Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Debt Ceiling Deal: The Democrats Take a Dive
So the debt deal has finally been reached. As expected, the agreement arrives in a form that right-thinking people everywhere can feel terrible about with great confidence.
The general consensus is that for the second time in three years, a gang of financial terrorists has successfully extorted the congress and the White House, threatening to blow up the planet if they didn't get what they wanted.
Back in 2008, the congress and George Bush rewarded Hank Paulson and Wall Street for pulling the Cleavon-Little-"the-next-man-makes-a-move-the-n---er-gets-it" routine by tossing trillions of bailout dollars at the same people who had wrecked the economy.
Now, Barack Obama has surrendered control of the budget to the Tea Party, whose operatives in congress used the same suicide-bomber tactic, threatening a catastrophic default unless the Democrats committed to a regime of steep spending cuts without any tax increases on the wealthy.
Commentators everywhere are killing the president for his seemingly astonishing level of ball-less-ness. Both the New York Times house editorial and the Nobel prizewinning liberal columnist Paul Krugman are insisting the president should have invoked extreme measures to counter the radicals on the other side, using emergency legal tactics to unilaterally raise the debt limit. Or, at least, he should have threatened to do this, according to Krugman:
And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options...
At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all such options out from the beginning.
Is Krugman right? Probably. In a perfect world, where the president was what he is supposed to be, i.e. a representative of that majority of American voters who elected him, that is what a good president would probably have done. No matter what the situation was with the deficit, or what cuts were or were not justified, a real leader would have invoked such powers at the very least to set a precedent that the government is not to be held hostage by irresponsible lunatics bent on invoking a catastrophe for purely political reasons.
But that isn't what happened. What did happen? The popular take is that Obama is a weak leader of a weak party who was pushed around by canny right-wing extremists. Observers like pollster Sydney Greenberg portray Obama and the Democrats as a group of politically tone-deaf bureaucrats who fail because the public associates them with a corrupt government that benefits the rich and connected.
The Democrats, Greenberg argues, could change their situation by showing the public that they genuinely represent the interests of ordinary working people. In his piece, "Why Voters Tune Out Democrats," he offers a list of things Democrats could do to turn things around:
What should Democrats do?
The Democrats have to start detoxifying politics by proposing to severely limit or bar individual and corporate campaign contributions, which would mean a fight with the Supreme Court. They must make the case for public financing of campaigns and force the broadcast and cable networks to provide free time for candidate ads. And they must become the strongest advocates for transparency in campaign donations and in the lobbying of elected officials.
IF they want to win the trust of the public, Democrats should propose taxing lobbyist expenses and excessive chief executive bonuses and put a small fee on the sale of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments. By radically simplifying the tax code to allow only a few deductions, the Democrats would generate new revenue and remove the loopholes that allow special interests to win favorable treatment ...
I think everything Greenberg says is true -- except for the part about it being possible. His list of solutions would make sense as advice to a real political party.
But to a bunch of hired stooges put in office to lend an air of democratic legitimacy to what has essentially become a bureaucratic-oligarchic state, what good does such advice do? Would it have made sense to send the Supreme Soviet under Andropov or Brezhnyev a list of policy ideas for enhancing the civil liberties of Soviet citizens?
The Democrats aren't failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there's political hay to be made moving to the right. They're doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I've said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television.
For evidence, all you have to do is look at this latest fiasco.
The Republicans in this debt debate fought like wolves or alley thugs, biting and scratching and using blades and rocks and shards of glass and every weapon they could reach.
The Democrats, despite sitting in the White House, the most awesome repository of political power on the planet, didn't fight at all. They made a show of a tussle for a good long time -- as fixed fights go, you don't see many that last into the 11th and 12th rounds, like this one did -- but at the final hour, they let out a whimper and took a dive.
We probably need to start wondering why this keeps happening. Also, this: if the Democrats suck so bad at political combat, then how come they continue to be rewarded with such massive quantities of campaign contributions? When the final tally comes in for the 2012 presidential race, who among us wouldn't bet that Barack Obama is going to beat his Republican opponent in the fundraising column very handily? At the very least, he won't be out-funded, I can almost guarantee that.
And what does that mean? Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars for what looks, on the outside, like rank incompetence?
It strains the imagination to think that the country's smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by "surrendering" at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
97 Comments so far
Show AllFinally! Some one with a big name who gets it.
"corvo"
It seems he almost "gets it." Much of this article is made to look like speculation, with words like "probably" and the way it ends with questions, rather than coming out and stating these things as the self-evident facts which they are.
It's as if Taibbi can't really commit to what he appears to be saying and that is hardly reassuring to me.
The focus on "ball-lessness" is something I don't buy.
You're right, of course. But I'll give Taibbi credit for trying. For now at least. :-)
The Democratic Party is just another business attempting to maximize revenue. Their biggest revenue source is Wall Street banksters and other megacorporations.
The Party maximizes revenue by convincing enough voters that Republicans are worse than Democrats, thereby putting Democratic Party candidates in office who legislate in favor of corporations and against the people who vote for Democrats.
Democrats' populist rhetoric is simply the marketing tool needed to get votes.
yup!
Bird: As a writer, I can attest to the fact that Taibbi is making use of a literary tool. It's often considered important not to scold or tell the reader what to think; but rather to lead them to a conclusion by planting the evidence, step by step. So it's not as if he can't commit. This guy has it right too much of the time for you to speculate that way. Taibbi's dealing, no doubt, with readers who may still be loyal to Obama. He's gently coaxing them towards the only conclusion that is viable!
Someone asked in another thread how so much graft and corruption could be going on with nary a response from The People. Part is despair, part is joblessness, part is obesity, part is the soporific media, and part... the false illusion that the battleground between sides is being radically defined. It is amazing how strong the programming for sports teams or product brands reveals itself in the average American's political sensibilities. I think THIS explains a lot! The ILLUSION of a battle between teams has so many consumed, frozen like spectators sitting in the sidelines... while a precious few understand that their fates and fortunes have already been foreclosed upon, in sinister back-room deals. The show before them is too engaging!
To reinforce Sioux's thoughful analysis, those criticizing Matt need to keep in mind that although many Rolling Stone readers are familiar with brand Obama, few have paid attention to the content of his speeches beyond "hope and change", few have paid attention to the details of Obama's legislative actions, or the consequences of those actions that have already manifested.
Most Americans are faith based (even non-religious Americans), not evidence based. Matt is trying to get them to become more comfortable with evidence.
Unless a better shill for the economic ruling elite comes along, quickly. Obama will be re-elected. We already know the system is fixed.
Nice of Matt to coax the idiot American public, but it ain't gona' work.
He makes his living preaching to the choir.
Sioux wrote;
>Part is despair, part is joblessness, part is obesity, part is the soporific media<
I was with you 100% until you threw obesity into the mix. Where the bleep did that come from? Years ago, I was much heavier than I am now, but I was never fatHEADed. For a decade, I've fought like a cornered lion, signing petitions, writing letters to the editor, calling politicians, attending rallies and trying to mobilize my friends and family. How do you justify disparaging what people weigh in a political discussion? I've been reading what you write and agreeing with you for some time. I thought you were more enlightened than this...
KORESSUN: I apologize if I offended you. I was among the first generation of women to take the birth control pill back in my college days, and my weight shot up from 128 to about 160. Luckily I learned how to keep it off, but I think my metabolism was NEGATIVELY impacted from the chemicals in the pills ever after. I bring this up because I know how much lower my energy level was when I was lugging around those extra pounds as a young woman.
Therefore, when I see a nation with SO MANY obese people, people who are actually called "morbidly obese," people who use electronic shopping carts to get around the aisles at a place like Wallmart, it says something to me about the NET loss of energy.
Sure, anyone can make calls or write letters. However, I think there really is something to this idea of balance. In fact, I have a theory which I will share with you, and anyone inclined to read my post. It goes like this: WE as individuals are responsible for balancing 3 expressions of our existences: Mind, body, and emotions.
The balanced body is NOT 35 or more pounds overweight.
The balanced mind, does not stop reading, studying, and searching for knowledge. Its operations run parallel to a body that seeks to retain its youthfulness by encorporating exercise--be it walking, biking, swimming, Yoga, Martial Arts, or other--on a regular basis.
The hardest of all 3 to balance are the emotions. I've learned that lowering one's intake of stimulants like sugar, caffeine, alcohol, and no doubt drugs... helps to maintain a more even keel pendulum to the body's emotional shifts. The Chinese adage, "If you can control yourself in a moment of anger, you save 1000 days of sorrow" holds. Consider the angry moment that leads to a fender bender, and that one's insurance costs will go up for about 3 years as a LITERAL depiction of that wise saying.
I believe that when these 3 are kept in a pretty good balance, which means taking care of our bodies, minds, and feelings... we can move to the "4th dimension," which is the heart. It is there that love lives; and love, when tapped, creates miracles that go beyond the 3 dimensions.
Obesity suggests an individual who is unable to properly govern, or navigate their own vessel. Few people LIKE themselves when they are fat. And if you don't like yourself, regardless of the face painted on like a mask, it's tough to like others.
I realize that corn syrup additives, the more sedentary lifestyles of modern times, and the TV serving as soporific medium all help to contribute to obesity. Still, in the final analysis, anyone who studies spirituality realizes that we ARE held to account for what we do on all 3 dimensions... and who amongst us doesn't want to rest in the 4th sphere, that of the heart where love is all?
That's my take on the original statement, and I stand by it.
"Obesity suggests an individual who is unable to properly govern, or navigate their own vessel."
Bullshit. TDR and FDR were both overweight, John Adams, Cleveland and Taft was overweight. Many of our presidents were "fat". Improperly govern...I am not sure there are two better examples of misgovernment than GW and Obama...neither could be considered "fat" but both have demonstrated this effect more than some of their "fat" brethren. I am more worried about presidents serving that suffer from Alzheimers than I am "fat". I am not sure how a president losing his memory qualifies as being able to navigate his vessel. And two presidents who followed him and idolize him are considered capable of guiding anything? "Fat" is not a factor!
As you can see from the rambling justification for this bigotry, siouxrose has looked in her crystal ball, and it told her it was so. End of Story.
Siouxrose makes no attempt to find common ground or to justify her stand by appealling to some commonly held facts. Instead she uses her own "spiritual study" as justification.
And of course one can use that "reasoning" to justify anything, including prejudice against fat people.
The worst part is that she cannot see the sheer arrogance of such an approach.
The obesity epidemic is one of the country's most serious health problems. Adult obesity rates have doubled since 1980, from 15 to 30 percent, http://healthyamericans.org/obesity/
just had to add this - off topic a bit but since you were wondering why she threw in "obesity"
I am with you. Obesity is an affliction not a sin or a crime. But some would like it to be. Fat doesn't prevent one from being human, caring or thinking. Denigrating others based on appearance does much more to exaccerbate the pain and suffering of others. "Fat" is one of those terms like "terrorism" with a broad definition and ever changing criteria. What next height based requirements? Remember that song: "Short People"?
The world would be a very boring place if all people were the same color, size and sex. Within every species fat exists. Livestock raisers know about "easy kept" animals. They put on weight when their stable mates don't. On the same diet with the same amount of exercise.
The fear of fat is a direct result of the insurance industry trying to minimize it's risks. Problem is even when a risk is reduced through a legislated regulation they never reduce their rates or pass on their savings. They just move on to another category to demonize and use it to pit us against each other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFmv22ghzQw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IQSbJUj7u8
Yesterday it was blacks and women need not apply. Today the unemployed need not apply. Tomorrow it will be acceptable to discrimate against the fat, as long as they're not Rush Limbaugh or members of the private club.
" Denigrating others based on appearance" demonstrates a superficiality of spirit.
Good for you Siouxrose, although Tiabbi shouldn't need any defense. He's never flinched from applying a well earned explicative on any actor out there among the US oligarchy looking for the distinction of a bastard of the year citation, and that includes the politician swine from all levels of government and all offices.
Taibbi's readers are first and foremost the Rolling Stoners, who may in deed find his writings highly expository and worth attending to. I doubt that he is of the mind that he is directly addressing these old farts over here at CD, so prone to expounding upon their ideological idées fixes.
Without dwelling on the fatty discriptor, which in retrospect you might consider ill l chosen just as I might consider my "old fart" comment I'll chosen, your comment was very constructive, balanced, and insightful.
Brava!
Siouxrose,
Agreed. When he wrote, "Would it have made sense to send the Supreme Soviet under Andropov or Brezhnyev a list of policy ideas for enhancing the civil liberties of Soviet citizens?", I thought to myself, THAT'S the proper way to turn all the "evil empire" PR the American public has been subject to against the evil empire right here.
It's high time our lack of democracy and the presence of dictatorship was pushed into the consciousness of the average dumbed down person.
Once a citizen accepts the reality of our dictatorship, all the flag waving, pro-war, faux patritic BS delivered with religious fervor by the media falls flat on its' face.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the dictatorship for which it stands..." doesn't have a lot of mass appeal.
For all its terrible flaws, the post WW II USSR strengthened the anti-imperialist nations immensely, with economic, diplomatic and military support.
The fall of the Soviet Union enabled the international capital to go on a full court press against the tattered forces of the People. One dictatorship fell and another emerged.
Dreamjoehill, you are 100% correct. People thought I was nuts when I mourned the collapse of the Soviet Union. I tried to tell them that the pigs who control international finance would go on a rampage because now there was no one to oppose them. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who sees this truth.
Siouxrose -- that was a very cogent explanation of the intellectual path that Taibbi is attempting to illuminate without beating the reader over the head with blunt certainty.
You are also dead on when you note the way in which the corporate media turns these political struggles into mock versions of the Superbowl. We are all supposed to be good fans reduced to passionate cheering for our 'team'.
Unfortunately, our political class has more in common with the choreography of World Federated Wrestling-- angst, buffoonery, spectacle, mayhem, fake blood & TV klieg lights -- than any sort of honest effort to win one for the American people.
The ticket buying citizens in the stands are suckers; their 'heroes' slamming each other around the ring all work for the same owners.
I think you need to go back and re-read the article. It sure doesn't look very wishy-washy to me...
It is called rhetorical device. He is trying to influence those who might be pondering for the first time the truth of the matter. He has a wider audience than just those of us who already "get it".
He certainly gets it, and his focus isn't on "ball-lessness". Taibbi has a lot of credibility, in regard to his reporting. He is certainly the best reporter, relative to the detail of his reporting, on who caused the "economic collapse", and how.
Why should anyone "commit" to a point of view? I can understand your frustration, but grasping the reality of a situation is not the same as committing to an overall point of view. It's not an elite club.
The reality, after all, may be more complicated.
Obama may actually be a hybrid of what he has been variously described: a man with common sense progressive values who, yes, has sold out entirely to Wall Street. A man who hates a fight and would prefer to find a polite accommodation. After all, in his race for the presidency he didn't win by attacking Hillary and McCain but by remaining calm, above it all throughout the fight.
Why surrender to Wall Street? Because he needs them. Because he feels comfortable with them. Obama is no Roosevelt not only in style, but in background. Roosevelt was not impressed by class. Perhaps fundamentally Obama is? Perhaps Obama, a novitiate in politics, feels he has to defer to the seasoned pros? Even if they are in the other party? And he does come across as an amateur.
In pure political terms Obama's course is most dangerous for himself. Defeat does not encourage support. He certainly has been most condescending to the Democratic left and to progressives. And now he may lose the center since they see a president who is easily defeated, who has endangered Social Security and Medicare and who appears unable to bring the country out of its economic problems. You can only blame the Republicans, their intransigence, so far. Obama as a politician must realize he has to produce results. And, as a politician, he must understand that the country is losing faith in him.
I wish we could replace him with a good candidate in 2012. Once again, it looks as if we will merely be screwed.
Perhaps Obama is an intelligent shill who knows what a bunch of lazy, greedy, stupid fools the American public is by nature.
This is why Obama is such a great pitch man for his ruling elite class.
"What a bunch of lazy, greedy, stupid fools the American public is by nature...." Are you speaking for the whole of America or for human nature? And are you included? The thoughtless arrogance of that sweeping remark is truly impressive.
So what is the "ruling class?" Does one join by becoming the president of the United States? In that case, any president is ruling class, and there's no avoiding the consequences. Does one enter by going to Harvard Law School? If that's true, then so much for brains and talent, for the implication here is that no other outcome but greed and selfishness is the result of going to Harvard Law. Was he bought, let's say, by Wall Street when he ran for president? That's possible. The relationship does look pretty cozy. But is that the end of the story? Hardly. We should be careful about our generalizations unless we are all attempting to enter the same self righteous hollier than thou club.
The ruling class is simply the class that rules. Working class people are not in the ruling class - by definition (if they were we would have socialism). Are you in the ruling class if you went to Harvard? No. But Harvard is a doorway into the ruling class. Those that are in or serve the ruling class are disproportionately represented by Harvard graduates.
The ruling class is the wealthiest class; they are the Kochs, Bill Gates, etc. that is, the billionaires and corporate CEOs. Most politicians are at least millionaires, if they are not in the ruling class, then they serve ruling class interests. This is true of Obama as well. Do people like Obama sell out? No, that's a progressive fantasy. They bought in.
Well, in my opinion most of what you say is true enough. And I especially like your final sentence. Obama, in all probability, "bought in." But we're talking at cross purposes. And your remarks don't really address what I said.
If we are going to address the issue of governance, defining anyone with power - political, economic, etc. - as "ruling class," and therefore a class enemy, then no matter who becomes president, by that definition, he will be corrupt. Do we need to remember Lord Acton's famous words here? Perhaps we do. But if such influences are all that matter then political controversies simply become moot. Because all "ruling class" representatives are selfish and corrupt.
You're are getting close. A hint: the problem is STRUCTURAL!
Birdbrain Alley
Matt Taibii definitely gets it. He's written as much on how the Democrats are in bed with the Republicans to accomplish this destructive agenda as anyone else. And he backs it all up with facts and direct quotes. This article is just more tame than most and I suspect as Siouxrose and others have pointed out that its because its not directed to those of us who already know the truth. You have to realize that we can't drag the Obama supports kicking and screaming to the truth you have to lead them there.
One of my all-time favorite quotes from him comes from the following scathing article on the Democrats sellout during the Wall Street bailout.
"Wall Streets Big Win", August 6, 2010
"In public, the parties stage a show of bitter bipartisan stalemate. But when the cameras are off, they fuck like crazed weasels in heat."
How can you possibly read that line and think that he doesn't "get it". What's astonishing to me though are the number of voters who don't get it.
I've written enough here on CD that people should know by now that while I might not be a full blown socialist I'm definitely not a conservative - not even close. As an example I firmly believe we could slash military spending by 2/3 over 12 months and never even come close to harming our nation's physical security. (Military spending is well over $800 Billion this year and for 2012 is set to increase to around $1.1-1.2 TRILLION which includes all NON-DOD military spending such as the VA, the DOE for nuclear weapons, NASA for satellite launches, CIA military operations, etc.)
Yet ezeflyer accused me of being a Koch supporter / plant precisely because I outlined in what I thought was a reasonable and polite way the answer to his very own question why so many of us here on CD hate the national Democratic party.
You can find the entire exchange in the comments for Abby Zimet's article on the Koch brothers mailing out fraudulent absentee ballot applications.
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/08/02-0
I've got more faith in Taibi's speculation than the lying words coming out of Obama's mouth.
wow, someone from a mainstream publication finally admonishes democrats and it's still not good enough? I've said it before but the comments on this site are becoming a big game of "I'm more progressive than you" that's ultimately more damaging to our cause than helpful. And with any cause, unity is the backbone to a strong foundation, while these types of comments have a condescension that only serves to separate those who even AGREE with you.
As far as preaching to the choir is concerned, I can tell you first hand that my own brother, a music fan and longtime Rolling Stone subscriber was a complete political apathetic 2 years ago until he started reading Taibbi's articles. From then on, he became more interested until he read the Goldman Sachs/Vampire Squid article and it really got him turned on to the real story of how our government works. So my question is, why tear down a guy like Taibbi who is actually reaching an audience who would normally tune this stuff out? I love CD, visit here everyday, but do you really think this site isn't preaching to the choir? Instead of flashing your progressive credentials, why don't we actually think about how those who aren't being reached can be reached? Hmm, I ended with two questions, so does that mean I don't "get it?"
I actually meant this to be a response to some of the comments above, sorry about that
Yes! I have just become a Matt Taibbi groupie.
********
Once you get past the illusion that there are two parties it all starts to make sense.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
*******
So refreshing to see someone saying what so many on CD say, but on a "big stage" like Rolling Stone. The only question I have, or had I guess, is whether Obama's doing what's expected because that's who he is, really, or has he been given a "deal he can't refuse" ala The Godfather. I used to think the latter. I'm probably wrong.
Obama was selected for his obedience long before he ever actually became president. There is nothing being "held over him". He is a spokesmodel for empire, replacing the previous one after Bush's folksy cowboy brand collapsed.
People need to get over the fantasy that this guy is one day going to help ordinary people. He is THEIR man. The more I look at Obama the more I see a CIA asset inserted into the presidency to protect the Company and the Bush family and cronies from torture prosecution. The looting of the middle class is just a nice bonus.
Remember that obomba worked for the BIC - Business International Corp - for hundreds of thousands of $ in pay Before his time as a 'community organizer'.
BIC is a purported CIA front company. And the parent co has purported mi-5 and rothschild connections.
Just a coincidence I'm sure.
His mother was a CIA asset in Indonesia. His bio father was sent to U of Hawai through a CIA-front sponsored exchange program. His stepfather, as an officer in Suharto's Indonesian army participated in the massacres that killed millions of leftists.
So not only is he a CIA asset, but it runs in his family.
Face it, Obama is evil.
Thanks, DreamJoeHill. I agree. Obama wants us all to have the pie in the sky when we die.
Hi Joe! Regarding CIA assets, this is very interesting. Do you have a source for this?
Thanks. In solidarity,
These links present circumstantial evidence. I have no actual evidence, but I find the argument interesting. Correlation and causation sometimes coincide.
http://www.opinion-maker.org/2010/08/special-report-the-story-of-obama-all-in-the-company-part-iii/
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/18/wayne-madsen-obamas-cia-connections-part-i-and-ii/
Basically, Obama's dad came to the US on a scholarship set up by the CIA. He met Obama's mom, Stanley Ann Dunham, the daughter of a CIA agent, possibly 2 CIA agents, and had Barack. Then dad departed. Barack's mom met Lolo Soetoro, a colonel in the Indonesian army when she lived in Hawaii. In 1965, Lolo got recalled to Indonesia to help General Suharto and the C.I.A. in the "bloody overthrow of President Sukarno." Madsen. Barack's mom, Stanley Ann Dunham, worked for US-AID, a CIA front, in Indonesia, while her husband, Lolo, massacred innocents.
Hi Tom, the reply above gives some sources. The research is mostly by Wayne Madsen.
Also note that Obama's mother reported directly to Tim Geithner's father while she worked in Indonesia for the Ford Foundation. This is not related to CIA, but shows that Obama's family has connections to international finance that go back generations.
the idea that Obama comes from any kind of disadvantaged or even average background is just carefully crafted illusion.
He is an invention. A media creation. His grandmother was a vice president in the Bank of Hawaii. He is performing as expected for his handlers. He's not the second coming of Martin Luther King Jr.. If anything he is the a new and improved version of GW. We fell for the maketing and facade. And so did the rest of the world, hence his Nobel award.
matt invokes the " the Cleavon-Little-"the-next-man-makes-a-move-the-n---er-gets-it" routine" clause
on the dems: "They're doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I've said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television"
same for the reps
after the cameras are turned off its down to the bar where boehner outchugs harry reid and they both take a piss in the local fountain while reciting lines from asshole 2 by heart
party on garth - party on wayne.............
Incredible article!
Yup. This guy is turning into a bit of a national treasure...
I really like Matt Tahibi's thoroughly stellar writing...He is very witty and usually nuts-on...
My only problem with him is his denial in believing that this Government or rather the Bush/Cheney Government was in no way involved in 9/11/01... Matt claims it would be next to impossible for the Government to keep that A secret..And that is A similar argument Noam Chompski makes about The JFK assasination, which really IRKS the hell out of me...
Thank you! At least one other person remembers that Taibbi only made a big name for himself AFTER thoroughly denouncing any idea that there was something, anything, fishy about the events of that day.
What's interesting about Taibbi is that he did make a name for himself by denouncing 'conspiracy theories', and yet he's happy to engage in conspiratorial speculation when it suits him:
"It strains the imagination to think that the country's smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by "surrendering" at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?"
That's a conspiracy theory, Matt.
For the record, I happen to agree with this line of speculation. What I don't care for is Taibbi's use of ridicule against easy targets, and his dismissal of points of view that he is not competent to dismiss.
Exactly! Well said.