Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHey, Did You Hear That Democrats Won The Election?
That George Bush, man – what a monster, eh? I mean, could you even have imagined a president so destructive?
It's actually worse than you thought, though. Lately, there's been a spate of fresh revelations about some of the incredibly disastrous policies that were executed by the Bush administration.
Did you know, for instance, that they...
...steered hundreds of billions of bail-out dollars to the very people who drove the country into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, required nothing of these sharks in return, and did almost nothing for ordinary Americans struggling to survive this disaster?
...opposed congressional legislation limiting financial institution incentive pay packages that put the whole global economy at risk?
...opposed legislation allowing shareholders the right to have even a non-binding say on salaries, even though executives took home billions in bonuses last year while their companies were hemorrhaging money so badly they required a trillion bucks in taxpayer bail-out?
...actually threatened Britain, America's closest ally in the world, with withdrawal of intelligence data that could prevent terrorist attacks unless the British government blocked one of its courts from accepting documented evidence of torture at Guantánamo?
...sent droves of Predator-launched missiles into Pakistan – supposedly one of America's allies – killing groups of civilians, even at weddings, thus intensifying hatred toward the United States?
...tried to shut down a charity's illegal-surveillance suit against the government on the basis of a supposed constitutionally-grounded state secrets privilege which would allow the president to kill any legal case before it is even heard?
...undertook a blitz of immigration enforcement without reform of civil rights violations so nasty that one professor of immigration law described the policies as "literally the worst of all worlds"?
...refused to set legally enforceable immigration detention rules covering such basics as health care and legal representation, instead relying on a flawed contractor-based monitoring system?
...pressured a member of Congress to withdraw an amendment that would have ended the military's disastrous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" regime, simply by defunding it?
...asked a federal court to dismiss a case in which the plaintiffs challenged the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, arguing to the court that heterosexual marriage is "the traditional, and universally recognized, version of marriage"?
...dramatically increased the influence of religion in government, directly violating the First Amendment, by lavishly spending federal dollars on "faith-based" programs, and giving religious groups massively increased power and access within the White House to shape policy questions?
...stood by silently, allowing climate legislation to be watered down to nothing, to include generous pollution allowances to coal utilities, and to undermine the EPA's authority to control carbon emissions?
...backed healthcare legislation that did little for the public and actually increased wasteful federal expenditures, while continuing to enrich insurance, medical, hospital and pharmaceutical corporation vampires?
...and lots and lots more.
Can you believe it? Can you imagine anything as absolutely evil as the Bush administration? Can you believe the stunts they pulled?
Well, try this on for size: Every item above actually reflects the actions of the Obama administration in just its first six months – not George Bush! (Although, of course, Bush did a lot of these things too, and would have likely done them all, given the chance.)
That's right, that's right. Yep. This is the record of the guy liberals scrambled to put into office, the guy who promised big-time change, and the guy whom foaming-at-the-mouth regressives run around screaming is a socialist ruining America.
I don't know about you, but I think maybe all those government officials and media reporters who say Democrats won the last election (actually, the last two of them) have just been having a great big ol' laugh at our expense! Whataya think? This is change from the last eight years?? This is the party that opposed the horrors of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress?? This is out-of-control liberalism?
And let's not even talk about the things they aren't doing...
...Real change in Middle East policy? Haven't seen it.
...Remotely serious response to the existential threat of global warming? Nope – might offend somebody.
...Single-payer healthcare system, to provide the only cost-effective and fair solution for universal coverage? Wasn't mentioned by Harry in the commercial. Or Louise.
...Serious cuts to annual defense spending now equal to twice what every other country in the world spends, combined? Nein, dummkopf. The Pentagon's budget is rising – you know, in order to protect America from its big bad enemy, the, uh..., the, um, what's-their-names again...?
...Full-court press to curb hugely expanding wealth disparities and protect the economy from Wall Street predators? Hell, nowadays those clowns have their offices right in the West Wing. In fact, now it's called the Goldman Sachs Wing.
Look, I'll be honest. I supported (sorta) Obama and I voted for him. But I did so with open eyes. I knew he could be a progressive once installed in the Oval Office, but that he might well also be a Clinton-like hack for the money boys and a complete coward in standing up to the insane right that is gobbling up America on a steady diet of hate and paranoia.
In other words, I'm not shocked that he's not FDR. But why is this guy carrying water for George Bush, covering up his worst crimes? Why are his civil liberties positions so bad that one attorney described them as "the good old Bush-Cheney inherent presidential power theory" all over again? Why is he working so hard to make sure Wall Street sucks every drop of blood it possibly can out of the pale-white corpse of the American middle class, even while it ruins the global economy in yet another get-rich scam, then turns to the government for a bail-out when it all comes a cropper, all the while – and without a hint of irony – still loudly singing its effusive praises of Ayn Rand? Why is it this guy can't simply stand aside and let Congress defund Don't Ask, Don't Tell, a program even the military now wants to jettison? Why does he go to court arguing on behalf of homophobic repression? What in the world is this dude going to tell his children when their country is broke and broken, and their planet parched and dying? "I was just one person. What could I do?"
I guess Democrat is the new Republican nowadays.
Sure, the pathetically feeble Dems are less likely to launch big wars based on lies (at least since LBJ left the White House), and that's nothing to sneeze at. (Maybe Obama will even end Bush's debacle in Iraq, like he said he would. Maybe. I take nothing on faith with this guy, that's for sure.)
And, yeah, Democrats will move slightly faster in the quest to do nothing and to get nowhere when it comes to protecting the environment, civil rights or civil liberties. Woo-hoo.
Otherwise, I'm having a hard time seeing the difference. Bill Clinton (he of WTO, NAFTA, welfare reform and Telecommunications Bill fame) was the best friend Wall Street could ever have imagined, and they still tried to ride him out on a rail. Now Obama's got the same Goldman Sachs retreads in there ripping us off again, even as the ship is still going down from the last round.
