President Obama warns of 'corporate takeover' of democracy

[bigtree]

August 21, 2010

U.S. President Barack Obama Saturday warned of a "corporate takeover" of democracy and said Republicans want the public kept "in the dark" on campaign funding.

"They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads -- and worst of all, they don't even have to reveal who is actually paying for them," he said . . . a group can hide behind a phony name like 'Citizens for a Better Future,' even if a more accurate name would be 'Corporations for Weaker Oversight.'"

He blamed GOP leaders for killing legislation this summer that would require "corporate political advertisers to reveal who's funding their activities."

. . . the Republican leaders in Congress said no," Obama said. "In fact, they used their power to block the issue from even coming up for a vote."

"This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark . . . Well, we cannot allow the corporate takeover of our democracy," he said, while urging Americans to "challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us in stopping it."

read: http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/news.do?feed=yellowbrix&storyid=148887563


Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
August 21, 2010

As the political season heats up, Americans are already being inundated with the usual phone calls, mailings, and TV ads from campaigns all across the country. But this summer, they’re also seeing a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them.

The reason this is happening is because of a decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case – a decision that now allows big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections. They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads – and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who is actually paying for them. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You don’t know if it’s BP. You don’t know if it’s a big insurance company or a Wall Street Bank. A group can hide behind a phony name like “Citizens for a Better Future,” even if a more accurate name would be “Corporations for Weaker Oversight.”

We tried to fix this last month. There was a proposal supported by Democrats and Republicans that would’ve required corporate political advertisers to reveal who’s funding their activities. When special interests take to the airwaves, whoever is running and funding the ad would have to appear in the advertisement and take responsibility for it – like a company’s CEO or an organization’s biggest contributor. And foreign-controlled corporations and entities would be restricted from spending money to influence American elections – just as they were in the past.

You would think that making these reforms would be a matter of common sense. You’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections wouldn’t be a partisan issue.

But the Republican leaders in Congress said no. In fact, they used their power to block the issue from even coming up for a vote.

This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark. They don’t want you to know which interests are paying for the ads. The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.

Well, we cannot allow the corporate takeover of our democracy. So we’re going to continue to fight for reform and transparency. And I urge all of you to take up the same fight. Let’s challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us in stopping it.

At a time of such challenge for America, we can’t afford these political games. Millions of Americans are struggling to get by, and their voices shouldn’t be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret, special interest advertising. Their voices should be heard.

Let’s not forget that a century ago, it was a Republican President – Teddy Roosevelt – who first tried to tackle the issue of corporate influence on our elections. He actually called it “one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.” And he proposed strict limits on corporate influence in elections. “Every special interest is entitled to justice,” he said. “but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office.”

We now face a similar challenge, and a similar opportunity to prevent special interests from gaining even more clout in Washington. This shouldn’t be a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. This is an issue that goes to whether or not we will have a democracy that works for ordinary Americans – a government of, by, and for the people. Let’s show the cynics and the special interests that we still can.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/21/weekly-address-president-obama-challenges-politicians-benefiting-citizen

[doc03]

1. I thinks he is a little too late n/t

[Sherman A1]

18. Agreed

[pnorman]

40. Agreed!

We should have had our ponies a year ago!

[tavalon]

94. Was that sarcastic?

[alittlelark]

96. I assume you are making a stab at humor.

:shrug:

[yurbud]

55. this is where his administration should have STARTED. But if he starts ACTING like this...

I'm on board.

[Xicano]

60. You can tell when its getting close to election time.

Sorry, but, I am not that gullible.

[Poboy]

68. Thats EXACTLY it. We will get 90 days of this, tops.

Welcome to our world.

The congress is recessed, everyone will be out lying to the voters, er campaigning. Come the 2nd week of Nov., back to 'business' with a capital BIG.

He's had countless chances and opportunities. Why isn't Warren already nominated?
Call me whatever name you like, but sucker isn't one of them.

[vssmith]

115. Right! He should back up his words with the appointment of Elizabeth Warren!

[Vincevega]

118. exactly

Fire Geither, Summers and Bernanke and I many just start believing you and yes, recess Nominate Elizabeth Warren to consumer protection agency. All this is talk and no action. We need liberal in your administration and not neoliberals

[Catherina]

85. Words not action please. And especially not words so close to election time.

There's still time to act and do something significant like expropriate BP.

Fooled me once already and that's one time too many. This is going to take a lot more than a speech.

[Chulanowa]

112. I love this

"Why doesn't he say something?!?!"
"OMG, it's just words, more action!"
"I don't like the action, he should have just stayed out of it!"

[Catherina]

126. Thanks! That's the most impressive response I've seen from you yet.

It's nice to see an improvement on the pony cliche.

[Chulanowa]

135. I may not be a horse rancher

But I know it would be deeply unwise to put a poor, unsuspecting pony in front of a PUMA.

[Catherina]

141. Wrong on all counts. Epic fail. Insult fell flat. I was the furthest from a Clinton supporter

during the Primaries.

As a matter of fact, I was a diehard Obama supporter: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5479055#5479454

But keep it up, keep avoiding the fact that there's a large group of former Obama supporters who have buyers remorse because we fell for all those pretty speeches during the Primaries and actually believed the things he told us as he looked us dead in the eyes, in person, instead of paying attention to the big warning signal that was his record of missed votes and absenteism on votes during his time in the Senate.

[Skittles]

147. you're deviating from the script, Catherina

watch the next move - accusing you of wanting repukes in power

[Catherina]

170. I'm sorry Skittles!

Please don't kick my ass. I'll stick to the script next time :rofl:

At least it's all getting more creative.

[LostinVA]

153. I just choked on my Irish Breakast tea to see you called a PUMA

How does it feel, C? This was my daily life on here during teh Primaries?

Oh brother.

:rofl:

[Joe Fields]

156. I got a chuckle over that one, too.

Thankfully, I wasn't drinking anything at the time I read it.

[Catherina]

171. It feels so odd that I don't even know how to process it.

Puma. Pony. What a strange climate. If you're displeased with how Obama turned out, I guess you can only be a Pony-pining Puma or a Republican :shrug:

In retrospect, I wish I had been a PUMA. I can't say my mom didn't warn me.

[Lost4words]

157. LOLOLOL!!!

hadn't heard that before! :hi:

[Catherina]

173. And then the very next respnse (#135), shattered those hopes

You compliment someone and then they slide back to the pony shit.

"But I know it would be deeply unwise to put a poor, unsuspecting pony in front of a PUMA."

I'm so disappointed. I thought we had made incremental progress or something like that.

:hi:

[savalez]

121. The Disclose Act is action. This speech is action.

To "expropriate BP" has nothing to do with the Disclose Act or this topic.

[Catherina]

128. Thanks. That explains a lot.. n/t

[BootinUp]

89. You don't want the party to do well

in this next election? Seriously I can't understand your point.

[LostinVA]

166. The poster didn't say that at all

:wtf:

[Donnachaidh]

98. Bingo! n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

105. +1.

:thumbsup:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

72. Agreed.

[savalez]

120. Obviously he needs to say this because there are tons of folks...

who will only hear this when it comes from him and is disseminated through the MSM. I know lot's of people who are only familiar with the tip of the political iceberg and they will all vote. I do applaud and support him for this.

The Disclose Act ( http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5175/show# ) is a response to the horrible Supreme Courts Citizen's United vs FEC ruling.

