Arianna misses the point

Arianna's latest post has some good lines but sadly she makes a fundamental mistake - she assumes that Obama cares what we think even when there is no evidence he does.

While I whole heartedly agree with the following statements:

Progressives, for your own good, it's my duty to point something out to you: the president's just not that into you.

....

.

I get that the progressives, and the activists, and the young people who voted for the first time, and the disillusioned voters who returned to the polls in '08, feel slighted by the president. You thought you had a special connection with him, but it turns out he'd rather hang out with Larry Summers, flirt with Olympia Snowe, or play war games late into the night with David Petraeus. Face it: he just isn't that into you. But, in the end, it doesn't matter where the president's heart is -- it matters what he does. LBJ wasn't that into the National Voting Rights Act until Martin Luther King and the Selma march pushed him into it.

If Obama is going to do the right thing for America's middle class by sticking to his promise to start winding down (for real) the war in Afghanistan in July 2011, and by prioritizing jobs over the long-term deficit, the passion is going to have to come from outside the White House.

The thing Arianna doesn't seem to understand is that its more than "the president's just not that into you" she doesn't seem to see that we can organize, protest, scream and shout and it won't matter at all - Obama simply doesn't care what we think and isn't interested in listening to what we say. The situation is way worse than he's "just not that into" us.

Actually its harder to oppose him than it is to fight a Republican because all our normal allies are compromised - afraid to openly oppose the White House. All we have left is to snipe at him and his cave-ins to Wall Street, the Big Banks and Republicans and keep hope alive for a primary challenger in 2012.

MUST SEE – D Trip-C’s head won’t say no to Social Security cuts

This is a must see folks.

Cenk Uygur puts the Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Representative Chris Van Hollen, in the “corner” on cuts to Social Security and the guy will not say he opposes cranking up the retirement age to 70. Cenk did a great job pushing him on this but he would not say he would oppose raising the retirement age to 70. All Van Hollen could mumble was something about its gonna be part of a big package and he would have to see what’s in there.

Its so obvious – the deal is done – its like the public option in Health Care Reform. Insiders in DC knew that Obama had promised it away early on in the process so it never was going to happen. It was just a matter how to tell us - the little people - that we could stuff it. They are using their classic tactic of Kabuki Theater yet again and trying to focus our attention on one issue while selling us out on another. The whole road show Obama and the DC Dems are orchestrating right now, about privatizing Social Security, is a smoke screen to cover up what they really want to do – raise the retirement age to 70. Republicans aren’t talking about this – its the Dems that are pounding the drums of privatization and its not just to scare us but also to hide reality from us. The Dems do so because its an essential part of the charade they are playing out - first they elevate the possibility of privatization then to save us from that they agree with the Republicans to raise the retirement age to 70, that's the age you must hit before you receive full Social Security benefits. Its a sick and beautiful plan - first you create a crisis and then solve it with your intended outcome - a classic example of the crisis creation/crisis management process. No doubt Rahm E. would approve - its simply a logical extension of his observation that you should never let a crisis go to waste. This time however the crisis can be shaped by its creator to promote the desired outcome. For the Republicans its yet another win-win situation - they won't have to lift a finger to get it done - the Dems will do it for them. This is what the Bankers and Wall Street want and since Obama and the Dems are their most loyal servants that's what they will get!

Sadly this is a prediction you can take to the bank!

((found via Scarecrow's post at FireDogLake))

Lawrence Lessig on the rage of Gibbs

Once again Lawrence Lessig explains some hard truths. This time he explains why the Left has issues with the Obama Administration and why the White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs can just go stuff himself.

From the Huffington Post:

On the Rage of Gibbs

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has been slapped around silly by commentator after commentator, decrying his anti-Lefty rage. But as I read the battle, it seems to miss a pretty fundamental point:

It's certainly not fair to criticize Obama for not being a Lefty. He wasn't ever a Lefty. He didn't promise to be a Lefty. And there's no reason to expect that he would ever become a Lefty.

But Lefties (like me) who criticize Obama are not criticizing him for failing our Lefty test. Our criticism is that Obama is failing the Obama test: that he is not delivering the presidency that he promised.

When Candidate Obama took on Hilary Clinton, he was quite clear about what he thought about the way Washington works. And he was quite clear about why he was running for President. As he said:

[U]nless we're willing to challenge the broken system in Washington, and stop letting lobbyists use their clout to get their way, nothing else is going to change. And the reason I'm running for president is to challenge that system.

