Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Urges Liberal Advocacy Groups to Stop Attacks
President Obama, strategizing yesterday with congressional leaders about health-care reform, complained that liberal advocacy groups ought to drop their attacks on Democratic lawmakers and devote their energy to promoting passage of comprehensive legislation.
In a pre-holiday call with half a dozen top House and Senate Democrats, Obama expressed his concern over advertisements and online campaigns targeting moderate Democrats, whom they criticize for not being fully devoted to "true" health-care reform.
"We shouldn't be focusing resources on each other," Obama opined in the call, according to three sources who participated in or listened to the conversation. "We ought to be focused on winning this debate."
Specifically, Obama said he is hoping left-leaning organizations that worked on his behalf in the presidential campaign will now rally support for "advancing legislation" that fulfills his goal of expanding coverage, controlling rising costs and modernizing the health system.
In the call, leaders of both chambers expressed optimism that they will hold floor votes on legislation to overhaul the $2.2 trillion health system before Congress breaks in early August.
For his part, the president vowed to use his strong approval rating with voters to continue making the case for sweeping reform, according to one congressional staffer with knowledge of the conversation. Obama also hinted that efforts are under way to discourage allies from future attacks on Democrats, according to the source, who did not have permission to speak on the record about the discussion.
The White House had no comment on the president's call.
In recent weeks, liberal bloggers and grass-roots groups such as MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, Service Employees International Union and Progressive Change Campaign Committee have targeted Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.).
A fundraising video produced by Democracy for America suggests Landrieu is a "sellout" because she has received $1.6 million in campaign contributions from the health-care industry and has yet to endorse the concept of a government-run health insurance plan to compete against the private companies. The public-option concept, which Obama supports, has become a litmus test for many pro-reform activists who accuse the insurance industry of failing to deliver affordable, accessible care.
"Tell Senator Landrieu to support the people of Louisiana, not insurance companies," the spot concludes.
Founded by former Vermont governor Howard Dean, Democracy for America argues that inclusion of a Medicare-style public option in health-care legislation is "non-negotiable."
MoveOn, a Web-based political action committee that works to elect "progressive" leaders, intended to run commercials over the Fourth of July holiday criticizing Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) for her silence on the public option. But after she endorsed legislation crafted by Democratic colleagues on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that includes that provision, the group dropped its plans.
"This measure is the heart of health-care reform and is supported by MoveOn's 5 million members, as well as the majority of the American people," said MoveOn's executive director, Justin Ruben. "With the support of legislators like Senator Hagan, we can come closer to our goal of making quality health insurance accessible and affordable for everyone."
Health Care for American Now, a labor-based coalition of 1,000 groups, has organized a petition pressuring Feinstein to support legislation that includes a public option.
"We need a senator who is championing, not nay saying, the need for reform," the petition says. "We're hoping Sen. Feinstein becomes a 'champion' for the people of California and stands up for President Obama's health reform."
Richard Kirsch, who runs the coalition, said most of the group's ads are educational or focused generally on the need for broad-based change.
"We've been promoting reform and yes, asking members of the public to contact their senators," he said yesterday. "It's all in support of reform."
Feinstein said in an interview last week that she does support health reform but has concerns about the cost of legislation and the impact on her home state. She discounted the attacks as unhelpful and counterproductive.
Obama was joined on the call with lawmakers by White House health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, though he led most of the conversation. DeParle and White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina have been in intense negotiations with hospital representatives in the hope of extracting guaranteed spending reductions from the industry.
155 Comments so far
Show AllThis is how we push legislators and the President to stick to his guns on a public option.
Well, I think it's working to a degree. He wouldn't be venting like he is if he weren't feeling the heat.
Obama specifically asked us to make him do what's right. That's what we're doing.
Keep up the heat!
I agree.
While the warning against reverting to prior circular firing squad behavior is apt; the need to remind those fuzzy Democrats in the Senate whom are too beholden to the health insurance and drug industries that their actions are being watched closely is more pressing. This time around, health care has simply devolved into such a corporate driven mess that a repeat of the debacle of 1994 can not be tolerated. Therefore, I have taken the opportunity to remind one of my state's senators, Diane Feinstein, that coddling these corporate criminals this time is not acceptable.
There is no circular firing squad. To be circular, we'd have to have a seat at the table, so to speak. We have been shot in the back by the party that held itself out to be the solution to, not the continuation of corporate power.