[Lorien]

2. "Remarks" are all very well and good

but does anyone have a plan to introduce a campaign finance reform bill? The whole issue is off the MSMs radar (for obvious reasons) so it's a NON issue for both parties.

[LiberalAndProud]

13. Transparency would be a welcome reform, imo.

Can't get the votes for that, so I guess we won't see any real finance reform any time soon.

[AnArmyVeteran]

59. Transparency means nothing. We need publicly financed elections.

What does it matter if donated money I'd listed in obscure or hard to read documents. That's why republicans favor transparency over restrictions to the amount of money given. Citizens don't have the time to sift through all the campaign documents to see who owns the candidates.

My solution:
Publicly financed elections with zero campaign ads and instead force every media company to televise debates between ALL the candidates during prime time. All regular programming would be preempted by the debates so citizens can't change the channel to Spongebob. The airwaves belong to the people, NOT to corporations.

If we can't get the above we should prevent anyone giving more than $100 to any one candidate. Only individuals could donate, and to donate to a candidate they MUST be able to vote for the candidate. This would stop massive amounts of money flooding into a district or a state from another state or even another country. All donations to political parties would be banned. All donations from special interest groups would be banned. And elections would be shortened to 8 weeks instead of the current 18 months to 2 years. I'm tired of seeing my local elections all corrupted by millions of dollars coming from people 2,000 miles away. How can local people get a candidate who will represent them if the candidates are owned by people outside their district or state?

Either one of the above proposals would take the corrupt rich out of our political process and stop them from corrupting almost every election in the United States. The only thing standing in the way of citizens taking back control of their country are STRICT campaign finance laws. And any person who tried to circumvent the system above would be fined 25% of their wealth and given a minimum of 5 years in federal prison. A person caught twice for violating the law would have 50% of their wealth seized and they would get a minimum ten year prison sentence. The ONLY way to enforce any law is to make a punishment harsh enough where it would deter the corrupt rich from even trying to corrupt our elections.

If we do not change the way we elect our representatives our country will continue on its downward spiral to oblivion. And instead of having representatives we will continue to have political prostitutes selling us out to their corporate pimps. Is that the America you want to leave to future generations, if our country even lasts that long?

Why should our soldiers be fighting and dying in foreign lands when the biggest threats to our county's survival are right here within our borders? Isn't it time to take our country back from the corrupt wealthy few who continue to exploit our system of government and our citizens who are the rightful owners of this once great country?

[Barack2theFuture]

3. In a related story,

Taco Bell warns America that the fast food industry may be taken over by ultra-cheap mystery "meat"

[bigtree]

15. what does that have to do with campaign finance reform??

[Donnachaidh]

99. you forgot your sarcasm thingie -- some are confused

They don't *do* nuance :rofl:

[xxqqqzme]

4. The "Duh!" award this week goes to.....

[bigtree]

11. so he should have just ignored the republicans' blocking of legislation

. . . and not highlight that from the elevation of his office? This is about legislative attempts to reform the system.


PRESIDENT: "You would think that making these reforms would be a matter of common sense. You’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections wouldn’t be a partisan issue.

But the Republican leaders in Congress said no. In fact, they used their power to block the issue from even coming up for a vote.

This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark. They don’t want you to know which interests are paying for the ads. The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.

[Auggie]

5. Thank you, Mr. President. Can you repeat this speech in prime time?

You know, pre-empt American Idol or something...

[DJ13]

6. Next election turn down the $'s from Wall Street Mr. President

Problem solved.

[truedelphi]

35. He can only do that if his buddies

Geithner, Rahm and all the Monsanto folks let him.

But I guess Michelle will still be allowed her organic veggie garden, come what may.

The First Family has to eat healthily.

[another saigon]

64. and Pharma and the Health Care INDUSTRY

and every other corporation that owns our government RIGHT NOW! Does he really believe we are that stupid?

:crazy:

[SammyWinstonJack]

106. He's hoping we are.

:dunce:

[Hansel]

124. Link to proof he took Pharm and Health Care Industry PAC money.

Individual contributions from people who work in those industries don't count.

[Hansel]

123. Link to proof he took Wall Street PAC money.

Individuals who work at financial industries don't count.

I work at a bank as a programmer/analyst. I gave Obama about $1,000. Many of the people who are work with also made personal donations to him. That is counted in the money he gets from financial industries. We hardly were giving it to him because it would benefit the bank. Those are personal contributions and are not on behalf of the bank. However, when you donate, you have to list who you work for. That's how my money gets counted in donations from the financial sector.

If I had wanted my money to benefit the bank, I would have given it to its PAC which I'm pretty sure mostly went to Republican candidates.

[another saigon]

148. a link....

http://agonist.org/timgatto/20080221/obama_doesnnt_take_special_interest_money

Let’s see where these candidates get their money to convince you to vote for them;

Hillary Clinton;
Goldman Sachs $413,361 Morgan Stanley $362,700 Citigroup Inc $350,895 Lehman Brothers $241,870 JP Morgan Chase & Co $214,880 EMILY's List $213,266 National Amusements Inc $210,010 Kirkland & Ellis $179,676 Greenberg Traurig Llp $177,800 Skadden, Arps et al $167,796 Merrill Lynch $165,042 Cablevision Systems $145,313 Time Warner $144,977 Microsoft Corp $143,459 Bear Stearns $141,835 Latham & Watkins $138,598 Patton Boggs $137,200 Ernst & Young $126,865 PricewaterhouseCoopers $121,939

Barack Obama:
Goldman Sachs $421,763 Ubs Ag $296,670 Lehman Brothers $250,630 National Amusements Inc $245,843 JP Morgan Chase & Co $243,848 Sidley Austin LLP $226,491 Citigroup Inc $221,578 Exelon Corp $221,517 Skadden, Arps Et Al $196,420 Jones Day $181,996 Harvard University $172,324 Citadel Investment Group $171,798 Time Warner $155,383 Morgan Stanley $155,196 Google Inc $152,802 University of California $143,029 Jenner & Block $136,565 Kirkland & Ellis $134,738 Wilmerhale Llp $119,245 Credit Suisse Group $118,250

John McCain:
Merrill Lynch $155,950 Citigroup Inc $153,362 Blank Rome LLP $141,401 Greenberg Traurig LLP $130,587 Goldman Sachs $85,252 Univision Communications $82,000 IDT Corp $79,250 Bank of New York Mellon $74,000 Bridgewater Assoc $72,100 MGM Mirage $70,400 Irvine Co Apartment Community $66,100 JP Morgan Chase & Co $65,485 Credit Suisse Group $65,000 Pinnacle West Capital $64,000 Lehman Brothers $63,450 Wachovia Corp $58,675 Cisco Systems $56,650 Morgan Stanley $55,701 Blackstone Group $47,950 MacAndrews & Forbes $45,000

-snip-

Is there something a wee bit fishy up there? Seems like the same people are financing the same “top three”, Is it me being suspicious or is it really true? By the way, these contributions are from employees of these companies that give and are “bundled” together by their employers. Are they being patriotic? Some of these corporations aren’t even American corporations!

Let’s look at the Military Industrial Complex:
Election Cycle 2008*
Total Contributions $9,307,088
$2,819,665 Contributions from Individuals
$6,487,423 Contributions from PACs
$4,861,181 Donations to Democrats
$4,439,327 Donations to Republicans
% to Dems 52%
% to GOP 48%

Why would the MIC give to the Democratic candidates unless they want to influence them?
What I’m saying is that there is no difference between which “corporatist” you see in the major parties that are still in this race, save the only one that hasn’t bet the farm, and that is Mike Gravel. The rest are supported (or should I say employed?) by the same corporations.

So the next time Obama says he doesn’t take “special interest” money, you know that he is a liar. The next time they rant and rave about “change”, you know what change you’ll get: what’s left after their payback to their benefactors.
So, like I said before, vote for the corporate-backed candidate of your choice, we could have stood up to the Mainstream Media when they selected who would get promoted, but we didn’t. We can either keep playing their game, or wake up and smell the coffee. Just one more thing, I don’t make this stuff up.
*Data is from www.OpenSecrets.org

[Angry Dragon]

7. And he is just seeing this now??

And how is he going to lead us forward to stop this??

[bigtree]

12. he outlined our party's response in his address

. . . that I posted.

[BootinUp]

8. I like it. nt

[Auggie]

9. Actually, let's make this a party talking point up until the election

I think it's a good idea

[BootinUp]

10. Will the unreccers please stand up and be honored?

[steve2470]

14. Yes, he's late to the game with this

However, he's 100% correct. Why unrec this ? I guess there are no Republicans or Freepers here at all. extreme :sarcasm:

[jonnyblitz]

16. yes, by all means lets get this "emperor has no clothes"

moment on the Greatest Page!! :rofl:

[sketchy]

17. He's not late with this

Remember his State of the Union call-out of the Supreme Court on this very issue? That's awhile ago.

[bigtree]

19. that's right, good point

Thanks for the reminder, sketchy

[steve2470]

21. You are correct. My earlier post stands corrected nt

[johnaries]

25. Yep, and then when Congress tried to do something about it,

Republicans blocked it. Some people should remember who the real enemy is.

[Wilber_Stool]

48. I'm just waiting for some big corp

to offer to bail out a state. I wonder what the Supreamos will say about that?

[johnaries]

20. Figures, Obama makes an excellent speech and brings

Republicans to task, and some here twist it and try to use it to attack him.
Typical.

[bigtree]

23. I think many folks misunderstand the role of the presidency

. . . in domestic issues like campaign finance. The president can use the elevation of his office to cajole and persuade our legislators to act (see post #17), but there's very little room for him to dictate on this issue.

[Karenina]

31. . .

[LWolf]

32. Actually, I read this and wasn't going to comment, or rec or unrec, at all.

Until I read your response. Which means that I now have to point this out:

I don't base my evaluation of a politician on their words, but their actions.

Speeches don't count unless backed by deeds.

[bigtree]

37. The president doesn't make laws

. . . Congress does. Most of the influence of the presidency on domestic issues like this comes in the form of 'speeches', statements, and addresses. He's said he's willing to sign a bill into law if presented to him , , ,

[LWolf]

53. Really? I never would have known

which branch of the government makes laws, if you hadn't pointed it out.

:sarcasm:

The President DOES influence policy. It's not just a matter of signing or vetoing; he indicates what he's willing to sign, and what he's going to veto based on policy.

Speeches that sound good, and indicate a general support of something, can be, and are, FAR removed from specifics. A good speaker, and Obama is certainly an eloquent speaker, can make the pile of manure sound like a golden goose. Then, when the goose comes home to lay, so to speak, the eggs turn out to be rotten.

I have to look beyond the words, to the intent behind them. How is he using the words? To what purpose? What is he silent on? What is he hammering on? What is he pushing with fine-sounding general words that can mask unpleasant specifics?

Unfortunately, when he decides to get specific, it's too often attacking the very people and issues I'm looking for him to support. For example, his framing of opposition to his destructive RTTT is that educators are "comfortable with the status quo," and "resistant to change." Both of which are blatantly false, but useful propaganda tools for him. His intent there is clear, anyway.

He lobbies for some actions, and against others. Endorsing neoliberal Democrats rather than more liberal Democrats in Congressional races, for example. Doing his part to help determine the make-up of the body that DOES write legislation.

Threatening to veto any bill that transferred money from bad policy (RTTT) into funding jobs, but perfectly willing to cut food stamps instead.

I wonder what kind of bill he's willing to sign? Would he sign a bill that established 100% public financing, period, of elections?

Not that I think Congress would send him that bill. He doesn't really have to worry about signing or vetoing that one, lol.

Here's an action that might have sent a strong, clear, powerful message and helped enact positive change: He could have threatened to veto any health reform bill that didn't include an aggressive public option, and stuck to it. He could have lobbied the Senate Finance Committee hard to put single-payer on the table.

What he chooses to use the "bully pulpit" for, or not, are actions I pay attention to.

My pointing out that a politician needs to walk the talk shouldn't bother you.

And, of course, the context of my post about words vs actions should be noted. I was responding to someone who thought I should be thrilled with an "excellent speech." I think it's perfectly appropriate to point out that I want to see action to back up that excellent speech. Who is he going to lobby? Where is he going to apply pressure?

[bigtree]

73. that's some convoluted stuff there

Congress is still in control over this issue, no matter how anxious some folks are to lay the responsibility on the President's doorstep. Of course, for some folks, nothing he does on this or any other issue will ever be enough to give him credit for.

[LWolf]

78. I don't lay the responsibility on the doorstep of any one branch.

It's a collective responsibility. I'm aware that there are members of Congress who work, and vote, against the best interests of many Democratic voters. I'm also more than aware that many of Obama's policies are not good for many Democratic voters, or for the nation.

If Congress did everything Obama wanted, we'd still be headed in the wrong direction on way too many issues.

[Cherchez la Femme]

111. Yes!

First thing I thought: More great speechifying, but his actions have always been for the corporations not the people.
Rather like the picks for his Cat Food Commission but then announcing that *gasp* those same Republicans want to destroy Social Security!
...which means he'll "compromise" with them when, if made the right appointments, he wouldn't have to compromise.
Watch.

Guess they really DO think we're Fucking Retarded, thinking we'll actually buy that crap from them of all people.

[bigtree]

134. on this issue - unlimited corporate money for political ads

. . .there is NOTHING the PRESIDENT can do other than use the influence and elevation of his office to highlight what he believes needs addressing by Congress. Call it 'speechifying' or whatever, but I don't know how you expect the President to communicate his objections. Telepathy? Ridiculous to characterize his responsibility on THIS issue ahead of Congress' responsibility to craft and send him a bill.

Changing the subject from political ads to corporate influence on government in general deflects from the point of his (and many others affected by these political ads) that corporations should not be allowed the same consideration as individuals when making contributions to political campaigns.

[Chulanowa]

138. Oh really?

So then you must have a pretty low opinion of Grayson and Kucinich, then? 'Cuase, as much as I like what they say, that's pretty much all they've done - say stuff. Unlike Obama, who actually does go into action quite a bit.

Of course, there's something that makes obama different from those guys...



CLEARLY Obama needs to start wearing red ties!

[girl gone mad]

142. Don't be daft.

Both have introduced tremendous legislation. Grayson was successful in pushing for a Fed audit right up until the WH interfered to neuter this immensely popular piece of reform.

Unfortunately, the bulk of Obama's action has been in areas like this - pushing to appease corporate lobbyists, appointing a cadre of corporate clowns and rushing to the defense of corporate crooks.

[Skittles]

146. I'll give him credit

for being able to say that shite with a straight face

[Hell Hath No Fury]

168. I certainly raised an eyebrow ---

when I read that! :wow: I had to check my leg to see if someone was peeing on it.

[sendero]

22. He should know..

... he's at the nexus of the takeover.

You know, the more I think about this the madder I get. This is nothing but spin designed to make you think we don't already have corporate control of the country.

If we didn't we would have gotten real health care reform and real financial reform, things the country DESPERATELY needs and things that would have helped EVERYONE except the big banks and insurance companies.

Nice try Barack.

[whatchamacallit]

24. Genuine concern? Lip service? Pre-election red meat for the angry left?

It's hard to know with Mr. O...

[bigtree]

28. Congress has to act on this

There's little the President can do, outside of utilizing his bully-pulpit, if Congress refuses or fails to agree to enact legislation.

In this case, his admonitions are intended to expose republican chicanery ahead of the midterms. Smart politics and on spot.

[Little Star]

137. BINGO!

[LiberalAndProud]

26. Odds are good there will be a revote on this.

This needs to happen.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0710/Aides_Lieberman_a_yes_on_DISCLOSE_cloture_vote.html

Lieberman hadn't publicly staked out a position on the controversial campaign finance measure — and he won't be in the chamber to vote on the cloture motion today — but he told leadership he would be with them in the likely event of a revote later, sources said.

...

WaPo's Greg Sargent is reporting that conservative Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson is a yes on cloture too.

[The Backlash Cometh]

27. Interesting.

If he's saying it, it means the polls are reflecting that this idea is resonating with the mainstream. He's finally recognizing the disconnect between the DLC and the people they're suppose to represent.

[Mimosa]

61. Good point, Backlash Cometh. eom

[Poboy]

69. This observation is the ONLY take-away. The rest is just hot air.

They are learning to say what needs to be said -to placate us. Actions and deeds are a whole other matter.

[The Backlash Cometh]

71. I agree. But this is a first step.

I had a Democratic phone bank call me for a donation the other day. The said that they were collecting to fight the corporate take-over blah, blah, blah.

I replied that I don't donate money to general funds because there are plenty of Democratic candidates who are alright with corporate take-over.

The person didn't argue with me, said thank-you and hung up.

[Amonester]

29. "they used their power to block the issue from even coming up for a vote"

they have power? me thought they were in the... m i n o r i t y

?!?

silly me

[SeattleGirl]

84. Well, in the senate, it doesn't take much for the minority party

to block things.

[truedelphi]

117. Especially when the Democrats are complicit. n/t

[Desertrose]

30. Yeah, after the fact.

Way after the fact.

[truedelphi]

36. Better late than never...

Except sometimes when it is too late, it is just too damn late.

I mean, I am sure that MMS will now moniter BP a bit more carefully.

Now that the Gulf is so fouled up.

[Hansel]

131. It's time to curl up into a fetal positions and surrender! Surrender!

It's all over! It's too late, the sky is falling! Ahhhhhhhh!


In case it is necessary.

:sarcasm:

[mother earth]

33. Knowing this, one wonders why he didn't come out swinging at the

very start when he had the momentum and the ability? Wonders never cease...why is it that only Edwards had this down during the campaign? Of course, winning the WH meant delivering and beating the machine, but for some reason bipartisanship was essential, afterall, knowing the enemy...BS. Flame away, but this was a friggin given at the start.

[bigtree]

34. SOTU

. . . big controversy over his calling out the Supreme Court for their campaign finance ruling . . . He came out swinging.

[mother earth]

39. Score one, but then why the lame-ness in health care reform?

Why the endless concessions that didn't have to be? Why not use the momentum to his/our favor? Why disappointment after disappointment? Hope and change minus the what could have been, and excuses for minimal hope (if any's left) and then what of the status quo and no accountability, not of the outgoing and not of the truly big offenders in this economic disaster. Sorry, the delivery is too little, I'm no longer inspired, I'm jaded and cynical and ready for real change more than ever.

[bigtree]

42. I think a great deal of the despair about this presidency from folks

. . . is a consequence of brushing past actions and responses like this one to grouse about pet issues which haven't yet been addressed or resolved.

Let's just focus on this address (and the issues surrounding his comments) in this thread. Plenty of room on the page for separate posts on separate issues.

[mother earth]

51. Spoken like a true mediator, I agree, there's a friggin

corporate takeover. WTF? Is this new? Hell no.

[girl gone mad]

143. I'm sorry..

but the looting of trillions of dollars by the banks and their enablers in this administration (and the previous one) is more than a a mere pet issue. At this point in our empire's decay, it's become a matter of national security. We have a few corporate entities engaged in full blown financial terrorism. Unfortunately, whether intentional or not, the White House has largely abetted them thus far.

[Bryn]

38. We've known this problem for a loooong while now.

About time he speaks up! Hope something will be done about this. K&R

[readmoreoften]

41. Is he a captive victim of the system who can't do right or he is a savvy shill for that same system?

In the end, the frightening thing is that it may not matter. The system itself is the problem, hence, the American presidency is now also a part of that problem.

[bigtree]

45. a great deal of the problem

. . . is the unwillingness (perhaps correctly) of Democrats to unilaterally disarm while the republican opposition takes advantage of whatever loopholes exist for them to exploit. I'm not a big fan of unilateral moves, but we did see some candidates refuse PAC money and adhere to other unilateral restrictions on raising and spending contributions. I don't think we can afford to throw up our hands in despair. The President has highlighted specific abuses which our party is ready to address and remedy. We shouldn't just be cynical about that, we should challenge the administration and Congress to live up to their words.

[mother earth]

54. Have we not voted with our agreement? You ask a lot from those

who believed in his message, that he didn't deliver BTW.

[frebrd]

43. He's just now noticing?,,,...

That happened years ago.

:shrug:

[bigtree]

46. wrong

[Bonhomme Richard]

44. They feel so secure they are just coming out......

in the open. The only way to end it is going to be making them feel very insecure personally.
One day the people of this country are going to wake up and it ain't going to be pretty. Unfortunatly I don't think it is going to be anytime soon.

[mother earth]

56. There's a lot of hate and fear being stirred by the opposition,

don't underestimate it. Those are two volatile currents.

[Kurovski]

47. K&R. (nt)

[bvar22]

49. Meanwhile, Rahm was overheard crowing to the BIG Corporate Donors:

"In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system; the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18FE-70B2-A835FE1E7FA8D74C

Deconstruction:

"his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism";
(More Cheap Labor outsourcing, more UNION Busting, more PROFITS for the Ownership Class)

"his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; " (money for nothing, preserved the existing Corporate Structure intact so that Billion Dollar Bonuses would not be interrupted)

"the rescue of the automobile industry;"
(Union Busting, lower wages and benefits, more PROFIT for the Ownership Class)

the fact that the overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system
(a Billion Dollar gift to the people who broke Health Care, and even this statement is a LIE. They "preserved" the For Profit Health Insurance Industry, and even Mandated Customers and Profits for said industry)

"the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts,"
(targeted the already rich)

"and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus."
(Everybody KNOWS that re-instating an upgraded Glass-Steagall was THE fix, and here Rahm is crowing about NOT fixing the broken system so that it CAN and WILL be looted again)


And NOW President Obama is "warning" about a "Corporate Take Over"?

[Mimosa]

62. ^ hmm, is there some dual messaging occuring ^

BVar, I wonder if any of the usual suspects can refute even a single point you've illustrated.

Rahm is clearly one of Obama's links to big business. And he conveys their desires to the President.

