Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBarack Obama and the Altar of Greed
I never thought I'd say that about the guy. I thought he would probably disappoint me with many of his policies. I thought he would probably fail to be bold enough for his times. I thought he might miss opportunities to do great things because of his seeming desire to be Mr. Rogers, complete with cardigan. But I never expected him to be really dumb.
But if you're willing to risk the entirety of a potentially great presidency on making sure that a handful of already wealthy sociopaths who got rich destroying the global economy are not denied massive taxpayer-funded bonuses to keep them in jobs they've already completely mishandled, despite the fact that many of them took the money and left the job anyhow - if that's you, and you're the new president of the United States with a load of challenges and lots of public good will solidly behind you - well, then, you're dumber than a bag of hammers.
Like I said, I never thought I'd say that about Barack Obama. But then I never thought I'd witness such inane stupidity (or, worse - is it venality?) from the man.
If you think that I'm exaggerating when I say that Obama may be betting his entire promising presidency by taking the wrong side in this AIG scandal, think again. His presidency rises and falls on essentially one question: Is he doing everything he can to fix the economy? In order to fix the economy, given the astonishing mess he's inherited, he is going to continue to need unprecedented forbearance from the public and Congress so as to take unprecedented steps. People are already freaking out at what has been done and what has been spent, and we're only just starting the rescue, with all its enormous costs. The Republicans, who made this mess, are going to try to block Obama at every turn. The president needs to convince the public to trust him and follow him, if he is going to win the legislation necessary fix the economy.
But if people see that Obama is using their hard-earned tax money to reward the predatory parasites at AIG, even after they've wrecked everything in sight, how is he ever going to get public support for spending another trillion bucks to repair the economy? And if he can't get the tools necessary to do the job, how can he ever expect it to get fixed? And if it doesn't get fixed, how can he expect to have a successful presidency?
He can't, and he won't. And, thus, it is no exaggeration to say that this vibrant and well-liked president, who carries the hopes and aspirations of a nation on his shoulders with a robust foundation of good will to match, is potentially giving away everything in order to make sure that a band of corporate pirates keep their stolen taxpayer money. And doing that, ladies and gentlemen, is as dumb as... Well, you know.
Or maybe even a lot dumber still. Month after month of headlines detailing the latest scandal, many of them involving not just the theft of people's savings but crashing the global economy as well, and you begin to wonder if there's any bottom to the barrel of fiscal depravity and governmental enabling. Obama is now charting new paths in that direction. Just the concept that AIG executives who brought down the roof should get anything besides pink slips and orange jumpsuits is sickening, let alone that they should get bonuses.
But wait, it gets better. Then we're told that the bonuses are necessary because only these criminals can undo the mess they've created. So they're paid millions to stay. As if those who know how to wreck a global economy also know how to fix it. As if these are the only folks in the world who have these skills.
Okay, well, fine then. At least they have to earn these ‘retention bonuses', right? Nah. That would so responsible. Turns out that a bunch of them took the money supposedly provided as incentives for them to stay and then split anyhow. One guy grabbed $4.6 million in retention bonus cash from the taxpayers, funneled through AIG, then promptly unretained himself. More than fifty others did the same, eleven of whom took over a million bucks to stay. Except they didn't.
Then we have Team Obama telling us that these are legal contracts that cannot be violated. As knowledgeable legal commentators have pointed out, however, that seems highly unlikely for a whole slew of reasons. There are all sorts of legitimate mechanisms recognized by the law through which contractual agreements can be bypassed in order to serve higher societal purposes.
But even apart from all that, let's remember that these are bonuses! Isn't the very nature of a bonus - as opposed to salary - the idea of contingency on performance? Do the contracts say, "We'll reduce you bonus down to eight figures if you destroy the company, and a mere several million bucks if you take down the global economy"? If not, why weren't these people paid 23 cents in order to fulfill a legal obligation and told to go hide in Argentina or something? And count their blessings? Instead, over seventy employees of the AIG London-based unit that brought down the company and the rest of us to boot have become millionaires.
Why did Democrats in Congress creep in late at night and remove language from the bailout bill which would have prevented this noxious use of taxpayer money? Why did Obama sign such a bill? Is there really no depredation that greed cannot induce anymore? Is there really no politician in America who actually thinks these crimes are crimes anymore?
Of course, it's not exactly shocking news when Washington politicians are found to be in bed with the corrupt captains of American finance. Indeed, if there's one thing that Democrats and Republicans can most readily agree upon, surely it's how cool it is to whore for Wall Street.
Still, I can't help being a little disappointed (some will no doubt say a lot naive) observing the degree to which Obama has joined this crowd. Admittedly, I don't get invited to the smoke-filled rooms where political deals are cut between politicians and the people who buy them, so maybe I have no clue what I'm talking about. But it strikes me that Obama never had to be just another corporate Democrat, like Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer.
The Obama campaign was a political and, especially, a financial juggernaut, the likes of which we've never seen, from either party. He was practically printing campaign dollars. They were pouring in from so many ordinary contributors, in such a high volume, that he literally walked away from tens of millions of free federal funding he could have had simply by opting for government financing of his campaign. But he actually pulled in way more by foregoing the matching funds and just opening up the floodgates for a public anxious to throw money at Change They Could Believe In.
So why does a guy in that happy situation staff his economic team with Wall Street mercenaries like Tim Geithner and Larry Summers? Does he really believe that these people hold some sort of leverage over him and over the United States government? It's just astonishing to think so.
The reality is that the American overclass has just been on the most amazing feeding frenzy for three decades now, to the extent that they've simply lost any sense of proportion, whatsoever. The sense of predatory entitlement has become what water is to fish. It is so much a part of their world view that they no longer even have consciousness of it, or any alternative to it, any more than a tuna ever wonders what it might be like to walk on two legs and breathe air.
Fine. I mean what a shock it is, eh?, to find that there are people in this world whose social conscience maxed out in kindergarten, where instead of coloring they instead cut business deals to trick the other kiddies out of their graham crackers. It's just a given that we have that sort of sicko running around. That's why we have jails, and that was once why we had the SEC.
Far less clear is why those who are supposed to represent the public's interests need adopt such mentalities - though, of course, many of them are readily and frequently bought off. But, again, it seems to me that Barack Obama had nothing to gain and everything to lose by carrying water for the mansion-on-every-continent set. Obama has an independent base of support - some of it quite emphatic - and a national crisis or six on his plate compelling even those who are skeptical about the guy in the direction of wishing him every success as president, since his will be theirs as well. So why is he turning his back on those hundreds of millions of supporters and instead looking out for the interests of what are the financial equivalent of serial rapists?
Is this a case of ideological osmosis? Of a complete failure of imagination? Have we simply reached the point where anyone who could plausibly be president in this country cannot fathom government existing for any other purpose than to enrich the already fabulously wealthy, any more than our friend the tuna could possibly dream of playing soccer?