Who does Obama think he is, courting the liberal vote with a raft of campaign promises, reversing himself on those promises after the election, and then telling the liberals to shut up and roll over?!
Not going to happen! As far as I'm concerned, he LIED! What was all that talk about a public option and no mandate? He didn't express that as wishful thinking, he was drawing a line. With that and all the other U turns he's made, I don't even listen to him anymore. Just like Shrub, if his lips are moving, he's lying. And he's the first politician I actually had hopes for. No more. I even believed that if the people took to the streets he wouldn't order the National Guard to shoot. Now I believe he would.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Obama still has 3 years to turn things around but I share your disappointment in his betrayal. In some ways, Obama is still technically liberal. Obama may be dumb enough to send troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that could cause destabilization in neigbhoring countries but where do you get the notion that Obama would order the National Guard to shoot? He can't be that nasty. Even Cheney never went that far unless I missed something.
Ranjit Kumar, so far, the people haven't hit the streets. But Shrub did write executive orders for declaring martial law in case of civil unrest and Obama has declined to reverse them. And what about Blackwater in New Orleans shooting civilians? When police broke into stores for water, it was OK. When Blacks did it, it was looting and shoot to kill. Did you forget that?
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
"so far, the people haven't hit the streets. But Shrub did write executive orders for declaring martial law in case of civil unrest and Obama has declined to reverse them."
I don't think that street protests are necessarily effective. I've read about cases where they supposedly worked but in the end, it was working on electing the right representation that would break the status quo. If our side took to the streets, the other side would be prepared to do so and we would risk more blood shed and loss because there's always a chance that even in a peaceful protest, someone becomes a loose cannon and then security abuses its power and violence erupts. On the other hand, if our side is silent and peaceful in counter-infiltrating our representatives by focusing on vetting and hiring candidates that really stand for us much like the way the corporate interests do theirs, our chances for breaking the status quo are greater. I don't believe that violence is the answer to our problems and I don't feel comfortable about the idea of street protests as a result.
The street protests for ending the wars in Vietnam and Iraq as well as the street protests for stopping the free trade pacts didn't work out well. Our side would have been better off silently and peacefully defeating the long term status quo by vetting and hiring better candidates to counter the corporate puppets. Vietnam War ended when a few members of Congress had the guts to force the Pentagon and other members of Congress to slow down the funding. We don't have such politicians except for a few and the other side is more prepared to deal with it. We should instead focus on thinning the political forces on the other side election after election. The more the representatives standing for the war and corporate interests find out that we're working towards giving them the pink slip unless they behave themselves, the more likely they'll either try to outsmart us at first or give it up and side with us.
"And what about Blackwater in New Orleans shooting civilians? When police broke into stores for water, it was OK. When Blacks did it, it was looting and shoot to kill. Did you forget that?"
I only know the basics of the plight of the blacks in New Orleans. I don't believe that looting and shooting is acceptable regardless of who does it. LA is a hick state as it is and the current governor is already being a total disgrace to both Christians and Indian Americans from what I hear. I live in Washington DC so I can't tell completely.
"I don't think that street protests are necessarily effective."
I think many Iranians would disagree with you on that.
And what happened? Nothing changed. Like I said, violence doesn't work.
Ranjit. Iran 1979. Violence Worked.
Even if it did work, did it ensure stability and long term success and if so for whom?
Well, with all due respect... the US is responsible for putting Khomeni in power. I wish our government would stop messing with the will of the people in other countries. It's really atrocious. And we keep doing it and never learning our lesson.
RANJIT,
Yes. I agree with your principle. I abhor the use of violence, too. I wasn't questioning THAT part of it. I was merely suggesting that the Iranian people DO believe their protests (some with a measure of violence perhaps) will work - that is why they staged them, despite what you and I might think.
Ranjit - Our nation was founded first on the Declaration of Independence with a violent REVOLUTION following, during which we engaged the trained British army and navy. Our soldiers were farmers and shopkeepers and similar, and it was all quite bloody for a good number of years.
We did get help from France eventually--thanks to Benjamin Franklin as ambassador to that country, and I forget who the German Hessians were helping, but the point is there was no alternative anymore except to fight for freedom and autonomy for the Colonies and from the English Crown or roll over. The fighting was done by the ordinary man with the women keeping the households together until the Revolution--the War was won.