[Donnachaidh]

101. and that's how Obama can do speeches *warning* about corporate takeovers

His *hands* are clean. Rahm does all the ass-kissing off-camera....

[Bryn]

63. I knew it was too good to be true!

x(

[Catherina]

91. They think we'll get so lulled by speeches that we won't pay attention

They still don't realize how badly they messed up and how much we've caught on with the help of the internet.

This makes the net neutrality issue even more pressing for the government.

[tomp]

97. exactly. well said and backed up!!!! nt

[Poboy]

113. Excellent post. -nt

[progressoid]

50. This is about controlling the message, not about corporate take over of Democracy.

That's already happened.

[ananda]

52. Harhar. It's already happened, you corporatist you.

nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

108. +1

:evilgrin:

[robdogbucky]

57. The last time I heard of campaign finance reform being taken seriously

Was in summer of '98 when Ariel Sharon marched into Temple Mount, Fred Thompson's committee on finance reform and everything else was lost in the shuffle of Ken Starr madness, etc. From a MotherJones interview of McCrusty in late 1998:

“…In September, the day after campaign finance reform was killed in the Senate for the third time, the news was buried on Page A16 of the New York Times under an avalanche of Clinton-Lewinsky reporting. What did you think when you saw the Times that day?...”

http://motherjones.com/politics/1998/11/john-mccain


That was followed by 2000 selection, 9/11, invasions/occupations in the middle east, massive expansion of MIC, various deregulation-spawned economic hardship and erosion of constitutional rights at home. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.




Hands off my Social Security!
Hands off Latin America!



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[Cleita]

58. Only he has the real power to do something about it right now.

Time to stop talking and start walking IMHO. It has to begin with him or it won't happen.

[bigtree]

74. you mean unilaterally disarm his own campaign efforts

. . . I wouldn't counsel that. This has to be remedied across the board. Everyone is affected by legislation or none.

[Better Believe It]

65. Does this mean President Obama will now dissolve the "deficit commission"?

Their main objective is to cut our benefits while cutting corporate costs of doing business.

[girl gone mad]

144. Members of Obama's Treasury Dept (including the Secretary)..

http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/933.html">told bloggers not two weeks ago that they are very happy with the work the deficit commission is doing.

[MoonRiver]

66. He's correct but what does he propose to do about it?

:shrug:

[kentuck]

67. Unfortunately, they have taken over already.

They own our Congress. They own our Senate. They own our government. Do you need any more proof than that we had 60 Democratic Senators and they were blocked from doing anything? Why? Because they did not wish to go against their corporate masters.

[earth mom]

70. Talking the talk but not walking the walk.

Is anyone falling for this? Didn't we hear this back in '08?

[taught_me_patience]

75. ... says the president who has protected corporate interests

his entire time in office:

AIG
GOLDMAN SACHS
WALL ST
WELLPOINT
BP
ETC...

[eridani]

76. Gobama! Better late than never

And oppose more from now on, OK?

[phleshdef]

77. A lot of people responding to this are proving again to be parodies of themselves.

The President steps up and speaks out against something that we all agree that he should speak out against. But do we have his back? Fuck no. I guess its more fun to take cheap shots at the President. Most of you folks aren't interested in progressing a liberal agenda, you just enjoy playing someone who is on the internet.

[TheKentuckian]

81. When you have the who's who of the DLC and corporate Republican henchmen

DOMINATING your administration, shitloads of corporate welfare, kowtowing to the MIC, jack apple shit on election reforms, trickle down "stimulus", and covering for BP like Armor-All doesn't inspire huge levels of faith in the seriousness in fighting corporate influence and capture with a push for a disclaimer on unending corporate propaganda.

If Obama was serious about this it would start with what is under his control and he's working crappy deals and putting lackeys in charge of oversight.

Look at this fucking cabinet! Look at this cover up for BP that is ongoing! Get a fucking eye full of the focus and inclusion of the criminal "stakeholders" at every table that is ever set!!!

Elections to the biggest fundraiser was Kool and The Gang until it went wild west?

Of course this effort beats nothing but the principle problem is unaffected and ignored. By all means pass this but it is a drop in what was already an endless sea before the Supreme Court dumped another ocean into the hopper and the administration it's self is a big rainmaker.

Geithner, Summers, Emanuel, Duncan, Salazar, Gates, LaHood, Locke, and on and on including Clinton are some of the most loyal allies of corporate America you can shake a fucking stick at. When is that going too be addressed? When will "stakeholders" going to show up and find no seats at the take for them?

[bigtree]

82. good points, well said

. . . still, this bill is (as another poster pointed out above) more about controlling the message than it's about addressing corporate influence in government in general.

[BootinUp]

90. You are barking up the wrong tree, sadly nt

[phleshdef]

162. I don't even read your self righteous, verbal masturbations anymore.

Just letting you know.

[TheKentuckian]

169. Still trying to throw in your two coppers though, right? You're reading you just have zilch in

in response and can neither justify your weak ass assertions and talking point defenses.

[maryf]

182. Don't forget Zbigniew B.

Was one of Obama's first campaign advisors, the fascist...this goes way back...

[Catherina]

92. Au contraire. The parody is expecting people to value speeches over action. n/t

[phleshdef]

163. "I know you are but what am I" come backs are lame, no matter how much you try to fancy them up.

[Brickbat]

79. Oh look, the blue list of accomplishment links just got a little longer!

YES!!!

[mzteris]

80. but but but -

I thought HE was a corporate sell-out!! a corporate stooge. a corporate shill. A "company man" who hates the little guy and the middle-(class) guy . . .

[SammyWinstonJack]

109. Something about how actions speak louder than words...

:shrug:actions

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. Yes indeed and water boils at 100 centigrade too!

[bigtree]

86. and

. . . corporations shouldn't be afforded the same 'donations are free speech' protections that individuals deserve and enjoy. (stuff beyond the title)

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. I know that, you know that

citizens united will make things very INTEEEREESTING!!!!

[glinda]

87. Then he must lead the charge to change it.

[Initech]

93. Warns??? Citizens United made the corporate takeover official!

[Dinger]

149. Exactly (nt)

[JoeyT]

95. For his next trick, he can warn us of the market crashing in 07. n/t

[w4rma]

100. This gives me hope for Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

Do whatever you have to do to pass this legislation, Obama and Congressional Dems! This is possibly some of the most important legislation you'll ever pass.

[Gregorian]

102. A deal to sell Rice University's student-run radio station

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7157667.html


This isn't corporate, but it exemplifies just what the conservative agenda is accomplishing. And it could very well have been corporate. The next conservative in office is going to do the same thing Bush did. Crush the economy of the middle class so the companies can swoop in and profit.

[Radical Activist]

103. He's a corporatist who won't use the bully pulpit for progressive causes!!1!1!!

At least that's what I keep reading on DU.

[jgraz]

110. I'm sure you'll let us know when that translates into actual results.

This is me not holding my breath.

[Dr.Phool]

125. Now can you comprehend what you read?

[Romulox]

151. Except when there is an election looming.

:hi:

[laughingliberal]

164. I was going to rec this thread until I saw your snark.

Seeing the President's remarks, of which I heartily approve, being used to somehow minimize the amount of influence wealthy corporate interests have had on the administration, I changed my mind.

Sad for me because I look for reasons to give the President credit when he's right.

[underpants]

104. The (corporate) press will rip him apart for this... if they mention it

most likely they will ignore it because it is so hard for them to answer

[Romulox]

155. You've never heard of "good cop/bad cop", huh?

Here's a hint: the "good cop" is really a bad cop, too. :hi:

[Kermitt Gribble]

107. This Rovian message brought to you by

Goldman Sachs, Pfizer, BP, Monsanto, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

[truedelphi]

116. + 1 n/t

[Bullet1987]

114. He should have said this as soon as he came into office...

Instead he waits until the height of midterm election season to say what the "Professional Left" has been saying since Bush was in office. As glad as I am to hear him say this...it comes off as political grandstanding. We need more of though. He should say this at the SOTU right to their faces.

[bigtree]

188. he did say this, directly to the SC judges in the front row of his first SOTU

. . . criticizing them directly for their ruling:

March 10, 2010

Chief justice unsettled by Obama's criticism of Supreme Court

John G. Roberts Jr. tells law students that the president's rebuke of a ruling on corporate campaign funding and the subsequent cheering at the State of the Union address were 'very troubling.'
March 10, 2010|By David G. Savage

Reporting from Washington — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told law students Tuesday that he found it "very troubling" to be surrounded by loudly cheering critics at President Obama's State of the Union address, saying it was reason enough for the justices not to attend the annual speech to Congress.

The president, looking down at the six justices in attendance, sharply criticized the Supreme Court for having "opened the floodgates for special interests" to sway elections.

Responding to Roberts' comments, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement, "What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections, drowning out the voices of average Americans."


http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/10/nation/la-na-roberts-speech10-2010mar10

[obxhead]

119. Coming from the man that signed that POS Corporate HCR.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[saracat]

122. Gee I wonder if some will say he isn't supporting himself by saying this? Do you think he would have

even said these words if he wasn't "pressured" ? The "Left" provided Obama with "Politcal Cover" so now he CAN speak out. Obama owes a big "Thank You" to the Left. If the centrists had their way, he would still be kissing corportae ass without a murmur of rebellion.

[Hansel]

129. Yes. I do not think the constant complaining from the "Left"

had any impact on him saying this whatsoever. This is where he stands on the issue and has been pretty clear about it for quite a long time. Even if you weren't paying attention because you were so busy applying "pressure".

He called out the Supreme Court on this in his SOTU address and has been encouraging the congress to act on this since that time. Maybe the "Left" sources you go to missed that.

You must think he is a pretty weak and stupid man. He only does anything because either the corporations are "pressuring" him or the people on the "Left" are. He just simply can't think for himself or do anything without being "pressured" into it.

Ever think he might be just a wee bit smarter than you give him credit for. Maybe even smarter than you.

Obama owes you nothing, BTW. The constant negativity from the "Left", as you say, has been significantly more counter-productive than helpful. Whether you can see that or not. Also, it isn't the "Left" versus the "Centrists". There are a lot of people on the left who don't particularly see the sense in or do they appreciate the constant over-blown complaining by some on the "Left". Your group might be just a wee bit smaller and less influential than you think it is.

[saracat]

133. Please, he is a politician. If you knew anything about politics you would understand the concept of

political cover. This is actually very smart of Obama. And as for "owing" me anything, yes , in fact he does. I voted for him. I made calls. Therefore, I helped get him his job. He "owes" me just like he "owes" everyone. Your position is he doesn't "owe" anyone anything. I beg to differ. He works for us. We are his employers.That is the way the government is set up.We do not have to be grateful to politicians, they are to be beholden to "Us", we the people, the voters. For some time this concept keeps getting lost.
Geo Washington didn't want a title because he wanted it clear that the president was just a citizen, serving at the pleasure of the people.
I do NOT see the President as either weak or stupid. I see him moving in a smart political direction to benefit himself. And that is okay, as long as it benefits the people.
People tend only to benefit from politicians when their interests coincide and this is one of those cases. I view this as a good thing!

[Hansel]

139. If you knew anything about politics you would realize that

constant complaining on the "Left" does not amount to giving him political cover. Giving him political cover would be focusing on local US elections to get progressives elected who will vote for progressive legislation.

In the interim, he needs to stand up and make these kind of strong statements without them being undermined by a vocal few that think that they are the only ones who voted for him or worked to get him elected. Sarcasm and the crap all the way up and down this thread about it being too late and it is just lip service and self-congratulatory ego-centrist pats on the back about how all of the previous complaining, is not about giving him political cover. It's about complaining and undermining and egocentrism. We need to have our voters motivated, not demoralized. And the "Left" you claim is giving political cover does more harm than good in that arena by making Obama look like a first class jerk who could care less about people.

I would be one of the first to say that he has not used the bully pulpit as he should and that he is not as good at messaging as I thought he would be. When he makes these strong statements my response is, good he is finally doing it and he needs to do more. But I certainly don't pretend that because I have said he needs to get better at using the bully pulpit that that is why he is using it. Nor would I expect him to thank me. I guess that is because I'm not so self-absorbed as to believe that because I donated to him and worked for him, and criticized him that that is the only reason he did it.

The constant criticism, pre-judgment of non-existence policies, and exaggeration of his faults coupled with the apparent lack of understanding of the legislative process by many on the "Left" is not giving him political coverage. It is demoralizing the people on the left and making some think that it is hopeless and that he is really against the people who voted for him.

What we need is more efforts on the legislative side and to stop pretending that Obama is the sole issue and problem, and that he is a sell out corporatist. There are sell out corporatists who need more attention and they are in the legislative body. Therefore, when I wanted a progressive candidate for the Senate in Minnesota who would vote the way I wanted, I got up off of my ass (even though I had just broken my leg and was drugged up to the hilt) went to my caucus, and made my argument why he needed to be our nominee. He almost didn't get the nomination from our caucus, but I and others like me made the difference. Today we have Senator Al Franken.

Instead of the "Left" constantly bitching about everything Obama does, the "Left" needs to get off their collective asses and find viable candidates who will vote the way they want and give Obama the votes he needs, the political cover he really needs. They need to be more vocal in support of their issues, instead of letting a bunch of Tea Baggers out shout them. The political cover he really needs. If it doesn't work the first time, do it again until it does work. The "Left" needs to collectively stop pretending that even if Obama had the votes to pass better legislation that he would have worked to prevent it.

But I guess it's easier to pretend that since you got him elected that that was all that needed to happen. That bitching about absolutely everything he does, good or bad, is going to make all of the difference. Instead of working to get candidates elected who will pass a public option or strong regulation, and instead of marching in the streets for what you want, it's much more productive to call Obama names and mock his efforts to do what he needs to do and then to pretend that that is what made him do it. Because clearly one would be motivated by people who constantly complain about whatever they do, whether they can back it up with reality or not.

It is the legislative body that is the biggest problem we have. Not the executive branch. The "Left" needs to figure out that Obama is not a dictator and cut the BS. I know plenty about politics. Enough to know what the "Left" has been doing so far isn't working.

[saracat]

140. First of all what you are describing isn't the definition of political cover.

Political cover is when you have a cacophony of the population "demanding you do something" is that you can argue your hand are tied. That you must support what they want. Often "cover". Obama is not solely to blame for anything. it is a combination of factor, Congress being only one of those factors. But the fact is, the buck stops with the oval office. Just as we blame his predecessor or President clinton, President Obama is no more blameless than they.

Nevertheless, come Novemeber, we have an obligation to vote for the Democrat of our choice and do our best to ensure a Democratic Congress, because there is no other choice.I am working for several primary candidates to ensure my choice gets the nomination. After that , I will work for the nominee.

[Hansel]

176. We have an area in which we can agree.

I absolutely agree with everything that you say in your last paragraph.

You are making the mistake defining a method of providing political cover as political cover itself. It is not. It is just one method of achieving it. There are others.

We will have to agree to disagree on the issue of whether or not the ongoing carping from the "Left" is really providing political cover. I believe it is counter productive and more harmful in the long run because it is too generalized and pervasive. It doesn't focus on a couple of issues rather it is an ongoing constant criticism of everything this president does. In fact, even the concessions that he has done something right is just a opportunity to add a "but" and then bring up other grievances. All that does in the long run is weaken him and turn people against him.

The carping from the "Left" had absolutely nothing to do with what Obama has said here. Zilch. The idea that he owes people who gripe about absolutely everything he does a thank you because he has come out and said something that any real objective observer understands he has been pretty much saying all along is laughable at best.

Edit to add: This thread is loaded with examples of the carping I'm talking about. Exactly how are any of these vast generalizations and even ignorant comments giving him political cover?

[saracat]

180. That is something to think about . But it is indeed factual that it is usually

"griping" from the left that forces change in that it allows political figures to move forward. Unfortunately in todays world there are many things to gripe about. And they are things that cannot be "compared" and are equal in focus. How can one saying "ending" the war, either in Iraq or Afghanistan is less important than LGBT rights, or that it is MORE important? How can one say Gay Marriage is MORE important than protecting Choice? Can one rate the environment as less important than educating children,? Is the economy and the creation of jobs less important than any of those issues? It is a really complex storm. And unfortunately only a cacophnay of noise from all those concerned seems to bring results.

Just yesterday, in fact, I saw posted right here that GLBT folks didn't deserve "equal consideration" because they weren't "loud" enough and were expecting to have reform "handed" to them. They were unflatteringly compared to the women who marched for sufferage. Many people supported that POV. Well, if every one of the equally critical issues facing us attempts to become heard, things begin to look like general carping" to some. How can they not? OTOH, some good may be done if the WH is forced to get out of its bubble and see the real world and the conditions effecting us.

[Hansel]

181. You are right about the number of issues.

This is the mess we were left with and it's going to take some time to sort through all of it. It is understandable that there is a lot of angst and criticism. I just wish there was some effort to curb some of it.

I think Obama is methodical in the way he approaches change. We want to see it happen now, but the issue with that is that most people don't like change. It makes them afraid which tends to result in backlash. I think his incremental approach is more likely to result in long term change. As he makes changes and the world doesn't come to an end, people will be more trusting and accepting of larger change. But he needs to gain trust from the majority to do it. Let me add here that this approach isn't always appropriate. Like in the case of the stimulus package. That should have been a much bigger change.

This is what the exaggerated accusations from the right are about. Making him seem more extreme than he is to make it impossible to make incremental changes, because those are the lasting ones and the ones that they are most afraid of.

I don't think he has done a good job of messaging nor has he done a good job of making the left feel included, letting them in on his strategy if you will. And I don't think the left has done a good job of going out en mass to push for a larger increments in the changes. Pushing for just a little more than what they offer instead of the whole ball of wax.

I think there was a huge failure last summer during the HCR debate. Obama was out there pushing hard for the public option. I went to a rally with about 20,000 people in MN when he did. But it didn't translate into progressives challenging Tea Baggers at the town halls and challenging their congressmen and senators. If we had shown up en mass and made our stand clear, I think it would have given some wavering Democrats in Congress the guts to vote for a public option and would have put the fear of God in others. But that didn't happen.

What did happen was left leaning blogs were filled with OPs on how Obama sold out to the insurance companies and big pharma, and how the fix was in and how he was just giving lip service to the public option. How he lied to us.

I didn't see it that way. I saw a guy pushing hard to rally progressives and they failed him. You had people with the microphones on the left, like Ed Schultz, who when callers asked him to call people to rally for the PO, said he wasn't going to do that because that's not his job. I did not see one major blog call for a rally. I truly believe that Obama could not get the votes because we did not give individual members in congress the political cover they needed to vote that way. And that left radio, TV and blogger-phere failed miserably on this point. We let the Tea Baggers control the message and shout us down.

I think when Obama lobs us a home run hit and we don't swing, like the public option issue, we become our own greatest enemies. We need to stop blaming him and exaggerating his flaws to make us feel better about our failure to work for it, to act.

I see what you are saying about the number of issues and choosing one over the other. I am greatly irritated at his weak stand on gay marriage. But when he does positive things such as push for the repeal of DADT, the left should curb the urge to criticize him for not acting fast enough. He is trying to turn a Jurassic era institution around and needs the space to do it. Just providing leadership on that issue (and on providing Federal employees benefits for domestic partners) helps to pave the way for greater changes, albeit changes that are realistically too slow. I think that having Ted Olson in the corner of gay marriage is huge. If anyone can convince the Supreme Court on this issue it is him. There is no turning back now. The time for marching is not until the court rules because there is no influencing courts through marches. Whoever said the GLBT folks don't deserve laws in their favor because they weren't loud enough is a fool. The changes are coming and they have apparently been loud enough.

To every thing...there is a season.

[saracat]

183. This is an interesting conversation.I see the point that you are making and

had I not direct experience involving some of this I would likely see it your way. I do not buy into the assumption that the President supports the Public Option. The Speaker fought hard for the PO but it was the WH that forced Congress to drop it and the WH DID meet with the Big Pharma, they themselves admit that, and made a deal with them in order to get them on board.They didn't want protests to greet their proposal as did the Clinton HCR. Incremental change may have worked in a different world, but we do not live in that kind of world anymore. We were able to see the Bush Admin make all these changes and devastate us with the stroke of a pen so it is a little dicey telling us we have to wait. Much of the change many of us have been demanding has already been incremented by other admins so asking for definitive change for things that have been long awaiting isn't out of line.

And it isn't only change in the positive way that has many upset. Certain issues have been regressed. Choice has been dealt quite a few blows and with the full support of executive orders, signed by this President. Off shore drilling was promoted just prior to the leak. That has been very shocking to many of us who never expected to see such an action taken by a Democratic Admin. It is very hard to tell folks they shouldn't speak out about that.

[Hansel]

184. It is good that we can have conversation...

I can understand that you don't think Obama supported the public option, but I really don't believe he was lying about it and that is what I would have to think if I came to the conclusion that he didn't. I really think he just didn't get the support from the troops, sort of speak, that he thought he would could get. I think we could have pressured that last few votes for it and I still think it will be done. I think it is a fight that will be revisited if we do not get completely trounced in the mid-term elections.

I'm not sure how the deal with big pharma impacted not getting a public option. The public option would have impacted the insurance companies more than big pharma I would think. You could be right, but I don't have full faith in some of the reporting on this either. Obama has always said he would bring all of the parties into the room and I think that is what he is doing.

I know there are a lot of people on the board who think he is also in bed with the banks. I work at a bank and can guarantee you that he is not. They do not love Obama in any way, shape or manner. He is seen as a threat. So when I read stuff about him being a corporatist and in bed with Wall Street it makes me laugh. I have worked for financial institutions about half of my career and I can tell you that it was completely different than when the Bush's were in office as to how the banks feel about them. They loves them some pliable Republicans and they most definitely do not, in any manner, support Obama as some on this board would have us believe. I know that for a fact.