So Democrats won the last election, huh?
Coulda fooled me. But here's the bigger question:
What for?
82 Comments so far
Show AllJust before the election (October 27) Ira Chernus wrote the last of 3 pleas for progressives to give up progressivism and vote for Obama. www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/27-2 with links to the other 2. I'd be curious to read what Ira has to say now.
That's the great thing about being a Republican. Even when you lose, you win! Time for progressives to go Green.
Congratulations on your awakening and honesty in admitting it. I wish other Mr. O. supporters would observe what he's really doing rather than continue to cling to what they hoped he would do.
By the way, for my take on Mr. O's "change," please read my own piece, titled "Keep The Change."
Dave - Erstwhile Urban Wanderer
Also -
Hey did you hear that here in Pennsylvania Obama & the Dems had Nader removed from the ballot for a serious of reasons that would be laughed out of a Third World courtroom, and thus disenfranchised me?
This is part of what sickens me about the Dem voters - THEY DID NOT AND DO NOT CARE that left-leaning people are disenfranchised by the party they support.
There is a progressive party in the US, but it's not either of the corporatist parties. The Green Party of the United States shares your values - why continue wasting your energy on a party that will never represent you?
Get active with the Green Party and start turning your progressive values into reality. Unless you want to do nothing but complain about the Democrats sucking for the rest of your life.
"Get active with the Green Party and start turning your progressive values into reality"----------------
It might help for you to 'remove your gas mask' so that you can 'smell what that is you are shoveling'--------but then again, your 'olfactory nerve' may already be paralyzed from the previous participation in "the party that solves the problems'
There will never be a 'political party' that succeeds in delivering what the 'voters' ----'vote for'-------as long as the 'voters' live in a Plutocratic Oligarchy.
That is the only 'change' that needs to be made---then Democracy will rule the USA.
But, there is that one problem looming over all prospects.
The USA may not have enough time left to make the needed changes. The world has most likely reached its highest level of saturation with the USA---and with that---its tolerance of the USA.
It all is simply a matter of time.
Good Luck America, you really need it.
"Bill Clinton...was the best friend Wall Street could ever have imagined, and they still tried to ride him out on a rail. "
The fact that they tried to run him out on a rail proves your statement is false.
Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich. Income rose at all levels and we were paying off the deficit. This would not be the case if Clinton were the best friend Wall Street ever imagined.
That's logic. It can help you.
Bill Clinton was a mover in deregulating Wall Street. I suggest you look up "triangulation." Also note what happened with corporate revenues and taxes in Clintontime.
Thank you RichM for your clear, concise, right on the money analysis of articles like this on CD.
I am not as articulate but thanks to you, over the last year or so, I've learned many talking points to put across my thinking to others.
You know how to put into words what is in my mind.
Many in my circle of friends, neighbors, and family were unhappy about my avid support for Nader in 2008. All were Obama supporters. Many became very active in the Obama campaign, and for some, it was the first time they had ever campaigned. The primary reason for their galvanized enthusiasm seemed more out of FEAR of a McCain (ie Bush style) victory.
All of these people consider themselves left leaning, environmentally aware, compassionate, caring, people. They all go to the farmers market and try to buy organic foods. Many drive Prius or Honda Hybrids and they support putting more bike lanes in town.
So what's my point? All of these good people have gone back to their lives, a little disappointed in Obama, but oh well, "at least we don't have Bush anymore". When the victory parties ended in January, that was it. There is a complacency that I find very frustrating. It seems to be everywhere, except for the few here at CD. If it weren't for this site and some others I would think I was a lone dissenter in the wilderness.
An old teacher of mine warned about making decisions based on fear, it will probably turn out poorly, and that has surely happened. Now what?
Sioux Rose
REBEL: Permit me a short analogy. Last August lightning hit my home and knocked out power, the computer, and did other damage. Since I live in a lightning-prone area, I went to the Electric company to inquire what I could do to avert future damage. I was told that the house was not grounded, and called an electrician. He explained that due to the sandy bottom where I live, a copper pole would have to be dug down more than 60 feet. Instead he recommended I put two short copper poles near one another, the theory being the electricity would jump between these two until it wore itself out. It is just a theory. However, it reminds me of the anger in the U.S. It was deflected by the HOPE OF CHANGE (in Obama's election); but now that the hope has deteriorated into abject betrayal (except in the cases you mentioned, persons resigned to what is and still comfortable enough to be "above water") America's fuse reminds me of a potent electrical power being directed between two "poles" (parties) not far apart. Will it remain contained there, bouncing between the two conductors; or will it jump free to wildly express the fires of its accumulated rage? ... the answer in both cases is yet to be seen.
Sioux, interesting analogy, sometimes I wonder if the situation we are in is charged and ready to erupt into mass anger, or if we are becalmed and asleep in the doldrums. There must be anger out there, right? I just don't see much of it.
As per your lightning problem, I doubt that the two copper poles would work. The current wouldn't flow back and forth, you would need to ground it in moist soil for current to flow. Maybe the sand there doesn't hold enough moisture, but 60 feet seems like a long way down to find adequate moist soil. Is the ground water table there in FL that deep? I wouldn't think so. I'm thinking you may have a mobile home? They are usually grounded to the metal chassis frame, that may be what they were referring to. But I still think there must be a ground at the service entrance. Anyway, to deflect lightning (you may already know this and have solved the problem) an exterior rod on the roof connected to a cable that runs to a ground outside the home will deflect lightning. (BTW my ancestor Ben Franklin figured that out, I think I can consider him an ancestor, my great great great grandmother was his cousin). But you do need to have the discharge end in relatively moist soil. If it is a mobile home with metal roof and siding then I'd have to look into that some more, it may be that you only need to ground the chassis to exterior ground. Check with a lightning arrestor contractor.
