressure where it's so richly deserved.

[Kermitt Gribble]

47. "Where is there to go from here?"

The Democratic Party has been infiltrated by republicans/republican lites past the point of no return. The only option I can see is a third party. There are only a handful left in all of congress that actually represent us - maybe they can eventually be persuaded to head a new party to oppose the money party.

[nashville_brook]

54. with more than 80 members, the Congressional Progressive Caucus dwarfs the Blue Dogs

one of the most aggressive complaints of the DLC Crowd here at DU and in the beltway, is that "democrats shouldn't 'attack' democrats." Meaning: progressive dems have no right to critique the Blue Dogs for abandoning the party when they side with the GOP. this is seriously backwards. we have every right and responsibility to seek the election of Dems who can manage to vote with their colleagues.

[Kermitt Gribble]

67. I would count any congressperson

who has signed on to hr676 as being on 'our side', meaning on the peoples' side (might as well throw the Employee Free Choice Act in there too). The way I see it, the health care reform issue has exposed our govt for what it's real purpose is, which is only to benefit the corporations. Maybe this is what Obama intended, maybe not. At the risk of sounding radical, the CPC recently backing away from a public option 'for the good of the party' makes me question their motives as well.

[Eyerish]

49. K&R

[Fiendish Thingy]

51. k&r - great post! It's a five alarm fire- we need more than a garden hose.

Reminds me of the film "Gangs of New York"; back in the 1800's fire brigades were paid by the insurance companies to limit their losses. If you didn't have insurance, they let your house burn, only keeping the fire from spreading to the buildings insured by the companies.

I, too, have been scratching my head about why Obama didn't seize the opportunity to appear at the free healthcare event in VA. Even Bill Clinton might have done that.

I think it will take a concerted effort to oust the Blue Dogs, appearing at their campaign rallies, disrupting as the teabaggers have done, to present our side of the healthcare issue- the truth. Only in this way can we counteract the neo-liberal/corporatist influence (Emmanuel, Geithner, etc.) in the Obama administration.

[nashville_brook]

56. emerging from this debate is the uselessness of the Blue Dogs -- list attached:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

Jason Altmire (PA-4)
Mike Arcuri (NY-24)
Joe Baca (CA-43)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Melissa Bean (IL-8)
Marion Berry (AR-1)
Sanford Bishop (GA-2)
Dan Boren (OK-2)
Leonard Boswell (IA-3)
Allen Boyd (FL-2)
Bobby Bright (AL-2)
Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
Christopher Carney (PA-10)
Ben Chandler (KY-6)
Travis Childers (MS-1)
Jim Cooper (TN-5)
Jim Costa (CA-20)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3)
Lincoln Davis (TN-4)
Joe Donnelly (IN-2)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-8)
Bill Foster (IL-14)
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8)
Bart Gordon (TN-6)
Parker Griffith (AL-5)
Jane Harman (CA-36)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration
Baron Hill (IN-9), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy
Tim Holden (PA-17)
Frank Kratovil (MD-1)
Jim Marshall (GA-8)
Jim Matheson (UT-2)
Mike McIntyre (NC-7)
Charlie Melancon (LA-3), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications
Mike Michaud (ME-2)
Walt Minnick (ID-1)
Dennis Moore (KS-3)
Patrick Murphy (PA-8)
Glenn Nye (VA-2)
Collin Peterson (MN-7)
Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
Mike Ross (AR-4)
John Salazar (CO-3)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
Adam Schiff (CA-29)
David Scott (GA-13)
Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip
Zack Space (OH-18)
John Tanner (TN-8)
Gene Taylor (MS-4)
Mike Thompson (CA-1)
Charlie Wilson (OH-6)

[JDPriestly]

124. Jane Harman is a Blue Dog but supports a robust public option.

Representative Jane Harman (D-CA), senior member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, issued the following statement after voting against an amendment to HR 3200 – America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 – offered by members of the Blue Dog Coalition who sit on the committee.

Though the amendment passed, in Harman’s view it significantly weakens a key provision of the bill – the public health insurance option.

Said Harman: “I have long made clear my disagreement with the Blue Dog Coalition’s position on healthcare reform. I vigorously opposed the Coalition’s so-called “trigger” on the public option, and fortunately it was not in their amendment. Nevertheless, I worry that the public option is weakened by changes contained in this amendment, and my "no" vote signals my hope that Congress will ultimately pass the most robust possible public option – which I believe is the key to fostering competition, quality, availability, and affordability of health insurance.”

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca36_harman/731_NoVoteonBDAmdt.shtml

[varelse]

53. "We have to face the fact...

...that Obama has done nothing yet that's different from the conflict avoidance Democrats are famous for. If he wanted to win this fight, he might have addressed the thousands of people in Wise, Virginia last month waiting for days in line at the county fairground to be seen by Remote Area Medical doctor in an animal stall.

He doesn't just "want" to win this fight, he *needs* to win this. His second term and much of his "political capital" are riding on it. If he loses this, he loses everything. That said, there may be other reasons he's still (seemingly) not taken the gloves off, but it's difficult not to draw sinister conclusions when talks are held behind closed doors, and single-payer advocates are shut out of even the public discussions.

[Kitsune]

55. We are so screwed.

I have pretty much lost faith in our system. Both parties are wholly owned subsidiaries of the health care insurance mafia, if we can't with majorities like this even get a strong public OPTION. I'd say "is it 2012 yet?" but we won't get any real change then, either.


We are, so, so screwed if this is the best we can do.

[Echo In Light]

62. Every cycle there's just enough people to perpetuate the illusion since it's based on a game format

...that they love to participate in.

[Orsino]

60. For decades we let the corporations buy all the figurative guns...

...and we blame President Obama for being armed only with a spork?

As much as I would like to see him press for more progressive change, I have to approve of his coalition-building. I think it's the only way left to effect big change: slowly, and by popular acclaim.

[rhett o rick]

72. You must be joking. "coalition-building"? CorpAmerica and their lackey republicans

and Blue Chicken Democrats aren't about to compromise one single iota. Give one example of what CorpAmerica has given up toward "coalition-building". He is giving away the life boats as the ship sinks. We need single payer and he has already compromised that away. We need a STRONG public option and that looks doomed. We need to be able to negotiate drug prices with big pharma, and he has given that away. What have we gotten in exchange?

If you haven't noticed that even after the Pres compromises with the right, they still vote against him.

No compromising with the devil. And that includes the Blue Chicken Democrats.

[Orsino]

75. One strong example...

...is his approval rating. He's competing for our hearts and minds, and that means compromise. He's had to eschew progressive language, and has had to deal with the worst of corporatists.

