There is definitely a full court press on right now by many of the major "left" wing blogs to attack those of us who have serious questions about voting for Obama.  We are being told over and over that we are just too much into our white male privileged selves and that we don't care about women, LGBT people, or about sick or old people because Obama got us something that FDR and LBJ couldn't get us together (although it hasn't completely started yet, but you just wait and see cause when it does it will be awesome and even though it isn't great it was the best he could do and ignore that he didn't try anything better, so there, also ponies).  Even Firedoglake (if you count Tbogg).  Although in reality Firedoglake or at least the front page seems to be kind of skitsofrantic (which appears to be the way that word is really spelled, who knew?) what with one or another front pager posting things about the awful stuff Obama does and then the ones just before and after them talking about how much worse things will be if Romney gets in.

 When serious matters are raised:  the drone attacks, Obama's attempt to crush dissent, the burgeoning police state, the gifts to Wall Street, and the Cat Food Commission, among other things.  We are told that Romney is going to be a disaster and Obama did many nearly great things: ACA, the end of DADT, and his refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.   Most of these good things don't involve money being removed from the pockets of the wealthy, in fact I don't think any of the wonderful things Obama has done involved redistributing money in any direction except towards the wealthy.  So my deal breakers are not good enough, but theirs are.

Interestingly enough, there seems to be a lot of reliance on certain of Obama's campaign "promises or statements," but not all.  The very same thing they make fun of me for what they say I did back in 2008.  Although I didn't.  I was just scared of Sarah Palin and didn't think that Obama could be this reactionary and politically incompetent.  As an aside how can the first African American elected president be so politically incompetent?

So any way Obama has done great things for women's rights (or at least he hasn't gutted them like Romney says he will do) and LGBT rights, after he was dragged kicking and screaming into the positions he finally, kind of, took.  And, and what then?  A "stimulus" that was one of every four dollars as tax breaks to the wealthy, something I suspect the republican would have been forced into in one form or another.  A bail out of Wall Street to save our banks something we know the republican would have been happy to do and would have done.  The use of the feds to crack down of medical marijuana and whistle blowers, I wonder if there is anyone who thinks that the republican would have done it differently?

Past is prologue.  What will probably be the main domestic goal will be to deal with the deficit with cuts to spending with "everything on the table."  Including things like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  So where does that leave us?

Damned if I know, no that isn't true.  I do think that I know.  Unfortunately choosing between Mr. Plutocrat and Mr. I Am A Happy Employee Of The Plutocracy doesn't strike me as much of a choice.

Updated in a couple of places to remove the incoherent parts, I hope.

More Stuff

I was over at Tbogg's place to participate in the hooha about how Obama is apparently the best we can ever get.  Also don't forget that he really can't do anything more then he's done because this is the best of all possible democratic presidencies.  Also too, You Want A Sparkle Pony if you want Obama and the democrats to be anything other then Plutocrats (capitalized unlike republican or democrat, because it is a real political party).  Or perhaps Corporatist as Mussolini would have us call them.  Although Mussolini did provie the bread to the citizens to go along with the sale of the state to the Italian Corporations (I wonder if corporations are people in Italy, too).  That won't happen here.

Sorry Benito you are so yesterday.
( Spelled his name right after a couple of people helpfully pointed out that I am
 not a nice or intelligent person and I spell bad too.)

Crap, the people who back Obama seem to be unable to comprehend the idea that timing might indeed be everything. What could be done today is certainly a lot less then could have been done on January 25th 2009. What could have been done on January 25th 2009 was certainly a lot less then what might have been done if he had not personally voted for the various Bush bail outs of the banksters. Now the republicans are threatening to completely destroy Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and are running against a president who clearly only wants to gut Social Security, but wants to leave a kind of half dead carcase (I'd written this a couple of days ago, but apparently he made it clear last night, see Eschaton), but makes great promises, which it will be pointed out if he gets re-elected, I should not have believed, or perhaps just listened to the fine "print" more closely and so the fault is again, mine.  Mine because I didn't work hard enough at the local level, mine because I didn't work hard enough before the nominations (although had I done so and Obama lost, the fault would still be mine because I didn't work hard enough for the "centrist" candidate who could really win.