Hey, did ya hear? Corporations STILL control the government
"I was just one person. What could I do?" is just a variation on what I heard from Democrat after Democrat after Democrat when I was campaigning for Kucinich in New Hampshire. "I like him but he can't win," they all said to me in the 10 degree darkness. "So I'm voting for..." [Fill in the blank. Women mostly said Clinton; men mostly said Obama.] I started to think that if there were a hermaphrodite who was right wing enough they ALL would have voted for him/her. If all the people who said that had voted for Dennis he would have won the district I worked.
“I'm not voting for him; he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because no one will vote for him because he can't win because...”
DMG, What gives you the right to say anything about this?
We knew this would happen. We knew more than a year and a half ago exactly this would happen and we said so, here and elsewhere, repeatedly, loudly, desperately, in every way and in every forum we could think of; we tried and tried and tried to convince you not to kick the football Lucy was holding yet again [thank you, qmchris]; we knew with as near-certainty as one can get without being a radical right Fundamentalist. We knew. If you didn't it is only because of incredible, unfathomable astoundingly boneheaded blind psychologically-induced stupidity. (I could say what I really think but I'm trying to be kind and understanding. And not get purged.)
So this is how you intend to convince us we should listen to you now? "Sort of" admit you were "sort of" a little bit right in your 50-50 guess about whether a coin would come down or continue to go up when you tossed it?
I don't know, maybe you can tell--I'm a little bit peeved about people like you who time after time after time after time after time are afraid to ask for what you want, continue to ask for what you don't want and then are unhappy when you get it!
For nearly 40 years I have been a staunch and deep believer in and public supporter of non-violence. I haven’t changed yet. So far it's only in my worst moments--like now, reading your 'gosh I wonder how this could happen' crap, that I begin to reconsider, and feel like I'm being dragged tsk-tsking and dreaming into at least considering the possibility that only armed insurrection can fix what's wrong with this country, and it's not the Republicans who are making me feel that way.
It's Democrats. Like you.
- That's exactly right. Democrats (& liberalism) are the REAL impediments to progress. It's the existence of the Democrats that prevents the country from having a serious party of the Left.
Right-wing lunatics exist in our population, to be sure -- the type who are so unfathomably stupid that they get excited by a Sarah Palin, or any of the other Republican fascists. But these people could be easily overwhelmed if the rest of the population flatly refused to accept the Democrats as the "lesser evil" and the "only viable alternative."
It's not the Palins, Cheneys & Bushes that prevent the Left from having political representation. It's the willingness of liberals to follow the Democrats.
What about the labor unions? What have the Democrats done for working people in GENERATIONS? Nothing!! Nada!! and still the unions back Democrats NO MATTER WHAT.
Well, we got Obama and the Employee Free Choice Act is OFF THE TABLE---and so is single Payer Health Care. Working class Americans have to get over our false idea that somehow the Democrats are better than the Republicans.
What little minimum wage increases there have been came from Democrats.
And yeah, that's pretty much it. Pathetic.
At least the Republicans are honest about being far to the right. They are proud to be to the right, as perverse as that may seem to a progressive.
But the Democrats are, by world standards, a bizarre party, because they pretend to be centrist or even a touch progressive, at least during campaigns, but they are most definitely a right of center party, more to the right than the most conservative mainstream parties in all Western and Northern European countries. Make no mistake, for example, President Sarkozy of France is substantially more progressive than is Obama, Harry Reid, or Steny Hoyer.
The progressive caucus Democrats go along with this game of pretend, instead of quitting the party and getting a new one going as they really need to do. I guess Kucinich and so forth go along because they know the political system is about as deficient as is the economics one. Due to the political culture, numerous regulations, and legal restrictions, it usually seems that 3rd parties might as well be banned outright in the States.
If this country really does go completely down the tubes, it probably will be due to BOTH a massive economics failure and a massive political failure at the same time. One of those failures is devastating but both together may be like what the fly experiences when it is swatted.
Or it may be like the prognosis for a vehicle after a nasty breakdown: "We discovered your problem, Miss: both your transmission and your engine went at the same time; your car isn't even worth fixing," laugh out loud.
Until the "people of the United States of America"( well a majority of them anyway) decide that they truly want a Democracy, they will simply need to 'dismantle' the 'lobby' and the money that goes with it which 'buys the decisions' that the 'money' wants to be made. The future would hold little hope for the lobby as it is today. When the annual costs of the 'lobby' would be the postage for the 'letter' (w/o check or money order) from the "lobbyist" 'hoping' that the 'recipient will consider lobbyists concerns'-------with no promise of gain to the decision maker---a representative of the 'people'----then and only then will the American People know a Democracy.
That would be refreshing, since the American people have never known such a government.
And they never will unless they make the change from the Plutocratic Oligarchy to a Democracy.
They may be running out of time.
Good Luck America, you really need it.
follow the yellow brick road, the road, the road, the road, the road, follow the yellow brick road.
You forgot the most important one David:
"...Obama won't support legalizing marijuana, says Drug Czar."
"So Democrats won the last election, huh?
What for?"
To break a race barrier?
Try Greg Palast on the subject ezeflyer.
Obama has made a personal example of his conviction that the only recreational intoxicant Amerika needs is a nice, cold brewski.
Unlike Christ at Cana, Obama's White House miracle didn't involve turning water into a superlative alcoholic beverage. But he's come pretty close to initiating a new political sacrament in commemoration of his miraculous healing of a nasty racial rash-- sort of a combination of communion and anointing.
Do you really think he could've accomplished this miracle with the risk of Professor Gates or the cop bogarting a joint?
· Yr Obd't Servant
Hey, be nice. Drinking Liberally is a great organization.
Following on what RichM and others have written:
If the status quo persists through 2011-- i.e., barring some catastrophe or major disruption-- it will be interesting to see whether, in spite of DMG's epiphany as he plods toward Damascus, he reverts back to supporting Democrats.