Read it again: "The reason I am running for president is to challenge that system."

Or again:

[I]f we do not change our politics -- if we do not fundamentally change the way Washington works -- then the problems we've been talking about for the last generation will be the same ones that haunt us for generations to come.

Or again:

But let me be clear -- this isn't just about ending the failed policies of the Bush years; it's about ending the failed system in Washington that produces those policies. For far too long, through both Democratic and Republican administrations, Washington has allowed Wall Street to use lobbyists and campaign contributions to rig the system and get its way, no matter what it costs ordinary Americans.

Or again, as he asked, again and again:

Do we continue to allow lobbyists to veto our progress? Or do we finally put our national interests ahead of the special interests and address the concerns people feel over their jobs, their health care and their children's future?

Or again, as he explained:

We are up against the belief that it's OK for lobbyists to dominate our government -- that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we're not going to let them stand in our way anymore.

Or perhaps put best:

We need to challenge the system... And if we're not willing to take up that fight, then real change -- change that will make a lasting difference in the lives of ordinary Americans -- will keep getting blocked by the defenders of the status quo.

Once Obama clinched the nomination, however, his rhetoric changed. And as he came to office, his focus, as a senior administration official explained, was to clean up the Executive, and leave to Congress the problem of cleaning up Congress (begging the obvious question: Does the president believe the problem with Washington is the presidency, and not Congress?)

Since coming to power, Obama has pushed just one piece of legislation that would have any effect at all on the power of lobbyists over Congress. That bill has not passed, and even if it had, it would have changed nothing in the lobbyists' power. He has not even indicated that he would support the only substantial reform of lobbyists power with support in Congress today -- the Fair Elections Now Act. Indeed, "congressional reform" doesn't even merit a mention on the "Additional Issues" page of whitehouse.gov (though "sportsmen" does).

Obama's strategy as president has not been to "change the way Washington works." Rather, he has pushed reforms in the same old way, with the same old games. As Glenn Greenwald put it, speaking of health care:

The way this bill has been shaped is the ultimate expression -- and bolstering -- of how Washington has long worked. One can find reasonable excuses for why it had to be done that way, but one cannot reasonably deny that it was.

Now I'm not sure whether it is leftist, or rightist, or centerist to govern through special interest deals. It certainly is Clintonist. It's precisely the administration that Hillary "lobbyists are people, too" Clinton promised. And were she president, and had she done exactly what Obama has done, then no one, I included, would have any reason to criticize her.

But beefed up Clintonism is not what Obama promised. He promised to "take up the fight." His failure to deliver on that critical promise -- the promise that distinguished him from his main primary rival -- or even to try, is a failure that everyone, Lefties included, should be free to complain about without suffering the rage of Gibbs.

Joe Campos has his 20%

Good news - I'm hearing that Joe Campos has got 20% of the votes in yesterday's Democratic Party Pre-Primary Convention and will be on the ballot for the LT' Gov's position June 1st. He made it by the barest of margins but he made it!

Now the question is what else is going on and why haven't the election results been released? Also, still unanswered is what will Jerry Ortiz y Pino and Linda Lopez do next? At 5% of the ballots its likely that Lopez is gone but that's not news to anybody I know. Her vote with Republicans to elect Tim Jennings President Pro Tempore of the Senate and against the Democratic Party had many questioning her loyalty to the Party well before she announced her run for the Lt. Gov's position. That plus her massive support for the SunCal project and efforts to prevent any ethics reform in the State Senate gained her many enemies in the Democratic Party. In short her campaign was over before it began. Ortiz y Pino is a different issue since its likely he has enough signatures to get on the ballot but yet another shakeup in his campaign is likely if he continues to fight on.

House Ethics Committee has no ethics

This really has to fall under the "unbelievable" category. Clearing seven member of the House from ethics charges the US House of Representatives Ethics Committee says its not a problem for a member of the House to "arrange" for an earmark for a company after the folks behind the company give a boatload of cash to that House member. Its stunning! I guess a notarized contract is required for the actions of the House member to be unethical or illegal! Appearances no longer matter in the House as this form of casual corruption must be an everyday affair.

From the Washington Post:

"Simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a member's actions are being influenced by campaign contributions," the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct said in a unanimous statement.

In Search of The Democrats by Ted Rall

Sadly, Oh so true!