Political analysts have long spoken of ‘regulatory capture', the process by which industries which are meant to be regulated instead capture control of the government agencies which are meant to be regulating them. A more contemporary version of this concept, and one more applicable perhaps to Obama than to his minions, is the arguably far more dangerous idea of ‘cognitive regulatory capture'. Under that scenario, you don't even need to infiltrate the agency, because you've already captured its mind and narrowed the range of what is thinkable therein. Just as in Orwell's "1984", the most powerful effect you can have on people is not by physically limiting their behavior, per se, but instead by getting them to limit themselves in terms of the concepts they are even capable of entertaining.
Has Barack Obama been the object of cognitive regulatory capture? It's hard to know. But it is astonishing that time after time he keeps deferring to the interests of not only the economic elites, but of the outrageously criminal economic elites. He puts Tim Geithner in his cabinet, not Bernie Sanders. And when somebody floats the idea of capping salaries at companies on the government dole, or of limiting bonuses, or of the government truly acting like the owner it actually has become of many of these bailed out firms, there's Geithner and Summers telling him (and, presumably, Robert Rubin telling them), "No, no, you can't do that". And, in fact, no, no, Obama doesn't.
Imagine that radical concept. Limit executives who have crashed their firms, and the global economy as well, from taking multi-million dollar bonuses out of taxpayer-funded bailout money? Sounds vaguely Marxist, doesn't it? After all, we can't have government intervention in the private sector. Don't forget your catechism. (And just ignore the seeming contradiction of government intervention in the form of bailouts. I mean, why bother with having a religion if you're not going to be hypocritical?)
When Bill Clinton did this stuff it was surprising, only because he was the first Democratic president since Roosevelt to sell out the public's interests as if he were a full-blown Republican. What makes it surprising in Obama's case is that he has so little need to do so, given the crisis we're in and the support and good will that it automatically provides him, not to mention the self-mutilation of the opposition party's credibility.
And what makes it really surprising is that Obama not only doesn't need to go down this path, but he is potentially destroying his presidency by doing so. There is a growing public anger out there, anger that is long overdue. People are finally beginning to wake up, however foggily, to who is the real enemy of America's interests and who is the real predator with its fingers rifling their pocketbooks. If this populist rage is properly directed, we could get some sort of healthy outcome, like a reprise of the New Deal social safety net and a badly needed robust regulatory apparatus. If it is not, it might instead be miraculously used to breathe political life back into the very corpses of those who brought this storm down on all of us.
Crawling into bed with Public Enemy Number One against the leading wedge of a populist revolt is about as stupid an idea as imaginable for the Obama administration. Why doesn't he offer another monotone denunciation while he's at it, this one of pedophiles? Perhaps adding a heartfelt expression of how disappointed he is that there just isn't more that can be done, darn it. Danged legal contracts! Hey, maybe he could also staff up his Justice Department with paroled sexual predators, too, precisely as he has done in the equivalent manner at Treasury.
And while he's at it, he can complete the job he began by putting so many Republicans in the cabinet. The GOP has been busy committing suicide for years now, but has dramatically sped up the pace of late, trotting out clown-like figures the likes of which neither Barnum nor Bailey could ever have conceived, even on a particularly pungent acid trip. Jindal, Steele, Limbaugh, Palin, Palin's daughter. Wow. If there is a Hell, you can bet Barry Goldwater is down there right now furiously trying to change his party registration. Best of all, not only are these losers the face of the Republican Party, lately they've taken it a step yet further and have been bringing out the long knives to eviscerate each other. It's hard to imagine a better situation to be in for a Democratic president.
Which makes Obama's idiocy all the more astonishing. Probably no one on the planet could rescue the GOP right now, except for Barack Obama. So why on earth is he doing so? Why is he throwing a rope to a drowning disease? And then handing it a cudgel? Why is he breaking into the vault at the CDC in order to cut loose the smallpox virus once more? What could he be thinking? Or is the bag of hammers thinking at all?
Republicans, in their usual fashion, have been highly successful at marketing disastrously pernicious ideas. So, lately, they've been out there associating Obama's massively expensive economic rescue plan with wasteful government spending. In fact, it isn't that at all. In fact, it is the only hope remaining for reviving this horridly destructive economy that the greedy Wall Street sharks and their political minions created. There will be no monetary policy solution. Interest rates are close to zero, and there's nowhere left to drop. Demand from China is not going to rescue this economy. Consumer spending? Yeah, right. Rising property values as ATMs for homeowners? How very 2007. This is likely the whole enchilada. If wholesale Keynesianist countercyclical government spending doesn't rescue the economy, it's really hard to see what Plan B could possibly be.
But, of course, Republicans have never met a national interest they weren't anxious to steamroll on the way toward achieving their own narrow self-interests, and this situation is no different. If you're in the GOP and all you care about is winning elections (and, if you are in the GOP, that is all you care about), your only bad scenario looking ahead is for Obama to successfully rescue the economy. So you try to block him at every turn, and you lie about his program, calling a desperate last-ditch rescue effort straight out of the Macro Economics 101 textbook a porkbarrel exercise in wasteful government spending.
The public doesn't necessarily want to hear that right now, and certainly doesn't put a lot of trust in the source. But then there's old Brilliant Barack, staffing his economic team not only with Wall Street hacks, but tax-cheating, TARP-blowing, Wall Street hacks at that. And then these flunkies tell us there's just no way that public money can be stopped from being used as a reward for the scam artists who got us into this mess originally. And guess what? All of sudden, miraculously, the worst offenders in the Republican Party start to sound credible.
And if that happens, Obama's already sinking chances of passing massive rescue legislation sufficient to end this nightmare will diminish fast.
And if that happens his chances of fixing the economy will fall rapidly.
And if that happens his presidency will swirl down the toilet.
And if that happens it will be Jeb Bush in a walkaway in 2012.
102 Comments so far
Show AllThere should be more support for this post- the administration took out Dodd's bonus limitations!!!
Obama is center-right, we need to prepare the ground for Kucinich 2012.
Dean Baker for Treasury Secretary.
While some may think that that Obama is dumb as a bag of hammers for serving the interests of the Wall Street elite, there is another way of viewing the matter. In this view, Obama has his role to play and, frankly, he is playing it brilliantly.
One way to characterize Obama’s political decisions is this: “But if you're willing to risk the entirety of a potentially great presidency on making sure that a handful of already wealthy sociopaths who got rich destroying the global economy are not denied massive taxpayer-funded bonuses to keep them in jobs they've already completely mishandled, despite the fact that many of them took the money and left the job anyhow - if that's you, and you're the new president of the United States with a load of challenges and lots of public good will solidly behind you - well, then, you're dumber than a bag of hammers.” - David Michael Green, “Barack Obama and the Altar of Greed”, March 20, 2009.
The definition of stupidity depends on what the real goal is. If the goal of Barack Obama is to “fix the economy”, meaning to restore it to its previous state before the cascading effects of loss of trust in the subprime mortgage-based securities, then what he is doing makes perfect sense. He is pumping massive amounts of equity into the failed system in order to reinflate the bubble economy and thus restore it to its previous state. Bonuses make sense in this context because they are the primary motivating factors for those who created the bubble economy. He can only be considered stupid if his goal is truly to transform the current banking system. But nothing in his rhetoric or practice indicates that it is – his goal is preservation of the status quo, nothing more, nothing less.
Aiding corporate pirates is no sign of stupidity, but more like his assigned concept of operations. He was elected in one of most successful political advertising campaigns in recent memory, largely paid for with Wall Street money, precisely so that the transfer of wealth to the banking elite could take place under the covers of a pragmatic and moral administration. His popular credit is being spent wisely by Wall Street metrics. It is being used to cover the transfer of hundreds of billions of Treasury dollars from government programs into the coffers of hedge fund managers and investment bankers. So far Wall Street is extremely pleased with his efforts on their behalf – hardly evidence of stupidity.
David Michael Green assumes that eventually public outrage will undermine Obama’s efforts to ensure the smooth transfer of wealth to the ruling elite, but he is probably mistaken in this regard. The current “outrage” over AIG bonuses is a classic diversionary maneuver. It focuses public interest on a tiny 165 million in bonuses while the 200 billion dollar transfer takes place without objection. After some ritual legislation, the “outrage” over bonuses will be vindicated and the massive transfer can take place unnoticed.
To invoke Obama’s “independent base of support” as a possible counterweight to his Wall Street sponsorship is to confuse cause and effect. The advertising campaign had a deep understanding of the dissatisfaction of the public and used that to garner mass public support. The purpose of his campaign was to divert social unrest into safe channels that would not challenge Wall Street interests. The “independent base of support” is a measure of marketing effectiveness. It in no way represents an alternative to the Wall Street base, but is the result of the brilliant marketing made possible by that support.
Green is on target in his concept of “mind capture”: “Just as in Orwell's ‘1984’, the most powerful effect you can have on people is not by physically limiting their behavior, per se, but instead by getting them to limit themselves in terms of the concepts they are even capable of entertaining.” - David Michael Green, “Barack Obama and the Altar of Greed”, March 20, 2009.
Obama is no more capable of entertaining an alternative to the present financial system than a modern teenager can imagine reading a book for the sheer pleasure of the ideas to be found in it. Our creative notions have been catastrophically constrained and our politicians can no longer imagine a world not controlled by current financial powers. Obama has a decisive motivation to sell out those who voted for him – selling them out will motivate the stock market like nothing else.
Very nice summation....
Barack Obama is light years smarter than David Michael Green or this hatchet job. I wonder who Green voted for? Or what he did in these last few years to empower a viable alternative to what he badmouths.
Anyone Know? In what noble fashion did Green help America in the last election cycle?
I thank God the GOP has been deposed. If Obama had chosen a career in medicine, Green might be writing about McCain and war with Russia right now.
Obama haters make me sick. They got no better idea, threw their votes away on Nader, who holds stock in MIC companies and other ugly corporations, the righteousness of these stone-throwers with no alternatives make me puke. It is always "3rd party, oh 3rd party or you got fooled" Who got fooled?
I dare anyone on this thread to do this-tell me if Obama had not been born, who would be president? You don't like him? Fine. Great? Tell me who your Fearless Leader would be had he not stopped the Republican Juggernaut?
Come on Obama Haters, there's a challenge for you. Joe.
I don't hate anyone, including Obama. It is clear you don't understand the difference between dissent against Obama's policies, including his characterization of coal as "clean" along with his diluted war goals choosing instead to make it personal. I don't like Obama's policies. I am against the occupation of Iraq, and the escalation in Afghanistan. I am against non-sustainable energy sources like coal, nuclear, and bio fuels. I am against covert war in Pakistan. I am against torture. I am against killing legal investigations of the Bush Administration. I am against corporate giveaways. I am against obfuscation and lies, and mostly against corruption rampant in both status quo parties. I am against wireless snooping without warrant. What exactly don't you understand about any of this?
elohim, Hello, Good Day, thank you for a nice if you will post.
elohim, I am against all those things as well, fervently.
It is my perception, unlike yours, that having Republicans in the White House radically exacerbates all those things. That Dems in the White House are better, call it less bad, I won't parse words. Relative to Clinton who one could say damaged this country, Bush & Cheney destroyed much of it. Reagan set this rape in motion with NeoCons becoming a pillar of the GOP during his administration of lies & Bush1, Bush2. I remember Carter was better.
Both parties suck, but the GOP horrifically more so.
elohim. I've seen no viable 3rd party alternative. Now please, telling me there is no viable 3rd party because people like me have not gone out and made one happen is RIDICULOUS.
Fair enough you don't like, sorry I said hate, someone I support. But the ball then is in your court. What game have you got on the table that is better? I'm down. Someone who can threaen the power structure, make change happen. I'm there for them. Someone who does not campaign much, just runs over and over again for President like Nader is not an alternative. The effort he put into his campaign is reflected in the fact he got so few votes, under a mill, even though he is so very popular. THIS, does not make me dumb as I have heard a million times on CD.
Respectfully, Joe.
Eloquent, prescient and well stated. Also rather wasted I fear.
I suppose we were just too distracted with hate to notice the star rising in the east, but not so distracted as to notice that it was Zbigniew Brzezinski standing on David Rockefeller's shoulders to place it there. Do you seriously believe that McCain/Palin were any more than shadow puppets in the Shadow Government Theater. Kennedy was the last president to mistakenly believe that he could assert power independently of the MIC. Who then, if not for the birth of Obama?? Are you reverting to messianic overtones?? Could have just as easily been Hillary. What other challenges will you issue as Obama secures the Police State??
Good Morning Mr. Chips, ya know, that was one intellectual response, lacking only an attack on my character.....cool, thank you.
What a beautiful parallel you drew. Yes our hate, I assume you mean for the 8 year rape, was quite a "distraction," as you said-for me, from anything but hoping the Republicans would be deposed. I feel Sarah/John, when they were'nt fighting on a reality show, would have been horrifically worse than Obama. 3-4 front wars, the continued upward draft of wealth to the rich, in my neighborhood being Gestapo to Pot Truths, but not Obama.
Yes Obama represents MIC interests. No doubt.
However, to the marrow in the bone Mr. Chips, I asked who would have stopped the GOP from another 4 year assault on America...you posit Hillary,
A. She well may not have been able to beat McCain
B. If she did, she like Obama would have been light years better than Insane McCain the Bomber, light years better, still MIC influenced? Yes, but much less so than four-front war John,
So I feel my point stands. Unless you posit McCain & Clinton would "be the same," this is not true. We live in gradations, degrees, and shades-not absolutes.
Thanks for your erudite reply, Joe.
The majority of the electorate "live in gradations, degrees and shades" provided by the group who ultimately choose our "leaders" for us, so we can maintain the illusion of choice. When Obama said, in essence,(just as did Nancy Pelosi)that he wasn't sure if there were any egregious crimes by the Bush regime, and that we must look forward and not backward--"lipstick on the (fascist) pig" comes to mind. No one was DEPOSED! The Gang's still all here! Bush/Cheney brought us the first 911, and Obama was only too eager to trip all over himself rushing to help facilitate our Economic 911. No, Act II doesn't show any indications, other than cosmetic, of being an improvement over Act I. Please address the incremental continuation of new layers of power for the Police State. One glaring example is Rahm Emanuel's pronouncements concerning the "No-fly List" (now topping the one million mark) and the right to own a firearm. (You can find this on Alex Jones' "Obama Deception"/Youtube. If it doesn't make you a tad queesy, I don't know what more to say. One can only imagine what else this character is conjuring up at night, while Obama has some chuckles with Jay Leno. There are way too many examples of the increasing power of the State toward total control, and Obama and Company are right in the thick of it. Orwell lives!
Mister Chips.
I guess it's like this. I feel if John had been elected we'd attack Iran, soon and hard. Their response would be devastating including SS-N-22's sinking American Carriers for Dead Certain.
Concurrently he would set Iraq on fire again.
Concurrently he would escalate the wars on Russia's flank until we were at war with Russia, it was their missiles that shot him down after all.
Concurrently escalating the conflicts in Afpak by a factor of 100 and fracturing Pakistan, sending every last troop to Afghanistan and dropping every last bomb we had there,
And Concurrently the Palestine Holocaust would escalte until the
WHOLE MIDEAT WAS IN FLAMES,
Which I feel will NOT happen with Obama.
Who right now is engaging Iran hard, he is trying. Trying to engage is light years different from massive bombing raids and war sweeping the region.
Night & Day really.
Maybe talking about a GRADATION, of millions of lives if Israel started a "tactical" Nuclear War or a mainline ground war transpired, which it would. And Millions of lives hang in the balance, a balance in which talks, LETTERS SENT, overtures to one's enemies, olive branches are light years more progressive than a refusal to dialogue and a five front war.
What "can't you understand about that," as you condescendingly asked. A different POV does not necessarily mean I lack analytical skills, it may mean, what a concept, tha someone just as smart as you-yes they exist-sees things differently.
To Being Cordial, Joe.
It's a trait of the species, homo insapiens, as Jon. Swift described the Yahoos. Shit the bed Fred (Fed.), we're having fun now.
It's all funny money, but maybe not so funny, just like how we treat each other and "all our relations" isn't so funny.
listen to the earth
it's the only Way
to know what is right
Be healthy and happy.
PS. Single payer to cure cancer (raw plant based diet) and economic ague.
This recession has hit everybody all over the world. The only ones not suffering any effects are the ones who caused it. In my country the wages for all public servants are an open book. You know who they are and the wages they get. Surely if the US Government is bailing out these companies, doesn't then mean that they are public servants. Why do you not name them and shame them, all.
Many of us in the other nations of the world will not recover form this recession for at least 5 years. The unemployment rate is set to increase to about 10-11% - if we are lucky, and that goes for most other first world countries. In Roman times that was called decimation. So these newly en-waged public servants are responsible for the suffering of millions. So what?
There is always a flow on effect during a recession or during times of prosperity, that flow on effect reaches right down to the smallest child in any third-world country who is going to die due to lack of food or medicine. Donations and charity dry up because people are just trying to survive. How many extra deaths will these people cause.
I cannot believe that people who are going to cause world wide suffering and death are going to be given a bonus. Its blood money, maybe $2.00 per person who will die from hunger and malnutrition over the next few years.
This pain is being felt by the whole world. These people have not just led your nation to recession, they have led the whole world. They are in one sense international criminals more fitting in the dock at The Hague than getting a bonus. Please name these people, give us pictures so that we can at least vent our pain and anger on someone real. At the moment they are just "them". Give greed and selfishness a face.
Sioux Rose
NESTOR: I am poignantly aware of the trickle-down effect of the monsters of Wall ST gaming their fiscal games to screw everyone else.
Here's an image that helps me as I believe in ultimate (Divine) justice. The wealthy elites are like a caravan being carried around the streets of the world with their weight held up by the poor, tired, hungry masses. As this privileged group allots to itself more and more resources, the weight atop the virtual slaves becomes impossible to carry. Sooner or later a tipping point is reached and these self-declared royal ones, along with their immorally accessed bounty, will fall over. And woe to them when the hungry masses get to pick at their bones.
History runs in circles, and the things of yesteryear may appear to have been conquered, when often they just recycle back a little more difficult to identify as the new era changes their outer costumes. The corporations today are the new pharaohs and they are intent (through a variety of policies, the latest, the ruse of terrorism through which legions of weapons-wielding uniformed guards can point their fingers at political undesirables) upon keeping the slaves in their place. Let us remember then, that the law of gravity works against them, and the weight of what their graft collected will run them over. The tilting of false wealth's wagon train has begun, even if right now we're seeing the worst of the worst think they can take what's left of the money and run. Run where? They have turned the entire population of the world's workers against them? In the final analysis karma never lies, even if its ways and means appear dormant for a spell.
Yes, the " Midas Touch " makes usually easy tasks like eating impossible
“The president needs to convince the public to trust him and follow him, if he is going to win the legislation necessary fix the economy.”
Uh, you mean this isn’t the fix?
Damn those boni.* Like a stray hair caught in a zipper just when everything else was so neatly tucked-in.
I won’t attempt to dispute the author’s characterization of obama when he’s so clearly an authority of political stupidity.
But does he mean if only obama’s peeps had handled the boni so no one would notice we could all still be talking about rush limberger?
And if obama is so dumb, how ignorant are all the people focusing on millions in boni instead of on the 1000x more than that being “passed through” the black hole of aig and funneled into the very companies his “fixers” used to work for? (Can you say haliburton?)
And, ultimately, who do you think’s left holding the bag?
(* this rarer form of the plural of bonus seems appropriate here…pronounced bone-eye)
nothing is revealed
Good point. We are still following the MSM like sheep, and too focused on AIG, while the BILLIONS more in boni (cute word) go unremarked upon.
I voted for Nader and have no regrets. If Nader wasn't on any ballots, I'm sure I would have just found another 3rd party candidate to vote for.
"...you don't even need to infiltrate the agency, because you've already captured its mind and narrowed the range of what is thinkable therein. Just as in Orwell's "1984", the most powerful effect you can have on people is not by physically limiting their behavior, per se, but instead by getting them to limit themselves in terms of the concepts they are even capable of entertaining."
This is EXACTLY what Hitler meant when he said "Your children will know nothing else." How many of us are old enough to remember a different America? A country where ordinary working folks actually made enough money to support a family? Where unions were growing, instead of being neutered and destroyed? Where small business was the mainstay of Main Street? Where the right to a better world was taken for granted - where progressives were respected? The older generations are not strong enough - politically or physically - to fight for the changes needed to restore the kind of hope we once had. That is up to the younger generations - those who take chances because they have nothing to lose, and the rest of their lives to make up for losses. But they have all grown up under neo-fascism - and they know nothing else. Hitler won. The fascists won. This will be hard to change - but fascism means misery for more and more people. How long before they wonder "is this all there is?" That is how long it will take to change this country, no matter how far down the drain we go.
Those of us from an older generation - those of us who grew up during the 'best of times' will have to forego all that we have in order to restore 'hope' to everyone in this country. Everybody deserves a chance to live the way we did - everybody. The fact that so many were left out is irrelevant - we still hoped for a better future. And a better future is impossible under the current conditions. It will get far worse before it gets better - far darker before people start to see the light. The important people are our children and grandchildren - they are the ones who must build a decent society on the ruins of ours. This isn't cynical - this is reality. This isn't whining - this is acceptance. Obama was never 'one of us' anymore than Bush, Cheney, or McCain. He was just another con-man - and so many people were eager to drink the Kool-Aid, thinking anything would be better than Bush. But the last fascist administration cemented their program - it's what we will have until the young and able finally start to fight back. And I don't see that happening for a very long time. It will take the whole world to change this diabolical fascist regime - and too many are not yet on board. I doubt if I will live to see it - but I do remember better times, and I do believe they will come again, once the evil of fascism is defeated - again (only to rise again when people become negligent.) Freedom isn't free - it costs in real blood, which ordinary Americans are not ready to spill. Sociopaths have no place in society - the liberals who thought they did are now forcing us all to pay the price for their stupidity. Let's just hope future generations learn from our mistakes. If there are any...
Bravo!
Seconded!!!
Thirded!!
Do you know how much money are WS execs and fat-cat investors fighting for these days ? Obama cannot go against these masters of the universe cold turkey and deny them the bailout they "deserve" (since they "concede" to the taxpayers the money that the taxpayers earn anyway, according to their delusional self-serving world view!). If he did, this neo-feudal class of parasites would cough up in a sec more than enough savings to hire full time and for several years every one of the many mercenary armies of the USA plus the whole of organized crime, just to get rid of him. Obama must proceed carefully so he can change things when it's possible. Time is on his side since the dozens of trillion dollars of financial vaporware that need to be "saved" cannot possibly be "ameliorated" without ruining the USA or ruining the fat cats. So be patient and be careful about what you ask for, else you may end up having to whine about "the friend of the usurer" aka joseph biden...
the whining and hoping for the great leader's redemption must stop. what helps now is i) to publicize non-stop which are the great fortunes that demoblicans are trying to save by "saving the financial system" and denounce their owners as members of a neo-feudal class with names and addresses (no, nobody wants to save "the banks" or "WS", how can anybody be so naive and fall for such an obfuscation!); ii) convince the public that the bailout money should be used to jump-start the economy directly with or w/o the co-operation of WS and private banks; iii) make sure that obama and the demoblicans are confronted at every stop with questions about who are the specific *individuals* who would benefit personally most if the financial system is "saved" and why exactly these *individuals* deserve so much to be saved at a price of billions of dollars each.
changing the public's mood and informational sophistication will give obama the freedom to move in the right direction. he is smart, he does not want to be a martyr and go down in flames.
so let's stop complaining about WS, the banks, and the great leader's lack of leadership and vision. let's make sure the citizenry understands where obama should go and why and that it starts demanding it and loudly so. ask the citizenry if it really wants, e.g., that the randolphs' billions in derivatives be purchased at face value from them by the taxpayers "to save the financial system".
dmia; You can't possibly be serious with post.Does his use of rapier-like satire throw you off course? Don't imagine that you ever watch Jon Stewart or Keith Olberman,eh? Stay away from Will Duerst's website,you might have lifetime agita.
Is there a point to Green's commentary? Looking, looking, nope.
This statement was just released by the OBAMA Team.
"To help ensure that special interests don't stymie stimulus efforts, Obama said his administration would post on the Internet all requests by lobbyists who want to talk to any member of his administration about particular projects that would involve using the money from the Economic Recovery Act.
All requests must be in writing, and details from meetings between Obama's administration and lobbyists about stimulus projects also will be posted online, the president said."
From Associated Press
These are not the actions of a greedy man. You should all be ashamed (I guessing you won't be) for desperately trying to stigmatize the most liberal president we have had since.....well it's been a long time.
To many idiots on this site are too used to offering criticisms of hypothetical possibilities. Grow up and try to further the progressive agenda by supporting this man not by demonizing him.....after all it's only been 2 months and he has already made plans to end the war in Iraq, Iran, Medical Marijuana, Pro Life, ect....
I feel sorry for those who are so focused on their own need to tear down the presidency that they fail to see major parts of the progressive agenda beginning its fruition under the helm of the same president.
You defeat your own movement.....Much like the 2000 elections. Imagine how much more green the US would have been under Gore......Instead Nader voters handed the seat to Bush....
You are a great agent for the GOP. Are they paying you to be a self defeating liberal?
Sweet! Got a link for the website?
Thank you Dj_Die-0-Logic. You restore my hope that there are some intelligent readers on CD.
For two years, many, many of us tried to warn y'all that BO was nothing more than a corporate-approved front man.
The fact that y'all are now disappointed is laughable.
I'm not dissapointed. Obama has a 60% approval rating. What's to be disapointed about?
Month after month of headlines detailing the latest scandal, many of them involving not just the theft of people's savings but crashing the global economy as well, and you begin to wonder if there's any bottom to the barrel of fiscal depravity and governmental enabling.
Apparently not.
It's not over by a long shot. Next up on the chopping block is Merrill Lynch for sure. At least they already got the name right for what's gonna happen to em.
Do you know how much money are WS execs and fat-cat investors fighting for these days ? Obama cannot go against these masters of the universe cold turkey and deny them the bailout they "deserve" (since they "concede" to the taxpayers the money that the taxpayers earn anyway, according to their delusional self-serving world view!). If he did, this neo-feudal class of parasites would cough up in a sec more than enough savings to hire full time and for several years every one of the many mercenary armies of the USA plus the whole of organized crime, just to get rid of him. Obama must proceed carefully so he can change things when it's possible. Time is on his side since the dozens of trillion dollars of financial vaporware that need to be "saved" cannot possibly be "ameliorated" without ruining the USA or ruining the fat cats. So be patient and be careful about what you ask for, else you may end up having to whine about "the friend of the usurer" aka joseph biden...
"Why? Why? Why?"
You do grasp that the man isn't actually stupid, don't you? He, or his handlers, just ran a superb campaign that came out of (almost) nowhere. He understands politics very, very well. Then he put Geithner and Summers in charge of our economy.
That only leaves one answer, doesn't it? No wonder DMG wrote such a long, passionate piece about how dumb O must be. He's evading the real question:
Who owns him?
Oregoncharles
Voting for Nader is like masturbating without an orgasm.
It feels good for a while, then ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENS, and you end up feeling more frustrated than you did before.
All this bitching and moaning does absolutely nothing.
Obama sucks. WHAT ARE YA GONNA DO ABOUT IT?
Give me a PLAN. STEP ONE:?
Will We the People stop working at defense industry factories, coal mines, nuclear power plants, or for plastic manufacturers?
Will we quit our job at Wal-mart? Or even stop shopping there?
Will we stop eating at fast food joints, putting disposable diapers on our babies or throwing recyclables in the trash?
Will we stop buying shoes and clothes made in overseas sweatshops?
Will we stop hiring undocumented workers because they're cheap and easy to manipulate?
Will we stop buying on credit?
Will we run for local office? Get on committees? Or even just attend local government functions?
Will we risk our relative safety to do something that will make a point? How about if we all agree to drive our cars into the middle of the road and stop traffic all over America?
Talk, talk, talk
Can't blame Obama for not doing what we won't do either.
You've hit on it exactly. Voting for Nader is not the solution, it is nothing more than a principled squeak. The problem is the American people. They need to grow and evolve, then the politicians will follow. The people need to be led and moved in the right direction. How to accomplish this? That is the real question and the answer will lead to the real solution.
Change in this nation has always been difficult and contentious. It took a civil war to end slavery. Jim Crow was ended by the Civil Rights Act, barely, in an effort led by LBJ. This courageous act was strenuously opposed by a large segment of the population and crippled his presidency.
The public must be educated. To me, the best way to start accomplish this is by reforming our education system so that civics and economics are taught effectively. The people are ignorant, bigtime. I mean, I went through twelve years of public education and did not even read the PREAMBLE of the Constitution! This is outrageous! I believe that people, if properly educated will, by and large come to the right decision. By properly educated I do not mean "indoctrinated." I mean in such a way that all viable ideas are presented. The people, thus armed with knowledge, can make up their own mind, not be led around the nose by self interested groups.
Interesting that you advocate for change by insisting we vote for the same old thing. Also interesting that you advocate for education and insist that "the people" are ignorant because they fail to measure up to your standards.
It is difficult to get folks to see your path when you begin by calling them ignorant. My classroom had the Preamble on the wall, Im sorry yours did not.
On another tack, I do not think Obama to be a fool, not by any means. I do think that he is simply far too inexperienced to get this job accomplished.
I completely disagree with elainem that Obama sucks.
Otherwise, he/she makes excellent points. A couple of old saying come to mind here:
"Either lead, follow, or get the hell of the way!"
"Either shit or get off the pot!"
When I said Obama sucks, I was actually trying to paraphrase the sentiments of the author, who is understandably upset and ranting. David Michael Green is one of my favorite authors here on CD and I agree with him on so many points.
Personally, I don't want to defend Obama and some poor choices he has made, but I don't want to dismiss his possible effectiveness so early on. And I am exceedingly glad the other guy didn't win, because I had my doubts.
I concur with your old sayings; I guess the (very similar) one I was going for is: talk is cheap.
I would really like to see some productive suggestions for action, but I often wonder if we're too late.
I'm not sure it's going to matter what happens to executive bonuses or troops in Afghanistan when the dollar collapses, trade and transportation break down, and nature retaliates for the abuse we've been heaping upon her.
I feel we are coming close to a confluence of several serious sh*t-streams which will hit us hard, fast and continuous. Those of us not swept out to sea or poisoned by our toxic environment may end up making choices like whether or not to eat the family dog.
Yikes! Sorry to be so grim. BTW, I am a soft-hearted Grandma and dog lover. At my age I don't want to waste time chasing my tail, I want to spend whatever energy I have to work hard for solutions that work for a positive future for us and our descendants.
Will we stop breeding (the ultimate expression of consumer boycott)?
Sounds to me like you are the one whining.
I voted for Nader, and Ross Perot and John Anderson. For a while that was enough, and my soul was cool, too.
But after arriving at this point in time, with frustration and shame riding Americans like remoras on a shark, I really need a better PLAN.
I want to DO SOMETHING. I started out asking City Council to pass a resolution against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I got involved in my local government and issues. I even ran for office. Just to get on the ballot I had to get over 200 registered voters in my city to sign my petition. (My congressman only needs 50) I toured the electric plant and the water treatment plant, I rode around with the police, I hung out with the homeless in the park and I listened to the concerns of the Hispanic community. I passed out hundreds of flyers door-to-door. I, too campaigned on the theory of change for the good.
But my fellow citizens re-elected the people who had been in for decades. I learned that people don't want a change; they want their own personal interests served, and a lot of the time they either don't care or don't realize that they're being unreasonable or unfair.
When attempting to influence my surroundings by involvement in government was unsuccessful, we moved to a farm to be able to sustain more of our food, water and energy needs, as well as live more in harmony with the environment.
So I'm a person who's willing to put her money where her big mouth is. And what I'm asking here is: what's the f*#$ing plan? I sure would love to get behind a good one we can all agree on.
Step one? Anybody?
Perhaps we are, each one of us, our own plan. Do you seek to join something? Do you say that you have been involved in local politics and that is not enough? Are you simply frustrated and tired? If you wait for others to present you with a plan you will be waiting a long time I fear.
I applaud the steps you relate having taken, I would wonder that you seem to have met no others of similar mind during these activities. This is the way things come together and , sadly, there is no timetable. One does what one can, one , if lucky, joins with others locally and works on local issues. If we continue to do this there is still hope. If we do as you seem to suggest and stop while awaiting a "plan" we can enlist behind, then we will fail.
Red Rick, thanks for your even-tempered words of wisdom. You're right I'm frustrated and tired. I've been following my plan, and it never stops. We've only been here on the farm about a year and a half and most of that time has been spent making it habitable. We've been called crazy by a lot of people for wanting to live this way.
I didn't mean to suggest we stop and wait for a plan, but perhaps stop bitching and do something. You may have read how I feel about Nader; a good man but no plan, and not enough for me anymore. The point is moot now anyway, or at least until 2012 if he is alive to run again.
When I was involved in local politics, I met an elderly gentleman who wouldn't vote for a raise in minimum wage because he was afraid that it would up his costs at McDonalds and elsewhere. I met a woman who lived next to the water treatment plant and kept insisting that somebody needed to fix that shit smell. People are unreasonable and undeserving. They don't want to unify for the betterment of all. I don't mind taking a leadership role but when things get tough and I look around and see that I am leading only my own backside it is frustraing indeed.
I am afraid that when the great ignorant masses of Americans finally have had enough they will only be able to loot and destroy. I fully expect to have to defend my home by whatever means necessary. And I am a big chicken when it comes to that!
I sure would like to have some reasonable civilized way to react to the mismanagement (to put it way too mildly) of our once great country by the bastards in Washington and their Wall st. masters. I'm totally sick of their f*@$ing plan, and totally sick of hearing nothing but criticism. What to do?
As long as we remain apart we cannot hope to affect change. I guess I was lucky to have met kindred souls during the almost anarchistic days of protests during the sixties and seventies. The group we formed carried on locally focused efforts for decades and I like to think it made a difference.
I see that, living in a rural setting as you do, finding a group in which to participate becomes more difficult if not impossible. But even such an act as speaking your mind in public settings is action, and one never knows when those words will sprout.
"Each time a man stands up for an ideal he starts a little ripple."
Robert Kennedy
You have a conscience obviously and that is a powerful motivation to make things better. To paraphrase Browning, ones reach should always exceed one's grasp ,after all. I believe that you just underestimate the power of speaking out for that which you perceive as right, no matter if on the internet, in town councils or in the supermarket. The only thing to fear is allowing ones frustrations to force one to retreat into silence.
"Our doubts are traitors,
and make us lose the good we oft might win,
by fearing to attempt."
Shakespeare "Measure for Measure"
Perhaps you see a chaotic future ahead. I imagine that those living in 1775 saw such as well, and some might posit they were right. But there is much good created out of the violence of that revolution and that is worth the effort to save and salvage it. No political action is wasted, I assure you, no protest unnoticed and nothing but a refusal to act or speak is not a positive.
"All of us are in the gutter, but some of us are staring up at stars." Oscar Wilde
As long as you continue to stare at those stars, and perhaps point them out to those looking down, you are making a contribution.
"Voting for Nader is like masturbating without an orgasm.
It feels good for a while, then ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENS, and you end up feeling more frustrated than you did before. [...]"
___________________________________________
Yeah, at least with Obama there's a little something to clean up afterwards. That was your point, right?
· Yr Obd't Servant
Mr Green blames all this on the Republicans. If only. Wake up Mr. Green. The Dems were completely complicit. They've worked together with the Republicans to bleed us dry and transfer wealth from bottom to top. Did anyone scream when Bush's SEC removed leverage limits? It was Ron Paul who warned about Fannie and Freddie in 2003. Barney Frank kept pushing the limits and then, a few months ago, said no one could have predicted the F&F mess. In 1999, 99 senators voted to prohibit regulation of derivatives. Dodd, Biden, Shumer and Lieberman are best buds with banks and insurance companies. And on and on and on.
[ _____ Don't _ b l a m e _ the _ P L A Y E R , _____ ]
[ __________ B l a m e _ the _ G A M E ___________ ]
If one is ignorant enough to play the game, does one not become complicit in the game and the results? Without the players, there would be no game and without the game, there would be no players. Stop playing and the game is over.
We play the game consciously, attempting to understand the rules -- and then making appropriate choices based upon our individual perceiving of possible gains and losses.
Let's suppose that the game is much larger than most would expect, and like PASCAL's wager -- we'll be better off assuming the actual ineffable existence a higher power ( than not ).
We're all playing as best we can ( a working assumption ), although some clearly have no concern for the overall collective good ( as they've yet to understand that ).
Perhaps Obama is doing exactly the best that he can do, given the circumstances that got us ALL to this moment in time ?
I must say that BLAME is an ineffective tool for the breakthroughs that society must elicit from itself.
By focusing on the GAME, one absolves the individual players of GUILT and SHAME -- which is perhaps what we need to advance our consciousness.
Regardless, it is for EVERYONE of us to play our own game as best we can . The state of ignorance ( arrogance and ego ) is playing a very small game, and most are capable of much more.
The great hope is that enough of US see the common good and chose appropriately for an gradually creating movement toward an unprecedented society.
LIFE is the GAME, and it will continue with or without US.
It's "our" move.
Namaste
There are times that one must yield to the constraints of place, time, definition and appropriateness. For myself, this is one of those times. Carry on, soldier of peace......
It is all theatre folks...
It is not a matter of Obama making poor choices, therefore bringing OweBama's intelligence into question...
That is predicated on the assumption that the Unitary Executive is calling the shots, making the appointments & decisions...
The Banksters that run the economic policy also created the Federal Reserve, (which is neither)... A tax of interest...
They inflate bubbles and short sell, crashing economies, stealing pensions, and buying up their competition...
They have privatized most of the natural resources and infrastructure, recieve tax payer subsidies for dumping surplus of foreign markets, driving others out of business...
They built a privatized prison-military-food-sucurity industry and ran up a huge deficit funding their research and development...
They have removed us from the gold and silver standards, raided the Social Security, Emptied trillions from the Pentagon's account, looted the US treasury, created a half trillion yearly trade deficit, created the 100 trillion derivative and Subprime mortgage schemes, and are currently turning our grand children into indentured servants by giving away trillions more to the same people who stole the money in the first place...
They have been using the marines, CIA, Military contractors, and mercenaries to do their dirty work in securing resources around the world... They have launched not one, but two land wars in landlocked regions of Asia...
They groomed OweBama for the job of figurehead...
Sioux Rose
GOLDEN MEAN: An honest and powerful telling of a sordid and all too truthful tale.
Thank you!
It is interesing to think about how John McCain would have handled this mess left by his party and with Phil Graham as his Secretary of The Treasury I'm positive we would have seen a real circus. The world economy would not only be on its knees it would be flat on its back.
As far as I am concerned, Obama destroyed his presidency the moment he started to characterize coal as "clean" and assert his intention to continue to occupy Iraq, escalate the war in Afghanistan, conduct covert war in Pakistan, and appoint the forces of the status quo to his Administration. Since I voted for Nader, I can honestly say that my soul is still intact.
Obama had the chance to win my vote, but given his actions for the first 100 days not only do I not regret my vote for Nader, but I will continue in the camp of Third Party voting when he comes up for reelection in four years.
Anybody not already interested in third parties by now, must be still living in their Obamaland of Wonder or is a hardcore neocon who believes in the casino market system.
I will continue to campaign and contribue to third parties on the local, state, and national level. I'm proud that I campaigned for Nader last year and got him on the ballot in one very tough state for Independent candidates. I'm not wasting anything more on the Democrats who like to say they're so different from the Republicans but won't lift a finger to substantially prove otherwise.
Hope you're working on ballot changes such as Instant Runoff Voting. That seems to be the only way third parties will ever have a chance.
Nope, It was Nader votes that gave the presidency to Bush. Regardless of if he was the best you are not voting strategically (remember you are not in a democracy). For that mistake you inherited 8 yrs of rule by dictator.
You soul is still in limbo. You may have to plant a tree or feed some homeless to recover.
LOL J/K
No, I blame Pat Buchanan. If he hadn't run, all those poor old Jews in Palm Beach would have voted for Gore instead of Buchanan by mistake. Thankfully, all the poor old Jews I'm related to were living in Broward back then :-)
I don't know what tree you live on, but you ought to go back and do your homework on why Gore and his zionist partner, Lieberman, lost the election in their own inept way. Oh, did you bother to ask those Democratic voters of which numbered in the hundreds of thousands, why they bothered to vote for a Republican in the state of Florida? Did you bother to ask yourself why many other third parties on the ballot in Florida got well over the 500+ votes needed to make a difference in the election? And ad nauseum....
There are a lot of reason why Gore lost the election of 2000. Some of them are his own, some because of the media which favored Bush. But Nader supporters are also to blame. Your principled stand helped us get Bush. Nader supporters may not like it, but it is a fact.
marco sez: "... Nader supporters are also to blame. (They) may not like it, but it is a fact."
***
It's not a fact. It's a talking point.
Though it's always entertaining to watch the DPA militia fire back when someone lobs the Nader grenade into one of these foxholes.
I'm not a DPA, I'm a realist. Nader supporters, god bless their souls, are idealists.
And sorry, it is a fact, not a talking point, that had the Nader voters voted for Gore instead, Gore would have taken Florida.
Here is the Final Certified Vote count of the 2000 Florida elections:
Bush - 2,912,790
Gore - 2,912,253
Nader - 97,421
If the Naderites had swallowed hard, held their nose and and voted for Gore:
Gore - 3,009,674
Bush - 2,912,790
Gore takes it!
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/campaign2000results/state/state_fl.html
Awesome...thanks for the post.
>>And sorry, it is a fact, not a talking point, that had the Nader voters voted for Gore instead, Gore would have taken Florida.
Right. And sorry, it is a fact, not a talking point, that had the supporters of Al Bore voted for Nader, Nader would have taken Florida.
Just what is is you don't like about democracy, Marco? I mean it is my right to vote for the candidate that I think is the best qualified to lead the nation. Apparently 97,421 people in Florida agreed with me.
>>I'm a realist.
"Realist" my ass.
You are right. Everyone has the right to ruin their own progressive agenda by voting for people who will not get elected.
If that makes you feel better...well I pity you, but I will still try to help you vote not only with your heart...but also with your mind. Vote strategically. Both your heart and mind will be better for it. Just as it would have been better under Gore instead of Bush.
Vote strategically!
Thank you for the logic, a shame it is wasted. This utter nonsense, insisting my vote is owed or restricted to to that candidate who may have a chance to win, regardless of the political differences between the voter and the candidate is the stuff of fools. It is also one important brick in the wall of the failures of our current system/
That there have been so many studies and position papers showing that the "spoiler" indictments are inaccurate and anti democratic, that ones vote is ones own to cast,that Gore failed to even carry his own state in fact, makes the charges of that poster sad and irrelevant.
Don't forget...
RFM Pat BUCHANAN 17,472
or even better, it's the Socialists' fault!
SOC David McREYNOLDS 618
SW James E. HARRIS 594
No man, it's a candidate's own fault if someone does not vote for them.
Gracefulswan
Excellent rebuttal.
Right, what matter is that one's "soul is still intact" every 4 years.
If you assume that voting and elections are the beginning and end of making political change, and that such can allow us to escape a very dark and dystopian future in the US, that is a very easy and safe decision. However, that assumption is looking less sound by the year.
That is not my assumption at all, perhaps it is only your presupposition. As someone who has worked pretty much all my life in the non profit would for substandard pay, I know the difference between lip service and walking my talk. Can you claim the same?
I was not challenging your commitment or your effort. Please forgive me if you were offended. I just doubt that it is likely that the vote can bring a radically different government to the US, regardless of how hard dedicated and good-hearted people like you work. And if such change were to occur through the vote, I suspect it would take a radically different party from any on the menu today. The Green Party has a ceiling way below 50 percent (I would guess below 20 percent), as do any of the parties on the right, and the corporatists are certainly counting on that. I wish more on the left were willing to compromise with the right to form an anti-elitist party, one that would support more autonomy for states as in a loose confederation, requiring the passage of a constitutional amendment, so that some states could become progressive and others could become as conservative as their citizens wished. That is about the best future I can imagine that I believe is within the realm of possibility.
Here, here!! Kucinich may be just as good a candidate also, however, if he could ever get the Democrats' attention and not get 86'd by the media.
Obama never claimed to be anti-capitalist. He does believe in a regulated market. He also intends to fight for better health care, more effective education and altenative energy. Who is the leftist altenative who is ELECTIBLE?
Electability is one of the worst words in the dictionary of democracy. When you bring up that point, you have given up voting for your hopes. I will always vote with my heart & brain. (and both are fine, thanks for asking)
Until people get Instant Runoff Voting or similar democratic schemes, the choice is going to remain between the Conservative-Feudal-Coporation Party and the Liberal-Corporate-State Party.
Absolutely, and a terrific riposte to those who refuse to consider voting against the status quo. Why should the two established parties vote for a change that would make their task of remaining in power that much more difficult?
"Electability" is the problem. NO ONE will be elected who does not serve the corporatocracy. WE the People have the power. Until we WAKE UP, NOTHING...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WILL CHANGE. The curtain has been drawn...we have seen the "wizard" manipulating the controls and are still looking for courage, a heart and brains in someone or something outside ourselves.
It's like talking to a brick wall isn't it Shach?
Some day These Uber-Progressives will learn that strategy is more important than maintaining a perfect progressive voting record and some day they will learn that the change progressives are looking for can only come through degrees not by voting for someone who will never be elected.
Please from now on vote intelligently....not pridefully.
Besides OBAMA has done more for the left than any president in my life time (xcept maybe carter). \
Your definition of voting "pridefully" seems to match the accepted definition of insanity; doing the same thing, again and again, and expecting different results.
There are many reasons, and good ones too, for casting one's ballot for a third party or independent candidate. But , of course, you would rather know your vote went to the winner, never mind that it is the people of the United States who lost, again.
Obama never claimed to be anti-capitalist. He does believe in a regulated market. He also intends to fight for better health care, more effective education and altenative energy. Who is the leftist altenative who is ELECTIBLE?
Obama is what he is. Dumb or complicit...it matters very little. He is where he is because of the "mercy" of the powers (banksters) that run this world. To what purpose...who knows..psyops to the enth degree. We the People have yielded our power for too long. Everything and everyone has a breaking point. Each new felony and each new bailout brings us closer. We have already sold our future and our grandkids...and probably their grandkids. How much more? How much more?
I'm not yet willing to say Obama is dumb, although I do see signs this may be true.
What I do see quite clearly is that he's a complete WIMP!
Afraid to stand up to AIPAC, Goldman Sachs, the Insurance Lobby and Bush administration criminals.
When I sized up the Democratic Presidential candidates I asked myself which one of these people would not be afraid to take on the corporate interests...no matter what the consequences might be.
I saw only two candidates with such courage: Kucinich and Gravel.
In no way am I shocked by Obama's lack of spine, just frustrated.
This is THE opportunity, RIGHT NOW to end the corporate stranglehold of our government which has destroyed our nation.
If Obama stood up to these sociopaths THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE HIS BACK.
Doesn't he understand this?
YES!!!
That is IF it really was a true majority that voted Obama in.
I have overwhelming feelings that he was "given" to us by the elites to keep us quiet, and to make the medicine go down easier. Cynical, eh?
Cynical? I see it as pragmatic.Obama was not so much given to us as he was sold to us, and it took seven hundred million dollars and two full years to make that sale.
A(FUCKIN)MEN
A(FUCKIN)MEN
Thankfully we don't have to rely on Obama to change everything. Congress is currently raping Wall Street in the ass daily. With luck, the health insurance industry will be the next one to fuck up so bad that the public demands blood, and they'll be booted. Probably won't happen, but hey politicians are people too, and can be caught up by popular movements as well. Of course, my views on all this is probably way different from everyone else on here, given that I monitor Fox Business for 8 hours daily at MMFA. They talk about this stuff a LOT. And trust me, they're not nearly as bad as regular Fox.