Another of RichM's favorite CD writers, Dave Lindorff, has also come to deplore Obama after supporting him last year. Lindorff thinks third parties, for all practical purposes, are a pipe dream.
I'm not in favor of incessantly berating the Obama optimists, even though we non-Obamaniacs put up with a lot of gratuitous crap for seeing through him sooner. But I do think that they've set themselves up for the question of whether they truly LEARNED anything from being even mildly suckered by another flim-flam Dem.
The belief that we can't get there from here seems to add to the inertia of crossing one's fingers, holding one's nose, and voting for the Lesser-Evil Democrat even if it kills you.
In a way, they function like Dennis Kucinich and a few others within the Democratic Party, and Bernie Sanders. That is, they seem intelligent, perceptive, and aware of the fatal flaws in this decadent duopoly, and they are willing to respectfully criticize legislation and leadership.
But when push comes to shove, they snap into primitive "Gotta Support the Team!" mode and endorse manifestly rotten candidates, fellow politicians, and legislation.
Obviously, voting for any and every candidate is a gamble-- a crapshoot that the politician will perform according to one's expectation.
DMG isn't likely to embarrass himself by hopping back on the Obama bandwagon in 2012-- again, barring some unlikely tectonic shift in Obama's Unitary Executive maladministration or world events.
But it remains to be seen whether he's stopped buying into a duopoly entirely captive to economic interests, with the semblance of an election process designed to produce only "electable", time-serving shills.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Obedient Servant sez: "... it will be interesting to see whether, in spite of DMG's epiphany as he plods toward Damascus, he reverts back to supporting Democrats."
***
I, too, have contemplated how the 2011-12 Democratic propaganda rollout will be managed.
2002-2006: "We're powerless with Republicans controlling all branches of government. Elect more of us."
After 2006: "We're powerless despite majorities in both houses, because Bush still has veto power. Elect more of us."
Since inauguration day, 2009: "We seem to remain powerless. But, man, are the corporate contributions ever rolling in."
Beginning 2011?: "We're powerless to deliver a single thing to the People, regardless of numbers. Therefore, elect more of us."
Personally, I'm hoping for a creative and novel approach to the dissembling, misdirection and prevarication to come. But I fear the Democrats lack the requisite imagination.
Sie hat recht, Herr Goebbels! Ausgezeichnet!
I would only add a second message in 2011: "And for God's sake-- CLAP HARDER!"
· Yr Obd't Servant
Again I must say: When and where are we going to organize to defeat Oh'Bumma in 2012? The progressives need to understand that the destruction of the democratic party is the first step in the "people" taking back the government from the Corporations. The Dems job is to keep the republican party from going the way of the dodo bird. They do a damn good job of it too. Anyone who supports the democratic party is PART OF THE PROBLEM! If the democratic party is destroyed the republicans party will soon follow them into oblivion. Then a New party can emerge that could truly represent the people. The fascists will not give up without a fight. I expect that the ballot box and the streets will be the battlegrounds. There is no free press so pirate radio will have to do its part. The biggest problem is the deep ignorance of Americans. You can't force someone to read or to think. Things will have to get much, much worse for people before they do get off their asses.. The only question is how long will it take to get bad enough for people to unite and stand up together against the fascist pigs?
Really? After all this time, right out in the open? We're still pretending there's some sort of mystery here?
"Frankly, they own the place."
Which means, there's one 'place,' which is 'owned.' And everyone who works for the 'owners' of the 'place' do what is best for the 'owners.'
What's best for the 'owners?' The appearance of two opposing political parties - the old good cop/bad cop routine. Keep the People split and hating and even fearing each other. Cloud the issues with lies and doublespeak. Do whatever it takes to eliminate any chance of mass awakening and organizing. Every once in a while, toss em a bone - a million acres of wetlands or some shit.
Meanwhile, keep filling the bags with the loot, and don't forget to constantly remind the People that 'we care.'
Sadly, most progs and libs just aren't ready to embrace the "they own the place" truth yet, still living in the fantasy land where 'the right thing to do' eventually triumphs over 'take all you can, give nothing back.'
Sioux Rose
FRANK: I nominate YOU for this thread's "Sharp Cookie Award." And I still have hopes for your "Peoples" Own Health Initiative." Good thinking!
And the alternative was???? It would have been nice to have had some real choices...oh, yeah, there's always next time, same choices, different names, same staus quo chosen candidates, same corruption, same greed, same illusion, same sinking boat..
Hey The Socialist I: I admit it was a mistake voting for Obama. It is also a mistake to be taken in by either major political party. The only change we can truly believe in will be carried out by a third party. I'm voting my conscience next time and not against the Rethuglicans. Demo"coroporate"crats have the same, insidious, agenda.
We are all caught in the trap of the Duopoly.
The winner-takes-all electoral system is un-demorcratic for starters. We have rampant electoral FRAUD in the USA. The USA is the only developed democracy not to have a centralized voting and electoral system.
Money as Free Speech and Corporate personhood legal frameworks also rig the sytem, as well as the corporate media oligopoly propaganda system.
Let's face the facts, we cannot expect a rigged, corrupt system to produce a non-corrupt outcome. How many decades is it going to take for folks to figure this out. It will be nearly impossible under the current corrupt, fraudulent system for any real representation of the majorities' preferences to become policy.
A good example that Chomsky often uses: a majority of Americans have been in favor of universal single-payer health care for decades. This is in spite of massive propaganda campaigns to scare people into believing in the status quo. Yet, the politicians can ignore the public for decades. That is clear evidence the foundations of the democratic process are broken and dysfunctional.
I would like a liberal to just once, admit that it was a mistake voting for Obama. But they can't, because at the very least, they want to "vote against" a Republican in 2012.