[rhett o rick]

81. His approval rating is dropping because he is abandoning the promise of change

A strong majority of Americans favor decent health care reform, yet he is caving into the big money. It's because he is compromising away health care reform.

[Orsino]

85. His approval rating is fluctuating with the wind direction and phase of the moon....

...and is also influenced by public perception of Congress.

[rhett o rick]

104. You said his approval ratings were a "strong example" of coalition building.

Now you say his approval rating are "fluctuating with the wind direction...".

In either case you didn't provide one bit of evidence of coalition building. He is giving in without getting anything in exchange.

You say he should get change slowly with popular acclaim. HE HAS POPULAR SUPPORT NOW. THE PEOPLE WANT HEALTH CARE REFORM NOW, NOW, NOW. He is negotiating with the big money and they won't give an inch.

A health care bill w/o at least a very strong public option is worse than what we have now.

Why do I feel you do not support single payer nor strong public option.

The polls show that America wants health care reform and NOW.

[Orsino]

109. His entire campaign was coalition-building.

He pissed off nearly as many on the far left as on the far right with this necessary triangulation.

If I thought that he could get us the single-payer we desperately need, right now, I'd be demanding that we do so. All he can do, however, is lead a corrupt, timid and easily-distracted Congress in that general direction. I would be gratified by fiery speeches denigrating anything but single-payer, but that's not going to make it happen faster.

[Bread and Circus]

64. K and R. I'm finally getting disillusioned w/ the Obama administration.

[Dystopian]

68. KandR. Slow death by the spork.

peace~

[Gregorian]

70. What would these townhall meetings look like were Kucinich president?

I've been realizing just what goons comprise too large a fraction of this country. And it donned on me that had Dennis been elected, we might be seeing something far more radical going on. I mention this because I think Obama knows just what he can and cannot do. It's sick, and sad that we're such a retarded country that we cannot even do what is best for us. America has the delirium tremors. We're a bunch of corporate drunks.

Smoke pot, and you can go to jail. Let an entire country languish without health care, you get huge rewards.

Most people are afraid of change. That's what this is boiling down to. A stagnant, ignorant, lazy group of idiots. And by idiots, I mean intelligent people. They aren't stupid. But they might as well be.

[Lorien]

76. Sad but true. There is no depth to which America will go that WON'T be

just peachy keen OK to the majority. They'll whine to friends, family and coworkers, then do nothing. LOST is on, let's watch TV and eat fast food and forget about the troubles of the world. :crazy:

[Lorien]

71. Are we mobbing our congress critters? Are we marching on Washington?

Are we shouting down the thugs at these events? Are we burying our reps in piles of letters and emails? No, as usual we, the Democratic constituents, and talking among ourselves online an hoping that that alone will accomplish something. Not everyone of course-some are getting out there-but the majority are not. I've tried countless times to organize action here with very little success. "Letters don't work" "Marching accomplishes nothing because of the mainstream media" "The MSM won't cover it because they're conservative-but let's not bring back the Fairness Doctrine! It's not needed. Rush said so". "We're above all that"! It's not just our reps who are comfy with the status quo and resistant to taking action, it's US. If everyone on DU spent as much time pressuring their reps as they do posting comments on this site we might see a little movement, but it won't happen. There is no situation that is terrible enough to motivate all of us to come together and work toward a single goal.

I know many people who vote for repugs for one reason and one reason only "The GOP stands for something and they do stuff. The Democrats whine and do nothing". I've been hearing that for over 20 years.

[Karenina]

128. American voters bullshit American politicians as much as American politicians bullshit American vote

bullshit American voters:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x470395

[nolabels]

77. I am loathe to upset the status quo myself

I think we should just strangle it in it's sleep :evilgrin:

[earth mom]

78. Great job connecting all the dots even though so many are in denial around here.

I have NO doubt that Karma will bite the apologists in the ass after the smoke clears and we're all left at the mercy of the insurance companies and pharma giants after they extinguish every bit of hope that we all have for single payer and we are stuck with their new version of highway robbery.

The medical industry bastards will NOT show us any mercy.

[OwnedByFerrets]

79. Yes, why isnt Rahmbo attacking the true enemies of Democracy?

[balantz]

80. K&R. Thanks for a good post. n/t

[abq e streeter]

82. I read that Harper's article several weeks ago, and the author made his case extremely well.

He started by explaining in some detail that Hoover was not the evil,and inept man who was content to fiddle while Rome burned that he's been made out to be. He was a brilliant, successful and more than decent guy who was trapped by his own faith that ways that no longer worked ,would still work. And that is the comparison to Obama that was made. I see that someone above has stated that making that comparison is a "borderline gross violation of DU rules" . ( I hope that referring to and criticizing a post on the same thread is not "calling out" which IS , reasonably against the rules). I used a similar metaphor to the "spork " one in a post yesterday or the day before ; something like: "trying to stop a mugging with a polite law school debate"...The comparisons to Hoover were intelligently researched and expressed and I for one refuse to be one of the "hold my hands over my ears and shout la la la la" I can't hear you" crowd that refuses to consider the possibility that at least so far, the Obama administration is blowing their big chance and maybe America's last chance. I don't know that I have any more ideas on how to stop all this capitulation our pathetic party "leadership" seems to have at the core of their being....My view of America at this point is "stick a spork in it, it's done". And yet I'll continue to try to act as if there were some hope left and the patient still has a fighting chance to survive even though my heart tells me it's terminal. I contact my congressman with my opinions, sign petitions ( one just this morning to Fox "News" advertisers)... I obviously could do lots more and I'm rather ashamed that I don't, but again, at some point, I've given in to exactly what the big money that runs this country wants: just another citizen who has basically given up and is saying, OK ,I get it, you win...

[nashville_brook]

89. "trying to stop a mugging with a polite law school debate" is actually more to the point.

because that's more literally what's happening.

what are we to make of the fact that MoveOn or any one of a dozen other orgs hasn't yet attempted a mobilization for a march or localized demonstrations. i really can't get my head around this.

i had your same reaction to the article. i thought, "this is the Hoover we've come to know in pop culture." the article is worth the read for the history lesson, let alone the political insight.

thanks for the thoughtful comments -- i'm with you in the constant tension between despair and action. i guess we do what we can b/c to do otherwise would be too bleak. on this note, i gave $50 bucks to moveon last week as a response to their "this is getting ugly" email. they say: We've got a plan to fight back against these radical right-wingers. We've hired skilled grassroots organizers who are working with thousands of local volunteers to show Congress that ordinary Americans continue to support President Obama's agenda for change....blah blah blah.... i sincerely hope they do more with the money than just make more online tools. we have to get out there and put our bodies into it.

[Kaleva]

84. Hitler's radicalism got us out of the Depression

FDR's policies kept this nation from descending into anarchy but there is a great debate as to what finally broke the Great Depression. Was it the New Deal or US preparation for war which began in the late 30's?

[liberation]

102. That is the "new and improved" revisionism of FDR by the GOP...

... they fail to address how a society still in the midst of a "great depression" was able to not only outproduce but to outfight the two major military powers of the day, concurrently.

It is the new framing from the military-industrial complex guys, now claiming how 'they saved the day' when in reality, they took the recovery ushered by the New Deal and ran away with it.

[Kaleva]

158. It's not new. It's a debate that's been going on for decades.

And it's a debate that will never produce a clear cut answer as one cannot go back in time and stop WWII from taking place to see if the New Deal would have brought this nation out of the Great Depression or cancel out the New Deal to see if the economy would have recovered faster then it did.

[grasswire]

86. Obama is running for reelection.

That's the plain damned fact.

[Myrina]

88. "Zen-like in its perfect vacuousness"

... that's the most fitting description of Evan Bayh I've ever read!!

[Hamlette]

90. FDR's #1 goal was health care for all. He couldn't get it at the height of the depression

since then, health care companies and big pharma have grown more powerful and rich. We were kidding ourselves if we thought this would be easy.

[joeybee12]

103. Truman attempted it also...not too strongly though because he

soon realized what he was up against.

[debunkthelies]

92. Cutting Deals with the Pharmaceuticals???

While the health care debate is going on, the back room deals on the Swine Flu Vaccine is stealthily on track. This article from "Nutrition and Healing-Christine O'Brien" I received this morning;

Dear Reader,

Last week, I wrote about the frightening prospect of swine flu vaccines being approved without trial data on safety and effectiveness ("Swine flu vaccines not proven effective? FDA wants you to get them anyway!," 8/3/09).

Instead of waiting for results, they'll start vaccinated people and tweak the process as data comes in. You know, effectively making anyone who chooses to get the vaccine a guinea pig in a very large experiment.

You'd think, going down this path, steps would be taken to protect the public in the event something goes terribly wrong.

Yeah, you'd think that, wouldn't you?

But, surprise surprise, last month the Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius signed a document granting legal immunity to vaccine makers and federal officers.

That's right—should people suffer side effects (or worse) after receiving the vaccine, they have no one to go after. Meanwhile, Big Pharma can breathe a sigh of relief, knowing they don't have to answer for any harm.

You see, back in 1976, 40 million Americans were vaccinated against swine flu. There was no pandemic, but the vaccine left thousands with side effects including paralysis. The government ended up paying out a good amount of money—something they're not anxious to do again.

Of course, this is all in the name of "encouraging drug companies to make vaccines." The government is afraid the possibility of, you know, actually ANSWERING for the consequences of their actions will keep them from researching and manufacturing the drugs. What, the possible flood of money isn't enough motivation?

So, in the coming months, the government will ask millions of Americans to "do their part" by lining up for the swine flu vaccine. An unproven, possibly unsafe shot...and if it does, in fact, end up doing more harm than good, there's no safety net whatsoever.

All you'll be left with is the sinking feeling that you've been duped into taking part in a massive, dangerous drug trial.

Yours in good health,

Christine O'Brien

[DailyGrind51]

108. FDR, Harry Truman, LBJ, and Bill Clinton would call out opponents by name,

and challenge them point by point on the issues.

[diane in sf]

111. I'm putting my next round of donations into progressive Dems, no national organizations

[truedelphi]

117. Same here. And we are writing to the WH

To ask for a refund for the donations of Fall 2008.

Whatever monies Obama is getting from the Wall Street bonus crowd should well allow him to re-imburse us fucked over little people for our faith in someone who could care less.

[tomreedtoon]

113. Okay, Nashville_Brook, what kind of guns do YOU recommend?

It's obvious that Obama is not radical enough for your taste, not sweeping enough for your change. So how would you suggest we arm ourselves and when will we overthrow the Constitution?

And yes, I am putting all this on your shoulders, and on all the others for whom Obama didn't "go far enough." Because, although we Americans are hurting, most of us are not ready to toss aside the entire system which we have grown up in for something cobbled up by uninvolved intellectuals.

As pointed out quite often, Obama won. Not Lyndon LaRousche, not Clem Kadiddlehopper of the Fertilizer Bomb Party, and most certainly not McCain, Palin, Pat Buchanan or Bill O'Reilly.

It is good that people who are concerned about the bailouts are putting pressure on Obama and the DNC to perform the kind of change that will help our country recover from Bush. They need clear popular support now to produce this change, just as they needed it to win the election. But what your article suggests is that this is hopeless, that we should overthrow Obama and raise Charles Manson to the post of Ultimate Leader instead. Hey, who better to perform swift, decisive, non-consensus action?

[grahamhgreen]

118. I'd rec "out of the mid-east', no bailout for banksters, single-payer, close gitmo, prosecute crimes

especially torture.

Just to start.

That's the change I believe in.


The way it's going, we will have to have a strong progressive challenger in the 2012 primary.

Unless he pull a rabbit out of his hat.... but right now all we've got is a disappearing act.

[tomreedtoon]

129. Grahamgreen, sitting Presidents never get challengers.

The party of the President always re-nominates the President, unless said President wants to bow out for medical or personal reasons. And in that case, the President "favors" a nominee who will get the party's nomination.

There are only two parties in the United States. Despite what Ross Perot and George Wallace tried to do, that's the way it is. And do you really believe Republicans will slough off their decades of crass conservatism to nominate a progressive...just to get rid of the black guy in the White House?

You may have an empty hat with no rabbit, but at least the voters have a hat. The only alternative is the Republican Limbaugh-clone (if Limbaugh doesn't run himself) who will take away our hat completely.

ON EDIT: It occurred to me that there was one instance where a sitting President's choice was seriously challenged. The Democratic Convention of 1968 had the party in turmoil, it destroyed Hubert Humphrey's chance to continue the New Deal, and it threw the Presidency to Richard Nixon.

And it also instilled in the Democratic Party a cowardice from then until now, when Democrats were afraid to face off against the Republican rape of the economy and the Constitution. You can see that cowardice in the very existence of the Blue Dogs, whom a good Congressional leader would have whipped into support of health care as late as the Johnson years.

An intra-party challenge would cause that to happen all over again. That would turn the Democratic Party into a multiple-rape victim, cringing in the corner and begging for death. Yes, it is an ugly metaphor, because it is an ugly situation.

[grahamhgreen]

151. Well, we don't want that to happen, so hopefully some legislation and actions will be taken on

Behalf of the progressive wing of our party.