The argument that elections have consequences which is the one made by the in the bag for Obama sites to scare you into voting for Obama over Romney seems to ignore the corollary which is, or rather should be, governing has consequences, which it apparently does not at the level of president, not at least if the president is a democrat.

A busy year, made more busy since I appear to be the go to guy in my little county for defense of sex crimes, which is kind of creepy especially when it is combined as a couple of them with mental retardation (of the accused) and significantly under aged victims.  I do have a trial coming up which should be interesting, but which I can't really say much about until after the end of September, if then.

More frustration

So I went to Lawyers Guns and Money to get my fair share of abuse.  Once again Lemieus is arguing that the presidency is in fact very limited in its powers domestically and that what Obama did with his health care legislation was all he could have done.  Lemeius’s posting is in response to Atkins at Hullabaloo.

This defense of Obama by Lemieus and other is always that Obama didn’t have the votes for something that he never tried.  Why didn’t he try it?  Because if he had tried it he would have lost and then it woud have been a disaster for the democrats and progressive politics in general.  This argument works for everything apparently:  the stimulus for instance could not have been bigger because then it would not have been passed and things would be really badright now.  It goes on and on.

These arguments are nuts. Among the very first people Obama appointed were Summers, Geither, and Emmanuel. What does that tell one? That he had progressive goals?  None of Obama's policies in my mind were ever developed as anything other then massive wealth redistribution upwards to the rich.

Well that is what he did and he did it such a ham handed fashion that he gave the country back to the republicans just two years after his “land slide.”

I like to think of Obama as the 1919 Chicago Black Sox or if one wants to be more generous as someone who rides to work every day on the short bus


Of course the other response to this entire argument is that it really doesn't matter if Michelle Bachmann is president, if what they argue is true.

UPDATE:  I went back and commented on Obama's choices of Emmanuel, Summers and Geither as his top advisers as far as economics and domestic matters went.  Pointing out that these should have showed us all just what Obama was about and that his real goal was to transfer money into the hands of the wealthiest.  One person pointed out that was OT, which is more or less correct, although I would now think that in fact it really isn't since LG&M argument is that Obama was trapped by circumstances into do what he has done with most of his domestic stuff.  This would indicate that is just what he really wanted to do.  


However, what was more interesting was at three (I haven't bothered to go back since last night, so it might be more now) people said that really those were the people that he needed to choose since he needed people who had the expertise in Wall Street and had the Street's confidence.  I did ask if they were sure that Krugman wasn't available, but that was really just snark.  The more I think about it the more I think that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with people who think that way.  


Obama appoints two people (more but let's talk about only Geither and Summers) one of whom let the crash happen on his watch the other of which was working for those industries that caused the crash, not to mention that Summers has his own issues with equality of the sexes.  In other words Obama dug deep into the effluvium of the ruling class to get his most trusted advisers and these posters are cool with that.


ONE LAST DAMNED UPDATE AND THEN TO WORK:  I did make the mistake of going back and reading more comments.  The arguments seem to be that he couldn't have done anything else and these were the best people he could have really gotten. That's it.   And if I believe anything else, even for a second then I just do not understand what goes on in the real world.


If the argument is that a president (black or white) other than Obama couldn't have done more and gotten better people than it is bullshit.  If the argument is that Obama couldn't have done more or gotten better people then I'll buy it.

Fuck Him

So I've been thinking that when one (or at least this one) reads or hears something that this one thinks is brilliant, it means one of two things:

First, it is an concept put forth in a way that makes me look at an idea of subject in a different way. Sort of" "Wow, I never thought of that before, kind of thing." I was reading an essay about sex by Gore Vidal back in the 60s or early 70s when he said something to the effect that apparently the only two men who could live together in Washington D.C. without being accused of being homosexual were J. Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson. Suddenly, the entire concept of America's treatment of homosexuals and the way the ruling class treats their own was brought into a focus that it had never been for me before.

Second, is the one where I see something that agrees with what I've been thinking or saying and I say "Boy is he right on the money." Like Greenwald today.

I've been saying in various ways, that Obama is getting just what he wants to get. I am a little confused about why he is doing it in such a ham handed way, but if the poll numbers Greenwald sites to are correct, with the vast majority of voters of all stripes in favor of the budget cuts, then perhaps it isn't so ham handed after all.