An open letter to fellow Democrats by Eric Griego

From nmpolitics.net a letter to fellow Democrats by Senator Eric Griego:

Dear New Mexico Democrat:

Last year’s election was a momentous occasion. Not only did we elect a Democratic president and an entire Democratic congressional delegation, but we picked up several Democratic seats in the state House and Senate. With a Democratic majority in both houses of the Legislature (27 Democrats to 15 Republicans in the Senate), and a Democratic governor, we expected to implement a state policy agenda in line with the Democratic platform.

We were wrong.

In spite of a net gain of three Democratic seats in the state Senate, and the election of progressives (some would call it the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party) to replace more centrist incumbents, not much has changed in the New Mexico Senate.

In the words of former Who lead singer Roger Daltry, “Meet the new boss – same as the old boss.”

While the state House has tackled some of these issues including ethics reform, domestic partnership and progressive tax reform, the state Senate has mostly thwarted the Democratic agenda.

For those who don’t follow legislative politics, the current Democratic leadership in the state Senate was elected by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans. Nineteen members of the Democratic caucus supported Senator Carlos Cisneros of Questa for president pro tem. The other eight voted with the 15-member Republican caucus to elect Senator Tim Jennings, a conservative Democrat from Roswell.

While Senator Jennings is a nice enough guy, his political philosophy is in stark contrast to the majority of rank and file Democrats – not to mention the state party platform.

The state Democratic Party seems to endorse the coalition. One of those eight coalition Democrats was just given the first annual Bruce King Award Public Service Award by the New Mexico Democratic Party.

Working with Republicans to stop the Democratic platform

What has been the practical effect of this coalition? No significant Democratic bills, other than repealing the death penalty, have passed the Republican/Democrat coalition-controlled Senate. They have worked with the Republican caucus to kill conservation, progressive taxation, consumer protection and equality legislation.

Most of this legislation has died in committees set up by Senate leadership to minimize the influence of progressive members and thus ensure no legislation implementing the Democratic Party platform would ever come to fruition.

In 2006, the party’s state central committee passed resolutions opposing discrimination based on sexual orientation. Yet, domestic partner legislation has been thwarted by Senate committees stacked with anti-equality Democrats. Despite the 9-5 ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the Senate, equality legislation has failed in committee and on the Senate floor.

In 2006 and 2008, the state central committee passed resolutions calling for repealing tax cuts for the wealthy. The state Senate leadership did not consider even one bill on the Senate floor that asked the wealthiest New Mexicans to pay their fair share. All such bills were killed in stacked committees with several “centrist” Democrats voting with Republicans to kill the bills.

In the 2010 legislative session, the majority of Democrats voted with all Republicans to kill all floor amendments that would have reduced or eliminated tax cuts for the rich. Instead, a tax on food was passed by the several Democrats in coalition with Republicans. The coalition rejected the more Democratic and balanced House budget and instead voted to cut education and other basic services instead of asking the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share.

In 2006, the state central committee passed a resolution to support small businesses in their competition with national firms. A bill to do just that and make out-of-state corporations pay corporate income taxes on profits made in New Mexico died in the Senate, with several Democrats, including leadership, voting against the bill.

In 2008, the state central committee passed resolutions to promote active environmental policies and renewable energy and reduce carbon emissions. Yet, little if any conservation legislation has seen the light of day in the Democratic state Senate, despite the Democratic majority. Even worse, coalition Democrats voted with Republicans to remove Neri Holguin, a conservationist, from the Environmental Improvement Board.

On ethics and campaign reform, the state platform includes support for public financing of campaigns, same day registration for elections, and holding public officials accountable. Yet, the Senate Democratic leadership has not even let most bills related to ethics and campaign finance bills be heard.

Most have died in the Senate Rules Committee, which is chaired by Senator Linda Lopez – one of the eight coalition Democrats. The ones that did make it to the floor were so watered down as to be nearly irrelevant.

Time to discuss a third party?

I believe if we lose statewide and legislative elections in November, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. Despite numerous scandals of state officials, our state Senate leadership has fought most reasonable ethics or campaign reform. Over the past two years the Democratic Senate leadership has bottled up, watered down or otherwise stymied ethics and campaign finance reform bills.

We have effectively deferred to the Republican Party on ethics reform and, as a result, given them a strong issue for the 2010 cycle.

The slow drift to the right of the Democratic Party has meant we no longer stand for anything. It has given our Democratic base no reason to show up in November. If the talk of reform and change that brought in the overwhelming Democratic majorities at the federal and state levels was just that – talk – we are going to lose in November. And we should.

Maybe it is time to discuss a third party that reflects what’s actually in the state Democratic Party platform. We need a party that supports ethics reform, a fair tax system and equality for all New Mexicans. We need a party that puts the environment ahead of corporate interests. We need a party that fights for working people, not for corporate greed.

That used to be the Democratic Party. I can’t say that anymore, at least not in the New Mexico Senate.

Before I address the letter I really have to second a comment made to the post above by "new_direction_2010" - its not a good sign for progressives that Carlos Cisneros always votes against Domestic Partnerships. Doesn't seem he's that great a Dem - you really can't call him a progressive.

Re: Eric Griego's letter - the dirty little fact is that the progressives and liberals in both the State and National Democratic Party are essentially doormats and until we stop voting for anybody with a D after their name we will remain on the floor and "they" will step on "us" whenever the mood strikes them. The fact is we need a new game plan - here's one that I and a few other folks are talking about -

1) the best way to get rid of a bad Dem is to primary them and replace them if possible. Folks in the Senate like Tim Jennings, Linda Lopez, Mike Sanchez & etc immediately come to mind.

2) if that fails or isn't possible (i.e. I don't think we can find somebody to run against Tim Jennings) then we need to select a couple of the worst Dems in the House and Senate and go to the liberals and progressives in their district and really work to explain who this person is and what they are doing and then ask folks simply not to vote for them. Essentially we need to try and sacrifice their seat to the Republicans for a cycle. Sadly, we need to play hardball and these are our only two choices.

The simple fact is that the corporate interests that control the Democratic Party have bought the politicians because that's where the power is. If we split they win and we loose - we need to stay but change how the game is played. If we pull this off once everything changes. The game we are currently playing clearly doesn't work for us - I think its time we change the rules and see what happens.

Shame on Bingaman and Udall

Below are the 39 cowardly Democrats in the Senate that should be ashamed of themselves for voting for the ill-advised Conrad/Gregg Budget Commission. The Republicans have been trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare for years. This budget commission was the perfect tool to get the Democrats to do it for them. It just shows how soulless, stupid and incompetent the Democrats in the US Senate are. I have come to accept this out of Bingaman but Udall? Sadly he's gotten the Senate disease quicker I had expected. No one in their right mid should trust either of them to protect Social Security and Medicare.

Yes we have two parties but they ain't what you think!

Sometimes things just hit me -

I now realize that yes we do have two parties - problem is that they ain't Republican and Democrat or even Demopublican and Republocrat but rather they are Corporate and ????.

Once you take this view the recent Health Care squabble is really an argument between the hard line Corporatists (the Republicans) and more moderate Corporatists (a good chunk of the Democrats{the DLCers, New Democrats, Blue Dogs & etc-}). The constant fight between the Repubs and the Dems is just fighting to see how Corporate the US Government will be.

Sometimes clarity makes me sad - the delusion of hope is always easier to bear.

This is about leadership and in Washington there ain't any!

Brown is an idiot and the folks of Mass will tire of him quickly – he just tried to pawn off one of his daughters from the stage during his acceptance speech. He thought it was cute but the rest of the folks are going to see him for the clown he is. Expect him to provide more comic entertainment in the Senate until his term is up –

This isn’t about Brown or the boring plain vanilla Corporate Democratic Coakley - its about folks looking for real leadership in DC and finding none. Obama’s Presidency is over – we are in a holding pattern until a real populist leader shows up. Obama's first act tomorrow morning should be to fire Rahm and anybody in the White House that looks or thinks like him but we all know that won't happen.

When a real leader actually shows up his/her first task will be to run Senators like Bayh, Baucus, Bingaman, Conrad, Reid and their other disgusting collegues out of the Democratic Party and trash the New Democrats in the House for good measure. Until the Democratic filth in the House, Senate and White House is drained the Demopublicans and Republocrats are all the same. Who’s President or who controls the House or Senate until that happy day is really quite irrelevant because the Corporations are running the show. One thing for sure - its gonna get lots worse before it gets better.

Obama's Presidency is over!

January 20, 1999 - January 19, 2010


Today Obama's Presidency is officially over.
It lasted just a short time but died of self-inflicted wounds brought on by cowardice and beltway-based stupidity.

RIP

Thanks Taylor!

I've become a fan of Taylor Marsh. She is one of those rare upper level bloggers that just doesn't seem to care what the elites of the Democratic Party think of her.

I reached a new level of appreciation for her when she responded to this comment by a reader called Don:

What do politicians do when a vote is called, and they realize that voting either way is a loss for them?
They abstain. They understand what to do. It works for them.

Taylor says:

Exactly correct. On a ballot, you can vote for people who represent your views, but no matter the Dem, when they don’t support your views, you don’t have to support them.

After all, for many Dems currently in power, it really wouldn’t be that different if a Rep. took the seat.

At some point, a message has to be sent.

Another issue is that the two-party system is crumbling from within the behemoths. We’re at a point in history where things could begin to shift, though it certainly will take some time to evolve.

Again thanks to Taylor and to Don. They both understand that its way past time we stopped voting for anybody just because they have a D after their name. From now on I plan to leave some blanks on my ballots where I just don't vote for this or that bad Democrat.

Even the Huffington Post lets a good one through -

Not sure what's happening but the Dem elites definitely were asleep when they let this one through at HuffPo.

Ms. Williamson really caught the spirit of things in the Democratic Party. But while she speaks truth here I also found the comments sadly interesting. The level of denial exhibited by the Obamanistas while they complain about this post is really amazing. They have drunk the kool-aid and do believe! So far I'm seeing two forms of delusion: 1) Obama is smart and in the end he will preform a miracle and all will be well in the Universe, and 2) we are all just whiny liberals and don't know what is good for us. We just need to shut up and do what our dear Corporate leader says to do. When they finally see what's happening boy are they gonna be pissed.

Marianne Williamson
Posted: January 2, 2010 09:00 AM

It's hard to own the disappointment I feel over our moderate corporate Democratic President. The whole Obama phenomenon brings up memories from my distant past: the good-looking guy who talks real good, whose line you don't buy immediately but whose charm is so dazzling that he gradually convinces you that this time it will be different.

Yeah. Right. Really different.

What the current administration is giving us is minimal change. And not because the President hasn't had the time to do better; if he had truly wanted to make fundamental change, he would have gone in there fast and done his own version of shock and awe in the first hundred days. And not because he didn't realize how mean all those Republicans can be, either; Obama knew what he was getting into, and if he didn't, then he was as unprepared for the job as his opponents said he was. I see so many people now -- many of them men, interestingly enough -- tangled up in an almost school-girlish, co-dependent, apologetic relationship with this President. As though "poor baby" should be tacked onto the end of every description of his failures.

I see all things political in light of the immense unnecessary suffering in the world. Republicans see it and say, "Wow, it's sad about all that suffering, but the government has no proper role in assuaging it. Hopefully the private sector will do something. That would be nice." The Democrats -- not all of them but enough of them, and definitely this President -- see all that suffering and say, "Wow, it's sad about all that pain people are going through. Let's try to assuage it."

And yet they're refusing to do anything to challenge the underlying forces that make all that suffering inevitable.

I remember Bobby and I remember Martin. I remember when there was a moral force
at the center of the Democratic Party. I see it sometimes still, in a Sherrod Brown, a Dennis Kucinich, an Anthony Weiner. But they're not reflective of the general tenor of the Democratic Party anymore, and I think we would all do well to wake up to that fact. We elected Obama and then he sort of became someone else. He's doing a lot of good things in various areas, but he's certainly not changing the new bottom line: that corporations get to run the world.

He bailed out the banks, but he didn't stipulate that they had to start lending again. He got us health care, but he wouldn't say a word about single payer and he wouldn't raise a finger for the public option. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, but accepted it with a speech that was an apologia for war.

Democrats seem to have no idea what dark wave is rushing towards them in the form of the 2010 mid-terms. They have no idea how many people will be too depressed to go vote, who'll be thinking, "We tried so hard last time, and what did it get us?" They have no idea how many people are thinking, as I am, that it's time to face the facts, no matter how painful they are. If Obama doesn't retrieve his spine and retrieve it soon, then his Presidency will go down in the history books as one of the biggest disappointments in American history.

In the meantime, we should be looking at our options. In "Healing the Soul of America", I wrote about Ghandi's notion of soul force in politics and why it matters to stand on your truth. Should we re-brand the Green Party perhaps, or draft another Democrat to challenge Obama in the primaries in 2012? I don't know what we should do, but I know one thing that we shouldn't do: pretend to ourselves that this man is delivering on what he promised when he first won our hearts.

Sad wisdom over at Open Left

Its a shocker but over at Open Left somehow they let a real post pass through. It contains none of the pointless lists or why or why not progressives should do this or that and why kowtowing to the power structure/elites always makes good sense. All the stuff that Open Left is known for.

Enjoy and cry - its all too true.

Why Democrats Are Trying to Commit Electoral Suicide
by: Ian Welsh
Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 00:01

Forty-five percent of the Democratic base now says they aren't going to vote in 2010 or are thinking of not voting. This is a direct result of Democrats in Congress and the Presidency doing things the base disagrees with or not doing things the base wants to see done. It appears politically stupid to act as they have, and yet, they did. So why?

Elected Democrats at the Federal level are members of the national elite. If they weren't a member when they were elected, they are quickly brought into the fold. They are surrounded by lobbyists, other members and staffers who were lobbyists, as a rule. They learn they need to raise immense amounts of money in the off years when normal people aren't giving, and that the only way to raise that money is for corporate interests and rich people to write them. They also receive the benefits of elite status, very quickly. It's not an accident that the every Senator except Bernie Sanders is wealthy.

Whatever Americans think, whether they support a public option or single payer; whether they're for or against Iraq or Afghanistan; whether they agree with bailing out banks or not, elite consensus is much much narrower than American public opinion. It starts at the center right and heads over to reactionary (repeal the entire progressive movement and the New Deal, taking America back to the 1890s).

The elites are convinced they know what has to be done. Not necessarily what's "best", but what is possible given the constraints they believe America operates under and the pressures which elected officials work with. So Obama can say, and mean, that if he were creating a medical system from scratch, he'd go with single payer. But he "knows" that's impossible, not just for political reasons, but because there are huge monied interests who would be horribly damaged or even destroyed by moving to single payer. On top of that, he looks at the amount of actual change required to shift all that money away from insurance companies and to reduce pharma profits, and to change which providers get paid what, and he sees it as immensely disruptive to the economy. In theory, it might lead to a better place, but to Obama, the disruption on the way there is unthinkable.

The same thing is true of the financial crisis. The banks may be technically insolvent, but the idea of nationalizing them all, or shutting them down and shifting the lending to other entities would mean that the most profitable (in theory, not in reality) sector of the economy would largely be wiped out. Add to that the fact that Obama was the largest recipient of Wall Street cash of the major candidates for the Presidency, and the immense influence the banks wield through their alumni who are placed throughout the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and other departments, and the idea of actually radically reforming the banking system becomes unthinkable. Virtually every technocrat giving Obama, or most Senators advice, will be against it.

Moreover they understand that with a few exceptions, the financial economy is the American economy. It's what the US sold to the rest of the world: pieces of paper in exchange for real money which could be used to import real goods, so Americans could live beyond their means.

Shut that down and what's going to replace it? How are you going to avoid an immediate meltdown of the US standard of living? How are you going to avoid a large part of the elite being wiped out? You or I may have answers to that, except to wiping out a large chunk of the elite, which is something which needs to be done, but those who grew up under the system, who believe in the system, and who ran the system don't. What they've done all their lives is what they understand. And more to the point the system has been good to them. The last 35 years may have been a bad time to be an ordinary American, but the elite has seen their wealth and income soar to levels even greater than the gilded age. The rich, in America, have never, ever, been as rich as they are now.

And if you're a member of the elite, your friends, your family, your colleagues—everyone you really care about, is a member of the elite or attached to it as a valued and very well paid retainer. For you, for everyone you care about, the system has worked. Perhaps, intellectually, you know it hasn't worked for ordinary people, but you aren't one of them, you aren't friends with them, and however much you care in theory about them, it's a bloodless intellectual empathy, not one born of shared experience, sacrifice and the bonds of friendship or love.

So when a big crisis comes, all of your instincts scream to protect your friends, your family, and the system which you grew up under, prospered under and which has been good to you. Moreover, you understand that system, or you think you do, and you believe that with a twiddle here and an adjustment there, it's a system you can make work again. Doing something radical, like single payer or nationalizing the banks or letting the banks fail and doing lending direct through the Fed and through credit unions: that's just crazy talk. Who knows how it would work, or if it would work? Why take a chance?

And so, until disaster turns into absolute catastrophe, the elites will fiddle with the dials, rather than engaging in radical change. When the time comes when it becomes clear even to them that radical change is required, they are far more likely to go with their preconceived notions of what's wrong with the US, which are very reactionary, than to go with liberal or progressive solutions.

So you're far more likely to see Medicare and Social Security gutted, than you are to see the military budget cut in a third or Medicare-for-all enacted. You're far more likely to see a movement to a flat tax (supported by idiot right wing populists) than you are to see a return to high marginal taxation.

To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites. It's not the bankers, with their multi-million dollar bailouts who are the problem, it's old people with their Social Security and Medicare. The elites made it. They are rich and powerful. They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves (even if they inherited the money or position). If you didn't, then that means you don't deserve it.

Democratic party elected leaders, as a group, are members of this elite, or are henchmen (and some women) of this elite. They believe what the elites believe, and they live within a world whose boundaries are formed by those beliefs.

They have no intention of engaging in radical change which threatens elite, which is to say, their, prosperity and power. The financial industry must be saved, the medical industry must be saved. Social Security and Medicare, which they don't need and don't benefit from, not so much. The military, which funnels huge amounts of money to them, must continue to expand (in real terms military spending is now twice what it was in 2000.)

As long as elected Democrats at the Federal level are members of this elite, or identify with the elite they are not going to make fundamental changes against the interests of that elite.

And so, no, there is no "change" you can believe in from this class of Democrats. There is no "hope" of an America which is better for ordinary people.

That doesn't mean things are hopeless, but it does mean there's little hope for anything radical from this Congress or President.

As Adam Smith pointed out, there's a lot of ruin in a nation. America's going to have to endure a lot more of it before things actually change.

Why the mainstream Press is so useless

Wonder why the mainstream press is so messed up - find out here -

Thanks Laura Flanders at GRITtv and guest Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald.

More nonsense over at OpenLeft

In response to this posting by Chris Bowers where he continues his endless argument that the good little progressives need to fall in line with the Mighty Obama I responded with the comment below:

Chris -

Time to get over it - you're not convincing anyone with these lists of talking points. Isn't it just possible we need to kill the bill because it is a bad bill and a political disaster for the Democrats? You're living in the weeds - time to stand up and take a broader view of this mess. I believe that this bill will forever tie the Democrats to the Insurance Companies - we will own them as they already own our leadership.

As I said elsewhere this is a political disaster for the Dems of the first order. There is lots of bad things in this bill but the worst is the mandate. I don't care what the polls say about support for a mandate - that's a theoretical mandate when it gets real and folks start getting fined for not having insurance we, I mean the Democrats, will be blamed as we should be. Once folks find that the minimal insurance to escape the fine is junk we will be blamed. Once folks spend hours comparing insurances and trying to make a decision on which one to take out because we are forcing them to do so we will be blamed. Once insurance companies start raising rates on all the newly insured folks we will be blamed. Once they start fighting with the parasites of the Insurance Industry to pay for stuff they thought would be covered we will be blamed. And, every time they make their monthly premium payment we will be blamed. And boy will they be motivated to vote! This should increase turnout by at least 10% or more. The party will be wiped out.

Personally, the Republicans could not have devised a better plan to destroy the Democratic Party if they had all the money and time in the world. Obama and Company have sold the Democratic Party to the Insurance Companies and we have bought into the disaster hook, line and sinker. We own Health Insurance now and may god have mercy on our soul because every nasty thing those villains do we will be blamed for and, as we all know, you can expect them to do a lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Democratic Party - The End

Something I've been thinking for a while now has nicely been stated over at Democratic Underground in a post by Yavin4.

Turns out that the Health Care Reform (HCR) act is more than just a gift to the Insurance Industry. Its actually setting the Democratic Party up to be a fall guy for all that the Insurance Companies do in the future. As Yavin4 so nicely puts it:

This HCR amounts to a merger between the Democratic party and the health insurance industry. Every rate hike, every denial of coverage, every annual benefit cap, every dirty trick thought up by the evil people who populate these industries will become the property of the Democratic party, lock, stock and barrel.

I hope all the money that Rahm & Company gets for selling us out is worth it because when the bill starts coming in its gonna be hell on wheels.

madfloridian explains today's Democratic Party

This post at Democratic Underground explains a great deal about today's Democratic Party. As you will see it certainly isn't the Party we think it is - referring to the Democratic Party madfloridian says:

Now it is about far more than health care. Party's true face has been shown.... this week since Howard Dean took head in hand and dared to suggest the bill was not all it should be. A true face of what the Democratic party has become emerged. It took since the 80s, but it is now complete it seems.

"ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

"Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

That has come into full bloom now.

The health care bill will pass with flying colors; even the ones who have been on MSNBC telling the truth about it have caved and will vote for it. One even said it was a bad bill, but he would vote for it anyway.

So it has moved beyond the bill now.

It has moved into the realm of what a party does when it is in total control of the power seats. It shows who they are and what they stand for.

Howard Dean is a private citizen who once ran for president, who was chairman of the party when it won back all 3 seats of power. He was then shunned by those in leadership.

Someone posted here at DU a question to the effect should Dean really be allowed to speak out like that. Well, yes, the answer is yes.

When he spoke out this week against the bill he was speaking as a private citizen who is irate that we have been sold a sorry bill by catering to just a minority of corporate Democrats.

He put himself in a position to be slammed by this administration who never criticizes the right. He most likely knew he was doing that. I guess he figured since his future roles in the party are pretty much nil, he might as well speak out in honesty.

Here are some of the words used against him just by the WH spokespersons...irrational, irrelevant, insane.

And the blogs and groups that espouse White House policy are just getting warmed up today. I won't post them, they don't deserve the attention. The bloggers who want to keep access, the congressmen who want their seats and committee positions will vote for the bill, and they will criticize Dean though they once agreed with him.

The Center for American Progress, John Podesta's think tank formed to push Clinton's policies....was for a while posting Howard Dean's health care policies and pushing the public option. They were supportive.

Not anymore. Think Progress is now having to support the WH position on health care. Of course they would.

I realize this is politics. So many here talk to people like me in terms that make it seem like we are wrong because we are not politically "astute".

Oh, I may not be politically savvy, but I am no fool. I find myself more and more seeing things more clearly. The things I have believed in I believe in more strongly now. I thought my party believed in those things but not so much anymore. Unions are having to fight for existence, especially teachers' unions which are treated with scorn. Women's rights are not deemed very important, not like I thought they would be under Democrats. Stricter now on women's rights, and not much improvement in rights of gays. DADT and DOMA still around.

I expected there to be separation of church and state, instead I see a church group sitting down with the House Speaker to write a bill.

When the WH turned this into personal attacks on Dean they were sending a message to those who might agree with him. That message was toe the line.

So now it has gone beyond health care into something else. We saw this week who the party leaders value. It is not us.

Its so clear now that all the Progressives were actually out working for a Corporate Dem in 2008. Sad to say that there weren't any other alternatives - Hillary was just as bad.

So, what are our options? Well take a look at the Full Court Press. Its time we get serious about holding Democrats accountable.

A good rant!

Personally I always wondered if Joe Lieberman was doing what Obama wanted all along. Found this over at Democratic Underground. It seems reasonable to me -

by: debbierlus

You know why the democrats don't take away Joe's chair?

It isn't complicated.

The democrats are USING Joe as a scapegoat for their wholesale sell-out to the health care industry.

They NEED Joe.

He is playing bad cop to their 'good cop'. The democrats aren't interested in creating a bill that will help the people, they are interested in creating a bill that serves their corporate masters. It is getting mighty tough to continually justify selling out to corporations with the majorities in the House & Senate. So, they use the mere THREAT of a filibuster as the excuse to
take out any meaningful reform.

They don't even TRY to fight. They could take away his chair. They could MAKE him filibuster for days on end. They could force the opposition's political hand.

But, they dont.

Why do you think there is such a mad rush for passage by Christmas? Why do you think this legislation has been written behind closed doors and the contents of the legislation haven't even been available to the majority of the Senate or House Members.

They don't want anyone to have a chance to see the giant turd they are about to deliver to the American people. They know full well, if the people have a chance to dissect the language of this bill, they will be united against it.

This bill is SHIT. It enslaves American citizens to the very industry that has been responsible for the deathes of hundreds of thousands of Americans. It mandates health insurance with no gurantee of health care. It is a betrayal of the worst kind.

Joe Lieberman is a self serving, vain, narcisstic, egotistical, and pathetic little worm of a man. But, he is not acting alone. He is just playing his role.

Don't be fooled by their games.

Democratic Senators who have sold out to Big Pharma

Here's the list of Democratic Senators or those that slum with them that have sold us out to Big Pharma by voting against North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan Amdt. No. 2793 to the disaster know as the Health Care Reform bill.

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Burris (D-IL), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Kaufman (D-DE), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kirk (D-MA), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Nay

So, send them your thanks because they have required that you will spend 300% to 500% more for drugs than the rest of the world.