People are afraid to leave, afraid to abandon positions they've held for so long. But I did. Back in 2004, I was a loyal Democrat supporting John Kerry. But then I started reading good websites instead of the lying New York Times, and I started to think about what it all really meant. By 2006, I was one of these disillusioned Democrats, still willing to vote for them. It was (and is) the last time. I have since realized that we have to criticize the entire economic and political system. I have realized that their aren't these rogue lunatics out there promoting fascism, but that the Republicans were working within the rules of the establishment.
It's not just my voting habits, but my political views themselves that have changed radically. I was a liberal, I am now a radical, a socialist.
And I am sorry, indeed ashamed, both of the positions I've held in the past, and the fact that I supported John Kerry and when I became old enough, voted for Democrats.
There, was that so hard?
Here's the key. "I was a liberal, I am now a radical, a socialist." We need to de-radicalize the word socialist. Look at how the radical Right portrays the middle right dems as "liberals".
Socialism is not as much a radical fear-baiting word around the world as it is here in Amerika. If every one of us who are fed up with the right leaning Democratic Party come out and say, "we are socialists', we can begin to re-legitimize the word.
Say it loud, say it proud. Democratic Socialism is liberalism's only relief from corporatism.
Hmm, how does it go?
If socialism means equal rights for all, universal healthcare, good benefits for all workers, a genuine safety net, and proper regulation of all corporations and the financial system, then hell yes I'm a socialist.
There was always the possibility that Obama could've went the other way.
He could've broken the neoconish triangulation and kept the more progressive populist promises. How was anyone to know? What if some-died-in-the-wool progressive got their foot in the door and suddenly went centrist? Would you be so naive to be shocked? Would you appreciate other factions of the Left demanding that you eat crow? It all seems so petty and juvenile to me--the whole sullen blame game--the confessional demands and especially the elitism--see how pure I am, I didn't pollute myself--in retrospect of course. Is it any wonder the Left is so divided and bickering in futility?
You all should be at least relieved and pleased to note that these authors you love to scold at least have their eyes wide open. Some obviously are still blind. Let's hope they wake up soon, eh? If you can't reach out in some semblence of unity--how the hell are you ever going to make your case to the working class who may be manipulated to act against their own interests--because the Right effectively channels their anger?
Not sure what you mean, Vern.
They have their eyes open but they're still blind? We should be glad they did what they knew all along was ineffective and wrong? Or that they knew that what they were doing was wrong, even though they did it anyway? How does any of help help any of us at all?
"How was anyone to know?" Get serious, Vern. He made his politics clear for years, and even clearer during the campaign. There was never more than a tiny sliver of a fraction of a small chance that Obama would be anything other than right-centrist with a touch of good ol Amurican S&M, (torturing people, invading other countries, punishing children for being poor or sick, etc.) that he would suddenly reverse course and become even more liberal than he had been in his youth. He was getting more conservative, not less, as the personal stakes got higher and he was drawn to more and more power. He has continued to do so.
I doubt it, but maybe he hopes to suddenly turn around in his second term and "be real". In the unlikely event that's so (how could anyone who believes torture and illegal detention are wrong be so close to stopping them, have it within his grasp and then not do it?)... he is mistaken. It is even harder to accomplish things in the second term, if he gets one.
Probably we never will succeed in reaching the proles. Their repressed sexuality, rage-infused childhoods and unexpressed grief and fear combined with the strong American [sic] anti-independent, anti-intellectualism mean they can always be manipulated by clever fascists. Unless Rove dies and leaves no one (as Atwater left him) to take over, the right will have an adequate supply of such clever ones for the forseeable future. The memories of split and traumatized people are short; they will soon forget, if they ever really got it, that the Republicans are to blame for the current economical, ecological and psychological mess. What chance we have lies in solutions most people won't even contemplate--consciousness and true compassion. What are the chances of those happening?
Garbage.
On more than one level.
Why are they still blind?
If "they" were still blind they would be singing Obama's praises, right?
It is easy in RETROSPECT to claim it was "ineffective and wrong" and that is why it is particularly offensive to watch this ego-driven chest-pounding now. It would be one thing if these authors were still advocating Obama's continued glowing promise, but that isn't the case so instead it is more like juvenile retribution.
I can understand the anger and resent--there have been those like RichM who have been sounding the alarm bells for years and were run out of places like the Democratic Underground for sounding uncomfortable truths.
It is highly unlikely that Obama will get a second term. Even now, the perception is that Bill Clinton strikes a more presidential pose than the cowering capitulating complicit Obama and there is growing disappointment and disgust with the Obama equals Bush scenario. The hope was that he would at the very least be marginally better than Clinton- not continuing the Bush world view.
And rather than puffing yourself up at the expense of alienating others perhaps you would have a better chance of finding common cause with the lowly "proles" if you didn't regard them with such elitist disdain. Speaking of compassion...
Agreed.
I've noticed how some of the more moderating voices have left. The children have taken over and anyone who dares to question or say, "wait a minute, I've been there - let's look at the other side" are derided and called childish names. Or, God forbid, people make a mistake then try to own up to it. Off with their heads!
Sad, really.
While I acknowledge the "possibility" of Obama throwing a few more crumbs to the people...
When taking all factors into consideration during the campaign that were visible...
(i.e. voting record, high donors, advisors, VP choice, pro-war rhetoric in speeches, advocating in favor of the bailouts, etc)...
Then there were definitely "probabilities" and "tendencies" for Obama to continue supporting the status quo...
Much of what Liberals and progressives based their support for Owebama was on his fancy rhetoric and exploiting his street cred...
Identity politics like race and gender also played a role in this election, used to ensure that the Banksters candidate won...
Both The Left and the Right project their hopes and fears upon the "blank slate" candidate, yet is substantially no different than Bush...
Despite the prescient warnings and verifiable evidence that Obama would turn out exactly as predicted, Liberals voted for Obama with glee... Now Liberals are claiming, " How could we have known? He could have gone either way!"...
Well for starters... Don't vote for a candidate that could go either way... Vote for a candidate with Integrity, even if they "can't win"...
It is better than getting what you dont want but voted for anyway...
"Don't vote for a candidate that could go either way..."
Born yesterday?
I know...! All the people who voted for "Hope & Change" didn't realize that those buzz words and similar rhetoric were also used by Reagan, Poppy bush, and clinton... They must have been born yesterday...
Or that Obama voted in favor of Patriot act II, FISA, war funding bills, and pledged to invade Pakistan during the campaign...
All those folks who voted for Obama acted like they were born yesterday... Otherwise they would have seen him to be another Clinton...
Another Goldman Sachs candidate, another two-faced politician... And they expected different results...? More like a sucker born every minute...
I've seen them do it right, here on CD! (& had my time, myself, though far before 0bama).
I'm going to save this URL to copy and paste, though. It's sure going to save some space on the comments post.
This article sounds like it was written by an Obamabot. I've heard these same rants being shouted at me by the Obamabots during the election. I used to have to scream back and try to tell them why I'm supporting Nader and why Obama is the same as Bush issue after issue. I even got called a closet Republican and harassed and humiliated. I used to get so upset and angry almost felt like crying but am getting over that angry and upset to the max feeling by recognizing that our stupid cornfed electorate must be made to get down on their knees, weep, and truly apologize from the bottom of their heart for putting fluff and puff before real deals.
Ralph Nader was a special Independent among the many I admired for their takes on the issues. Nowadays, I just giggle and laugh as the Obamabots try their same old Obama apologist scare tactics. Nice try DMG but unless Obama actually turns the ship around instead of further in Dubya's direction, no amount of apologizing for Barry will bring his supporters back.
The only problem is that until a major third party forms and all of us wishing for it has become members, and until that third party gets a whole lot of money behind it, there's little hope of anything changing, regardless of who we vote or don't vote for.
Heard that our gov'mnt here in OR will have a measure on the ballot this year to allow third party candidates same access as repugs and dems. There are enough of us around the country to probably get this on ballots in every state. It would be a start.
Electoral reform could give third parties some foothold. It will have to start local or state, though.
We should try sharp limits on advertising for candidates and equal time on broadcast media and newspapers.
There would be other ways for lobbies to bribe, sure, but it would keep the bribes relatively free of the electoral process.
More precisely, it was written by someone who wants to flatter himself by now claiming he was "always skeptical of Obama" -- but who nonetheless functioned just like an Obamabot during the entire campaign season.
DMG's main thing is always demonstrating how terribly sophisticated & clever he is. But when the chips are down, he's basically just like any other Democrat, & fully accepts the doctrine of "lesser evilism."
The only way he can do both of these things at the same time is by being a Democrat who always sounds somewhat skeptical. That way, after he backs yet another Dem Party sell-out, he can later emphasize that he was "always skeptical."
Nailed him!
I forget the exact quote, but it's something like "Don't mistake incompetence for ulterior motives". I think this applies to the Dems. I do think there's a fundamental difference between the two parties. It's just that a) the Dems are incompetent, especially in the face of the rabid dogs Rethugs have become, and b)campaign finance problems make things untenable even for the best-intentioned congress people.
I think the Dems aren't afriad of Repubs or incompetant. It's all staged for public consumption to make us think their's some big battle going on. In the end the result is always the same. They all serve their paymasters.
All the Dems bullshit dancing around with months of meaningless votes to stop war funding after the 2006 midterms resulted in... passing more war funding.
Bush always got everything he wanted and he couldn't do it without them. That's the bottom line. Now that they have a clear majority they're having a tough time hiding the truth, so they're using the Blue Dogs. The whole place is for sale. The system is rigged. The American people get stuck with the tab and nothing else. Nothing.
Oh one thing Bush didn't get was his stem cell legislation. Congress broke with Bush in favor of the biomedical industry. No surprise there.
On the psychological level--the level that realizes that the vast majority of desires, decisions, motivations, and actions are determined unconsciously--incompetence is often exactly the same as "ulterior motives" (which could just as well be considered unconscious motives, as hidden, conscious ones.) We can never know for certain what someone is thinking or feeling (although there are many clues that can point us in the right direction and at the very least tell us sometimes when their motives are with great certainty not what they say they are.)
Both parties are part of a system (taken from the idea of family systems, from family therapy) in which all possible functions, feelings and actions are held in the system--greed, altruism, anger, fear, confidence, ability to get things done, inabilities... but by different parties (parties meant literally and figuratively). Unconsciously, the various parties in the system divvy up the traits and hold them for each other because no one can hold all the traits. They have not been allowed in their lives (read 'childhoods') to show anger or fear or competence, for example. So that, for them, becomes the shadow part of themselves--what they can't admit even to themselves, that they are. And because they can't let themselves be it, someone else has to.
All we have to do is embrace that part of ourselves we haven't been able to admit.
Not that that's easy. In fact it's literally the hardest thing in the world. That's why we would rather kill, die, go to war, and even destroy civilization and kill every living being we have affection for, than do the hard dredging, the psychological work necessary to be able to admit to ourselves and others all of what we are. Not until we do that will either the Republicans or the Democrats be cured of what they've contracted.
It came down to the lesser of two evils once again. Don't think much of Obama but he's better than Bush.
"Better" how?
Better at deception.
He smiles a lot and surrounds himself with people regardless of party, and he never sneers. He's also got a brain and knows how to use the English language, is pleasant to watch and to listen to. He's got a lot going for him - if you don't think about all the things he's happily carrying on or covering up for bush and cheney.
DMG was an Obama apologist last year, on the grounds that Democrats are "less evil" than Republicans.
Some of the brighter people on this board often tried to explain that no, Democrats are not really less evil than Republicans. They are merely better at pretending to be less evil.
Now it's a year later, and here is DMG again. He admits his candidate is really no better than Bush. Yet he can't resist adding, "Sure, the pathetically feeble Dems are less likely to launch big wars based on lies ...and that's nothing to sneeze at. (Maybe Obama will even end Bush's debacle in Iraq, like he said he would....)"
- In other words, even though he was as wrong about Obama as anyone could be, he STILL holds onto the notion, deep down, that Democrats are "less evil" than Republicans.
It isn't the case, BTW, that Dems are "pathetically feeble." That's just part of their act. Republicans are crazed wolves who act & sound like crazed wolves. Dems are crazed wolves whose M.O. is pretending to be sweet little lambs.
RichM, last year DMG saw Obama as much more than the lesser of two evils. Just look at his article in CD of May 25, 2008 "Why I'm Kinda Fonda Obama (And More So Each Week)".
Here are two extracts:
"It takes a lot these days to get me to use the words 'hope' and 'politics' in the same sentence. But I am more hopeful about American politics now than I've been in decades, and perhaps ever in my lifetime. Barack Obama is a substantial part of that optimism."
"I'd say the real question is whether Obama would have the courage and skill to tackle other real problems that require Americans to actually make some serious changes and sacrifices, and that would require fighting some very powerful lobbies. Certainly healthcare falls under that category, but I think Obama has promised that enough now that he could not really walk away from it."
It seems the only way to give 3rd parties an even break is Instant Runoff Voting. That's where all activist energy should go. I'm just afraid it may be too late.
Sure, but do you suppose the "powers that be" would ever allow IRV to become law? Don't you suppose they understand what it would lead to; and for that very reason, would never agree to it?
For IRV to become law, it would have to be passed by a collection of Democrats & Republicans. Can you seriously imagine D's & R's opening the door to what would amount to their own demise? (Or at the very least, to a very serious diminishing of their own influence?)
This is why it is pointless to think in terms of activist energy going to IRV. You may as well think directly in terms of overthrowing the government, because the one amounts to the other; and is no more likely than the other. It's just like single-payer health care, or cutting the Pentagon budget, or "cracking down" on Wall St. All of these are fine ideas -- but none of them can possibly happen under the duopoly.
Actually first past the post (what we have now) opens the door for election victories with a minority of the vote. All people need to do is vote in their interests EVERY time at EVERY level, vote for what you want, not least-worst. Victories will follow.
I prefer the one man many votes system. This means one is allowed to vote for more than one candidate on the ballot for a position - it increases opportunities for third parties. If I were proposing a new Constitution for Honduras, I would recommend this system together with stiff term limits clause. For those who are interested, Scientific American had an article about it about 15 years ago, and to me it was a real eye opener. I proposed it for the new Russian Constitution after the fall of communism, but unfortunately it didn't go anywhere.
Sadly those who propose a new Constitution for countries such as Honduras are more likely to endorse one which eventually leads to an autocratic government, heavily centralized, with power concentrated at the very top, and with the usual personality worship of the President. These are not the type of governments which like multi-party democracy nor term limits, that's for sure.
In a sense this is what is happening in the USA, slowly but surely, with the gradual creation of an imperial presidency, weakening of the Congress and Courts, a disfunctional media controlled by large conglomerates, and a population brainwashed into accepting hegemony of the president and the military.
We ARE giving a bad example to other nations, this lousy state we have evolved into really stinks. And I don't see a solution.
I happen to have been in Honduras for a little bit right before the election Zelaya won; at the time it was of passing interest (I was in the country to gawk at Mayan ruins) and I stopped in a government office to grab a sample ballot and poke around. They had 6 parties running, with easy color-coded and fair, randomized ballots printed with party symbols and clear color photos of the candidates so that the illiterate could particpate.
I wish I had that here in Pennsylvania, instead of the obstructionist two-party crap we have. Honduras and many other countries could teach us a thing or two about the election process.
The Wall Street Bankers, big business (oil, military-industrial complex, multi-nationals), who own and control Obama and the Democratic Party, won the election. Rupert Murdoch, the big insurance and drug companies, the corporate controlled mass media, all supported and bankrolled Obama, and supplied the Obama regime with the major cabinet level decision makers.
The McCain Pallin Republican campaign was there to frighten and even terrorise so-called "Progressives" and moderates into once again supporting the "lesser evil" of Obama. Obama, a well educated lawyer and professor trained in the propagandistic skills of rhetoric, argument and public speaking, was the sophisticated choice the ruling elite to put a "happy face" on the policies of Bush and Cheney.
The anti-capitalist, socialist left knew and published even before the political theater known as the "primary election", the class character of the Obama campaign. The World Socialist Web Site, http:www.wsws.org, which critically covered Obama's article in FOREIGN AFFAIRS of the Council of Foreign Affairs about two years ago. Same with Hillary Clinton. Just after the election, in December last year, James Petras called Obama "Obama the greatest con man in history".
The "Progrssives" forever are delusional about the root causes of what is happening today. There is no reform of the Democratic Party that could possibly even ameliorate let alone stop the massively corrupt gangster capitalist regime today.
The organized labor movement, such as the AFL-CIO, are an integral part in the continued destruction of the lives of working people. The uncritical support of the Democratic Party and Obama by the AFL-CIO was really decisive in the election. Today the AFL-CIO supports the Democrats' "health care reform" which will further maximize corporate profit at the expense of the majority of people supporting and desperately needing a "single-payer" health insurance solution.
Please read the World Socialist Web Site http://www.wsws.org for a daily alternative international and socialist perspective.
Yes, the Democrats, aka the Poll Dancers, won the election.
ButButBut give him the time to fix things!
What exactly is the revelation?
I voted for McKinney.
My soul is still intact.
Democrats won? Yes.
Progressives won? Nope.
Conservatives won? Not all of the elections, but they win in every piece of legislation so far.
What for? Love rhetorical Q's.
So that people will despair and surrender to Master's Overwhelming Will and give themselves to their degradation and debasement, liked tricked out little slave children addicted to illusions. Nothing easier to control than a junkie. BHO was a 2 year "fix". Sold to you by Master's minions. Wonderful PR/Advertising - cost million$$, worth billion$$ to Master and his 'crew'. It was, is, and will be a wonderful return on their investment...this is the "Ownership Society" in the "New World Order". Howya likin' it so far....If you look over the edge of wherever you are right now, you'll see your very likely future. How's that picture? Make you smile? Whatcha gonna do about that? Ehh?
You supported Obama "with open eyes"? What the heck does that mean?! I'm sure this is a great comfort to Afghani orphans missing a limb. "Hey kid, some of us did the obviously wrong thing WITH OPEN EYES. Turn that frown upside down!"
Those of us with open eyes voted Nader, or maybe McKinney, or wrote in Mickey Mouse. There's no influence on a president AFTER you vote for them.
We told you precisely this would happen, and it happened. What's stunning is that all these "liberal" or "progressive" pundits advise people to vote the wrong way serially, decade after decade, and somehow lose no cred as a result.
I will be reminding people who claim to know better for four years how much damage their Obama support has done. Even a 3% Nader vote would've represented some threat to the Dems and given the left a tiny voice. "Open eyes" Obama votes just got lumped in with the dimwit Obama votes, and present no leverage at all. None.
They let you *teach* political science? Really..?
The "open eyes" bullshit is very similar in motivation to this putrid direction, which was floating around CD and the rest of the progressive net, last October or November, and espoused by too many "politically wise progressive veteran" types here:
Vote Obama if you live in a district where Obama is seriously threatened by McCain; but otherwise it's ok to vote for Nader.
Remember that one, kiddies?
Triangulating idiots.
Exactly, quizmasterchris...
When Green wwrites:
"Look, I'll be honest. I supported (sorta) Obama and I voted for him. But I did so with open eyes. I knew he could be a progressive once installed in the Oval Office"
What is he talking about?!?
We had Obama's record in the Senate to examine. We had his policy statements, which were identical to both Bush and McCain - PRIOR TO THE ELECTION.
What was the assumption that "he could be a progressive once installed in the Oval Office" based on?
Self delusion. Willful ignorance. Anything's possible - maybe Cheney will be the next Malcolm X -anything's possible.
It's wonderful that Green has given up some of the delusions he had about Obama. But he hasn't given up all of them.
Take this for example:
"Sure, the pathetically feeble Dems are less likely to launch big wars based on lies (at least since LBJ left the White House), and that's nothing to sneeze at. "
Sure (sneeze) if we only look at the President and ignore democratic support of the House and Senate. By saying "big war" and starting with LBJ, you're only talking about the Gulf War, the Afghan War, and the Iraq War. All had strong Democratic support.
"And, yeah, Democrats will move slightly faster in the quest to do nothing and to get nowhere when it comes to protecting the environment, civil rights or civil liberties. "
How is proactively voting IN FAVOR of telecom immunity doing "nothing" when the Dems do it, but doing ""something" when Republicans do it? Is drafting legal opinions for preemptive indefinite detention doing nothing? In the mind of Mr. Green, it's only nothing when a Democrat does it.
He writes:
"But why is this guy carrying water for George Bush, covering up his worst crimes?"
I don't know. But he was doing it before you voted for him. And he's not " covering up his worst crimes" he is "committing the same crimes." There's a difference, right?
He writes:
"What in the world is this dude going to tell his children when their country is broke and broken, and their planet parched and dying? "I was just one person. What could I do?"
Actually, this is the most common excuse I hear from Obama's apologists. So, yes, I bet that's what he'll say.
I like President Obama. I don't agree with all his policies, but I do realize he's trying to change things. American society and government are like a huge ship, it takes a lot of care and patience to make it change course.
"...I don't agree with all his policies, but I do realize he's trying to change things..."
- Words like "naive," "gullible" and "credulous" don't begin to do justice to the ludicrousness of people who actually believe that Obama is trying to change anything.
Don't you understand the distinction between "trying to change things" and just "trying to apply a fresh coat of paint to the same old rotten product?"
Yup, DMG "sorta" supported Obama. I don't understand why the prof and people like Norman Solomon are now wringing their hands. They could have voted their conscience by casting a ballot for Nader or McKinney. Too late to be bitching now.
Easy: they're just afraid of being ostracized by the loyal Democrats. It's a career move, they hedge their bets every election season. Pure fraud. Talk a talk, don't walk a walk. These are people who want "access" as part of the "dialog."
I don't think the "liberal"/"prog" (Cockburn aptly mocks them as "pwogs") punditry has a human gonad between them. Working class people literally burn to death in the wreckage while pwogs worry about offending someone if they don't urge votes for any crap product the Democrats roll out. Pathetic.
The only apt metaphor is Lucy Van Pelt & Charlie Brown with the football.
I notice a number of people walking around with glazed "open eyes" talking about how "historic" Obama's election is, as if being historic means something.
I tell them to judge politicians only by their actions, as the election of Hitler was also very historic. Hitler was the first Austrian and the first painter to be elected to lead Germany.
x
Sorry, shaky connection led to a triple post.
"Hey, Did You Hear That Democrats Won The Election?"
*******************
So?!! Once a "working girl", always a "working girl". The money goes elsewhere but the result is the same.
Poet
Good lord, I posted this 4x! Sorry... just meant to once.
What for? -- good question. I sometimes wonder why these American politicians want to be president. They seem to not have an agenda (compare President Junior's first campaign rhetoric with his job performance), or any desire except to be president because that's the pinnacle, the "top dog" position, because that's the coolest thing to be. They play to and pander to constituencies but don't seem to have a whole lot of loyalty to any particular "base".
Obama talked and talks a good game, but what is he really in his heart-of-hearts (assuming there is such a thing) there wanting to do?