But I don't want the people to think that what we have now is what the left is calling for.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

181. Sitting presidents never get challengers? History lesson: Ted Kennedy in 1980

It wasn't the smartest move, considering that Ronald Reagan was elected, but it shows that a sitting president can be damaged by a primary challenger.

[AlbertCat]

149. I'd rec "out of the mid-east', no bailout for banksters, single-payer, close gitmo, prosecute crimes

If those things will pass Congress, OK.

If not, some more ground work needs to be done.


The President can't just do as he pleases. This isn't Cheney, y'know.




The 1st thing I'd like to see is no more private funding of elections of any kind, local or national. Congress critters might actually have time to do their jobs instead of campaigning all the time.

[nashville_brook]

120. you need to tone down your rhetoric and pick up the article and read it -- "radical" isn't what you

think it means.

[grahamhgreen]

114. Yes, it's time to seperate the progressives before we are linked permanently to Obama/ No Change.

[Libertas1776]

119. I am tired

of "hope" and "change" and voting for Dems simply because they are Dems, since simply being a Democrat doesn't mean much anymore. From now on, any effort, donations, support, votes etc I give to a candidate, from my local reps to the POTUS, will be because he/she is progressive, like others have said above. Hell, I will even throw my votes in for a 3rd Party if necessary, if my only other choices are Repub or Repub light (i.e. Blue Dog Dem).

[debbierlus]

123. I wish this post would stay at the top of DU for the duration of the health reform fight - RECOMMEND

I have been saying it for WEEKS.

And, I have been SLAMMED.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Obama has been betraying ALL the American people since the day he was elected.

He has acted as a corporate frontman, and he should be judged as such.

POLICY over POLITICIAN

(And, I am so SICK of progressives being labeled as some fringe group when we are the damn MIDDLE).

[crazylikafox]

127. Agree totally

[Amos Moses]

143. +1 It's Bush's third term.

[debbierlus]

150. Those are BRILLIANT - thanks for posting

It is so sad that people can't (or won't) confront what is right before their eyes.

I hated Bush.

At least he was a known enemy -

Obama behaves in many of the exact same ways, and it is now condoned.

[G_j]

125. K&R!

[pecwae]

130. Happy to give rec #140. nt

[FLAprogressive]

131. Maybe one of the best analogies yet K&FuckingR

[Karmadillo]

133. Great post. K&R.

nt

[debbierlus]

136. Where is there to go from here? (conclusion of post)

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over & over and expecting different results...

We might want to stop acting insane.

Stop voting for democratic candidates who act as the siamese twin of the Republican party.

The one party system must end.

It MUST end.

[G_j]

138. you are absolutely correct

but, the chances of changing it, are next to none.
:cry:

[bkozumplik]

147. I think you are talking about a new third party

[FLAprogressive]

137. WHY is this NOT on the GREATEST page?!?!?!?!?

148 recs and not at the very top?? HMMMMMm

[EFerrari]

145. Because it timed out?

:hi:

[Truth2Tell]

139. Great Post K&R. nt

[bluestateboomer]

141. Damn Straight! K&R

When I saws that Rahm comment I dashed off an email to the White House about how wrong the comment was. I am not sure it will even be read, but at least when things come crashing down I can say " I told you so...." Cold comfort as the teabagger brownshirts march down the street.
:grr:

[pokercat999]

144. It's become apparent to me that if something worthwhile is

going to be done, it's going to have to be done "outside" the system and the people are going to have to "take over".

A new national leader not of the political class and holding no office will have to step forward to lead the people, most likely through civil disobedience and what will be described as "lawlessness".

I don't know who that could be, but that is why Malcolm X and MLK were assassinated, they couldn't be controlled though the political process and so were a loose canon.

Our Mr.Obama is certainly no loose cannon, a shame, since that is exactly what we need.

[Cass]

146. Good post, NB.

This part really says it all to me...

Consider the violence breaking out at the Town Hall meetings. Who here isn't feeling abandoned that high profile Democrats aren't out there on the Sunday talk shows, on the nightly news, in the streets fighting for our side. Who here can say the Obama administration has had our backs in this fight? Are they expecting us get involved in these town hall melees when our messages are attacked as "fucking stupid" by the President's Chief of Staff? Why isn't Rahm attacking the teabaggers for being "fucking stupid" for circulating absurdities like "death panels"?


The nonsense being spewed by the RW on this healthcare reform is so easily shot down yet its not being done effectively which makes me wonder what is going on, especially in light of Rahm Emmanuel's comments.

The town hall chaos also surprises me. Even the City Council meetings in my small town have rules of civility and if you violate them you are gone. I don't understand why these teabaggers have been allowed to shut down discussion like they have been getting away with. Personally I am afraid the politicians will go back to Washington and use these manufactured teabagger temper tantrums as their excuse for acquiescing to Blue Dog demands that will destroy meaningful HC reform.

Btw, I love the headline of your OP...great analogy of what's going on.

[mcollier]

148. Get back to reality people!!!

Just because you hear or read about how Obama is not doing anything to get health care reform done or is making backroom deals with drug companies..... DOESN'T Mean its True....Its amazing to see how people on both the right and the left are so gullible. Surely there are plenty of rnc hacks posting on this thread.

Follow the Money... Right... My 12 and 10 yr old children can see the nonsense the wringers and health insurance industry are flooding the airwaves with... So should adults (without the assistance of the Obama Administration trying to explain the ridiculousness that's being said about health care reform);

Blissful ignorance is a major challenge for the American People and strategic mis-information efforts only perpetuate the status quo ( Blissful Ignorance ).

[Amos Moses]

163. So reality = believing every thing Barack says?

You're one to talk about people being gullible. Sooner or later you will have to be honest with yourself. He's just a crooked politician.

[mcollier]

173. Seems your logic comes from far right field

What makes you think Obama is a crooked politician?

Did you find that onethousandreasons.org site?

You got the wrong guy!

[Amos Moses]

175. You're the one supporting (worshiping) a right wing politician

but my logic is from right field. :eyes:

...steered hundreds of billions of bail-out dollars to the very people who drove the country into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, required nothing of these sharks in return, and did almost nothing for ordinary Americans struggling to survive this disaster?

...opposed congressional legislation limiting financial institution incentive pay packages that put the whole global economy at risk?

...opposed legislation allowing shareholders the right to have even a non-binding say on salaries, even though executives took home billions in bonuses last year while their companies were hemorrhaging money so badly they required a trillion bucks in taxpayer bail-out?

...actually threatened Britain, America's closest ally in the world, with withdrawal of intelligence data that could prevent terrorist attacks unless the British government blocked one of its courts from accepting documented evidence of torture at Guantánamo?

...sent droves of Predator-launched missiles into Pakistan – supposedly one of America's allies – killing groups of civilians, even at weddings, thus intensifying hatred toward the United States?

...tried to shut down a charity's illegal-surveillance suit against the government on the basis of a supposed constitutionally-grounded state secrets privilege which would allow the president to kill any legal case before it is even heard?

...undertook a blitz of immigration enforcement without reform of civil rights violations so nasty that one professor of immigration law described the policies as "literally the worst of all worlds"?

...refused to set legally enforceable immigration detention rules covering such basics as health care and legal representation, instead relying on a flawed contractor-based monitoring system?

...pressured a member of Congress to withdraw an amendment that would have ended the military's disastrous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" regime, simply by defunding it?

...asked a federal court to dismiss a case in which the plaintiffs challenged the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, arguing to the court that heterosexual marriage is "the traditional, and universally recognized, version of marriage"?

...dramatically increased the influence of religion in government, directly violating the First Amendment, by lavishly spending federal dollars on "faith-based" programs, and giving religious groups massively increased power and access within the White House to shape policy questions?

...stood by silently, allowing climate legislation to be watered down to nothing, to include generous pollution allowances to coal utilities, and to undermine the EPA's authority to control carbon emissions?

...backed healthcare legislation that did little for the public and actually increased wasteful federal expenditures, while continuing to enrich insurance, medical, hospital and pharmaceutical corporation vampires?

There's more, of course, but I think that's enough to decide for myself that he is corrupt.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/05-2

[mcollier]

182. Well thats a mouthful. Of BS that is...

...steered hundreds of billions of bail-out dollars to the very people who drove the country into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, required nothing of these sharks in return, and did almost nothing for ordinary Americans struggling to survive this disaster? "

-- This was Bush's original bailout plan. Would you have been happier to see the entire financial system to collapse? How do you think ordinary Americans would be doing if that were to happen? In February the Recovery Act was signed into law... How can you call that almost nothing? Give it some time.






...opposed congressional legislation limiting financial institution incentive pay packages that put the whole global economy at risk?
-- Really??? Where is the source link to this one? Should the government be dictating corporate incentive pay packages? If the corporations accept government bailout money - Yes. Does this make Obama a crooked politican? hardly...




...opposed legislation allowing shareholders the right to have even a non-binding say on salaries, even though executives took home billions in bonuses last year while their companies were hemorrhaging money so badly they required a trillion bucks in taxpayer bail-out?
-- What legislation would that be? link please... Anyway this maybe more appropriate in corporate by-laws not federal law...




...actually threatened Britain, America's closest ally in the world, with withdrawal of intelligence data that could prevent terrorist attacks unless the British government blocked one of its courts from accepting documented evidence of torture at Guantánamo?
Source Link Please....


...sent droves of Predator-launched missiles into Pakistan – supposedly one of America's allies – killing groups of civilians, even at weddings, thus intensifying hatred toward the United States?
-- These types of events are unfortunate, can it be proven Obama deliberately meant to harm civilians? I recall this happening for several years under the Bush Administration in Iraq...





...tried to shut down a charity's illegal-surveillance suit against the government on the basis of a supposed constitutionally-grounded state secrets privilege which would allow the president to kill any legal case before it is even heard?
-- So the justice dept made a ruling... What kind of evidence is this of Obama being crooked?




...undertook a blitz of immigration enforcement without reform of civil rights violations so nasty that one professor of immigration law described the policies as "literally the worst of all worlds"?
-- Where is your source link for this one?

...refused to set legally enforceable immigration detention rules covering such basics as health care and legal representation, instead relying on a flawed contractor-based monitoring system?
--- So the Obama Administration has not dealt with immigration reform yet... That's a far reach.


...pressured a member of Congress to withdraw an amendment that would have ended the military's disastrous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" regime, simply by defunding it?
--- So the Obama Administration has not dealt with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" yet... There are much more pressing issues to address. But give it time.





...asked a federal court to dismiss a case in which the plaintiffs challenged the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, arguing to the court that heterosexual marriage is "the traditional, and universally recognized, version of marriage"?
-- Where is your evidence? Isn't the plan at this point to handle this issue at the state level?



...dramatically increased the influence of religion in government, directly violating the First Amendment, by lavishly spending federal dollars on "faith-based" programs, and giving religious groups massively increased power and access within the White House to shape policy questions?
-- Lie... Joke... Next...



...stood by silently, allowing climate legislation to be watered down to nothing, to include generous pollution allowances to coal utilities, and to undermine the EPA's authority to control carbon emissions?
--- Wrong... The major Energy Reform legislation has yet to be debated in congress... You think the Health Care debate is intense, just wait...




...backed healthcare legislation that did little for the public and actually increased wasteful federal expenditures, while continuing to enrich insurance, medical, hospital and pharmaceutical corporation vampires?
-- Are you really referring to Obama or republicans?.... where are you getting this nonesense from? Link Please....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

185. "Bush did it too" is precisely the reason why Obama should NOT be doing these things

Sorry that your idol has feet of clay.

[Amos Moses]

187. I already posted a link.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/05-2

BTW, you're not at all ashamed of idolizing a politician, are you? How will anyone but the wealthiest and most privileged citizens benefit from these crooked deals he works out with his cronies?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

189. Oh, but don't you know?

His 401k went up 28%, so all is right with the world. :sarcasm:

[Amos Moses]

190. Dear Leader has all the answers.

He knows everything. He sees everything. He is always two moves ahead of everybody else. He will win the chess game for us!

[mcollier]

197. Why would you post a link to more bullshit

propaganda nonsense posing as your source of evidence to your ridiculous claims... Don't confuse challenging your bullshit with idolizing anyone.

What "crooked deals" are you talking about?

Equal pay for women?

Expansion of children's health care?

Stimulus Package (Tax Cuts, Funds for Struggling States, Business Loans, Renewable Energy projects, job creating public work projects funds)?

Actually paying attention to to the economy, unlike Bush.


I've been waiting all day for some evidence... Seems your complaints are mis-directed. The guy your looking for left town 8 months ago... And its gonna take a while to clean up the mess he left behind.

Are you not the least bit ashamed of demonizing a politician based on unsubstantiated accusations? Or it just your full time job?

In any case your not very convincing. More like laughable.

[Amos Moses]

208. Why don't you post some links to back up your spin?

You said the bailout was Bush's deal but you disregard the fact that Senator Obama was and still is among it's strongest supporters. This is common enough knowledge that I know you don't need a link to prove it. If you want to spin it, post a link yourself to prove me wrong.

You said the allegation that he didn't address outrageous executive pay was false when it absolutely is not. He left a loophole in it so that only execs getting future bailout funds at their banks would be affected.

"The rules do not apply retroactively, not even to those firms that have already been bailed out. But they will be imposed on all companies -- in the financial, auto or other sectors -- receiving any future help. This includes those that have received assistance already."

I suppose you'll want a link....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123375514020647787.html

Notice he didn't have the same concern for UAW members. He didn't hesitate to tear up those contracts and demand that they accept even more cuts to their hourly wages. It's called UNION BUSTING and Obama is a goddamn son of a bitch for doing it.


You give him credit for equal pay for women when it was already against the law to not pay women equally. All the Lilly Ledbetter law did was give women more time to file suit if they weren't being paid equally. Your claim that Obama is responsible for legislation that ensured women would be paid equal completely disregards the fact that the new majority in the House and Senate made this possible. He just did what any Democrat would be expected to do and signed it into law. How courageous!

"The bill signed by Mr. Obama today changes the rules so that Ledbetter and workers like her can sue within six months of discovering the alleged pay discrimination, regardless of when it began."

I guess you'll want a link for that too...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/29/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4762222.shtml

Another of your attempts to spin bad news was that there were no threats made IRT sharing intelligence with Britain. Sounds to me like that's exactly what they did.

"Hillary Clinton has threatened to end intelligence sharing with Britain if the High Court publishes its findings on what happened to former terror detainee Binyam Mohamed.

Letters from the U.S. Secretary of State and the CIA to the Government warn they will cease co-operation with British counterparts if two judges release details about Mr Mohamed's alleged torture."

A couple of links I'm sure you'll try to discredit...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1203048/UK-security-threatened-details-Binyam-Mohamed-torture.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/30/mohamed/


Then you tried to dismiss concerns about innocent people dying in our permanent imperial wars by saying he didn't mean for innocent people to be killed. Well of course not, dumbshit. Whether he meant it or not isn't the issue. It happened on his watch so it's his responsibility.


Your casual dismissal of concerns people have about his decisions IRT DADT is disgraceful. The situation is bad enough without you saying it's just not very important. There's really not anything else to say about that, you inconsiderate prick.


His pandering to the Christo Fascists and their hate based initiatives is yet another way he's spit in the face of his supporters. These people use religion to exclude and shun people that don't fit within their narrow minded view of the world. Why would any Democrat support garbage like that?


As for health care he's already proven that any old half measure will do. From start, it was about preserving as much of the status quo as possible for the insurance and pharmaceutical compaines while convincing the public that it's in their best interest.


Now I'm sure you'll attempt to spin all this once again but I think I'm done here. Enjoy your hero worship while his still President for another 3.5 years.

[mcollier]

209. You've done enough spinning to make yourself dizzy

which explains your warped sense of reality.

[Amos Moses]

210. You've done enough ass kissing to have your whole face

covered in shit. I guess that explains the stench around you.

[spanone]

152. i had to look up spork

:think: :smoke:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

154. Great post- Remember this article by Silverstein from 2004?

Before he addressed the 2004 convention, Obama was virtually unknown nationally, and even in Illinois his was far from a household name. Just four years earlier, he had been defeated by a significant margin when he tried to unseat Chicago-area Congressman Bobby Rush in the Democratic primary. But following the speech, which was universally hailed—even the National Review called it “simple and powerful,” conceding that it had deserved its “rapturous critical reception”—Obama became a national celebrity. Less than two months later, he won election to the Senate with 70 percent of the vote.

If the speech was his debut to the wider American public, he had already undergone an equally successful but much quieter audition with Democratic Party leaders and fund-raisers, without whose support he would surely never have been chosen for such a prominent role at the convention. The early, if not overwhelming, favorite to be the Senate nominee from Illinois had been Dan Hynes, the state comptroller, who had twice won statewide office and had the support of the state’s Democratic machine and labor unions. But by September 2003, six months before the primary, Obama was winning support from not only African Americans but also Chicago’s “Lakefront Liberals” and other progressives. He was still largely unknown in Washington circles, but that changed the following month when Vernon Jordan, the well-known power broker and corporate boardmember who chaired Bill Clinton’s presidential transition team after the 1992 election, placed calls to roughly twenty of his friends and invited them to a fund-raiser at his home.

That event marked his entry into a well-established Washington ritual—the gauntlet of fund-raising parties and meet-and-greets through which potential stars are vetted by fixers, donors, and lobbyists. Gregory Craig, an attorney with Williams & Connolly and a longtime Democratic figure who, as special counsel in the White House, had coordinated Bill Clinton’s impeachment defense, met Obama that night. “I liked his sense of humor and the confidence he had discussing national issues, especially as a state senator,” Craig recalled of the event. “You felt excited to be in his presence.” Another thing that Craig liked about Obama was that he’s not seen as a “polarizer,” like such traditional African-American leaders as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. “He gets respect from his adversaries because of the way he treats them,” Craig said. “He doesn’t try to be all things to all people, but he has a way of taking positions you don’t like without making you angry.”

Word about Obama spread through Washington’s blue-chip law firms, lobby shops, and political offices, and this accelerated after his win in the March primary. Mike Williams, vice president for legislative affairs at The Bond Market Association and a member of an African-American lobbying association, had been following the race in Illinois and was introduced to Obama through acquaintances in Washington who had known him at Harvard Law School. “We represent Wall Street firms,” Williams said in recounting his first conversation with Obama. “A big issue for us since 2000 is predatory lending. He worked on that issue in Illinois; he was the lead sponsor of a bill there. I talked to him about that. He had a different position from ours. There’s a perception out there that the Democrats are anti-business, and I talked to him about that directly. I said, There’s a perception that you’re coming at this from the angle of consumers. He was forthright, which I appreciated. He said, I tried to broker the best deal I could.” Williams still had his differences with Obama, but the conversation convinced him that the two could work together. “He’s not a political novice and he’s smart enough not to say things cast in stone, but you can have a conversation with him,” Williams said. “He’s a straight shooter. As a lobbyist, that’s something you value. You don’t need a yes every time, but you want to be able to count the votes. That’s what we do.”

...

On condition of anonymity, one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn’t see him as a “player.” The lobbyist added: “What’s the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?”

...

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275

K&R

[nashville_brook]

194. i'm reading JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, and Thomas Merton says

something about Kennedy early in his presidency that the author, James Douglas, uses as an organizing principle/conceptual foundation for the assassination. The quote is:

"I have little confidence in Kennedy, I think he cannot fully measure up to the magnitude of his task, and lacks creative imagination and the deeper kind of sensitivity that is needed. Too much the Time (magazine) and Life (magazine) mentality, than which I can imagine nothing further, in reality, from, say, Lincoln. What is needed is really not shrewdness or craft, but what the politicians don't have: depth, humanity and a certain totality of self-forgetfulness and compassion, not just for individuals but for man as a whole: a deeper kind of dedication. Maybe Kennedy will break through into that some day by miracle. But such people are before long marked out for assassination."

The book is about Kennedy's turn from shallowness to depth and how that targeted him for assassination.

I think that we can't help but have it in the backs of our mind(s) that true leadership endangers our politicians -- and so we vote for the ones who we think might be sly enough to squeeze a little truthiness into an otherwise status-quo seeking career. But then, we don't have much choice b/c these same fundraisers mentioned in the Silverstein article have disproportionate power to introduce politicians into the larger spheres.

[pyoom]

157. I support Obama and his reasoned approach to things, but agree

that he needs to get a lot tougher- reason demands it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

161. As usual, American voters chose style over substance

Obama looked and sounded like a firebrand when he spoke, so the American people projected their hopes for a second FDR on him.

What they got was Tony Blair: handsome with a nice family, intelligent, well-spoken, and unwilling to actually undo most of the damage his predecessor had done.

Anyone who actually LISTENED TO THE CONTENT of Obama's speeches would have realized that he wasn't saying anything of substance.

I saw him as a blank screen on which voters were invited to project their hopes. I KNEW he wasn't FDR, not even close.

[Skittles]

166. you know it, Lydia

we had the same view

[Lydia Leftcoast]

169. Yes, I have been extremely cynical since the 2004 campaign

In the Twin Cities press, all the mainstream-approved candidates would get big write-ups just for speaking to groups of 100 or fewer big-money donors.

Dennis Kucinich showed up in the Twin Cities four times and spoke to the general public with increasing audiences each time, from a few dozen to 800 to 1600 to 2500. The grassroots effort that coordinated these appearances and used guerrilla marketing to publicize them should have been a major news story in itself, especially after DK got 17% of the vote in Minnesota and actually won some Twin Cities precincts. But we had to BEG the local media for coverage, and not all of them responded.

OK, so Kerry got the nomination and ran an insipid campaign. I guess he wasn't as convincing saying vague generalities as Obama is. I will give him credit for making actual public appearances, but at the first rally I attended, both Max Cleland and John Edwards received more genuine acclaim and excitement from the audience than Kerry did. Even at a large outdoor rally with such a large crowd that Kerry appeared to be about an inch tall from where we stood, he seemed to be just going through the motions.

But anyway, I doorknocked for Kerry in my neighborhood and the one next to mine and spent all day Election Day tramping around in the cold until the polls closed. So did 10,000 other people in the Twin Cities.

And yet, Kerry conceded before all the votes were counted and while people were still waiting in line to vote in some cities. The Dems did not challenge the results in Ohio, some of which were very suspicious indeed. No, it was those much maligned third parties that challenged the Ohio results.

Fast forward to 2007. There were about six people in the nomination race, but the media were already acting as if it was going to be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. The others were barely mentioned in the media until they dropped out, and most people I talked to weren't even aware of them.

That's when I decided that both Clinton and Obama were the candidates acceptable to the big money boys and that it didn't matter which one won the nomination. It would be business as usual either way. That's why so much of the coverage during the primaries (and a lot of the wars on DU) were phrased in terms of "Which trait is stronger in you, racism or sexism?" There were really no substantive differences between the candidates, and neither one was going to make waves.

(The whole presumption that the next Dem nominee would be either Barack or Hillary reminded me uncomfortably of that day in 1999, when a major Oregon Republican donor who lived in my building told me that George W. Bush would be the nominee in 2000. I had already read Molly Ivins' accounts of his idiocy, so I asked the Republican donor, a wealthy but basically empty-headed woman, if there weren't other, more qualified candidates in the Republican party. Why Bush? "Oh, they've told us that he'll be the nominee," she assured me.)

I'm growing more and more convinced that politics on the national level is all theater and will remain so until we have REAL campaign finance reform that forbids all political contributions by anyone who is not an individual human being. That means no corporations, no non-profits, no religious groups, no unions, no pressure groups of any sort. Even the candidate's own party would be allowed to publicize only its platform, not candidates.

As things stand, we have the president and Congress asking corporations what kinds of regulations they will accept. Hello? Exactly who is calling the shots here?

I think the answer is clear.

[Skittles]

170. true, true

the media and powers that be made it all HRC/Obama and it sickened me to see Democrats falling for the ruse

[mcollier]

174. Why Can't Obama just wave his magic wand

and force all of congress to fight one behalf of the American People?

Take a look at what the Obama Administration and the congress has been able to do in the just 7 months:

***************
FEATURED LEGISLATION

Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

Signed: Monday, June 22, 2009

Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009

Signed: Friday, May 22, 2009

Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act

Signed: Friday, May 22, 2009

Helping Families Save Their Homes Act

Signed: Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act

Signed: Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act

Signed: Wednesday, April 21, 2009

Omnibus Public Lands Management Act

Signed: Monday, March 30, 2009

Small Business Act Temporary Extension

Signed: Friday, March 20, 2009

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Signed: Tuesday, February 17, 2009

DTV Delay Act

Signed: Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act

Signed: Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Signed: Thursday, January 29, 2009


--- From Whitehouse.gov ---
***********************

Not the mention the wildly successful - Cash for Clunkers program.

Health Care Reform and Cap and Trade Energy Reform are on the way...

As I remember from many of those "Speeches" I listened to from Obama, he had a lot to say about much of the legislative agenda above...

Unfortunately the majority of republicans, even some democrats in congress tries vigorously to block good legislation so vital at so many levels to future of our Nation.

Next time try adding some "substance" to your opinion.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

176. That's the boilerplate DLC bullshit list of feel-good measures

Meanwhile, Obama is

1) Expanding the war in Afghanistan while slowing down removal of troops from Iraq

2) Keeping the Wall Street foxes in charge of the national financial hen house

3) Asking insurance and drug companies what kind of reforms they would accept. (Who else gets ASKED what laws they would like to obey? The corporations are supposed to obey the laws, not make them.)

4) Closing Guantanamo on one hand while maintaining secret prisons elsewhere

5) Issuing signing statements, just like Bush

Those five are huge, important issues and outweigh all the watered-down measures (a credit card act with no limits on interest charges? yawn) on your list.

[mcollier]

183. Huge??? Really! Seriously!

1) Expanding the war in Afghanistan while slowing down removal of troops from Iraq
-- You mean the NATO lead effort in Afghan...

2) Keeping the Wall Street foxes in charge of the national financial hen house
-- sounds like wringer talking points... Who would you fire from the national financial hen house?
* Nice to see my 401k increased by 28 % since Obama was sworn in...

3) Asking insurance and drug companies what kind of reforms they would accept. (Who else gets ASKED what laws they would like to obey? The corporations are supposed to obey the laws, not make them.)
-- Where is your evidence to this talking point...?


4) Closing Guantanamo on one hand while maintaining secret prisons elsewhere
-- what's the difference between a secret prison and a prison that you just are not aware of? Would these be the ones which were set up under the previous POTUS?

5) Issuing signing statements, just like Bush
-- what's your point? He also lives in the White House, just like Bush used too... This is what you call major? LOL



Just because you hear or see or read something from the media doesn't make it true...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

184. NATO-lead effort in Afghanistan?

And whose idea was the invasion of Afghanistan anyway? (It's not an "effort." It's an "invasion and occupation.") Bush and his gang of arm-twisters. It wasn't something that NATO came up with on its own.

2) Who knew that it was right-wing to distrust Wall Street? Well, for one thing, I'd have someone who was not associated with any of the banks that benefited from the bailout in charge of the restructuring effort. I would have placed stringent requirements on the banks before giving them a cent, such as breaking up the ones that were "too big to fail." "OK, now you're small. Accept our conditions or fail." Instead, the government poured hundreds of billions into a black hole with no accountability for how it was spent.

3) Where is my evidence? Conferring with the insurance companies asking them where they could find cost savings? Or this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/22/obamas-private-health-car_n_243115.html

The title is "Obama Has Met At Least 27 Times with Private Health Care Industry Executives"

4) You're playing semantics. There should be no secret prisons, no rendition to other countries for torture, no prolonged detention without speedy public trials. That is precisely the kind of human rights violation that we used to condemn the Soviets for. It needs to stop. Immediately.

5) Signing statements are the coward's way out. Instead of being honest and vetoing a bill he doesn't like, he just signs it and refuses to enforce it.

Just because you see something on the DLC or PPI website doesn't make it true.

[mcollier]

191. I still haven't seen any evidence to your claim

that Obama is a crooked politician....

Seems like Obama has a lot of tough choices to make about bad situiations that existed before he became POTUS. Sometimes you've got to act to resolve a crisis that is at hand, later you put in preventative measures to minimize the chances of the problems from happening again.

I don't like being in Afghan as much as you, however I believe there is a responsibilty work with NATO to enable humanitarian assistance, security and economic growth to that country... I agree military action should end asap, though.

With regard to Wall Street, this is especially touugh because these large banks have so many employees and punishing the greedy execs and wall street traders will have a direct punishment on these ordinary employees. I agree with your statement on the idea of being "too big to fail".... And there has been money given to certain banks "Goldman Sachs" which I believe was unethical, but wasn't that handed out during the Bush Administration? Regulation is coming, wait and see...


What is the problem with negotiations with Industry Executives? Unless they are held in secret with no disclosure of the meeting details as was the case with Dick Cheney and ERON....


Extraordinary rendition is more of a pressing priority IMO. And did Obama not begin to address this soon after coming in office?


Your generalization of signing statements is just to broad of a brush to even entertain as a legitimate point.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

192. I'm not saying he's crooked. I'm saying he's too close to business as usual

The best thing that could happen to Afghanistan would be if the U.S. would buy the country's opium crop, withdraw all military forces, and call in NGOs from countries dominated by moderate Islam (Tunisia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, to name a few) to handle the humanitarian aid. Not surprisingly, a lot of Afghans don't trust Western outsiders.

Because the banks need to stay solvent, this would have been the time to hold their feet to the fire. "We'll hold your bonuses in escrow until your institution has been profitable for five years in a row. You have to stop trading in iffy financial products. You have to stop nickel and diming your smaller customers. You have to lower your interest rates. You have to negotiate with the people whose houses are in danger of foreclosure, allowing them to stay in the houses by paying rent. Done all that? Great. Here's the rest of your bailout money."

Negotiating with industry executives about what laws they would accept? Secret or not, does anyone else get to negotiate about what laws they will agree to? There are so many cold-hearted, greed-crazed crooks in the major corporations that negotiating with them is like going to a state prison and asking the embezzlers, fraudsters, check kiters, and tax evaders and asking them what laws they would agree to follow.

Really, when a situation like that (negotiating with special interests about what laws they would agree to follow) came up on the 1980s British comedy series Yes, Prime Minister, it was a joke. Now it's happening for real.

Unless you believe that the interests of big business trump everyone else's, then like everyone else, they have to obey the laws, not dictate them.

[mcollier]

198. I agree with some of your points

The problem with the opium trade is that it's working so well for the drug dealers and the farmers that shutting it down will not go over so well. Not so easily achieved.

While there are many accountability measures that were put in place with regards to banks receiving tarp funds, I agree there should have been much stronger measures. There was a lot of push back in congress on both parties...


Im not convinced industry executives were in the White House negotiating which laws they will agree too... To clear all this up, the negotiations should have been held openly if they were not open negotiations...

But to try to build simlarities between this administration and the last, well thats a hard sell...


I mention my 401k only as a reference to where it may have been if Obama had not taken major action to stablize the economy... Something most republicans were advocating.

[debbierlus]

180. Exactly.

[Skittles]

165. we were not all punk'd

some of us paid attention all along

[Vidar]

167. K&R. The lesser of two evils is no longer good enough.

[leftstreet]

168. K&R

[scytherius]

186. I have given up on America

If the past 8 years can't engender change along with the day to day psychosis of the Right Wingers . . . N O T H I N G will. This Nation is without hope. I am done. I have been voting since Goldwater but no more. I throw in the towel. America is dead. It will take about 30 years or so before it dies, but it is a dead Nation and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

188. I keep wishing that I had moved overseas when I was younger

Yes, other countries have their problems, but they don't seem quite as supportive of the "mean and dumb" aspects of politics and popular culture.

[Amos Moses]

195. What are we gonna do now?

:shrug:

[mcollier]

199. America is not dead or dying

We are injured and are trying to recover ( yet there are elements in our midst that are rejecting recovery efforts ) and there is hemmuraging occurring.

Im sure people felt as you did during the civil rights movement. But we have grown as a nation. Elections enable the people to heal our nation as we see fit.
If we can instill more powerfully and effective than ever that voting is essential to all, we can make even more progress more rapidly.


Don't look to the media to provide us with any level of sanity and sensibility or responsible journalism... Expect social programming campaigns designed to distract and dumb down the public.

But demand accountability from elected officials. PERIOD.

[Time for change]

196. This sums up the major problems with the Obama administration and our Congress as well as I've seen.

Where is there to go from here, indeed.

Here are some things I recently had to say on the subject -- but by and large the solution to this problem is a great mystery to me:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6249729

[democracy1st]

207. thanks

[democracy1st]

205. K & R