The arguments are all the same: this is all he can do, this is a conservative country, republicans are going to be so much worse. The best response to the last point was that as a country we are going to hit bottom and end up laying in our own vomit in the gutter sooner or later so it might as well be sooner so we can start on that 12 step program. The best response to the first point is that he made deals to gut health care reform with the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry and hospital industry before the negotiations ever really started and he tried to keep those deals secret. No response really matters to Those Who Must Believe.

I still go to my Fake Progressive sites to see what they are saying and they are good at attacking the right wing and the real nuts, but then. Recently Angry Black Lady (who I refuse to link to anymore) has become more fun since she seems to be insisting that all (and perhaps I am just miss-reading her) who criticize Obama are racist and secret Hilliary supporters.

So apparently the president promised to do not really bad stuff, or at lest not as bad as he could have promised, but then when does a promise mean anything to him.

I'm Really Getting Tired of the News

Hey, welcome back.

I've been listening to NPR some while I drive to and from home to work and when I say some I mean until I become so enraged that in order to drive I have to turn the radio off. One reason we have no TV is that my wife got tired of me yelling at the thing during the various news casts.

I used to watch CNN Headline News because the first fifteen minutes or so was decent hard news, even if the last fifteen or ten was fluff. Then one day I realized that I had watched two cycles of Headline News and seen no news at all just fluff from beginning to end. Well I guess that was better than my reaching for my trusty six shooter to blast the carn sarn piece of devil's equipment to hell. I would not have been able to endure Dancing With Stars with or without Bristol. I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing part of a Duggers episode when I was at another persons house, and that was just weird.

At any rate to get back to the original thought today I listened to someone from The Wall Street Journal explain that Obama has taken the last election as a sign from the voters that they want more bipartisanship in government. The discussion was that this was a not unreasonable position for him to take. That was when I turned the radio off.

Well we are certainly living in interesting times, I guess. I have no doubt that Obama has taken the election as proof that he was doing just what the voters wanted, just not enough. What I have a difficult time understanding is how anyone outside a completely bunkered facility, somewhat like the place Hitler was in the final days of WWII, could believe this.

Well perhaps not really believe this, but say it at least. And sound like they believe it. How is that possible? I guess they could be brilliant actors, but other than that I really do not understand this. You lie and don't deliver on much of anything that you promised, but you make sure that the people who opposed you in the last election get everything they want.

The other strange thing is that many of the original Obama supports continue to support him no matter what he does, but some how believe what he says even though he never (or almost never) delivers on his promises. Drifting over and around the various blogs it appears as though Tbogg has decided that Obama is simply incompetent rather than malicious or evil where I think that he is incompetently evil. Trumka and the AFL-CIO is just disturbing, what are they thinking they support the guy and get nothing of substance from him? Once again discussing this with people who will not give up on him is..............what? Certainly not illuminating and it is getting less and less interesting as one can give them literally dozens of major examples of issues that he has lied about and/or failed to deliver on and it doesn't seem to matter.

Hiring Half the Working Class

I drifted over to Rumproast from No More Mister Nice Blog to read the essay concerning Susie Madak and her calling out Obama mouth piece Axelrod on the way Obama and the whole democratic party treats progressives. I think she told him that the administration treated progressive bloggers like the girl they hooked up with under the bleachers and don't want to be seen with out in public with. The vapors flew fast and furious. Although to be fair the metaphor was an only slightly cruder version of "You should dance with them what brung ya."

People pointing out failures doesn’t turn off the base, it is the failures themselves who turn off the base. Well that and the clear contempt shown for those of us who are progressives and who worked for the democrats. The vast majority of commentators seem to have spent their energy attacking the messenger.

The lists of bills passed have a lot of nice names, but the bills themselves leave more than a little to be desired. Let us not forget (or have we already) that HCR started out with secret deals (that turned out not to be so secret) with Big Pharma and went down hill from there. It was the real left that pointed out that this bill was going to be a disaster in terms of electoral strategy. It isn’t progressive complaints that are destroying the party at this point.

Continuation of two wars,secret detention, arguing against repeal of DADT in court with little or no real support for repeal in congress, expanding executive privilege, refusal to deal with torture ordered and justified at the highest levels, assassination of American citizens, fighting against regulation of the FED, fighting against real credit card reform, developing a foreclosure policy that doesn’t work and appointing the three people who basically lead us into this economic mess as his main economic advisers. And of course, if you want to simply point to form over substance lets look at the Fat White Homophobe who gave the invocation at the inauguration.