When I say incremental change I don't mean tiny change. I mean like when he got HCR passed. That is a huge 1st step because now the government's involvement in HCR has been accepted as being a reality (whether the right wingers want to believe that or not). We no longer have to use the energy just to get it to be a reality. Now we can use our energy to improve upon it. We have our foot in the door. NOW is the time to go after the public option and the improvements we want to see. Instead of worrying about what we didn't get, we need to get Democrats elected that will get us what we want.

I was not happy with Obama on either the choice issue or the off shore drilling. But I do believe that, specifically on the off shore drilling, that he was trying to buy time. Because in time it will be a moot point. If he could give up that issue, while increasing regulation on it, it would buy the time needed to develop new alternative energy sources while gaining support for funding it from some of the centrists. The choice thing, though, I agree with you just pissed me off. He's definitely not perfect. But I think he's far from horrible.

[saracat]

186. I am glad we are able to have this conversation as well. I do not think the president was "lying"

either. I do think he "caved" to what was presented as political expedience. He had the support of the Public, the majority of whom wanted the Public Option. The problem with the current HCR, is it does more harm than good. With the deal with Big Pharma in place, we are now forced to purchase Health Insurance that we cannot use because we can't afford the medical treatment. Many times a doctor has attempted to prescribe meds that the patient cannot afford. And this situation is even worse for those of us that fall between the cracks.

The new High Risk Pool is another abomination and not as it was marketed at all.The cost is the same as regular insurance and the patient must be uninsured for 6 mos before applying. The part where the president was dishonest was campaigning against the mandate. Volunteers were specifically told during the primary to attack Hillary on that issue. it was the major issue he used against Hillary. He said HCR with a mandate was not HCR!

I do not agree that HCR was a good first step and I feel badly that I can't. The Public Option would have been a "good first step". It just looks to me that we handed the RW a weapon against us when it could have been so much more. If we were going to take that kind of risk, it should have been something worthwhile,not something that raised premiums even before it became law. And those premiums won't be lowered as the result of HCR either.

It is very sad to me but I believe the scab has been pulled off all the politicians in the last couple of elections.And now we are forced to see that it is all about politics, not people. And it is about power. That is all anything is about anymore.

There are still a few good soldiers for the people but they can only do so much and as Barny Frank once said to me in an interview, "the only time he ever voted for a candidate who was not compromised was when he voted for himself the very first time."

[Hansel]

189. I don't know how it will all turn out but I am more optimistic

clearly. That's okay. You might be right and I might just be naive. Hope spring eternal.

I think that what we have to do is to hold together and keep on trying to get the progressive candidates elected. Fail on that and I'm still for holding my nose and voting for the progressive. I'm lucky here in Minnesota that we do have some good progressive candidates (well except for my congressional district where we just barely get beat by some milquetoast Republican every time). It's harder in other states though I know that.

My concern is that too much complaining about everything Obama is or isn't doing is not helping us gain the strength to push more progressive legislation. My greatest concern is demoralizing potential Democratic voters by making them feel all is lost. It's only lost if we give up. We need a foundation to build on and even though you disagree, I think HCR is one of those foundation.

I really don't think the mandate is going to be there once we get to 2014 so I'm not that worried about it. It's pretty weak anyway. But I really don't think he was dishonest about it. I think he got talked into it. Remember, he has the Clinton's financial advisors and Hillary was for this. I think the public option would be a good step, but I don't think without the rest of the bill it would have ever happened. Now there's a bill we can work on. That is a huge hurdle even though I know you don't agree.

I really like that we are talking. It beats my snippy sarcasm. I got in trouble on another thread when I wasn't even being sarcastic. I was just asking a question sincerely about why someone posts here when they are so unhappy with Democrats. It didn't go over very well. Apparently it's against the rules. But I really was just asking. It's hard sometimes to have a real conversation through type. I'm glad we seem to be able to even though we disagree. I just feel real strongly that we have got to find some way to work together and get progressives in office.

Thanks saracat.

[saracat]

190. I absolutely agree! I must return to the polls today and promote my favorite

candidates. I live in AZ so it it vitally important we elect Democrats. And nothing is more important than getting Terry Goddard elected Governor. Nothing.He is unprimaried but we have some other excellent candidates running and we must choose carefully.WE must WIN. in November. Losing would be unspeakable.

[girl gone mad]

145. This is where he speaks on the issue during campaign season,

not where he stands in principle.

Where he stands is at the head of an administration primarily staffed with some of the most deeply connected corporate insiders ever to roam the corridors of power.

[Radical Activist]

136. This is not a new position for Obama.

Obama was already part of the left on this issue so no, he wasn't pressured into it. Of course he needs the help of allies on the left. That's always a good thing. I don't see all the snide, cynical responses on this thread doing anything to help build support for the issue though.

Do you think dismissing the statement as insincere and too late to meaning anything (as many on this thread are doing) encourages Congress to go along or reinforces Obama's message in any way? It looks awfully self-defeating to me.

[and-justice-for-all]

127. Then put the brakes on it Barack!!! nt

[Hansel]

130. Say it loud and clear Obama.

This is a huge threat to our democracy and instead of all of the Chicken Little's coming on this thread to whine about it and take a dump, they ought to be encouraging it if they really want to see the changes they claim they want to see. I guess "if" is the operative word however.

[deutsey]

132. And in other news, a farmer closes the barn door after the horses escaped.

Well, it's nice to hear this kind of talk coming from the White House. I sincerely it does some good, but I have my doubts.

[Joe Fields]

150. Nice words. Not impressed.

Actions always speak louder than words, and the actions of this administration have shown where its allegiances are. The Obama administration has done nothing BUT cater to big business interests.

When it reverses the budgets of the military and the dept. of education...

When it creates a massive WPA style jobs program...

When it penalizes corporations for outsourcing jobs...

When it allows the sunset on the Bush tax cuts...

Then and only then will I be impressed.

[LostinVA]

152. Oh my, the irony is breathtaking n/t

[Romulox]

154. ...in related news, Obama says that BP says that all the oil is disappeared!

:eyes:

[jonnyblitz]

160. ...and the Iraq War is OVER!11

*snicker*

[LostinVA]

167. Even though a US servicemember was killed today

I believe there was a chorus saying this wouldn't happen.

Peace to his family and friends.

[asdjrocky]

158. Takes one to know one. nt

[lonestarnot]

159. K & R Mr. President. Now let's see what you can do about that.

[joeybee12]

161. With his track record thus far, I think the term for this is chutzpah...n/t

[librechik]

165. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for your courage.n/t

[kentuck]

172. I'm behind the President on this issue.

He is right.

It is a "corporate takeover" if Congress can do nothing about it.

I'm standing with the President on this issue.

[Poboy]

174. Every time I see this title, I laugh. As if he is going to do anything about it. lol

[Poboy]

178. Kicking again for comedic value. -nt

[blindpig]

175. Warning? It's a done deal.

How is this any different than what's been going on anyway? The Supremes just ratified reality.

As though big money does not massively influence the Democratic Party too...

[conspirator]

177. What are you going to do about it Mr President? Words are cheap n/t

[shanti]

179. breathtaking

that he's just now saying this!! :grr:

[bigtree]

187. he stirred quite a bit of controversy addressing this during his first SOTU

. . . directing his comments to the Supreme Court judges sitting in the front row.

Interesting that you're just now hearing this . . .

[TheWatcher]

185. With all due respect, Mr. President, you're a bit late.

But Thank You So Much for taking time out of your busy day to express your concern.

We, the lowly Serfs, are so eternally grateful.

:eyes: