Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
There are some interesting conversations and debates underway at thenation.com (see especially Chris Hayes at Capitolism, "Left Out") and in the progressive blogosphere (see Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, Digby and David Sirota about why Obama has so few progressives among his cabinet picks.) It's worth checking them out.
I think that we progressives need to be as clear-eyed, tough and pragmatic about Obama as he is about us.
President-elect Obama is a centrist at a time when centrism means energy independence and green jobs and universal health care and massive economic stimulus programs and government intervention in the economy. He is a pragmatist at a moment when pragmatism and the scale of our financial crisis compel him to adopt bold policies. He is a cautious leader at a time when, to paraphrase New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, caution is the new risky.The great traumas of our day do not allow for cautious steps or responses.
At 143 years old ( that's the The Nation's age, not mine), we like a little bit of history with our politics. And while Lincoln's way of picking a cabinet frames this transition moment, it's worth remembering another template for governing. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was compelled to become a bolder and, yes, more progressive President (if progressive means ensuring that the actual conditions of peoples lives improve through government acts) as a result of the strategically placed mobilization and pressure of organized movements.
That history makes me think that this is the moment for progressives to avoid falling into either of two extremes --reflexively defensive or reflexively critical. We'd be wiser and more effective if we followed the advice of one of The Nation's valued editorial board members who shared thoughts with the Board at our meeting last Friday, November 21.
1. It will take large scale, organized movements to win transformative change. There is no civil rights legislation without the movement, no New Deal without the unions and the unemployed councils, no end to slavery without the abolitionists. In our era, this will need to play out at two levels: district-by-district and state-by-state organizing to get us to the 218 and sixty votes necessary to pass any major legislation; and the movement energy that can create public will, a new narrative and move the elites in DC to shift from orthodoxy. The energy in the country needs to be converted into real organization.
2. We need to be able to play inside and outside politics at the same time. I think this will be challenging for those of us schooled in the habits of pure opposition and protest. We need to make an effort to engage the new Administration and Congress constructively, even as we push without apology for solutions at a scale necessary to deliver. This is in the interest of the Democratic Party--which rode the wave of a new coalition of African Americans, Latinos, young people, women, etc--but they have been beaten down by conservative attacks and the natural impulse will be caution and hiding behind desks.
3. Progressives need to stick up especially forcefully for the most vulnerable parts of the coalition--poor people, immigrants, etc--those who got almost no mention during the election and will be most likely to be left off the bus.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Correct. All of it.
And immensely difficult.
Aligned against progressives will be the forces of reaction, not least of all the MSM as battering ram.
Financed by corporate USA.
And overseen by the true center of power in the US today -- no, not the White House or Congress, but the Pentagon &, to a lesser extent, its allies the CIA & Homeland Sec.
We are enmeshed in a militarized corporatism at home that's devoted to the imperial project abroad. This is a formidable opposition, its loyalty is only to itself, not to the vast majority of Americans, and certainly not to the rest of the world which is viewed as a platform for domination & exploitation ... vide the new US military African command.
Yet barely a peep anywhere in the MSM or even in The Nation addressing the reality of absolutely no change in the Pentagon as predominant force in American life.
Have you been denied even that in the free speech zone?
Obama is its more-than-willing captive, while we are its slaves & victims. Kept ignorant, off balance, desperate & distracted.
Posted by sloper at 11/23/2008 @ 10:10pm
*At 143 years old ( that's the The Nation's age, not mine), we like a little bit of history with our politics.*
Awww you ruined such a great chance to give you a hard time KvH!
It boils down to this: Obama will aggravate us. He will infuriate us. He will do things that will get our blood boiling. And it matters not ONE WHIT if allwe do is sit and stew. We have to be the change, not Obama. At the end of the day, he is in charge, but he is one man. He now has to go against 535 discordant voices calling him in at least 535 different directions, not to mention world leaders, American public opinion, international public opinion (unlike George I happen to believe that will get at least a little of Obama's ear), and, the top voice, his wife and family, all with some sort of idea of what he should do. I hate to drag up a Bushism, but Obama really has to be the decider. He has to be the final arbiter of the success or a failure of a policy, and he along with all of us will deal with both the success and the failure of that. As of now (especially now since there's very little he can actually accomplish, in spire of a lage chorus of voices telling him to jump the gun) he is only the President-Elect, and he has made some choices that make my eyebrow cock in a very Spockian fashion. However, I'm not going to put any heat on him just yet. Once January 21st comes around though, he's on notice.
Posted by yutsano at 11/24/2008 @ 12:00am
I do not much care for most of Obama's choices so far. Why couldn't he have chosen Stieglitz for Treasury, for instance? When Plouffe sent a mass e-mail asking for my opinion, I said I might as well have voted for HRC if all BO was going to do was appoint her people. (I wonder if Plouffe is reading the responses.)
I guess that the BO network plus general progressive networks are going to have to be reorganized so we can pressure. I am on the AZ Navajo reservation teaching but I suppose I can help do Internet organizing...we'll probably have to write, lobby and demonstrate. Why on earth did BO run if he wanted to get so little change accomplished...just for the power? There went two years out of his life away from his wife and daughters--you'd think he'd be super eager to initiate change. If he didn't really mean it, millions of people will be alienated, so we'd better push just in case.
Posted by mimsky at 11/24/2008 @ 12:26am
Obama's consistent message has been the need to heal a deeply divided country. The division of Americans into two narrowly defined ideological groups who are reduced to hostile enemies on cable news has been enormously destructive to our culture and progress as a nation. Rigorous debate and honest discourse has been replaced with immature shouting matches and petty judgments about the other side.
I think Obama wants to heal this nation from within and it starts at the top.
Posted by SandyFeet at 11/24/2008 @ 12:39am
At this point with Obama's current choices for his cabinet and his approach to the crisis we face I do believe Obama will fail the test of this crisis. It really won't matter much what the left does because the worse the situation gets Obama's instinct will be to do more of more of the same.
Once Obama fails this first test he will be struggling for the rest of his term.
Posted by mmckinl at 11/24/2008 @ 04:02am
These are no doubt --apocalyptic-- times; America has been brainwashed into seeing the world, with a sort of pop psychology mentality of; as long as one is happy and comfortable, that is all one needs to achieve in life.
I am going to be quite frank with you people of America, as a citizen of this great country, I feel it my duty to inform you of something the politicians will not; the stock market is going to keep falling, it is out of control.
Obama, knows it most of the Republicans and Democrats in Congress know it,: but they want you to play the game so that they can loot the country of its wealth.
If -- Obama -- was really going to change the economy for the good of "we the people" in a practical manner, he would of made this fact public, so that people could prepare for the financial depression we are about o face as a nation.
There is nothing Obama can do to stop it , it is out of control.
Posted by Philip_Shore at 11/24/2008 @ 04:31am
To be clear, we're not dealing with just Obama. We're dealing with Obama and his conservative cabinet and congress and the chummy money-soaked atmosphere of Washington. The Obama we dreamed of is hidden. We have no voice.
To be technical, he never promised Universal Health care, just some reforms to the current system. He never promised to slash the military budget, or end earmarks or mandate universal suffrage or promote unions or end the prison for profit system or stop the crazy border wall or stop the war on drugs or legalize marijuana or have a progressive income tax past 39% or an after-death tax to restore big chunks of privatized wealth to the public sphere.
He's clearly smart, but his vision is not our vision. He wants to steer the ship of state through troubled waters without kicking any of his new friends out of their staterooms.
Posted by PBucking at 11/24/2008 @ 06:44am
Obama may be trying to heal the country, but appointing a neocon into the treasury position and Hillary Clinton and some of Bill Clinton's people is catering to the right. Should he try to heal the country? By all means. Should he sell those who voted for him down the drain to appease the right? Hell no!!
Just some food for thought. Those who talk about how the military protects us, take a gander at the link below. It would seem that the U.S. navy is tasked to protect international shippers investments on the U.S. tax payer's bill. I say charge these rich ashholes for the protection of their shipping interests, and charge them a lot to keep their precious sea lanes safe. If they don't anti-up, they don't get any protection.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/ 11/24/somalia.pirates.crackdown .military.ap/index.html
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/24/2008 @ 07:14am
Country: Heal Thyself!
so far, while I question a couple of Obamas cabinet picks (HRC for cris sakes), what I see is competence over ideology. Isn't that what we REALLY wanted to see change?
Ask not what your country can do for you...
(HAPPY, you can pay your share of taxes to pay for your wars. Have you been paying attention the last few years? You got your tax cuts. Result= worst job growth in memory, worst drop in stock mkt in memory, foreclosures worst in memory, bailouts galore for big business, skyrocketing debt, record trade deficits. ALL AFTER YOUR TAX CUTS! Why didn't you use that money to create jobs? )
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 07:34am
Boy, are there some negative voices out there....can you not give the man a chance!!!! Nobody said it was going to be easy and nobody said Obama was going to be perfect....but God, can we please let the man become President and let us see what he can do first!!! Lots of people of don't like his choice of cabinet so far...all that matters is that he gets this country working again and if those people he has chosen will do it, what's the problem? We all know what a fantastic job Bush and the gang have done for the past 8 years....so let's be calm and patient and let Obama have the time to try and correct all Bush's mistakes!!! Not an easy task wouldn't you say????
Posted by Caj at 11/24/2008 @ 07:47am
"That history makes me think that this is the moment for progressives to avoid falling into either of two extremes--reflexively defensive or reflexively critical."
Why Ms vanden Heuvel, you HAVE been reading the blog postings around here, haven't you?
LOL
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 08:52am
The left is coming after Obama hard for his choices so far. We claim to want a new FDR, but we have forgotten just who FDR was. I think it's good that KvH is reminding us of history. We should look at the real history of FDR. At the outset of his presidency, like Obama, FDR came under strong attack from the left. The left had a hero in Hughey Long., who was a thorn in FDR's side and no friend of the White House. FDR wanted to expand his coalition, and he worried that people like Hughey Long were looking to narrow it. FDR knew he had to deliver real improvements to the American people. That is what expands a coalition and makes it last. That is what Obama needs to do as well. If he can do that, he can realign the center of this country, just as FDR did. Obama has two advantages. 1) The country is not in as bad a shape (economically) as it was in 1933, and 2) We still have some of FDR's legacy to help us through these tough times. Try as they might, the right has not been able to fully dismantle the New Deal. So I say, let's give him a chance to govern before getting all up in arms. If it is FDR you are looking for, so far you seem to have gotten him. But from the sound of the criticism it seem like the left is still pining for Hughey Long, and not FDR at all.
Posted by WiseKing at 11/24/2008 @ 09:14am
Administrations go through changes, they evolve, and Barry O isn't even president yet!
So, though I agree wholeheartedly with Katrina, I think we progressives need to take a wait and see approach.
Thus far Obama has not initiated any legislation, has not signed any bills, and is still in the midst of sorting out cabinet and other administration posts.
So, it's quite possible that the crew that takes over in January will have a markedly different composition in, say, March of 2010.
I'm not basing this on empirical data, or even historical data, just my gut.
Stay tuned.
Posted by jackwells at 11/24/2008 @ 09:14am
Is it any wonder that "progressives" are permanently relegated to irrelevance with this continuing straining of credibility to rationalize? Talk about denial. Is it any wonder that Obama tosses a rhetorical progressive bone or two at election time only to shift gears for those ruling class usual suspects? As soon as he gets his foot in the door he leaves those progressives eating his dust. He knows that ultimately they pose no credible threat and can be counted on to humiliate themselves in his defense.
As for grassroots organizing, I believe it was those progressives at the Nation who participated in the red-baiting of ANSWER--the one particularly successful organization adept at turning out massive protests against the war.
Posted by Lil at 11/24/2008 @ 09:33am
There are certainly some negative attitudes here! That only breeds more anger and hostility. Which this country has plenty of without adding to it. Give the guy a chance to prove himself before you pile on him. He has a big job ahead of him. Undoing the mess George Bush, the Republican party and conservative theories has made out of the country for years now is not going to be any easy task. It's probably going to take years to undo the mess these fascist's have done us. So calm yourselves down and take a deep breath. All the right wing nuts out there are just waiting on Obama to fall flat on his face. They are pointing at your objections and saying 'see I told you so'! I personally am just thrilled we aren't faced with 4 more years of Bush's failed policies. So change isn't going to come overnight. Obama isn't in office yet and all the criticism has started all ready.
Posted by ganddw42 at 11/24/2008 @ 09:33am
Railing against the Bush administration has become passe... suddenly and irrevocably, the whining thrashing invectives that seemed to salve a bleeding democracy are pointless and destructive to the new pedigree.
And those that dutifully supported GWB's 'vision' without pay or orders are seemingly unaware that the responsibility is theirs... not George's... because this is a Democracy, not a Monarchy...
Yes... change has come to America.
Neither blind faith in the 'hazy math' of Reaganomics, nor the consoling cry of the wilderness frocked Bush critic... are effective anymore... and yet we continue out of habit to do them.
Obama needs to install a cabinet that has an intimate understanding of the system 'as it is now' in order to keep the ship of state afloat... and get her into safe harbor for repairs.
This is not 'revolution'... it is simply sanity... and the effective husbandry of a domestically mistreated democracy.
Happy Thanksgiving,
...and God Bless America.
Posted by ttr at 11/24/2008 @ 09:39am
For those who are interested in discovering the consistencies between the Nation Magazine's grovelling before DP centrism today and its opposition to laws against KKK violence in the 1870s, read this:
(Swans - November 17, 2008) For people trying to understand the bankruptcy of American liberalism, there is probably no better place to start than The Nation magazine. I first began subscribing to The Nation in the 1980s when Reagan was in the White House. As a general rule of thumb, the magazine is more readable when a Reagan or a Bush is president. During the Clinton presidency, The Nation directed most of its fire at "threats" to his presidency from the likes of Newt Gingrich rather than seeing the war on the poor as a joint Democrat-Republican project.
full: http://url2it.com/kqd
Posted by lnp3 at 11/24/2008 @ 09:41am
This is a fascinating dynamic going on here, as one wades through the load of unadulterated B.S. in Ms. Vanden Heuvel's commentary and in the blogs above.
Obama was proclaimed to be the be all end all, the superperson who was going to save the world. Once elected, he was or is Abraham Linclon and FDR and our savior all wrapped up into one powerful force of all that is good and wonderful.
Now, as Obama loads his administration with Democrat party hacks and Clinton people, the realization is now kicking among some of you that there is the possiblilty that Obama may not be everything you assumed and hoped he would be, or at the very least some of Obama policy may not be to your liking.
But, unlike the past, where the natural tendency is for the far left to tee off and crucify those who are not "progressive" enough (for an example, see Clinton, Hillary Rodham) the left realizes they can not do that this time.
You know you can not get anybody more "progressive" than Obama in the White House.
You had so much emotional capital invested in this guy that you know, even if he is not all you wanted him to be, you are STUCK with him. You know you are going to have to make the best of it, because this is as "good" as you can do. You know you are going to have to live with it, even if some of "it" turns out not to be of your liking!
You are going to have to control any natural impulse you normally have to tee off on the guy, because a whole lot of leftist pique and voting for a third party candidate 4 years from now in anger and rage could cost Obama re-election.
So there is mental rationalization going on among many of you as you fit your response to events you were not expecting.
Sorry, but I admit I am enjoying this!!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 09:51am
*The Nation* can't clean up the copy to take out the double-spacing between every third word out? The article is harder to read because of the spacing than the text.
When a reader is distracted enough from the SUBJECT of the article to post a comment about spacing, that should say enough right there about how distracting it is!
Posted by grndrush at 11/24/2008 @ 10:05am
Enjoy your 'pipe dream' sjchermak...
Obama did not inspire a 'win at all costs' ethos in his supporters precisely because his intention from the beginning was 'unity over devisiveness'.
This 'us against them' mythology that we've all been living with among our own countrymen... stands out now like a sore thumb.
Are you with us... or against us?...;^)
Posted by ttr at 11/24/2008 @ 10:09am
Posted by Lil at 11/24/2008 @ 09:33am
Lil, I share your skepticism to some extent. I say let's revisit this in the Spring. At least give it a chance. I think for many, just cleansing the nation of Bush/Cheney will be restorative, and the old lefties may make their presence clear in a more gradual fashion. Gotta have hope.
Posted by jackwells at 11/24/2008 @ 10:13am
There seems to be a level of arrogance in the Obama picks for his "so called" cabinet. I like Robert Gibbs, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson. The new media word for piss on you seems to be pragmatism. The next word we are likely to hear is paradigm shift. Tim Geithner and Larry Summers are not pragmatist, nor is Hillary Clinton. Tim believes in clouding issues for public consumption. His words "fog is sometimes preferable". Every time I hear "its complicated" I get nausea. I bet Sheila Bair is proud of Larry "women can't learn math" Summers and we have "landing under sniper fire Clinton and her husband the triangulator. How do we fix the building that just collapsed by hiring the architects that designed the building ?. Summers and Geithner are the architects that designed the mess we are in now, and we, have globalist at all costs, Clinton and her globe trotting husband. These characters think that newt Gingrich, Alvin Toffler and Burrhus Frederick Skinner are geniuses. Please unleash Naomi Kleine on this crew and don't be so forgiving Katrina. 700,000 kids went hungry last year. My wife and I worked damn hard at getting Mr. Scrappy "I'm a mutt" elected.
Posted by julien38 at 11/24/2008 @ 10:27am
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 09:51am
Wait a minute, SJCHER....
doesn't that ALSO mean that he's not going to be the "radical socialist" YOU (and Rush and Sean and others) thought he was going to be???
(backpedalling and caveeats in 5...4...3...2....1....)
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 10:32am
sjchermak:
(NO need to repost any of your nonsense)
Obama was crowned a superpower/messiah by THE RIGHT. Neither I, nor any other person I know who admitted voting for him, sees him in even a close light. The main reason many if not most voted for him: HE IS NOT GWB #3!!!
Obama is MUCH too conservative for me, personally. Most I know (true "progressives") agree. But he's a 1000000% improvement over the mental midget out to destroy the planet, or, short of that, at least ruin the US' reputation; he's also light-years ahead of the stooges the GOP chose to replace Cheney...er, I mean Bush).
Obama has ALREADY - simply via the fact of his ELECTION - begun to make the US look like something OTHER than the pariah amoung nations we've BEEN these past 8 horrific years.
"Crucification", for your information, is a tactic of the RIGHT, not the left. Swift-boating Kerry, claiming Al Gore claimed he "invented" the Internet, the (thank God, unsuccessful) attempts to crucify Obama over Rev. Wright while McW's and Palin's true NUT "preachers" go basically unvetted, except by US PROGRESSIVES (which doesn't, of course, include the MSM - FOX, CNN, and MSNBC were trying EVERY BIT as hard as the RNC to defeat Obama). Fortunately, nutcases like yours seem to be dying faster than they are being created by their parents (nutcases aren't 'born', they are 'created' - indoctrinated - after birth; I know, as I was one who rejected - at GREAT personal cost - that indoctrination.
I'll 'tee off' on Obama at every step he makes I disagree with. You see, with Obama, protesters (mark my words!) will NOT be sequestered in cages far from the action. Obama wont 'avoid' protesters; just as he interacted with the ultimate liar/idiot combo ("Joe (sic) the Plumber (sic)"), Obama will continue to listen - ACTIVELY - to all sides.
IF you're "enjoying this," keeping you "amused" must be DARNED easy!!! Sorry your boy Bush is being sent into "forced retirement." Before it's over with, I fully believe he'll end up exactly where he (and most of his Admin, for that matter - Cheney and AGAG especially) belong: imprisoned for life for War Crimes, or Treason. They ALL committed BOTH.
***apocalyptic**, Phillip? LOL!!! You're about 2000 years late for the "Apocalypse Now!" club. The 'rapture' has been 'coming soon' for 2000(+) years now. Go buy some tin foil, man.
Posted by grndrush at 11/24/2008 @ 10:36am
by grndrush at 11/24/2008 @ 10:36am...
"Obama was crowned a superpower/messiah by THE RIGHT. "
Excellent point.
The far right's 'pyrrhic victories' rang hollow through the hills and valleys of this great nation... and the world beyond... while they seemed to cower in toxic bluster at the very mention of 'the people'... as if democracy was somehow a threat to progress, a security threat.
Who's security... and to what end?
"...by and for the people..." is not just idle chatter.
Posted by ttr at 11/24/2008 @ 11:13am
"Obama was proclaimed to be the be all end all, the superperson who was going to save the world"_--SJCHERMAK
Who claimed that?
as mentioned above, it was SJSCHERMAKS side that claimed we would all be cozying up with Castro come Jan 21, 2009, that Barak Hussein Obama was The Messiah, a Marxist America Hater and all that nonsense you helped spread.
Was all that just so much "Iraqi wmd's" and links to AQ? So much fantasy of the right? I think so SJ.
I am interested to read how Obamas cabinet picks reflect his Marxism, SJ. Help out this poor deluded lefty, please clue me into the hidden Librool agenda of Obams Treasury nominees, how AG Holder is going to allow terrorists to go free withou being interrogated, how Bill Richardson is going to run American commerce from a centralized government, how Rahm Emmanuel is going to forsake Israel for Hamas and anything else you might have linking Hillary Clinton to the dove/socialists in the State Dept. And, why not tell us about Bill Ayers appointment to head The Dept of Education.
Can't wait.
BOO!
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 11:21am
Where are you (the Nation) heading KVH?
Posted by OneVote at 11/24/2008 @ 11:21am
Trouble is we don't have those organizations or movements in any significant way, today, as during the 1960s or the 1930s or the 1860s. There is not MLK for progressive legislation. There is no labor movement as in the 1930s. There is no Thadeus Stevens for the abolition of imperialism. Back then the movements already existed when LBJ, FDR and Abraham Lincoln took office. Now, we have no great voice, no workers threatening to become socialists or communists, no leader demanding the end of our imperialistic enslavement to militarism.
All we have is an articulate, half-black, president who wants to bring together the right and the center. There is no left to be concerned about. The half-black is good, but is it enough? I don't think so.
Posted by goedel at 11/24/2008 @ 11:21am
Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/24/2008
Where is the job creation that was supposed to come from the tax cuts, HAPPY? Where is the deficit reduction that was supposed to come from the job creation created by the tax cuts?
How much did Bush really cut my taxes? About 100 bucks. How much did he cut yours, and how many jobs did you create with that money?
Once again, HAPPY, what is this MAGIC thing? Magic what? Come on coward, print the whole thing. I know you lack the courage of your convictions when it comes to war, but you don't even have the cajones to print the rest of your racist comment, do you? Is this one of those tough questions that will force you to put me on ignore, like when I asked you when you were going to go fight for your country in Iraq? Which, BTW, you never answered. Why, HAPPY, do you not want to go fight for your right to be an investor/capitalist, or at the very least go to Iraq and show them how to be investors/capitalists.
Tex Tech... what was the final score? I missed the end of the "game".
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 11:32am
Crabwalk,
It is because his cabinet picks DON'T reflex Marxism that some of the left is anxious and rationalizing. You have it backwards.
grndrush,
You say Obama is an improvement over a mental midget out to destroy the planet. You will get no argument from me on that one, anybody is an improvement over Algore and thank God he (Algore) didn't get away with trying to steal the 2000 election. Me, I don't use the term "mental midget", I prefer "Village Idiot", but everybody has their own way of phrasing things.
Mask,
I am not talking about what I or Rush or Sean or whoever thinks about this situation, I am commenting on what I see in the unadulterated B.S. in these blogs. And it is a matter of degree and perception anyway, because Democrat hacks and Clinton people are no good either, and don't forget, what a Conservative would say is socialistic activity a Lib would declare to be too "Conservative" if it is not far enough left and "progressive" enough.
I do notice you seem to have this tendency to be prowling these blogs for past statements you can use as "gotchas", at least in your mind, rather than promoting any logical and supportable opinions of your own. Maybe it is because you do not have any.
ttr,
When you talk about unity over divisiveness, you forget that we Conservatives know that unity as you on the left see it is really caving to the left agenda, as we on the Right see it. And also what you see as divisiveness is really our "failure" to comply and capitualte to the left agenda.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 11:35am
I hope no one is thinking that I'm hammering on Obama. It's just that the backgrounds of some of the people he has chosen tend torward the free market solves all school of thought.
Who knows what these guys have talked about behind closed doors. Hopefeully they have some kind of plan to counter the failing financial system we have. If the economy is in a decline, then an inverse function needs to be applied to at least null things out where we are at unity gain. Flat is better than falling....unless of course you are the people buying everything up at a serious discount. Those folks have everything to gain by a faltering market. The haves and have mores do quite well in times like these.
So, while everyone else loses, the wealthy gain more for less and with that gain more control for the future. The more control they get, the less control the government has, and that is where the problems lie. If a handful of people can bring this nation's economy to it's knees, and then be in a position to demand that certain changes be made or otherwise they'll pull their money, then we're screwed.
This has already been done in other countries, and been quite successful. You don't need a military coup when you can just stage a financial coup.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/24/2008 @ 11:36am
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 11:35am
No, SJCHER, you said you were "enjoying" Obama not turning out to be as left-wing as many of his left-wing supporters hoped...
and I was pointing out that if true, he's not going to be as left-wing as many of YOU guys told us he was going to be either.
Obviously it's true that from your view-point anybody a smidge to the left of Chuck Hagel is a "socialist". But you started with the premise that Obama was "more radical than he told us"...
and it turns out he's not. So while the Left may be disappointed in their beliefs of Obama...
YOU guys were just plain lying.
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 11:53am
SJ, I was never one that thought Obama was a Marxist, nor can I recall anybody here that did. Can you clue me into who you are writing about.
Perhaps you could show us some of Chimpies conservative succeses, other than his ideological picks for Supreme Court Justices. Allow me to grant that there were some, I submit that 2 failed wars trumps that. Just for a monent let's say that Gore had won (and continued the economic policies of Clinton that you fear so much, you know the ones that left us with money at the end) and HE left office with two wars unended, would you say he was succesful?
BTW, who did you vote for? If you voted for McCAin, you voted for a guy that believes Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 11:55am
"so while the left may be disappointed...
YOU guys were just plain lying."
EXACTLY. touche(').
and thank you, Mask, for putting it so succintly.
Posted by canaro71 at 11/24/2008 @ 12:12pm
I think what it boils down to is that the neo-cons are submissive to authority figures. They hardly put up any opposition to Chimpy McFlightsuit at any point. They like to claim to be "freedom" lovers, but they made not a peep when Chimpy set up cages labeled "free speech zones", when he jailed 750 people collected for bounties, when he had people kidnapped and tortured, when he spied on American citizens in violation of FISA. They claim to be fiscal conservatives, but stood aside while their party brought us the largest goverment in history, a prescription drug benefit that costs billions, a war with no-bid contracts and a federal bureacracy run amok.
So, when "the left" starts raising ther evoices, they are confused. "What is this dissent?", they say, "Why don't you follow along like the good sheep we are?".
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 12:21pm
Since we went off the gold standard decades ago, our economy is based on faith in the paper dollar. As public (domestic and international) confidence is erroded, what happens when the government tries to continue by simply printing money? Eventually, dollars will be worth less than the paper its printed on. Then the real fun begins.
Posted by Tunnelrat at 11/24/2008 @ 12:21pm
crabwalk,
I voted for McCain. I know I voted for a guy that believes some of what the Village Idiot said. What choice did I have, it certainly was preferrable to voting for a guy that is opposed to much of my poltical beliefs - Barack Obama - a guy who still thinks the surge in Iraq was wrong - a guy who thinks our going into Iraq was wrong and thus would have left Saddam off of the hook, free to develop WMD, connect to terror, cause mayhem, and cause catastrophic trauma and death.
What choice did I have? If it were up to me, which it wasn't, the GOP would have had Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain switch places on the ticket with McCain dropping back to VP.
Also, and this comment to Mask too, I do not know how socialistic or non-socialistic Obama will turn out to be. We have a long way to go yet, Obama is not even president yet. My comments are towards what I see on this blog, libs worried about how "progressive" Obama is versus the "progressive" you expected him to be.
Mask, you ought to audition to replace Jay Leno when he retires! You have me rolling on the floor laughing. Your concept is that when something may turn out different than what libs said then (.... and you never define this), BUT if something may turn out different than what Conservatives said then they are lying!
You are an expert in word parsing, history re-writing and living in bizzaro world!
Crabwalk, you want me to clue you in to what I am writing about. Just scroll up above and look at the angst, worry or rationalizing going on by the left, here on this thread and the original article.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 12:24pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 12:24pm
Have you read the book The War Within by any chance? The "Surge" was and is a quell in the violence that should never have had to take place in the first place.
If you read this book, you'd know that most of the generals involved with the invasion recommended much higher troop levels to maintain law and order after the invasion. Rumsfeld did it on the cheap just like the businessman that he is.
What did W and company do? They left the borders wide open, didn't confiscate weapons, didn't even try to talk or work with the Republican guard etc. After letting things escalate to damn near civil war levels, then and only then did the idiotic Bush administration respond with the "surge".
The Bush administration was more worried about what it would look like in an election year admitting that they were wrong. Rumsfeld's resignation was contingent not upon his success or failure, but rather if the the republicans lost control of the house or senate.
So, SJ, maybe you can answer this question. Why would Rumsfeld be worried about a congress that would rubber stamp anything he and Cheney dreamed up. Accountability seemed to have been a problem for him as it is with the entire Bush administration.
The Bush administration's failures in Iraq were placed on the backs of the military commanders. Those would be the same commanders W and company didn't listen to in the fist place.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/24/2008 @ 12:40pm
" ... thus would have left Saddam off of the hook, free to develop WMD, connect to terror, cause mayhem, and cause catastrophic trauma and death. "
LOL! Yes, I can see how 2+2=47.568.
"If it were up to me, which it wasn't, the GOP would have had Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain switch places on the ticket with McCain dropping back to VP"
LOL, ROFLMAO!!.. : ) Buwahahahaha. Yes, I could see that you would want to back someone that handled Katie Couric so well. Why, Ms. Couric is far worse than Mugtada al-Sadr or Putin.
shiny baubles get your attention? You might be a crow, and a sheep SJ.
BTW, 10,000 gay/lesbian couple recieved marriage licenses in California. Did your marriage survive the onlslaught?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 12:55pm
SJ, People are still being blown up in Iraq. There are hardly days that go by where you don't see an article like the one below. As I said, the surge quelled the violence. Do you think we should stay in Iraq for eternity?!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/11/24/iraq.blast/index.html
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/24/2008 @ 12:59pm
and it turns out he's not. So while the Left may be disappointed in their beliefs of Obama...
YOU guys were just plain lying.
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 11:53am
Of course they were!
When was the last time the republican party won an election without lying through their teeth every time they were given the chance?
And just in case you were wondering how deluded SJ and LVLIB are, they're now completely shocked and surprised that Obama was *GASP* telling the truth about his leftist leanings!
But let's hear from HAPPY and SJCHERMAK, again and again, telling us more lies about how the "left" anointed Obama lord and savior of America.
They've gone so far off the deep end, they can't even remember their lies and clouding of reality to further their own agenda.
Hypocrites and fools.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/24/2008 @ 1:00pm
SJ, I was never one that thought Obama was a Marxist, nor can I recall anybody here that did. Can you clue me into who you are writing about.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 11:55am
Errrrr....
HAPPY, LVLIB...just to name two.
Wait a second....
It's as if the ONLY people that thought Obama was going to be a socialist were the contrarian repub idiots!!!
GADS!
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/24/2008 @ 1:06pm
SJ, in all seriousness, I think you need to root out some new sources of information.
1: Iraq was never a center of terrorism. Saddam did support Pro-Palestinian groups that utilize terrorism. Israels problem, not mine
2: The Iraq war has caused an increase in terrorism.
3: Saddam was no threat to you, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Yemen.
4: The "surge", as pointed out by Wolf, was needed because you and Chimpy had no idea what was going on in Iraq in 2003, nor what would occur after you invaded. So far, it has quelled violence (along with other programs you did not list), but it has NOT accomplished it's real goal. The guvt of Iraq is not in control of it's country.
5: AQ started 2003 with about 3000 "members". Last I read, it was claiming 5000. Bin Laden is till operation chief, alive and well.
6: AQ wanted the Us bogged down in a ME conflict.
Good job, all around SJ. But, I know you FEEL better after attacking Iraq, so that is what really matters.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 1:06pm
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 1:06pm
Shhh!
Don't let them know that by invading Iraq in such a haphazard and despicable manner, they were essentially doing EXACTLY what AQ wanted!
It may bruise their precious little egos.
SJCHERMAK and HAPPY, why do you hate freedom and love terrorists?
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/24/2008 @ 1:10pm
TexasFlood,
Apparently you were not watching NBC in the early morning after the election, when Tom Brokaw, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and the rest were doing the post-election round table analysis where they were practically drooling in glee over the election result.
Wolfgang1,
It is my theory that what you call going into Iraq on the cheap was done because the U.S. probably did not want a massive force that would be construed by the people in that part of the world to be conquerors. The U.S. turned over things to the Iraqis, or attempted to, probably sooner than we should have but I do not agree that it was done on the cheap for the sake of doing it on the cheap, but to try to achieve victory with as little irration to the people in that area of the world as possible. People that would probably be hyper sensitive to us being "dictators" or "conquerors".
We were trying to achieve a balancing act between defeating Saddam and not antagonizing people over there while doing so.
That may not have been the right way to go, in retrospect, but if we had sent a massive force there you on the left would have been screaming that we were conquerors, dictators, etc..
So that is the one constant here, the left in opposition of George W. Bush no matter what he would have done.
Also, Wolfgang1, we should stay in Iraq until we defeat the enemy. That is what you do when you are fighting a war!!!
Crabwalk,
Since not adding up 2+2 caused 2,974 on September 11, 2001, we went into Iraq to make sure we would add up 2+2 and never get anything other than 0 again.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 1:17pm
TexasFlood,
You said we did what AQ (al-Qaeda) wanted. If so, then al-Qaeda is pretty stupid because it has not worked out for them as they would have liked - a lot of al-Qaeda has been neutralized (i.e., defeated) and their goals have been stopped.
Al Qaeda's Defeat In Iraq Michael J. Totten - 09.19.2008 - 6:12 PM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ blogs/index.php/totten/31621
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 1:25pm
"That may not have been the right way to go, in retrospect, but if we had sent a massive force there you on the left would have been screaming that we were conquerors, dictators, etc.. "
Ahh, it is "the lefts" fault. Now I understand.
Explain to me the connection between Iraq and 9/11 again...?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 1:25pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 12:24pm
No, I was quite clear. But I'll be clearer if it helps.
The Left is somewhat disappointed in their hope that Obama would appoint "Noam Chomsky" as Secretary of State or "Thom Hartmann" Secretary of Labor...but they fooled themselves if they thought that and shouldn't really be that surprised that he didn't.
YOU guys (BTW, as others have pointed...the guys who REALLY came up with the "Obama is the Messiah" stuff...because you couldn't think of anyway else to attack a guy who was popular)...
told us that Obama would "appoint radicals like Bill Ayers" and "run THE most left-wing, socialist Administration we've EVER had"....and KNEW it wasn't true.
So they are disappointed and their out-of-touch hopes dashed....
but your LIES are proven false.
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 1:28pm
Al Qaeda's Defeat In Iraq Michael J. Totten - 09.19.2008 - 6:12 PM
How many AQ were in Iraq in say... 2002?
how many are there now?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 1:41pm
but your LIES are proven false.
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 1:28pm
That list is growing daily. But, now they will say "No one EVER lied! You just misunderstood what Chimpy said when he linked Saddam to 9/11"
as we can see here:
"Since not adding up 2+2 caused 2,974 on September 11, 2001, we went into Iraq to make sure we would add up 2+2 and never get anything other than 0 again.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 1:17pm
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 1:45pm
Lots of good points here. But also, a great explanation of why people on the left NEVER get what they want.
It's like herding cats on an ice covered pond to get us to agree on anything, much less stick to believing in anything.
Yes, there does need to be pressure from the left. But it needs to be meaningful, sustained pressure, not a bunch of riots. There is always time for a good old fashioned riot later.
If you want to do something useful, write to all of your representatives, and Senators, and governors and explain that they will not get one penny from you, nor one vote from you if they do not REPRESENT YOU. Then tell them, specifically which top three things you want done.
After that, when Obama is actually president (he's not yet you know) and legislation goes to congress, write to those same congressmen and tell them how you want them to vote yes or no on specific bills. Then CHECK THE RECORD TO SEE HOW THEY VOTED. It is public information. If you don't like how they voted, write a letter to your newspaper, and be sure to be articulate not P.O.'d so people will think you're smart, not just a crazy person.
Yeah, it can be pretty time consuming, and it's kinda annoying, but inattention and lack of actually participating in democracy is EXACTLY how we got here.
The "left" CAN get most of what it wants, one piece at a time, one vote at a time, one annoying letter at a time. It just has to be CONSISTENT. Play smarter not harder people. We're the intellectual elitists after all.
Posted by Thevail at 11/24/2008 @ 1:51pm
So, let's assume that SJ is correct, that AQ is defeated in Iraq (again in 2008, after they were defeated in 2006 and 2007)
They were not there in 2002.
They numbered in the thousands in 2005 (according to ChimpCo)
They created death and mayhem in Iraq from June 2003 until 2008, when they were defeated.
we celebrate their defeat in 2008, but blame the prior 5 years on... the left? The Iraqis for not fighting of AQ from March 2003?
What made them go to Iraq? Hugo Chavez? Bill Ayers? A Christian Army 300,000 strong in an Arab/Muslim country, posed on the border of Iran/Saudi Arabia?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 1:51pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/24/2008 @ 2:08pm
I think CRAB's point was that they would be CONSIDERED a "Christian Army" by the locals.
And given 90% would be Christian (right?)...seems a fair assumption.
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 2:31pm
crabwalk,
You said
==========================
Explain to me the connection between Iraq and 9/11 again...?
Posted by crabwalk
=========================
FOR THE 2,974TH TIME... WE WENT INTO IRAQ AS PART OF THE EFFORT TO PREVENT FUTURE 9/11'S FROM HAPPENING AGAIN............TO STOP THE TERROR ATTACK BEFORE IT HAPPENS.....
WE WENT INTO IRAQ TO PREVENT A FUTURE 9/11 FROM HAPPENING.....AS PART OF THE EFFORT TO MAKE SURE TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY THAT A FUTURE 9/11 WOULD NOT HAPPEN AGAIN...
A PERSON FROM CRAWFORD, TEXAS, GEORGE W. BUSH AND ANOTHER PERSON FROM SEDGEFIELD, UK, ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR, WENT INTO IRAQ TO, TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY, TRY AND PREVENT A FUTURE 9/11 FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN.
TWO PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE RESPONSIBILITY THEY HAD TO THEIR CITIZENS AS WELL AS CITIZENS OF OTHER COUNTRIES SERIOUSLY. TWO PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN CRUCIFIED BEYOND MIND BENDING BELIEF FOR DOING SO.
REPEAT AFTER ME... WE WENT INTO IRAQ TO TRY AND PREVENT FUTURE 9/11S FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.
I am truly sorry but I just can not fathom what part of that YOU do not understand.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 2:40pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/24/2008 @ 2:08pm
hmm...
Bush said God, his Christian God, chose him to lead America
One of his Generals said his God is stronger than Islams God
Bush uses the word "Crusade" in a speech soon after the invasion.
We have been told for a while now that we are a "Christian" country.
Republicans run under the platform "restoring Christian Values".
We were told that this war is God's war. I think Sarah Palin echoed that refrain.
Yep, Your right Rev, I can't possibly see why a Muslim would think Christian Army
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 2:51pm
I am truly sorry but I just can not fathom what part of that YOU do not understand.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 2:40pm
The part that connects 9/11 to Iraq.
what do you know that I don't about Saddams plans to attack the US with drone planes, 20,000 litres of Anthrax, nuclear weapons utilizing Muhammed Atta's meetings with Iraq intel in the Czech republic?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 2:53pm
The time for this kind of hand-wringing was before the election, not after, as there were alternatives. And with Obama's flip-flops during the campaign, don't tell me now that "progressives" are getting the unexpected. You are getting precisely what you deserve: Nothing.
Posted by john lowell at 11/24/2008 @ 2:54pm
Luvvy and SJ
How many American people do you want to jail before Americans get murdered in street crime?
How many drivers do you want to jail before they kill someone in their car?
How many Dow Chemical employees do you want to jail before one of their compounds kills Americans by cancer?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 2:56pm
>>>Progressives need to stick up especially forcefully for the most vulnerable parts of the coalition--poor people, immigrants, etc--those who got almost no mention during the election and will be most likely to be left off the bus.<<<
I am quite sure that poor people and immigrants will NOT be left off the bus in an Obama Administration.
And since when did universal healthcare, energy independence and green jobs, and massive economic stimulus programs and positive government intervention in the economy become "centrist", KVH?
Providing opportunities for the poor and immigrants to work in building a new green infrastructure, much like what occurred with the railroad and highway infrastructure in the past, will be a boon for all, especially the poor, even under your definition of "progressive" (if progressive means ensuring that the actual conditions of peoples lives improve through government acts).
There is no doubt that outside and inside pressure to maintain progressive momentum, but we shouldn't let our anxieties concerning Obama backtracking on progressive initiatives blind us to real substantive progressive change under Obama and a policy priority scheme that makes sense to sustain a series of progressive policy initiatives for the next 10-20 years.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/24/2008 @ 2:57pm
Larry, what % of the US military is Christian? 10? 20?
Or is MASK closer?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 3:02pm
There are too many Clinton people in Obama's Administration. These are the people who gave us NAFTA and "Free Trade". They started the process of outsourcing our jobs and industries overseas. Bush made it worse, but they started this economic collapse. Wall Street owns both parties, and you will have to attack both parties to change our economic direction. This initial two year program is tied to the next Congressional election in 2010. You cannot trust any of them, and you must be prepared to hand them their head in the next election. THEY must prove themselves by bringing jobs and industries back to this country. This will not happen without tariffs. this is not theory because it is how we became a major economic and industrial nation. No money involved in this method! it is just making the laws. It is not a left or right issue, because tariff benefits business and labor. Mckinley was a protectionist representing Ohio in Congress, which was one reason that Republicans use to have a lock on Ohio in any election. Tariffs are good for business and labor.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/24/2008 @ 3:12pm
Only skimmed most of the comments, and it seems Crab is dead on again.
I consider myself a democrat, not a super liberal and not on the conservative side. I am happy with Obama's picks, he is picking folks who will be effective. Who can work with republicans, work with the world, have the expreience to understand what is need to accomplish their goals. I am glad is not picking far left folks, and the same but opposing skien as to what Bush did, it would only serve to furhter divide the county. At this point in time with the issues we are facing we cannont afford more division. We need all encompassing policies that work to find solutions to the mess we are in, it seems to me that is what Obama is doing. But that said, can someone tell me how Obama's team is NOT progressive? what is it the defines a progressive. I had started to think I was a progressive, but I guess I am not, since I agree with and think Obama's pick make sense.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/24/2008 @ 3:18pm
True enough, P.J.
Remember the WTO 'thingie' in Seattle back in 1999?
Clinton was PENO.
We can't continue to compete in the world economy by printing money and outsourcing labor.
Personally... I think that our pattern of excessive consumption, and the charting of our economic welfare upon them... is a bogus evaluation of any society's health.
Global warming is the obvious end product of a successful economy... if you carry these immeasurably inefficient quantifications to their ultimate extreme...
But we're not actually in that bind. We just haven't learned how to effectively value conservation in 'todays dollars'.
Posted by ttr at 11/24/2008 @ 3:37pm
"REPEAT AFTER ME... WE WENT INTO IRAQ TO TRY AND PREVENT FUTURE 9/11S FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.
I am truly sorry but I just can not fathom what part of that YOU do not understand.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 2:40pm"
Hey sjchermak I'm a amazed you are thinking those are the reasons the US went to Iraq for. Are you the only one left who thinks that still?
I'm gonna tell you something you probably haven't heard before :-) POLITICIANS LIE!!
So I'm going to put it easy for you to understand: The US Military was used by US oil Corporations to expand their sources of oil, for free, with yours and our tax dollars. That simple. Did you get it?
In economic terms the war in Iraq is an "externality". It is a way for corporations to attain something for free while someone else pays for it.
So your naive idea that the war in Iraq had anything to do with avoiding another 9/11 attack, or for any national security purpose only goes to show how gullible you are to the onslaught of the brainwashing corporate mainstream media.
WAKE UP!!
Posted by etniks at 11/24/2008 @ 3:41pm
Posted by grndrush at 11/24/2008 @ 10:36am |
**apocalyptic**, Phillip? LOL!!! You're about 2000 years late for the "Apocalypse Now!" club. The 'rapture' has been 'coming soon' for 2000(+) years now. Go buy some tin foil, man.
________________________
There is no other term better to describe it; the financial-economic system is a part of the Military-Industrial-Complex beast, that the politicians worship --they have no intention of protecting the people, or their bank accounts; they only want to loot the country.
How?
They, want to be elected -- so that they can have inside information about how the economy works, so that they can place their bets in the futures markets, etc.
Historically, civilization and art are mutual friends; when a liberal democracy can prosper. There is no art, so that is why we live in perpetual war, an apocalyptic war, that will not end that cannot end, unless man himself changes, by spiritual and/ or psychological means.
But the modern 21st century man; is not a man seeking peace but rather war. In other words; peace will not happen unless; people want it.
Posted by Philip_Shore at 11/24/2008 @ 3:47pm
Posted by etniks at 11/24/2008 @ 3:41pm
Well, ET, I think that the outcome shows just how wrong you are.
The US is safer than ever.
We are held in high esteem throughtout the world
No US firm with connections to the Bush family, Dick Cheney, the MIC or other congress critters has made a dime.
Democracy is spreading throughout the ME.
Or not.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 3:54pm
The country does NOT need healing - it needs fixing of gigantic proportions. This whole business about healing is nonsense. Obama is NOT Jimmy Swaggart or a minister or pastor of any denomination. The fact some voters actually think Obama has the power to affect this country by some religious fervor is total nonsense. Basically We are on Bush cruise control from one administration to another. And the importance of Obama's color has less to with the true seriousnees of the problems this country is facing - Black or White.
Posted by jimijazz at 11/24/2008 @ 4:05pm
And by the way do not expect things to get better. If, as John Lowell suggests that Obama owes the progressives nothing, then do not expect anything positive to happen in this country. Expect high unemployment, mass layoffs, continued bailouts. continuation of Bush tax cuts and more casualties from Iraq. Obama will be a 1 term presidency - you wait and see.
Posted by jimijazz at 11/24/2008 @ 4:11pm
['' In light of the downturn, Mr. Obama is also said to be reconsidering a key campaign pledge: his proposal to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.'']
- - What-The-Hell ????!!!!!!
How many more ''promises'' is he going to break ?? next what, keep NAFTA, stay in Iraq, leave the 'Patriot-Act' alone - - ???????
Posted by Mad As Hell at 11/24/2008 @ 4:11pm
It occurred to me while traveling through the dreamland of near sleep that what could be more efficient about finding out what the crooks did than surrounding yourself with them. It beats subpoenas and hearings. Now if only our man is that cagy. As I said, it was dreamland. Push on!
Posted by rrramos at 11/24/2008 @ 4:26pm
The bush tax cuts for the wealthiest americans are going to be repeales, or let expire. Same difference. Big tax breaks for the weathy obviously don't help, otherwise we would not be in our current situation. We need breaks to the middle and lower class as those are the people who will actually SPEND money. They will spend it as they don't really have the option to sit on it as the weathly can do. More money spent buy the middle and lower classes will result in "trickle up" as the weathy (at least those involved in the economy and not those who are just trust funders)making more money. You can't just give money to the rich and hope they spend it. If you give money to the poor and middle classes they have to spend it. What the economy needs is the movement of money. Sitting in a bank account helps no one, and the poor and middle class are far less likley to just sit on their cash as is the wealthy. The idea that tax cuts for the rich improves the economy has now been proven false. Over the past 7 years the rich have had the biggest tax breaks in recent history and the economy is in the dump.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/24/2008 @ 4:27pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 2:40pm
"The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously"."----wikipedia.org
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 4:29pm
Plus, I might add...
"You have to repeat it over and over again...AND LOUDLY!"
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 4:30pm
I have no idea. However using population figures, I would assume that the number is somewhere around 25-30%.-----Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/24/2008 @ 3:10pm
25-30% of the American population is Christian?!?!?!?!?
What's the other 70%? Jainists?
Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 4:31pm
Posted by Mad As Hell at 11/24/2008 @ 4:11pm
"How many more ''promises'' is he going to break ?? next what, keep NAFTA, stay in Iraq, leave the 'Patriot-Act' alone - - ???????"
What's the matter, can't you take a joke? :-)
And there are people that are actually holding this guy out for black kids to emulate? One thing becomes clear with experience about this rather greasy eel, listen to what he tells you and expect him to do just the opposite. What sludge our political system produces, eh?
Posted by john lowell at 11/24/2008 @ 4:40pm
What's the other 70%? Jainists? Posted by Mask at 11/24/2008 @ 4:31pm
Have you not noticed the spike in dust-mite mask sales?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 5:34pm
Plus, MASK, remember how many people Larry thinks are not REAL Christians. Most.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 5:36pm
TexasFlood,
You said we did what AQ (al-Qaeda) wanted. If so, then al-Qaeda is pretty stupid because it has not worked out for them as they would have liked - a lot of al-Qaeda has been neutralized (i.e., defeated) and their goals have been stopped.
Al Qaeda's Defeat In Iraq Michael J. Totten - 09.19.2008 - 6:12 PM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/ blogs/index.php/totten/31621
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 1:25pm
RIGHT!
Is that why Bin Laden has not been captured, why there are more members of Al Qaeda, than there were when we invaded Afghanistan, and why we're embroiled in not one, but TWO unwinnable wars?
Just as the Afghanis how well the "battle" against Al Qaeda is going.
By the way, your url doesn't work, although I'm sure it's a solid piece of journalism from "commentary magazine" LOL!
Why do you dirty conservatives hate freedom and love terrorists?
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/24/2008 @ 5:51pm
TexasFlood,
Apparently you were not watching NBC in the early morning after the election, when Tom Brokaw, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and the rest were doing the post-election round table analysis where they were practically drooling in glee over the election result.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 1:17pm
LOL!
You got me there. Unlike YOU, I don't feel the need to fill my brain or time with mindless drivel from the likes of Tom Brokaw, or the shills of GE...oops, I mean NBC.
Horrible, I know!
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/24/2008 @ 5:54pm
Crabwalk,
Since not adding up 2+2 caused 2,974 on September 11, 2001, we went into Iraq to make sure we would add up 2+2 and never get anything other than 0 again.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 1:17pm
Right, keep invoking 9/11 you pedantic fucktard. Nothing in this world makes my blood boil more than using a tragedy that affects REAL people to further your own silly and downright evil agenda.
Get your ass over to your local army recruitment center, I've heard they're looking for volunteers.
YOU CAN'T FIGHT AN ENEMY THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
Maybe you should join the military, just to get a taste.
Fucking sickening.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/24/2008 @ 5:58pm
George Bush: Commander In Chief during the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil IN HISTORY.
Why do you hate freedom SJCHERMAK? If you really believe in freedom, by all means, get your ass into some fatigues and show those arabs who's boss!
Until then, shut your damn yap you chickenhawk bitch.
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/24/2008 @ 6:01pm
Get a kick out of these repub "native sons" having such a great time witnessing these "internecine" disagreements the left is having over policy & appointments regarding the incoming administration. Regardless of how positive things go for the general public, it's you sad sacks who'll be bitching all the way. Your guiding lights, the syndicated blowhards, will see to that!
Posted by Sorelish at 11/24/2008 @ 6:10pm
Check out this fact; that Obama and the US Congress will never mention in the MSM, regarding the Military-Industrial-Complex and our apocalyptic financial times
____________________________
Military-industrial complex From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex
A military-industrial complex (MIC) is a concept commonly used to refer to policy relationships between governments, national armed forces, and industrial support they obtain from the commercial sector in political approval for research, development, production, use, and support for military training, weapons, equipment, and facilities within the national defense and security policy. It is a type of iron triangle.
Attempts to conceptualize something similar to a modern "military-industrial complex" existed before Eisenhower's address. In 1956, sociologist C. Wright Mills had claimed in his book The Power Elite that a class of military, business, and political leaders, driven by mutual interests, were the real leaders of the state, and were effectively beyond democratic control.
It is difficult to estimate the degree of dependence of the U.S. economy on its military and defense spending, but it is clearly enormous, and legislators fiercely resist defense cuts that affect their districts. In Washington State, an economist[citation needed] estimated in 2002 that in Western Washington 166,000 jobs, or about 15% of the workforce, depended directly or indirectly on military installations alone, not counting defense industries. In Washington State overall in FY2001, about $7.06 billion arrived in U.S. Department of Defense payroll, pensions, and procurement contracts--and Washington State was only seventh among the fifty states in this regard.
Posted by Philip_Shore at 11/24/2008 @ 6:18pm
I am no longer optimistic about getting the needed changes our country needs, but I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by larry_maguire at 11/24/2008 @ 8:23pm
The CIA.
The World Factbook
United States
Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4% (2007 est.)
76.8%
If we don't count Mormons.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2008 @ 11:05pm
Posted by yutsano at 11/24/2008 @ 12:00am
Inspired!
Posted by winyahn at 11/24/2008 @ 11:07pm
Just Your Friendly Neighborhood President Elect:
I was still rubbing the sleep out of my eyes when I turned on this week's episode of Live from NYC, Sunday Morning Live! It completely astonished when I saw two of the cast, recreating Cliff Robertson's famous death scene and " words to the wise" for young grieving Peter Parker.
The comic difference now being George Bush growing cold and losing blood as he offered counsel to the president elect. The famous words about great power were in effect the same, but spit out a tongue in cheek, hard earned lesson.
"Along with great power comes the responsibility to not be so worried about making a mistake that you forget to do the right thing"... fade to web.
Just wanted you to have a thoughtful chuckle. I enjoyed your recent blog. SPH
Posted by S.Hedlin at 11/25/2008 @ 12:08am
In South Africa, 'liberal' is an insult - from the left. Liberals are seen as do-goddy-goods who are in fact looking after their own interests first. But, as we discovered, liberals allow progressives room to maneuver, which the far-right doesn't. It was the 'liberal' De Klerk who allowed Mandela to be released, and the rest followed. But it only worked because progressive forces were massively organized, had the population on their side, and did not mistake liberalism for true progressive politics.
If American progressives think that they have won because of the Obama victory, then they have truly lost. But if they can use the greater room which a liberal ascension provides, they may achieve something.
Posted by mikecope at 11/25/2008 @ 03:09am
We were trying to achieve a balancing act between defeating Saddam and not antagonizing people over there while doing so.
That may not have been the right way to go, in retrospect, but if we had sent a massive force there you on the left would have been screaming that we were conquerors, dictators, etc..
So that is the one constant here, the left in opposition of George W. Bush no matter what he would have done.
Also, Wolfgang1, we should stay in Iraq until we defeat the enemy. That is what you do when you are fighting a war!!!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/24/2008 @ 1:17pm
We did conquer Iraq and took over. Rumsfeld allowed looting of precious national treasures, not to mention that moron Bremer handed out millions in cash that was completely wasted.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Lying about this infinitely doesn't change the fact that IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 nor did they have WMD.
Once again, exactly what have we won in Iraq? Is AQ gone? Nyet. Is Iraq the thriving democracy in the ME W and company were ranting about?
Since you folks hate Iran so much, why is it that Chimpco (sorry to use your terminology Crab) placed a dominantly Shiite government in charge in Iraq versus a secular government?
Finally, if they didn't want to antagonize people in Iraq, perhaps torturing prisoners wasn't such a grand idea. P.S. There will always be parts of Iraq that want us out....it's their country!!! When will you realize that Iraq is not the U.S. We don't own it, nor do you live there. It's not up to you to decide what kind of government Iraq should have nor tell the people of Iraq who their friends and allies are....or don't you believe in freedom of choice?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/25/2008 @ 04:26am
Yes, KvH, everything Obama is saying and doing is the opposite of what it seems. By the same token, one who has sex against nature with a woman is in effect protecting her virginity or making sure she doesn't get pregnant.
As for the "organized movements", they certainly won't be the product of the phantasmal progressives you talk about. At this stage of cultural and political degradation, not to mention social disintegration, I don't see how one could emerge. Radical thinking and opposition were strong at the time of the Great Depression and that's what Roosevelt feared. Who's going to intimidate Barack ? You scribblers and cruisers? Bill Ayers? Jeremiah Wright?
Posted by WWW at 11/25/2008 @ 04:27am
They don't care about the truth SJ. They come from the liberal Democratic side that says you wait until enough Americans are killed and then you take action.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/24/2008 @ 2:51pm
Actually, parsons, the people who waited to move until enough American soldiers was your messsiah W.
They waited until after the election to promote and start the surge because they were worried about losing more seats in the house and senate. So, allowing more Amrican soldiers to die as well as innocent Iraqi's to try to keep the political edge was more important to the Bush Whitehouse than anything else.
How can you defend an administration the did an end around of the joint chief of staff and the military intelligence along with the CIA and even the state department to a certain degree.
Not only did these idiots botch post invasion Iraq, they tried to diminish the advice and expertise of the very people they claimed to back (the generals and admirals on the ground and in the pentagon).
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/25/2008 @ 04:44am
They don't care about the truth SJ. They come from the liberal Democratic side that says you wait until enough Americans are killed and then you take action.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/24/2008 @ 2:51pm
Another thing I thought I'd point out is you neocons selective bravery (with other peoples' lives of course).
Why is it that a preemptive strike on Iraq is fine and dandy with you. Your arguement for attacking Iraq and Iran is that they could have or might have the future potential of harming the U.S.; thererfore we need to "get them" before they "get us".
Based on that flawed logic, we should attack China, Russia, North Korea, India and a whole host of other nations which yield a much stronger fire power than Iraq had or Iran has...or do you just like to be bulllies and kick the crap out of smaller weaker countries that can't defend themselves?
Also, the most successful attacks on the U.S. have been financial attacks, not military nor terrorist attacks, but financial extortion put upon us by the very wallstreet assholes who are responsible for most of the misery the economy is facing today and our leaders continue to listen to.
On Sept. 11th, a few building were hit and a few thousand people parished in a horrible way. But, to the U.S., it was merely a pin prick and nothing more. How many buildings have we leveled in Iraq and Afghnistan?
Now, contrast what 9/11 did to us, versus the mess the wallstreet idiots have caused as well as W's stupidity of throwing trillions of dollars at Iraq while throwing billions of dollars at his wallstreet bretherend. There's the real war on America, and it's coming from the wealthier Americans (the haves and have mores), not people overseas.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/25/2008 @ 06:45am
why is it that Chimpco (sorry to use your terminology Crab)
===
Is cool. Public domain.
Only 56 more days of ChimpCo.
Then years to undo the damage.
Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2008 @ 07:38am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/24/2008 @ 6:55pm
Just looked into "The Barna Group" and CRABWAK was right...
you have to be the "right kind" of Christian to be counted. ("Grace-based eternal life" believer).
LL just told thouands of Christian soldiers they aren't "real Christians"!
LOL
Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 07:40am
Wolfgang1,
We are just running in circles here.
You on the left have said over and over again Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, I explained that we were preventing another 9/11 by taking out Saddam, but you on the left just come back and state again that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
You proclaim Iraq had no WMD. Over and over again it has been pointed out to you on the left that you are so busy re-writing history that you forget yourselves that most people, including Democrats and Saddam's own generals, believed he had WMD and was a threat. And it has been pointed out over and over again that one of the reasons we did not know the exact situation is because Saddam continually tried to thwart efforts for us to find out. And it has also been explained over and over again that Saddam would have had WMD again and would have been a troublemaker if left in place.
But then you on the left come back and say there was no WMD, and this is some sort of "Bush crime"
So then you say that if pre-emptively attacking Iraq was OK why not take out China, Russia, North Korea, etc also?
You of course breeze past how each of these situations is different and represents a different impact on us and in many of these cases their "fire power" is not something that will be used against us, at least in the manner that Saddams impact on us would have had.
Where your train goes off the tracks is that you then launch into all the stuff how "wallstreet" and "wealthy Americans" are the real threat, and at that point what is happening is that a hard leftist (you) on a leftist website (The Nation) is spouting standard hard leftist stuff.
How you got that way I can not account for, all I know is arguing with you means continually just running around in circles.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2008 @ 10:27am
We're screwed. This clown, who I thought might just HAVE the cajoles for real change and possibly more honor than that nutcase McCain and his attack moose Palin, is backing down, and I hate to say I half-expected it. Only change this dude is looking forward to is his underwear. Staffing his cabinet with ex-Clinton people. And bailout for the consumer and the middle class? Where is the money coming from for all the massive funding? End the war in Iraq? Yeah, right. C'mon, be real. It's coming from the (soon to be extinct) middle class.This guy was bought and sold before the election. You guys should have voted for Ron Paul, THEN there would be REAL change, not just talk about it. As it is, it ain't gonna be pretty. Good luck, folks. We're going to all need it (except the Wall St bankers, the lobbyists, and the politicians, of course). Get used to the idea of two classes emerging, a wealthy upper class and everyone else reduced to, for all purposes, serfdom. Democracy my ass. They've been trying to do away with it for years. At least I have the right to free speech, that hasn't been taken away... yet.
Posted by ucnick at 11/25/2008 @ 11:49am
You of course breeze past how each of these situations is different and represents a different impact on us and in many of these cases their "fire power" is not something that will be used against us, at least in the manner that Saddams impact on us would have had.
SJ, How the hell do you know what a real threat is? Saddam never had the capability to attack the U.S. You are the one going in circles. The fact is that China is more of an economical threat to the U.S. than Iraq ever was as a military threat. Then there is Russia. Both of these countries truly are military and economical threats to the U.S.
I was merely pointing out that the true enemy to the working American people is the elite rich folks in this country and international businessmen as well.
Say what you will, but the wallstreet crash this time and in the 30's was due to greed, ineptitude of the wallstreet guru types, and a government that didn't regulate their business practices.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/25/2008 @ 12:10pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/25/2008 @ 12:10pm
BTW, the Dow going back up on the heels of Obama announcing his economic team.
But I'm sure SJCHER has "another explanation"...
as soon as Rush finishs the "first hour monologue"!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 12:14pm
ucnick,
As far as Wall St bankers, the lobbyists, the politicians, and the wealthy upper class, you do not need to worry.
Those people are not scheming and conniving behind the scenes in a mission to ruin your life. Someday you may wake up and realize that all that you feared never did happen, after all.
But as far as free speech, who knows? If your ideas are too much anti-Obama, it is possible it could get classified as "hate speech" by some on the left, in the same manner that they classify most of what Conservatives say as "hate speech".
And that does get it restricted in places such as college campuses now. For the future, you would have to check with Democrats to see what the Fairness Doctrine, which they hope to bring back, would "allow" or "restrict"
Maybe what you have to do is if you have any complaints about the Obama administration, tie it somehow back to George W. Bush or the "cabal" of "neocon chickenhawks".
In other words, if Barack Obama does someting you do not like, you need to phrase it as "President Obama, as manipulated secretly behind the scenes by Karl Rove in the conspiracy to destroy America conducted by George W. Bush and his cabal of neocon chickenhawks, has done thus and such that I do not approve of, nor do I approve that President Obama was captured and brainwashed by Dick Cheney prior to becoming President so as to conduct this nefarious scheme on the American and world people".
If you phrase it that way, then I think any comment you make critical of Barack Obama would be OK and pass muster and you would not have to worry about losing your free speech.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2008 @ 12:17pm
Posted by sjichermak: "You on the left have said over and over again Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, I explained that we were preventing another 9/11 by taking out Saddam..."
So accordingly, I guess you'd have to agree that because of the invasion and occupation of it's neighbor Iraq, the across border military strikes into Syria, and the implied possible future military actions against it's own sovereign territory -that Iran would be justified in a preemptive attack on the US and Israel before being attacked themselves? And since Iran would be vastly out gunned in such a confrontation wouldn't it be justified to use the "poor man's air force" of car bombs inside the US and Israel at the same time as the that both those countries would be raining down destruction on Tehran?
Posted by Suttree at 11/25/2008 @ 12:17pm
Wolfgang1,
Regarding your last post - lvliberty1 must have known what you would be coming up with because the appropriate reponse to your thought process was posted in ahead of yours!
==================
And that my friend is "liberal/marxist" mindspeak.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 12:04pm
===================
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2008 @ 12:23pm
Suttree,
Typical standard leftist "moral equivalence" on your part - putting Iran in the same category as the U.S. and Israel.
Earth to Suttree - the U.S. and Israel are democracies, where people are free. The U.S. and Israel do not seek to impose their belief system upon others. Neither the President of the U.S. nor the Prime Minister of Israel declare that a nation that is a free democracy and seeks no harm against others should be wiped off of the face of the earth. Neither Israel or the U.S. promotes terror organizations which seek to kill people and do harm to impose their belief system upon others.
Iran, of course, is not a democracy where people are free and Iran does this other stuff. You, of course, do not comprehend this, otherwise you would not be commenting as you do.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2008 @ 12:29pm
And that my friend is "liberal/marxist" mindspeak.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/25/2008 @ 12:04pm
===================
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2008 @ 12:23pm
SJ, Being called a marxist/liberal from people like you and Liverwurst is an honor. You believe you have truth, justice, God (Jesus and the God of Abraham) and of course morality on your side.
With those on your side, you believe killing in the name of the above is just fine and dandy. Forcing a particular monetary system down the throats of people of other nations is your call to war done in the name of spreading democracy which you don't believe in practicing in your own home country.
What you back isn't representation of the people. You back governments controlled by businessmen and thugs...far from a democracy or republic. You believe forcing your religious beliefs upon others will save them if they do as you say, but you don't question whether or not you'll be saved. You know you are right in all cases, all the time.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/25/2008 @ 12:42pm
I'm a new subscriber, but if The Nation and its citizens is just a yammering of the far left, I'm never going to feel at home here.
I don't know what you were expecting. Anyone who has studied politics for the last 30 years knew that Barack wasn't going to govern as far left as he talked, and Hillary wouldn't gave swallowed as much of the right-wing war kool-aid if she weren't fighting to show she was up to being tough on our enemies.
Governing requires pragmatism. Initially just to get and stay elected. And then to get anything accomplished.
So stop running into the street with ashes in your hair, clutching your sack-cloth robes, and screaming hysterically IS THIS THE CHANGE WE WERE WAITING FOR!!!????
Barack Obama is making strong steady moves that show his intellectual rigor and political chops. If you were expecting John Reed, he's not coming.
Posted by HeartSleeve at 11/25/2008 @ 12:54pm
Wolfgang1,
You said: "You believe you have truth, justice, God (Jesus and the God of Abraham) and of course morality on your side. "
My Comment: You left out Sarah Palin.
You said: "You know you are right in all cases, all the time."
My Comment: I know, I know I am. I don't need you to tell me I am right all the time, but hopefully you are beginning to realize it too!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2008 @ 12:56pm
I'm sorry Katrina, I don't drink Kool-Aid and don't plan to start. This guy is just another DLC Rethugnican-Lite and he snookered the people.
What we are getting is the third term of Bill Clinton without Monica and the stained dress. More NeoCon economics from the Blue-Tick coalition combined with a healthy dose of NeoCon economics from the Senator from Wall Street ( New York).
I do not like Obama, didn't vote for him, gave no money to him but didn't wish him ill in the last election. I saw him as the lesser of two evils and the difference fades every day.
I see Shock Doctrine raiding of the entire US economy with Obama & Company signing off on it- not to mention Pelosi & Co.
We need a Progressive/Liberal Party and no Southern Blue Tick inbred Republican wannabes need apply. I'm ready to roll up my sleeves and put my shoulder to the wheel, but refuse one drop of sweat for the Democrats that have sold us out over and over again.
Shortly before election day, despite overwhelming public opposition, the majority of Democrats voted to enable Bush to hand out our money and borrow in our name to bail out Wall Street and the Financial Services Industry. If that wasn't a big eff you I do not know what would be. Obama signed off on it.
That was the straw that broke the Camel's back. Enjoy your term Jimmy Obama/Barack Carter or whatever . Another Democratic one term wonder snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Posted by NoPCZone at 11/25/2008 @ 1:03pm
James A. Swanson, Los Altos, CA www.bushleagueofnations.com [For FREE download of entire book]
I love this perspective by Katrina vanden Heuval--Obama is centrist because centrism now means energy independence, green jobs, universal health care, etc.
In other words, the American people once again have wisely shifted the center to the left. At least I hope so.
Other such shifts to the left over the long haul include ending slavery, ending American apartheid, voting rights for women, and interracial marriage.
But, back to the present, electing Obama was the easy part. The really hard work for progressive activists begins today, and again tomorrow, and again every day thereafter.
We must stay vigilant, take names, kick butt, and never give up. Let's redouble our efforts.
The Military Industrial Complex, Big Media, Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Pharma--the list goes on--and their lobbyists have not left town.
Time will tell if Obama has the will to withstand their toxic influence.
The important question is whether "our guys" in Congress--the "good guys"--will tenaciously fight for legislation that is truly transforming and progressive.
True progressive transformation of America must be driven from the grassroots up, not from the top down by business-as-usual career politicians.
We thus trust our Democratic leaders at our peril.
We must keep our friends close, our enemy closer, and our Democratic representatives closest.
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA www.bushleagueofnations.com
Posted by jswanson at 11/25/2008 @ 1:06pm
"At least I have the right to free speech, that hasn't been taken away... yet."
Posted by ucnick at 11/25/2008 @ 11:49am
YOU! Back into your "free speech zone"!
We can't have you just walking around spouting the truth now, can we?
Posted by Malcontent at 11/25/2008 @ 1:17pm
"How you got that way I can not account for, all I know is arguing with you means continually just running around in circles."
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2008 @ 10:27am
Reposted for irony only.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/25/2008 @ 1:17pm
Jim Swanson,
You said "We must stay vigilant, take names, kick butt, and never give up. Let's redouble our efforts. "
Take names?
1. Whose names?
2. For what purpose?
3. What will you do with these names, once they are taken?
Please enlighten us, about what the objective is here.
Sounds a bit scary to me. Sounds like you on the left, who always fantisize that there is a "police state" when a Republican is president, may be planning some kind of "police state" of your own! With super-moral libs in charge of doling out "punishment", for crimes that libs believe have been committed, thus those accused of crimes are automatically guilty, because libs say so!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2008 @ 1:19pm
" He is a cautious leader at a time when, to paraphrase New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, caution is the new risky. The great traumas of our day do not allow for cautious steps or responses."
and ... Change is the new redundancy the same and war is the new peace I could go on , but how many words do you need to say the same thing
and then there is this ... "This is in the interest of the Democratic Party--which rode the wave of a new coalition of African Americans, Latinos, young people, women, etc--but they have been beaten down by conservative attacks and the natural impulse will be caution and hiding behind desks." reads when the Democrats ate their own without any help from the conservatives
3. Progressives need to stick up especially forcefully for the most vulnerable parts of the coalition--poor people, immigrants, etc--those who got almost no mention during the election and will be most likely to be left off the bus.
This is hilarious.. the "progressives" are far too busy looking down on them while demanding their services to stick up for them
FAKE IS THE NEW REAL is a song by Alice Smith grammy nominated artist
Posted by Swannie at 11/25/2008 @ 1:23pm
I have been confused about why people don't understand the "change" that Obama is bringing about. The change is away from the horrors of the last 8 years. We forget, that with all their faults, the Clintons brought pragmatism and intelligence to their governance. How much progressivism can Obama bring to government other than what he has said he would do? Environment, health care, education, help the middle class. All of this is change from the know-nothingness and cronyism of the Bushies. Let alone having a president who can think, understand and articulate American values "for a change".
The massive spending program represents no more or less than the "stimulus" program of World War II without the fighting. That did work and I think this will too. Sure, some of these economic appointees represent too much of Wall Street, but they are smart and experienced and Obama will set the agenda. Let's see what happens before we continue to dump on him.
Posted by dsprung at 11/25/2008 @ 1:31pm
Well said, "dsprung."
I thought I was about as liberal as it gets, and I'm at a total loss for figuring out how far left is left enough for this crowd.
It IS about changing the way government has been run (or run into the ground) over the last eight years. It isn't about anarchy. That was never the change Barack Obama was promising.
Posted by HeartSleeve at 11/25/2008 @ 1:45pm
dsprung,
We are really getting away from reality here.
You made a comment, in apparent reference to Barack Obama - "Let alone having a president who can think, understand and articulate American values "for a change". "
The person who DOES fit that description, although not at the top spot on the ticket, was mocked and ridiculed by you on the Left, and blamed by Republicans (not Conservative Republicans, just non-Conservative Republicans) for McCain's loss.
Governor Palin is the only one of the four candidates in play in either party for President or Vice President this year.
The break from reality occurs when you are applying your description to Barack Obama, and not Sarah Palin.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2008 @ 2:26pm
Typo,
I meant to say "Governor Palin is the only one of the four candidates in play in either party for President or Vice President this year, who could really think, understand and articulate American values."
So relax Mask, save your commentary for another time (because I know something would have been coming had I not made the typo correction, and it probably will still be coming anyway)
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2008 @ 2:29pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2008 @ 2:26pm
I don't need to go after typos, SJCHER....the stuff you spell correctly is enough.
Palin represented "American values"? Where?
Do most Americans support the idea of man-made global warming? Did Palin?
Do most Americans support the US invasion of Iraq? Did Palin?
Do most Americans oppose ANY abortion rights? Does Palin?
Are most Americans supportive of telling their teenage daughters that "abstinence only" is the way to go...unless you really, really, really like the guy and are going to get married because you're pregnant at 17?
Did most Americans believe Obama was "palling around with terrorists"?
Posted by Mask at 11/25/2008 @ 2:47pm
Great Article, Katrina! The truth is that Obama is going to get done the things that many progressives want: clean energy, working to solve climate change, govt. working for the middle class, getting out of Iraq, and I believe he will get health care done also. Will it all be "perfect"? No. But it will get done and thank God we are finally on the right track & moving in the right direction again! Give the guy a chance, have some faith, and work like crazy to get these important legislation passed! WE are the change--let's get it done!
Posted by mkarnold at 11/25/2008 @ 2:51pm
As one whose political bent was inherited from a union member and developed under the auspices of the New Left of the 1960's, I based my primary vote for Obama on the pragmatic basis that Kucinich had already been marginalized. My vote for him in the general election was based on the equally pragmatic lesson learned when I was 20 and ineligible to support HHH as the lesser of two major-party evils (and, in fact, an ADA progressive)--the lesson that defeating Republicans is usually of more importance than the statement made by supporting a more appealing third-party candidate. I had no illusions that Obama was anything more appealing than a mere centrist. I felt the same about Biden--more so in reflection upon his sellout to M.oral B.ankruptcy of N.orth A.merica. Until and unless we take Ralph Nader's advice and institute Instant Runoff Voting, I will not indulge my conscience in the effective discarding of my ballot.
That said, I agree that the left must become more united and vocal in keeping and increasing the pressure on those we elect as an alternative to cutting off our collective nose.
Posted by gamphd at 11/25/2008 @ 3:09pm
Mask,
You asked "Are most Americans supportive of telling their teenage daughters that "abstinence only" is the way to go...unless you really, really, really like the guy and are going to get married because you're pregnant at 17? "
So if I understand your post correctly, and no reason not to doubt your words, you are claiming that Sarah Palin actually TOLD her daughter to abstain but also then TOLD her daughter it was OK if she liked the guy.
That is what you statement says - that Sarah Palin directed her daughter beforehand to abstain but if she liked the guy it would be OK if she (her daughter), did not.
So, I assume you were in the room while Gov. Palin was talking to her daughter, or have a quote from someone who was.
And that the citation could be verified by asking Sarah Palin herself if she said that with the answer from Sarah Palin of yes, confirming that what you say happened actually did happen.
Certainly you would not make a statement unless you could back it up. You never do that, I know.
So go ahead now and back it up. Were you part of the conversation with Sarah Palin and her daughter?
If not, who was? Where is their direct quote, from them and not you, saying this?
Where is Sarah Palin's admission that this happened? (Direct citation, with the exact words and date and time and media by which she confirmed this)
Information, please.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2008 @ 4:26pm
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2008 @ 4:26pm
That's it.
Ignore the real questions and dissect the sarcasm.
Posted by Malcontent at 11/25/2008 @ 6:41pm
Hey Malcontent,
Ignore the real questions?
That's what you and Mask and the other libs do all the time!
Posted by sjchermak at 11/25/2008 @ 7:38pm
have you guys heard that obama wants to cut the subsidies to big farmers?
it's so great it's unbelievable, but he should have offered subsidies to small farmers at the same time right there in front of the media.
write your congressman to ask for a fraction of the to-be-gone subsidies to be redirected to help small farmers, and write obama too.
just say that he needs to reassure rural people that he is on their side and that he wants to protect their communities and real farming.
PS. it works ! summers did not become treasury secretary, brennan won't be cia director. let's keep the public pressure and the loud whining.
Posted by erplus at 11/25/2008 @ 8:11pm
You poor left wingers (progressives)? You thought he was the Messiah and he turned out to be a politician. You know why? Because they crucify Messiahs but they elect and re-elect politicians.
Posted by jean22 at 11/25/2008 @ 9:27pm
The Democrats want to make rich people richer and the Republicans want to make rich people richer. They just want to make different rich people richer. I worked for the Obama team because I wanted to elect a black person president. I was tired of seeing black people screwed over. I had no illusions that Obama was a progressive. Obama is all about Obama just like Bill Clinton was all about Clinton. Obama was a better choice than McCain to me, but definitely not someone I want running the USA. I will now leave the democratic party and get back to more progressive organizations where I belong. Remember Obama was all about war and killing. Just like the Dems want to make different rich people richer, Obama wants to kill and have war, just kill different people. Obama wants to kill and war in Afghanistan and not Iraq. Obama was not an anti war candidate. He was a pro war candidate- a pro Afghan war candidate. The more things change the more they stay the same. Can the president elect be impeached?
Posted by stg063060 at 11/26/2008 @ 08:16am
stg063060,
No point in thinking of impeaching the President-elect, you would be wasting energy and effort.
I personally, up to about a couple years ago, thought for sure that Condoleeza Rice would be the next President of the U.S. I thought this until, when the other candidates began what is now a 2-year long election campaign, she did not do so. It was obvious at that point she was not going to try for the job.
I have no real idea why not, but my theory is that Ms. Rice saw her boss, President Bush, being crucified each day, and knew that she would as President face daily crucification also, being a Republican and being not only in agreement with much of the Bush policy but the architect of much of the Bush policy.
She may have thought, the heck with this, no job is worth this.
As I say, I don't really know but that is my theory and it makes sense.
You say you are tired of seeing black people screwed over. So was President Bush. You imply you are tired of war. So was President Bush.
The George W. Bush administration has employed more people of color at high levels (and employed on their merit and not just tokens for skin color) than any previous administration.
The Bush administration is trying to defeat our enemies so that someday there will be no more war.
The party you voted for promotes policy that keeps some people of color enslaved to the welfare state, and who casts itself as "anti-war" while promoting policy that will not defeat enemies that want to kill us, impose their will on us and deny people freedom, thus ensuring war will continue unless we just capitulate and surrender.
If you want to stop black people being screwed over and stop war, vote for the opposite of the way you have been voting, in the next election.
Posted by sjchermak at 11/26/2008 @ 12:58pm
I couldn't agree more, Katrina, with every point you made.
More often than not, people tend to hear what they want to hear. Anyone who really listened to Obama would have heard that he knows perfectly well that he cannot do what must be done alone or even with his full cabinet and staff in place. He needs his supporters to stand with him and not forget for a moment what serious trouble our nation is currently in and that it is likely to get worse before it gets better and that would have been the case no matter who was elected.
At the very least, with Obama, the very discredited "trickle-down" theory of economics (voodoo economics) will not be policy in this White House.
The most important thing to remember about Obama is that he was a community organizer, an activist and advocate for people who need advocacy. It would be a shame to watch his huge network of supporters fall apart now, even though I imagine that people supported him for many different reasons and he isn't going to make us all happy with everything he does.
With an Obama administration holding executive power, my advice to all of us, myself included, is organize, organize, organize; locally, state and at the federal level, to support our president. After all, it's only our country at stake.
Posted by msinjohn at 11/27/2008 @ 09:21am
let's call for ralph nader to head the environmental protection agency *and* the federal trade commission!
Posted by erplus at 11/28/2008 @ 11:05am