Combine all this with an insane attack from the right that claims that Obama is a crazed leftist communist and Obama has managed to destroy progressive politics for a generation.

It is the left the administration spends most of their time attacking not the right, and by anyone's definition that was the people that got them their jobs.

It is one thing to see the failures of Obama and the democrats, and by failures I not only mean the bills not passed, but the attempts not made. It is another to see the people who will come out in droves to fight those of us who point out the emperor's lack of attire. Fight with vicious attacks. "In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. In the land of the insane the sane man is hanged." These people are so invested in Obama that they cannot back off.

Just Crap

So ......... once again Obama and his tactics have proven to be brilliant now that the repeal of DADT has been stopped dead in it's tracks. Although they will bring it back in December when I am sure the senate will be more than willing to pass it after the democrats are decimated (possibly an entirely literal description of what will happen in November) in the coming election.

There seems to be an argument amongst those on the left (who count as opposed to people like me) as to who to blame for this specific fiasco as opposed to the fiascoes involving health care, the stimulus, financial reform, etc., etc., etc. I suspect that there is more than enough blame to go around myself. Also, when assigning blame one assumes that Obama wanted a different outcome than the one he got. If he got the outcome he wanted then clearly there can be no blame assigned to him. At least none concerning his abilities to get his programs through or prevent those he doesn't want to get through from getting through.

The democrat leadership in the senate has to be nailed to the wall for not aggressively attacking the rules that currently run that house. Do we blame the republicans for holding on to their power and attacking their enemies (or at least those they consider their enemies) I guess the same way one attacks any right wing reactionary, but they have accomplished just what they want to accomplish.

There really appears to be no leadership at all as far as the White House is concerned, unless as I say, Obama continues to get just the outcomes he is looking for. Although in that case I think that one could argue that he isn't doing a very good job since he is looking like an asshole and an incompetent. If his goal is to screw his base and get them to think he wasn't that doesn't appear to be working very well either.

So we are back to the age old question: Obama incompetent, corrupt, drunk, or all of the above?

UPDATE: Of course that leaves out a similar question concerning congressional democrats. Would that I could make money betting against them, but I don't think anyone would take the other side.

Fuck You Hippy

I am now officially confused. My congressman, Zack Space has sent me an email that says that he will not vote for any cuts in Social Security Benefits and as part of that pledge, he promises to vote against raising the retirement age.

Now just two days ago I loudly announced for the two or three people who read this stuff that I will not vote in the election. I am kind of re-considering that position right now, at least as far as Space is concerned. He is a blue dog, but he took the right positions on possible the two most important domestic issues: Health Care (he voted against the final bill, he now claims that was because there was no single payer or Medicare buy in) and Social Security, that have been out there since the last election. His positions on other issues suck, but then so do those of his opponent. The opponent is a main line republican who won because at least three and maybe four (I don't care enough to look it up) teabag candidates fought it out among themselves for the really obviously crazy part of the primary vote.

In other (not really) news Obama takes time out at a $30,000.00 a plate dinner to tell his base that liberals are whiners and just like to bitch when they don't get their perfect world. This coming on the heals of Biden telling us that we have got to get enthused about the mid-terms. Not because we've got anything to be enthused about, but by-god because we've got to, damn it. And Dean telling us that we shouldn't get mad until after the elections.

The press then goes all gooey and giggles like three year old girls about the administration's hippy (I know the main stream spells it with an 'ie' instead of a 'y,' but fuck 'em, I was one and I'll spell it any way I want) punching.

I guess I can understand how the democratic party leaders would simply not understand how it is that some people want their leaders to really work for the issues they ran on. They have no firm or real beliefs so that they can turn on a dime, except they are not turning in their minds, they are simply following their buds and the money, something they have done all the time. Of course, if the party leaders look around at the people they hang with they can see what is most important to their people, now can't they? The masses who came to the rallies and worked and voted, why we are merely extras in the movie of the important, with definitely no speaking parts.

Loyalty to the leader or the party is valued above all so even those who were screwed over by this president will keep their mouths shut and go quietly (Van Jones/ Dawn Johnsen). If they do that then they will still have some influence, certainly more than the little people with those non-speaking parts, although not as much as the big money people. I remember when Clinton was president only a couple of mid-level people resigned in protest over some of his policies.

Well fuck.

More Economic

So I'm watching this economics thing, that is I mean our economic continuing melt down in a kind of goulish sort or way. Kind of like a slow and cheaply made slasher movie. Those who are in the know, or rather those who are in positions of power and who belive in the all powerful elites (you know those who got us into this situation: 9% uncmployment and the housing bubble and stock market crash) insist that we must not spend on the unemployed and limit our spending on well gee just about everything, except wars. Also we gotta maintain the tax cuts for the wealthiest 10% because if we don't well then they will all go Galt, don'tcha know.

The first chart being the actual deficit and what causes it, although of course it really isn't important in any real way at this point, because the inflation rate is so low and the unemployment rate is so high. So our government can spend a lot of money and print a lot of money and there will be little or no effect on the rate of inflation, or at least the effect will be so small that it would not matter in the scheme of things, but that isn't what our betters are telling us. The other aspect of that is to look at the above chart and see where the deficit is coming from. The wars and the tax cuts for the wealthy. It doesn't seem to be an area to discuss for anyone who matters. Hell even Noble Prize winners are ignored.

Of course the real problem here as far as I'm concerned, is that I'm one of those teenagers who has just had sex and smoked a joint (metaphorically, of course), so I'm next in line for a visit from the slasher.

Oh: more good news from the ST. Louis Fed:




A point being that we are getting ourselves into a position where those of my age and only slightly younger are simply not going to be able to get jobs, ever.

Just You Know Whatever

Working this week a lot for a change. You know I really expected that there would be a lot more crime and drunkenness out there with the economy as bad as it is and I am really getting tired of the criminal element not keeping up their end of things. In particular I am looking for more stupid criminals to get arrested and soon, I can use the money.

All this week I've been busy in various courts. Yesterday we got started two and a half hours late because the sheriff didn't get the guy that was in jail here on time. I guess I can't complain. Today one of the other attorneys reported something her client said incorrectly (the frequency of visitations). My client, the wife chased her ex out into the parking lot and she was going to assault him, if I hadn't caught her and explained that it was the other attorney's fault for getting the information wrong. Some fun. Normally when clients fight, I move in the other direction, just my normal cowardice coming into play, I guess.

I see that Obama did something right (kind of) with McChrystal. Of course after the drama and play acting are all over we are still going to be fighting that war in the country that has been invaded again and again for centuries with no winner since Alexander, and no real end in sight for us, but hey it gives the news guys in DC something to talk about for a day or two so it is all good.

Obama Brighter Than the Sun, More Liberal Than Gene Debs

I have finally found my way. It now comes clearly to me that indeed Obama does know eleventy dozen chess and is so much brighter than I could ever hope to be. Obama does just know what he is doing and through his sparkling intelligence and brilliant wit has convinced me that he has managed to turn this country's corner (whatever that means).

He is just so awesome, ooooohhh.

By forcing us all to pay all our money to large corporations, for non usable insurance He will assure that soon we all will be on the welfare rolls and therefore, we will be living in a truly communist society, since no one but the wealthiest will have money. And since no one but the wealthiest will have money therefore money will have no meaning. Ergo it will be a truly communistic society.

Sisboombah!

Isn't it pretty to think so.

I am really pissed about the HCR Law (now). First, Obama and Emanuel completely screwed up the entire passage, which indicates to me that they are incompetant nitwits.

I've mentioned that I thought the presidential campaign was not particularly well run. Given the incompetent disaster who was leaving the office and the crazy woman who was going to be a "heartbeat away" if McCain won, it was nearly impossible for Obama to lose, yet McCain continued to gain on him in the last days. Now I do realize that there would be a couple of per cent age points lost because of our all American prejudice, but still it was not a well run campaign.

Then once in office he simply stopped and did nothing for a long time. Well, that isn't exactly true. He forced through various policies which would have been opposed had they been Bush policies, but weren't because they were Obama's. Then when liberals did oppose them they were pressured by Obama to fall in to line and for the most part they did.

Atrios pointed out that there was a moment which if taken by Obama could have lead on to some real reforms: card check, bank re-regulation, health care, a real stimulus. But he chose not to take a major lead in anything and just kind of let things drag out without any real leadership. You know that is what he was elected to provide among other things.

Don't forget then that Obama started out promising the pharmaceutical industry that there would be nothing to hinder their profits and apparently also the same for the for profit hospital industry, and don't forget they worked from a bill essentially written by the insurance industry lobbyists. Now to top this all off Obama put major pressure on liberal groups not to demonstrate in favor of the bill and so left the way open for the Teabaggers to do what they wanted and completely grab the headlines and you have us stumbling into the first weeks of March.

Are there some good things in the bill? Maybe. Are they out weighed by the bad things? I think so. However I think the worst thing isn't something that is actually in the bill, but what might be called the penumbra of the bill. That is I think that it has been incredibly successful in one thing and that is preventing any real reform for at least a generation.

So I am left with the clear and certain knowledge that Obama has accomplished just the amount of reform he wanted to accomplish. He has chosen to stifle the real surge toward reform that was building and now we will have to live with that. Unfortunately, I am afraid that where we were when he took over was at the same kind of point we were at when FDR took over. God knows what would have happened to us if FDR had been like Obama. What was happening then was that there were two different streams of thought urging change: the reactionary/fascist one and the socialist/liberal one. Roosevelt supported the socialist/liberal stream of reform. When Obama was elected I think those same streams were again urging change. Obama has dammed up the liberal/socialist stream and allowed the reactionary/fascist stream to flow unabated.

BSHCRSANDWICH

So now the Veal Pen is down to demanding that liberal/progressives in congress pass this abortion of a HCR, which does not have single payer or any public option at all. It does however require us all to buy health insurance from private companies or be fined through the IRS. It essentially fines people who have been able to negotiate good benefits through their employers by taxing those benefits, and in this way punishes unions for getting these benefits for their members. It also promises (in addition to promising the insurance companies 31 million new customers) the pharmaceutical industry uncontrolled profits unlike they see in any other country in the world.

Now if you are found to be poor enough (although I'm not sure what "enough" means here) the government will pay your insurance or at maybe just a portion of your insurance. Want to bet me that portion will be under 100%? In the end of course the middle class will pay through taxes, or perhaps those subsidizes will be "borrowed" from Social Security to help the undeserving poor. There is no control over the insurance (or pharmaceutical) costs. There is no real regulatory agency and there is no ability for the individual states to try their own version of single payer.

What do we get? We get the promise that sometime later on because we have gotten HCR right now, which isn't anything but a pay off to the various industries who control health care in this country, that later we will be able to come back and to fight again. Now this fight will be easier because we have gotten this bill which provides us with literally nothing, you see.

There is no explanation as to why or how this bill which the entire democratic power structure and their veal pens say is reform, but isn't, will make the next round easier. There is only the old "camel's nose in the tent" argument. There is no explanation as to why Medicare isn't the camel's nose in the tent so that this should be so much easier this time. Just that we've got to do this because now is the best chance we will have. Well if this is the best chance we will have then it will not get better and it will not be improved upon.

Krugman argues that we should not support Dodd's bill to re-regulate the financial industry because that bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors and once it is passed then no real reform will happen. Do you believe his explanation of the difference between that and HCR.

I am also sick and tired of the argument that this bill is "the good," as in the phrase: "The best is the enemy of good enough." If this bill is "good enough" (and I think that I accurately described it up above) then I'd be interested in seeing what would be bad enough to make the veal pen and fake liberals oppose it. Or maybe not.

Finally, all these people in congress signed a pledge not to vote for HCR that didn't include a public option. Now all but a few (thanks Dennis) are backing out on their pledge. But would you like to guess who is getting the flack (that would be you again Dennis) for opposing it. Full court press being put on against Kucinich by the lefty blogs and the WH. Now when Leiberman opposed all sorts of things the lefty blogs threw a fit, but the WH was noticeable for it's reticence as was the leadership of the senate. Lieberman apparently opposed just what the WH and leadership wanted, but he still has his chairmanships and power.

The really crazy thing is that it appears that there are enough votes to pass some kind of public option, but the WH and all the leadership made sure that wouldn't happen. So where does that leave us right now? Looks like we (and by we I mean the people who are the workers and middle class in this country) are going to get to eat another shit sandwich, much like NAFTA. We are going to end up more marginalized and more powerless and the wealthy are going to get to control more and more (not that they don't control most of every thing now).

We're Doomed

I was going to post about this book I just finished: The Black Death by John Hatcher and how some aspects of the period immediately after the first incidence of the Death in England seems uncomfortably like today. Mainly the inability of the ruling class to see past their preconceived ideas. The idea that the cause of the Death was the sinfulness of the people. Or the desires of the poor for more (which amounted to sinfulness in the minds of the clergy and wealthy), but more at a later time.

At any rate perhaps classic comedy is where we are at right now or at least that is the way it seems, except you know, for all the deaths and bankruptcies.

I've been sick for the last week and when I'm not feeling really bad I'm just feeling really tired. I've been to the doctor and gotten some meds and if they don't start working better soon, I'm going to go back. The last time I felt like this for an extended time I had pneumonia.

However, I just wanted to mention Obama and Emanual's HCRm which from what I see at Firedoglake among other places seems to increase the penalty for not buying insurance, keep the massive institutional supports for Big PhHRMA and the insurance companies and attempt to completely do away with a public option.

I know what they are accomplishing, but what I wonder is what they think they are accomplishing. With that thought I am out of here for the day or night, nite nite.

New Post

I'd been thinking of writing another post about a writer, but this caught my attention. If 80% of self identified democrats think that Obama is doing a good job, then I now understand why we have such bad politicians. Particularly alleged liberal/progressive politicians.

UPDATE: Then of course there is this. The concept of liberal congress members giving large amounts of money to Blue Dogs, when real progressives are running against them is disgusting. They even have money raising events for them for god sakes. I could see if they didn't help outsiders who were trying to take incumbents' seats, but going out of their way to help the very people who are against everything they supposedly stand for, boggles the imagination. And not in the good sense.

I have been wondering for some time how we got here and how we get out and I really do not think that at this point any of the national progressive organizations are capable of doing much if anything.

NARAL has a believing Catholic as it's president. How is that possible? A woman who thinks that abortion is a sin is the head of the largest pro-choice organization in this country. And let us not forget that they (the national) backed Lieberman who is not really pro-choice against Lamont who was definitely pro-choice. Their goal is apparently to keep abortion safe and legal for wealthy women.

Now it appears as though HRC has to be prodded to take a position on DADT. How sad.

The unions keep their criticism of the guy muted because, why? They think that they will get good people on the NLRB? It seems that Obama is more than willing to trade those people away to whom? His bankster friends, I suspect. So the unions hold their collective breaths, well whats left of them at any rate. Hoping against hope that they will get card check through the congress along with a couple of pro-labor people on the NLRB. How's that working out for them after a year?

Unemployment at 10% at least, foreclosures proceed at a record pace with no bankruptcy protection for the home "owners," lots of money for the banksters and kind words from our president for the massive bonuses. And 80% of democrats are happy with his performance. I had always thought that advertising was more or less wasted money, but I'm beginning to think that perhaps I was wrong.

Obama puts the hammer down early in his presidency and ensures that the money dries up to the liberals groups who oppose his corporatist buddies and conservative democrats. And 80% of democrats think he is doing a good job.

I have never felt quite so hopeless. Of course that may just be the fact that I am coming down with a sinus infection, so I am a bit loopie, but I think that when I get better Obama will still be the incompetent (or incompetent and corrupt) butt head I think he is right now.

WTF Obama

Well I guess that will be where we will all end up.

I've been trying to get beyond posts that are simply repetitious or a variation on WTF Obama? Or WTF democrats in general? Alternative titles: Obama Corrupt or Incompetent or both Incompetent and Corrupt?

How Obama and the democrats have acted since the election has simply amazed me. Of course, Obama started from before the election with his vote for renewing the Patriot Act and pushing TARP, with no controls over the banksters. The we're doomed cries from Bush and Berneckie, but we will fight any new controls over our excesses, kind of rang hollow and still does. I did actually withdrew and argued with some of his people who tried to get me out there working. I did end up working for him simply because of two words: Sarah Palin.

Obama has been incredibly lucky in his opponents. Anybody remember who ran against him for Senator? Clinton was a little more of a challenge, but let's face it when you have your major campaign advisor thinking that the democratic primaries distribute delegates the same way the Electoral College does, you ain't got the brightest bulbs in the world running your campaign.

Then you finish up with the republican following the most incompetent (and one of the most dis-liked) presidents in history. And he runs by doubling down on the failed policies of his predecessor, and Obama still wins by single digits.

I've read that in order to have a victory like Cannae, it is not only necessary to have a Hannibal on the winning side, it is also necessary to have a Terentious Verro on the other side. Of course this election was no Cannae, it was a narrow win. There were a lot of explanations (I suspect racism had something to do with it, but that isn't the only explanation, I watched the campaign).

From the beginning Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use the language of progressives/liberals, but then he will not follow through. I thought originally that it was an inability to confront people, but now I think that he is simply a liar. And not a very good one at that. He does have an inability to confront people who are powerful conservatives, but not liberals, certainly.

What I have a problem understanding is I thought that politicans liked to win elections, but apparently not. Of course, Obama still seems to be popular, much like Clinton, on the other hand that didn't seem to help the other democrats. It won't this time either.

647

Arrgghhhh!!!!!!!!

I have been trying to post here more reliably, but real life keeps getting in the way. In addition, I keep posting little things to Facebook. Oh well.

I've been trying to figure out what to do to accomplish some sort of progressive agenda while Obama and I have finally come up with an answer: Nothing, Nada, Nyet, Nein, Nothing.

It ain't gonna happen. There will be no real progress as long as Obama is president. He and his minions will thwart it. They will always be giving the goodies to the wealthy 1% and brothers and sisters that ain't you or me. Not only that, but when the democratic party gets gutted in the mid-terms it will be us nasty liberals who get blamed. Meanwhile, the people who keep giving him a pass: telling us it's just too difficult, the president just doesn't have that kind of power, and by the way just ignore the deals with the wealthiest behind the curtain will keep supporting him, but they won't work for or vote for those lower down on the party ladder.

So what will happen? The democrats will lose the house and perhaps the senate, but there is a good chance that with the Obama lovers he might be re-elected. To continue Bill Clinton's presidency (and in all important ways Bush's). That is money being transferred to the wealthiest from the middle class at a slightly accelerated rate, but not a lot of difference between the parties really (who ever thought I'd be quoting George Wallace). I even suspect that he will be as personally popular as Clinton, a lot of good that will do the rest of us. As his kids get to marry into the wealthiest families in the country. It will be good for them and screw you.

As long as there is a democrat in the white house, I suspect that the left (such as it is) will be co-opted. Imagine, if Al Smith had won the democratic nomination in 1932 instead of Roosevelt. Well, that is where we are now, with some "safety nets left around from the 30s and the 60s. Watch what happens after the mid-terms though. Watch them finally gut those nets.

So in answer to the original question? Damned if I know, but watch the better and more intelligent "progressive" people keep insisting that it isn't as bad as it might be under a republican so really we must keep supporting this guy cause you know.

Obama What He is Doing and What he Should Do

Wants your

To to give to

When he sould be giving them

So Sad.

I Stole This Entire Post

"wrestling with the crushing burdens of the Bush terms" irony -- only the best blogs have it.

You mean like escalating the war in Afghanistan, preserving military spending levels, helping to keep gays as second class citizens, granting immunity to price controls and competition from Europe and Canada to big PHARMA, backing the Bush position on land mines and biological weapons, preventing disclosures to the ACLU under the FOIA, continuing the Bush tradition of renditions, preventing legal action against tortures aledged by Rumsfeld, not closing Quantanimo, bailing out the banks instead of protecting homeowners, failing to commit to anything substantial that might slow climate change, smothering the public option with neglect and poor leadership, keeping Dick Chenney and his pals from being investigated, giving bailouts to GM instead of creating green jobs, and quashing Rahm's investigation?

Seems he's accomplished quite a lot in just one year. I don't see how McCain could have done much more.

Bad Treaties

I honestly do not think that there is any reactionary piece of crap that this administration will not sign off on. A secret treaty that will apparently (dare I say with any luck) decimate the internet. I understand that those who are in power, of course want to limit the real input of those of us out of power. The same type of thing happened with the introduction of the printing press. I would guess that it is important to keep these kind of things out of the hands of the radicals.

JWMcD? Just what would McCain have done? Let's us do it too.