If I recall correctly the BHAGAVAD-GITA depicts the young prince [Arjuna?] as someone reluctant to lead and fight because it wasn't his nature to fight and kill, but in the end that's what he had to do. It is a matter of temporarily taking on a role which is not your essential essence, but which sometimes is necessary to assume to defend, protect, defeat, move things along, etcetera.
I have come to respect George Washington very much from my readings through the years. An intelligent, quiet, well-respected man of few words, who would have much preferred to be at his lovely home in Mount Vernon [and yes, he was flawed by being a slave owner], but he was a great leader, compassionate, kind and yet decisive and far-seeing. He never got home for seven years, but he did what he believed he had to do.
Regarding the Civil Rights movement, all of the explosive rioting ... was necessary in the long run. Messy and destructive, yes, but there was no ignoring the fury, the anguish, and the needs of the Black communities anymore, and it paved the way for all kinds of Civil Rights legislation.
Any new creation is born from something being destroyed, even at the simplest level.
The seed husk must burst for the seedling to emerge and begin to grow; a bank of earth crumbles for the waterfall to become a gentle stream; the land is cleared to build a house; the houses are bulldozed to create a park.
To avoid violence, I think Gandhi's non-cooperation has shown itself to be very effective. When workers go on strike and refuse to return to their looms--their machines, that is non-cooperation, as are slow-downs and gumming up the works a bit on the assembly line. An organized mass of people deciding not to go to work and just stay home can bring a lot of things to a halt and pave the way for negotiations. That's how our labor unions became so strong, but usually there was some form of violence that was part of these new creations.
If auto, truck, and airplane mechanics all decided to take a month-long holiday across the nation, commerce would come to a halt. Same with clerks and secretaries, who all know the bosses can't function without them because they do most of the work and generally have to tell or remind the bosses at whatever level about the details of what's going on, whether that's verbally or with all the typewritten sheets or computer text and charts cranked out in a day's work.
The Power is with The People, in a highly industrialized society especially. The wheel cannot go around if they ... the cogs ... are all gone for a day or two or three or thirty.
Change is the only universal constant. And sometimes change is brought about by a form of fairly benign destruction/violence; sometimes by heavy-duty violence, and sometimes for a time the outcome seems good. But as life has become more complex, it is clear that none of us is in charge of the outcome, and that goes for the simple life too.
"Wanna' make God laugh? ... Tell Him/Her your plans." [Dr. Caroline Myss-"Energy Anatomy"]
We can only do our best with the best of intentions. And that allows us a wide range.
What is happening now out there in the "killing fields" with my own country's indoctrinated soldiers, the murderers, to control or to take what the Big Bosses want is totally unacceptable to me. I think if most of these soldiers knew the truth they wouldn't be soldiers.
I see most of the violence in the world as an outcome of very juvenile thinking by very unevolved people caught up in their own egoistic, misguided, and often greedy, ambitious thinking and being.
But who's who and what's what is not up to me for the most part certainly. I am not in charge. That's for sure.
But violence and destruction has its place in the scheme of things. It always has had its place from the past to the current.
And planning for peaceful, non-violent actions has its place too.
And all of the above comes down to individual choices and karmic outcomes.
So far, it is apparent that too many of our choices have led us to a place of darkness and danger.
But it's still up to us -- you and me.
/cm
Goodness. That was one incredible post. Thank you.
Agreed - It covered all the most important points about the efficacy of organized resistance.
One more example was the recent case of the BART Station Cop-killing of Oscar Grant, permitted, peaceful, permitted rallies went nowhere until the crowd rose up and started smashing some windows (only of large corporate entities like the Gap, Wells Fargo and Starbucks) and burned some police cars. The cop was arrested in Nevada the next day.
But, the organizers of the peaceful rally were all upset, to the point of tears, about the "violence" and blamed a few anarchist troublemakers of course (some things never change). For the peaceful organizers, it was almost irrelevant whether their tactics produced results. Their extreme interpretation of "nonviolence" - where any form of disruption or confrontation is considered "violence" - was an end in and of itself.
Cee Miracles,
Thank you for further illustrating what I was trying to say. You understand Gandhi and the culture of non-violence very well. I see that you have also learned from the BHAGAVAD-GITA where Arjuna is very reluctant to resort to violence but Krishna's teachings remind and rekindle his thinking that the Pandavas have in fact exhausted all their non-violent options to the point of being forced to give up Dharma which Arjuna just doesn't want to do. Krishna reminds him of the dire situation everyone is in and who is all at stake and eventually he regains his confidence. I know that some trolls on this forum will try to say "Oh see, Ranjit is a hypocrite because he too admits violence works, blah-blah-blah" but that is not what this is about. You have written very beautifully and I strongly commend you for your patience and understanding. I wish you a bright future ahead and I look forward to more posts from you. Namaste.
"But violence and destruction has its place in the scheme of things."
The reign of the chimp ought to have inspired you to think twice about such an idea. Maybe you were too busy participating in the bonanza?
Violence/destruction have no place. The people may always bring down the elites by denying them the human resource. The people can control the elites with puppet strings. Violence is never needed. Don't try to push the people into the hands of elites.
"I don't think that street protests are necessarily effective."
NATIONAL STRIKE.
Don't go into the streets. Clearly state the cause, stock up on food and stay home until the Iraq occupation, the Afghanistan invasion and war, and the civil war fomented by Obama in Pakistan are ended and all U.S. troops brought home. Once that is accomplished, give the MIC 6 months notice that they are to close all overseas bases in the next 180 days, or the next NATIONAL STRIKE will be called.
Yeah. Total fantasy. Never happen. But I can dream at least.
TRied it baby, back in March, EFCA Now/Single Payer Now/Out of Iraq-Af-Pak Now - a one day General Strike Sick Out (followed by successive days over 6 wks) to shut the country down, for just the reasons you site and more. Tried to bring the Single Payer Folks together with the Union folks along with the Ant-War groups. A couple of folks were polite and helpful but overall - the silence was deafening. Nothing more than I expected. I often take such actions to test operating beliefs. Mostly I am right but if you don't bet, can't win.
Upshot: The "Players" won't work together so they hang separately...duh. Now that's a shock.
Bottom Line: BHO is going to rape you to death while pretending to do something else...big surprise? I hope not. The implied long since became predictable and is now inevitable...like the spontaneous food riots of '10-'11 and the use of the North American Division using sonic and microwave weapons on the general US population - already 'field tested' in Iraq, Gaza, Jenin, et al. "Screw them nasty protesters - get a bath and get a job nasty asshole..." Inevitable...
Peece.
Martial law is on the horizon. Its part of the three step new world order. Phase 1: Corporate control of the media. Phase 2: The complete looting of the treasury. Phase 3: Martial law hits the streets when the masses are hungry and homelless and destitute. We're up to phase 3. You will most likely witness it first in California within a few weeks when its citizens realize its the end of the world as they know it.
This is why we need to peacefully and silently counter them. They silently defeated us and they did not need any weapons. We must counter them likewise.
Three years ago, CD posted an excellent piece by George Lakoff which is invaluable even today. If you really want to counter fascism, give this a read and then try developing silent and peaceful counter moves:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0704-29.htm
If India were like Israel and the US, you wouldn't be seeing Pakistan and Afghanistan by now but we're not and yet the stupid West has the nerve to call India a monster when in fact most people except the religious fundamentalists don't believe in violence as the answer.
Ranjit, so it is religious fundamentalists who acquired nuclear weapons and now control them? It is Indian religious fundamentalists who have been at war in Kashmir?
Ranjit, the West is stupid, most Indians are peaceful. But beware cannonizing a billion people en masse.
And Ranjit, as India becomes a country of increasing wealth, billionaires, classes and propaganda to promote class-warfare, prepare to say goodbye to much of the calm and serenity you hold dear.
anjali
"Ranjit, so it is religious fundamentalists who acquired nuclear weapons and now control them? It is Indian religious fundamentalists who have been at war in Kashmir?"
Thanks to both religious fundamentalists and the West for arming and funding them, the people of Kashmir, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are much worse off than if both the religious fundamentalists and the West had left them alone completely. No country ruled by religious fundamentalists has turned out to be successful.
"And Ranjit, as India becomes a country of increasing wealth, billionaires, classes and propaganda to promote class-warfare, prepare to say goodbye to much of the calm and serenity you hold dear."
We'll see how much of that holds true. There are attempts to fight back the yuppie style capitalism there but the Western media won't tell you that.
"Obama still has 3 years to turn things around "
I was willing to give him 3 days to get over his inaugural hangover, but then he should have got straight down to the business of prosecuting the entire bush gang and all the miscreants who went along with his criminal endeavours.
I THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO "MAKE HIM DO IT".
SO WHY SHOULDN'T WE MAKE MAKE HIM DO SINGLE PAYER??
"TOO DISRUPTIVE"... that is why we cannot do the right thing.
Oopa here comes another disruption....
"I even believed that if the people took to the streets he wouldn't order the National Guard to shoot. Now I believe he would."
Kathy, are you okay? This doesn't sound like you.
I know you're pissed, and rightly so, but do you really believe what you wrote above? Please don't lose all hope, I'd hate to see another friend consumed by paralyzing cynicism.
Well said Ted Markow. If you compare how India obtained her independence via peace and perseverance compared to how the USA obtained her independence via anger and violence and watch the long term effects of each method, you will realize that the path to long term victory lies in doing it peacefully and silently. Violence and loudness will only ensure a short term victory at best followed by a long term backfiring at worst.
That's a very romantic and historically inaccurate view of your country's independence. And don't play the "but I'm an Indian!" trump card. Most of the people in this country couldn't tell you who the king was that we rebelled against.
India was the fortunate recipient of an exhausted and nearly dead empire. Britain was devasted by both World Wars, and India would be the toughest colony to hold by force. There's solid evidence to believe that Britain would have pulled out of India regardles of whether or not Ghandi and his movement ever existed.
The hard truth is almost no non-violent revolutions have succeeded; and those few that have were largely incidental bonuses from an empire that had pretty much collapsed.
Keep ALL of your options on the table. Sometimes you can win with a sneeze if the master's sick enough. More often than not, however, you're going to have to fight for it. Btw, in your example, take a good long look at who's been around a lot longer.
"India was the fortunate recipient of an exhausted and nearly dead empire. Britain was devasted by both World Wars, and India would be the toughest colony to hold by force. There's solid evidence to believe that Britain would have pulled out of India regardles of whether or not Ghandi and his movement ever existed."
What historical nonsense. Your western high schools never bothered to teach you history of the Far East and neither do colleges unless you take that course as an elective. Even history majors get to skip learning about the Far East. There's no evidence to back your claim unless you have any.
"The hard truth is almost no non-violent revolutions have succeeded; and those few that have were largely incidental bonuses from an empire that had pretty much collapsed."
That's the kind of typical radical extremist response you Westerners keep spewing but not everyone in the West is believing that nonsense of yours. Violence never worked and never will. If you cannot understand that then you need serious mental counseling.
"take a good long look at who's been around a lot longer."
India has existed for millennia while the USA is already falling apart from within before two and a half centuries have passed.
Negative suggestions aside, I agree that violence is ingrained in the Western psyche. Even when we are railing against our violent colonialism, we can't seem to see any other way out other than by violence.
I have to admit that at times, I too see violent revolution as a distinct possibility. However, I also know that violent revolution does not guarantee that the successor to what caused it would be any better. There is no way to steer the direction of violence, nor the outcome.
Thanks Ted. I apologize if I sounded a little too broad. There's a lot I like about the West which the East could learn from but impatience and violence I don't approve of. There have been plenty of instances of violence even in the East but when the peaceful ones stepped in and held their patience and perseverance even when they were at greatest risks, the people won. I applaud you for your understanding of non-violence and I hope others will also do the same eventually. From what I studied in history, the pattern I found out about violent revolutions is that violence blinds people and causes them to lose their focus which is the reason success is often dubious at best. Have you ever read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" ? I am afraid that the US has sunk to and is further sinking into royalist status and no violent revolutions will change that. Namaste.
Well said. I get so angry I'd like to see violence applied against certain individuals and certain situations, but I know that ultimately that is a dead end. I choose to remain non-violent, to the point where I've even sold my guns which I almost never carried except for to and from a target range, and absolutely never used except for target practice. The pistol is the devil's right hand.
Bravo for you, my friend.
My maxim has always been: the right to bear arms does not make it right to bear arms.
You are to be commended for also arriving at this truth.
A non-violent change culture exists in other societies, regularly accomplishing things that USans only dream of.
"Violence never worked and never will."
Violence can appear to work in the short term, but long term just leads to continuing violence. It is working well enough for the world's elite to become wealthy beyond all comprehension, but even their fortunes will crumble over the long term. People in the United States only think short term -- the monthly or quarterly or yearly bottom line.
Are you really that naive? Kathy is a realist not a cynic.
The 1968 protests at the Democratic Convention in Chicago resulted in hundreds of brutal injuries and arrests thanks to then Democratic peace candidate Hubert Humphrey. In 1970, several Kent State students were gunned down and criminal prosecutions never materialized or punishment dispensed for National Guardsman responsible for the murders. At several black colleges in 1969, more students were gunned down for protesting the Vietnam War. In 1967, riots broke out in Detroit and LA, by black communities being systematically oppressed by the white bourgeois elites, which resulted in hundreds of deaths. There is plenty of documentary evidence that the FBI systematically targeted Black Panther activists and leaders for assassination; gun battles that led to the deaths of Fred Hampton, and Mark Clark to name a couple: two leaders of the movement. The FBI also targeted the American Indian Movement which resulted in numerous deaths at Pine Ridge, and on other reservation rarely reported; it also led to the wrongful imprisonment of those who were not killed including the high profile case of Leonard Peltier.
Consequently, Leonard been rotting in prison for years and his one chance for freedom was trashed thanks to Bill Clinton, who was more concerned with pardons for his wealthy Wall Street handlers, then with correcting an injustice.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Ted.
To Those Who Have Gone Home Tired
After the streets fall silent
After the bruises and the tear-gassed eyes are healed
After the concensus has returned
After the memories of Kent and My Lai and Hiroshima
lose their power
and their connections with each other
and the sweaters labeled Made in Taiwan
After the last American dies in Canada
and the last Korean in prison
and the last Indian at Pine Ridge
After the last whale is emptied from the sea
and the last leopard emptied from its skin
and the last drop of blood refined by Exxon
After the last iron door clangs shut
behind the last conscience
and the last loaf of bread is hammered into bullets
and the bullets
scattered among the hungry
What answers will you find
What armor will protect you
when your children ask you
Why?
by W. D. Ehrhart
elohim;"To those who have gone home tired".Why,indeed and they will ask.Tony
to those who still have homes to go to . . .
elohim, all you say is tragically true. I lived in Berkeley when Black Panthers were being assassinated in their beds by the Oakland police, who had been recruited from the deep South with posters from Oakland. What most broke my heart about Kent State was when the majority of the public said "Serves them right. Now maybe they will behave". And half those kids killed were just headed for their next class.
The ruling class has always been ruthless and the public went along. But the public is restless this time. And the ruling class is preparing for serious class war. If the facade of this being a democracy has to end, it will. That's why I want to start a Main Street Party. The Greens won't cut it, the public doesn't identify with them. We need a party they identify with and the platform I propose is one they like. I'm gearing it to what they want, not to what I want. I would support the Greens if they didn't keep tripping over their own feet. But to take back our country, we need the support of the majority of Americans. And the first order of business is to get the corporations out of politics so that we can pass laws that benefit main street America.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
"And the first order of business is to get the corporations out of politics so that we can pass laws that benefit main street America."
Absolutely. Absolutely NO monetary donations to ANY candidates at any level of government for any reason whatsoever. All lobbying and reasons for same should be reported to the public. ALL bills must be written by office holders or their staffs, NOT by corporate lobbyists as is so often the case now, and public exposure of those who wrote the bills. At the national level there should be term limits for all positions. Two four-year terms for president, as it is now. One six-year term for senators. Three two-year terms for representatives. Frequent free access to the public airwaves as a condition for holding broadcast licenses for DEBATES among candidates to present their points of view. NO paid political advertising over the airwaves. NO paid political advertising in print media. Print media should do their jobs and cover individual presentations or debates among candidates. No more than ONE media outlet license for any entity, private individual or corporate, and no more than ONE newspaper ownership by ANY entity, whether private individual, partnership or corporate. This would be a bare bones start.
Ted, I'm not losing hope, but I have no faith that Obama will come through for us. We have to do that for ourselves. And he's told so many lies, I don't trust him. He's refused to reverse the unconstitutional directives from Bush and naturally I wonder why.
I'm not a cynic and I'm far from paralyzed. I think a better word would be galvanized.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
I'm glad you're not losing hope, Kathy.
Look, I'm not a fan of Obama, nor am I an Obamabot that some love to cavalierly throw about. I see him as a capable man in a tremendously difficult situation. Wherever you look, the situation in this country and the world is worse (much worse) than it was 8 years ago. The Bush team really put the screws to everything and God's own right-hand angel would have a tough time making right what's been done. Obama is going to fall short. I have always said this. The job is way too big for any one person.
Having said that, I agree that Obama has gone back on some campaign promises. Hell, just the other night I saw something on NOW that show's how he's continuing the building of the wall between the US and Mexico, despite that fact that it is splitting the land of Americans in two and ruining many. It is heinous and should be stopped! Of course, I also was not happy with Obama's ruling on FISA, since I worked to repeal REAL-ID here in Maine (unsuccessfully, thanks to our Democratic governor). I am not a friend of the Democrats, and am not one myself.
Okay, so what's my beef? My beef is when people throw the baby out with the bathwater and heap all the ills on one person. Obama can only do so much. Whoever is there, we need to do what we can to both hold his feet to the fire AND help when we can.
What I hear far too often here is what Obama should be doing for us. Rarely, oh so rarely, do I hear what we should be doing for ourselves and each other and our society. And that, is just plain juvenile. I'm not talking about those who are absolutely down and out and homeless, I am talking to the other 99% of us who are lucky enough to have a roof over our heads, enough food to eat, and a computer to rage into. Yeah, the pols are sneaks and bastards. Once again...so, what are we going to do about it? Elect independent sneaks and bastards?
As the saying goes: If you want it done right, do it yourself.
is this the fourth of july or april fools day. the audacity
of hope has become the audacity of lies and he wants us to get
off of him? this should be just the audacity of reminding
him about healthcare the invironment and every other thing
he promised change about when he campaigned for the presidency!
if he doesn't like it he should either pull a palin
or shut up and do as promised! a true repuglican in
democrats clothing.
Chutzpah!
Just when you think that Obama couldn't be any more reprehensible, he unloads this self-serving and sanctimonious drivel.
The Democratic Party approach to single-payer parallels its past (but not forgotten) insidious retreat from impeaching Bush and its present refusal to rigorously investigate the government's own heinous wrongdoing.
First they take it (impeachment/single-payer) off the table, rationalized in part by the circular and self-sealing argument that "it can't be done because it just can't be done; and if it CAN'T be done because it CAN'T be done, there's no sense in beating the dead horse! So SHUT UP about it already!"
Then, having taken The Right Thing off the table, and replaced it with The Wrong Thing, the politicians uncoil their mighty forked tongues and attempt to soothe and pacify assertive citizens by making windy promises to eventually address their concerns.
Also, after shamelessly abandoning The Right Thing, they get busy adding bells and whistles to the Wrong Thing in order to convince trusting and credulous constituents that they're determined to make The Wrong Thing as Right as possible. And they encourage Sensible activists to join in this cause of making the Rightest Wrong Thing possible instead of harping on that Politically Impossible Right Thing.
Meanwhile, they work feverishly to co-opt or muzzle activists and progressive/populist advocates who see through the politicians' scams, and rudely remind everybody that The Right Thing is rotting under the table, and that The Wrong Thing, bells and whistles notwithstanding, serves the political and financial elites instead of We the People.
I've said all along that for whatever reason, I've never felt that oratorical "magic" when Obama Speaks. He's always come across to me as phony, cold, and calculated. Worse yet, to my ears, he is by turns patronizing and condescending.
He affects to deplore "unwarranted" criticism of politicians for failing to do The Right Thing; he bemoans the "circular firing squad" effect, and suggests that there wouldn't BE a destructive and counter-productive firing squad-- if the shooters would simply lay down their arms and surrender to Obama's tender mercies.
Obama would have us believe that he has Every Intention of Doing the Right Thing to the extent that it's "politically possible". So the Right Thing for We the People is to remain on the Obama "Change We Can Believe In" Express, Work Within the System to encourage, not undermine, our worthy elected representatives, and Stay Tuned for the Right Thing(s) that will happen-- during his SECOND term, of course.
After all: a cup half-full of Kool-Aid is still a cup half-full.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I'm starting to feel that even if Obama had 100% backing for whatever program he wants, he would still want to forge a compromise.
A previous poster observed that this indicates Obama is feeling the heat. More is called for, much more. Press on!
Great post, Obedient Servant!
Kathy
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson