I am so utterly sick of this Third Way shit.

[MannyGoldstein]

I come home from a tough day at work, and I get to read how I'm being free-traded by Obama and Halliburton - in secret, of course:

Obama Trade Document Leaked, Revealing New Corporate Powers And Broken Campaign Promises

In late May, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chair of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, introduced new legislation that would require the White House to share trade documents with all members of Congress and their qualified staff. The move was largely a symbolic act of protest against the secrecy the White House has imposed on a new trade deal, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The agency responsible for trade negotiations -- the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative -- had denied Wyden office access to any of the draft documents involved in the trade pact, offering an unusual legal argument that only a handful of members of Congress were permitted to view them. After Wyden introduced his legislation, however, USTR partially relented, allowing Wyden to see the documents, but not his staff.

"I would point out how insulting it is for them to argue that members of Congress are to personally go over to USTR to view the trade documents," Hoelzer said. "An advisor at Halliburton or the MPAA is given a password that allows him or her to go on the USTR website and view the TPP agreement anytime he or she wants."

The general public and most nonprofit organizations have no access to the documents, although a number of corporate officials can see them.

Obama's been a tragic disappointment, but I desperately want to vote for him if only to keep the Trust Fund Bully out of the White House. But, each day, I feel like I'm rooting to be smashed with a hammer instead of being thrown in a wood chipper.

This sucks.

[tridim]

1. Congratulations, you found the loophole.

I'm voting for Obama because he's a fucking fantastic President who deserves re-election.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Poverty, homelessness and hunger are growing daily

And the only economic bills Obama gets through are austerity, free trade, and big bucks for bankers.

That ain't what I'd consider a success. But you're entitled to see those as positive attributes, I guess.

[FarLeftFist]

6. Ever heard of Congress??

[MannyGoldstein]

8. The Congress that rejected the three Bush "free" trade agreements

that Bush signed, because Democrats shut them down - but then voted to pass the same bills once Obama became their Cheerleader-in-Chief?

That Congress?

Yes I have. What of it?

[ProSense]

10. Maybe

The Congress that rejected the three Bush "free" trade agreements

that Bush signed, because Democrats shut them down - but then voted to pass the same bills once Obama became their Cheerleader-in-Chief?

...we could bring Bush back. That would make HuffPo, Burr, and Issa happy!

USTR's refusal to share documents with congressional staffers has also raised the hackles of Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who agreed to co-sponsor Wyden's bill after his own staffer was turned away.

<...>

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has been more aggressive, leaking the entire text of the draft intellectual property chapter to the public on his website. Although the document had previously been available over the internet through legally dubious channels, Issa's posting was viewed as a political shot across the bow.

Public health experts and internet freedom advocates have bemoaned both the secretive negotiation process and the actual terms of the trade pact, which they claim threaten to drive up global medicine prices and curb online innovation.

Wyden and Issa are widely viewed as Capitol Hill allies of the tech community as a result of their efforts to block the Stop Online Piracy Act and its Senate partner, the Protect IP Act. The administration's refusal to share Trans-Pacific documents with Wyden for months sparked concern that Obama was selectively freezing out critics of the deal from the talks.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. I totally

...we could bring Bush back. That would make HuffPo, Burr, and Issa happy!

...fail to see what that has to do with anything.

[ProSense]

18. Suggestion:

I totally

...we could bring Bush back. That would make HuffPo, Burr, and Issa happy!

...fail to see what that has to do with anything.

Ask Issa. He's searching for gullibles!

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Now THAT was funny!

You got me this time!

[sabrina 1]

346. He found plenty of them when he introduced his bill to defend ACORN

So yes, there are lots of 'gullibles' in Congress, which is why we must do our job and make sure they know how the people feel about important issues like, otherwise they could end up being influenced by Republicans on policies.

[rhett o rick]

42. It's: "I accept the 20 lashes because it is sooo much better than 40. Thank you master." nm

[ProSense]

102. No, it's: I'm not gullible to RW bullshit tactics. n/t

[rhett o rick]

188. When I say I dont like our government's free-trade agreements,

and the response is "would you rather have George Bush back". That response is clearly, "I should be happy because it could be worse". That is not an argument and it has nothing to do with the RW.

The fact that I dont like my government's actions related to free-trade, the Patriot Act, domestic spying, drone killing, indefinite detentions, does not mean I am not a Democrat nor does it mean that I wont support Pres Obama for another term in office as some here want to believe to justify their vitriol (present company excepted).

I will support Pres Obama 100% but wont guarantee that I will agree with him 100%. And to ask otherwise is not very Democratic.

[Jakes Progress]

327. Now rick.

If you are going to go and be all logical and honest, why do you bother to post here?

[JDPriestly]

222. Then there are a couple of DUers who appear to be Obama-shills.

You can tell a right-wing shill because they never deviate from the party line, even when the party line is hard to defend -- like some fascist act like allowing corporations to have access to "secret" government information about international negotiations but denying that access to the representatives of the people who are part of the people's government.

Same for Obama-shills. They never deviate from the party line, and they always, always, recite the party line -- in perfect talking points -- even when the party line, such as the defense of giving corporations access to information that the people's representatives are not allowed to have -- is reprehensible and incompatible with even a facade of democracy.

It's as if the shills' posts were written for them by some professional or maybe even some public relations group.

And nary a word of doubt. They have an answer for everything.

Somehow, you would expect that if the shills were actually ordinary citizen DUers, they would disagree with the party line just once in a blue moon. And what is more, they would express opinions about things other than those that concern Obama and the party line -- like the latest gossip scandal.

I put one of these shills on Ignore/Do Not Disturb for a while but then I decided I would do other DUers a favor if I read his/her posts and responded. But sometimes it is very hard to respond without pointing out to other DUers just what the shill is doing and what he/she is. Very hard.

What do other DUers think should be the response to obvious shills, Democratic or Republican? Should we put them on ignore or ?????? It's easier to spot the Republican trolls. What about the Democratic shills?

[Scootaloo]

230. And what about dipshits who will fall over themselves to launch hate at Obama?

Because, if you read the article instead of just the title, you will find that the problem isn't with Barack Obama, it's with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. While this office does act as adviser to the president, they are not one and the same; and the president is actually the good guy here, in opening up transparency on what's going on in the USTR.

Look buddy. I know you're still butthurt that Ron Paul or Vermin Supreme or whoever your too-hip-for-you candidate was didn't win the election in 2008. I'm understanding of the fact that when you see the president, your first instinct is to think "that boy better get my order right, or no tip!" I even understand that despite spending time on a site called "DemocraticUnderground," your main interest seems to be in making sure to spread bullshit against democrats - which I'm certain will go far towards you getting whatever the hell it is you want (which you have thus far failed to express)

But I think maybe it's time you either jump those hurdles, or get off the track. 'Cause you're not going to make the team if your entire focus is on reading bullshit titles from the Woo-woo section of the internet and screeching about how godawful Obama is.

[They_Live]

234. Your post is way off and

offensive. Alerted.

[dionysus]

261. Sid you shill...

[They_Live]

263. bout the same

as your smug. I guess.

[Scootaloo]

245. I'm happy for you

I notice that it seems to be whenever someone points out how absolutely ridiculous the raging, senseless Obama-hate gets around here, folks like to run out and wave their arms about how "offensive" it is to have that pointed out. They're especially quick on the draw when facts that counter the original nonsense are brought out.

Why, it reminds me of how people respond when you point out their joke about two 'chinamen' walking into a bar is racist; Apparently, you noticing their lack of goddamned common sense is vastly more offensive than their display of that lack.

[They_Live]

262. Absolutley GODDAMN DIPSHIT

right. I will vote D and ask no questions. Why even bother reading about ANYTHING.

[Scootaloo]

266. And here comes the hyperbolic pants-wetting

Yes. I'm telling you to never ask questions, Mr. beck. I'm terrible, aren't I, demanding you blindly vote without a peep. I love that you ascertain my motives simply from seeing me call out someone who is demonstrably telling bullshit tales about Barack Obama and making the old "THEY'RE ALL THE SAME OMGWTFBBQ!" argument that has served the progressive cause so well in the past (assuming the 'progressive cause' is to get more far-right lunatics elected which I'm starting to think may be the case)

Very astute, Mr. Beck. You may now go back to "just asking" your questions now. I won't scribble fact-checks on your chalkboard anymore.

[They_Live]

281. I really have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here.

Last edited Thu Jun 14, 2012, 07:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Are you just trying to insult everyone? You are succeeding in that. You are condescending, belligerent, and interested in accelerating provocation. Your attitude absolutely shows that you have little in common with me, even though, in theory, we are on the same "side".

I know we're complete strangers in cyberspace, but is it really that difficult to have a little common respect?

I didn't come out of the gate calling you Professor Poopypants, Shit-Eater, Dick Nose, or FuckFace. YOU did. Even worse, you compared me to Glenn Beck. That. Is. Not. Acceptable.

[kurtzapril4]

285. Excellent!

You are correct, sir!

[Scootaloo]

294. I'm sure we have little in common

For instance, I don't rush to the defense of people posting bullshit, nonsense, fabrications, misinformation, and - well - lies. In fact I rather do the opposite. I understand that among the extensive Obama-hating community here on DU, this goes against standard etiquette - I'm supposed to never challenge or call you guys out when you start your wild-eyed gyrations about what absolute utter shit the man is - but I've never been really good at respecting 'peculiar institutions' such as that.

if I wanted to see someone setting a torch to Obama and all democrats on principle, as JDPriestly did and as you are defending then I would go to right-wing sites, where I can get it in undiluted form. I don't come to DU to see people hawking lugies all over anyone who votes Democratic, much less on the basis of a misleading headline from a fucking woo-woo website like Huffpo.

You don't like it when you or others in the Obama-Basher subculture here on DU get called out on your nonsense? Then I'll tell you what; don't engage in nonsense. There's legitimate shit to criticize. Hell, fill up a dozen posts on that drone bullshit he's pulling, I'm with you. Clutch your head and rant about our new best-friends-again down in Colombia; right on! But you don't need to freak the fuck out when some tabloid rag that's been hating his ass since before the primaries gives you a misleading title with his name in it, kay?

[They_Live]

300. I'm not sure I understand where you draw the line

between Obama Hating and questioning his motives and actions, as well as how he has misrepresented himself to those of us who have voted for him. I guess I never got the meme that Huff Post = bad. Sorry about that. You are apparently familiar with the list of top Obama disappointments, though. And you do seem to agree with some of it, just as I do, but somehow you've placed yourself in a different class than me. Curious, that. Maybe you can let me know which subjects are approved for our mutual criticism of the President of the United States and which ones are not approved, and would automatically make me a Obama-Basher (or is it hater?). I guess I'm getting confused again. Anyways, yeah, just let me know. Because I sure don't don't want to step on any toes.

Oh, concerning the primaries, he's seems to be the ahead.

[Scootaloo]

321. Huffpo is kind of the online lefty version of the National Enquirer

The occasional actual news story can be found in there... right next to page five gossip, celebrity wedding fashions, and love advice from Deepak Chopra (who will also be doing horoscopes this week!) It's not a publication that impresses me, except insomuch that i'm impressed people will accept it around here and not, say, prisonplanet, when the difference is a matter of spin.

Questioning motives is one thing. But when "I'm just asking questions" becomes a cover for "THAT FUCKING FUCKER OBAMA IS SUCH A FUCKING SHIT-FUCKER THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING THE FUCK ON AND ALL DEMOCRATS ARE SHILLS FOR SUPPORTING THAT FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT FUCKER AAAAAAAARRRRGHHH!" as was the case for JDPriestly - among many, many others - then I have my doubts over how much of your criticism is policy-based... much less lucid and free of intravenous dayquil.

[They_Live]

302. ...and another thing

could you be more specific about the "bullshit, nonsense, fabrications, misinformation, and - well - lies" of this particular story?

[They_Live]

291. oK.... as far as those points you made,

they're good, but we still don't have a candidate progressive ENOUGH to undo the massive shitstorm of a knotted mess that the Bush/Cheney folks left us with. That flurry of terrible legislation has set our country back 50 years (except for the tax rate for the wealthy), and we really needed someone to start unknotting it or cutting the knot at least. I don't see that happening. With both the Dems and Repugs on the side of MONEY, we aren't going to see any Progress until MONEY is no longer part of the equation. Many of us Dems don't see much of a choice, except between getting the thumbscrews, or a hot poker in the eyeball. Not much of a choice. And when a man no longer has a choice, he ceases to be a man.

[Scootaloo]

305. Now we can attempt a conversation

You're right. Obama isn't really "good enough." He's not as progressive as you'd like; he's certainly not the hard leftist I'd like. But it's honestly time to face reality.

That is; tough shit. Look, neither of us are going to get our personal supercandidate, and we're damned sure not going to see such a person appear between now and November. Unfortunately that's just the way reality works. Can't please everyone. But I'll tell you something, and I want your fellow progressives to listen up.

I understand that Obama's not "good enough." But he is good. Look at our past thirty-two years of presidents. That's a third of a century we're looking at, and what do we see? We see thirty years of republican policy dominating everything, don't we? Reagan for eight years, Spook Bush for four, Bill "I signed NAFTA and welfare reform!" Clinton for eight, AWOL Bush for another eight. We are living in that legacy.

No, Obama is not my dream president just as he's not yours. But he's a damned sight better than what's come before, and most definitely better than option B. I look at him as a toehold for our goals and principles; he's not likely to take us there himself, but he can extend our reach by that much.

You had to have Teddy before we could get Franklin, basically.

[They_Live]

322. Oh..

Agreed. You used the word "progressive" first, so I thought that I might use it in a sentence. I'm pretty hard left actually. I like nature and the ability for humans to live with nature. They're are very few ideal candidates for me. At any level. Good summation of presidential history, but I need more results from him besides pressing the pause button every now and then on the tape player blasting out hellfire and damnation.

[Scootaloo]

330. Or you'll what?

Again, reality check. I know that people who grouch and rumble about how awful Obama is really don't like being reminded that everyone else out there really is worse. But... that's the fact of our current reality. "Substandard" is at least a few grades better than "completely defective and dangerous," y'dig?

By all means, keep up pressure to push him to the left. The further we can get him to go in the next four years, the better our chances of a much-improved selection in 2016. But bitching and kicking and declaring "I'll let the Republicans win to teach the Democrats a lesson!" as some have done in the past... isn't going to help.

Like I said. Obama's probably not going to take us all the way to the finish line. I for one had no expectations that he would - your mileage may vary. However he'll at least get the baton yea far down the track towards that finish line. I would be happy as hell if he did accomplish the finish line - I'd expect him to change his middle name to Usain, if so - but in the meantime I'm willing to accept that he's at least making a better go of this project than any of the previous guys did.

[sabrina 1]

320. So the president has no power is what you're saying?

He has no influence at all over policies that will, whether or not you disagree, reflect on his administration?

Where are you seeing 'Obama-hate? I see 'policy disagreement'. Does Obama agree, not agree with what is in the OP? You are defending him, so you must know. And if he has not yet decided then what objection do you have to having hear how the people feel about these policies so that WE the PEOPLE get to influence him before the Corporate lobbyists descend upon the WH.

What you seem to be objecting to is the Democratic process where when the people hear about policies that will be harmful to them, they speak out before those policies go into effect.

Obama is a tough guy, I supported him, for Senate and for POTUS, I think told us to let him know when he was not on the right track and he seemed to mean it, understanding the bubble he would be in once he got to DC.

Helping avoid making a decisions that would be so bad for this country seems to me is not Obama hate at all. To remain silent and let the Corps influence him, looks more like that to me.

[Scootaloo]

325. You can see what I'm saying, in my post

I state it rather plainly. Maybe try reading it, instead of attempting this huffy, passive-aggressive stuff that you filled that poor text box with before hitting "post my reply!" Seriously, it's all right there.

matter of fact, since I guess you might need your hand held, here's what I said;

Because, if you read the article instead of just the title, you will find that the problem isn't with Barack Obama, it's with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. While this office does act as adviser to the president, they are not one and the same; and the president is actually the good guy here, in opening up transparency on what's going on in the USTR.

Am I saying he has no power? No, I'm not. However, he certainly isn't omniscient, and I'm sure - I'm also sure that you're sure - that a lot of stuff goes on without his direct approval.Can you imagine the bureaucratic nightmare of trying to get the president to personally sign off on everything

I'm saying that the spitting and the outrage is misplaced. What he's done is opened up the curtains so that you can look at what's going on and do exactly what you're talking about - "I think told us to let him know when he was not on the right track and he seemed to mean it, understanding the bubble he would be in once he got to DC. "

This is different from what I was responding two from JDPriestly, and which That_Guy chose to defend - raving, wild-eyed denigration outside a basis of reality not just of Obama, but also anyone who still supports the guy.

That is, he was calling YOU a shill and saying you should be shunned from DU owing to your continued support for Obama.

[sabrina 1]

375. Thank you, I've never seen an uglier post.

Last edited Fri Jun 15, 2012, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

[Blue_In_AK]

274. Somewhat proving JD's point, I would say. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

297. And who does the USTR report to?

Or are they a non-government agency?

[Bobbie Jo]

368. +1000

[They_Live]

233. Thank You.

spot on.

[dionysus]

260. ...typed a Smoove Johnny-shill, with a straight face...

[tpsbmam]

264. JDP, I truly wish I could recommend this reply

It's incredibly on point and very, very well said!

[SammyWinstonJack]

267. +1000!

[woo me with science]

307. Yep. Yet we're not supposed to mention the obvious...

It is unfathomable that advertisers would not be expected to identify themselves as such...unless you accept that the site prefers it that way.

[quinnox]

318. yep, bullseye. What I do is usually ignore them

figuratively. They are so boring, its always the same thing, like a broken record. THey never have anything interesting to say, its always empty headed cheerleading.

[JDPriestly]

435. It isn't so much that I disagree with them but that, as you explain, their posts

are terribly boring and detract from the value of DU on the whole.

I think some DUers thought I was criticizing those who say positive things about Obama, but I think you understand that I really am talking about one or two people who post here and who appear to post public relations items rather than real contributions to our thought and discussion.

[proud2BlibKansan]

329. +1

[rhett o rick]

360. Looks like you incurred the longest swarm yet. But tread lightly. The Neighborhood Watch

has their eyes on you.

[Poll_Blind]

412. +1

Interesting question, indeed!

PB

[Skittles]

80. OH COME ON, MANNY!!!

you HAVE to be used to it by now, being accused of secretly wanting DUBYA TO RETURN every time you point out the truth about Obama!!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

93. Not entirely true.

Sometimes I want Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney to win. And sometimes I'm a PUMA - see the fun down thread.

Quite a shape-shifter, I am.

[progressoid]

104. You're just mad cause you didn't get your pony.

Lighten up Francis.

[MannyGoldstein]

110. LOL

Well done!

[Skittles]

450. HEHE

[ProSense]

100. Actually

you HAVE to be used to it by now, being accused of secretly wanting DUBYA TO RETURN every time you point out the truth about Obama!!!!

...some people do want that (or similar, specifically the leaker) http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002806854

[Jakes Progress]

356. Really? All sense of honest discussion out the window

just because it is election season? No bottom to your bucket?

[kenfrequed]

254. False choice

It was a false-choice based argument. And not a very good one.

[FarLeftFist]

12. No not that one, the Tea Party one that is obstructing everything and took America hostage.

You were asking why others bills can't pass, so I figured I'd give a quick civics lesson about why bills aren't being passed and progress isn't being done.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. So you don't want to talk about the one

whose Democrats turned on a dime when Obama started shilling for Bush's "free" trade agreements?

[FarLeftFist]

23. Why, it only advances RW causes and fuels the fire for discouraging voter turnout for Obama.

After all, this IS a public forum & threads like this seem counter-productive to advancing our goal of getting Obama re-elected and stopping us from becoming a RW Fascist-Theocracy. Maybe channel that frustration into something positive i.e. Electing progressives, voter registration drives, canvassing, donating time/energy, feeding the homeless, etc.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. What if... Obama just stopped doing this awful shit

so you wouldn't have to fear speaking openly about what he's done?

[FarLeftFist]

25. I'm not the one in fear, I'm the one voting for him.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Seems like I misread your post then.

I must need some sleep.

[MrMickeysMom]

28. Now...

THAT is hope I can believe in...

We are (wink) promised that he wouldn't do this awful shit anymore, after he's re-elected, and meanwhile, we have this more awful Romney shit that somehow is polling well.

Yes, we got a lot of shit in the pot here.

[bvar22]

304. Absolutely nailed it, Manny!

[font size=5]"What if Obama just stopped doing this awful shit so you wouldn't have to fear speaking openly about what he's done?"[/font]





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[woo me with science]

416. "WHAT IF...OBAMA JUST STOPPED DOING THIS AWFUL SHIT

SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO FEAR SPEAKING OPENLY ABOUT WHAT HE'S DONE? "

[truedelphi]

441. I, for one, would be quite happy to be all "forward"

And into forgiveness and shit if HE JUST FUCKI*NG STOPPED IT!!

His main guy, Rahm Emanuel is in Chicago right now saying it is time to de-criminalize marijuana. Maybe Rahm wasn't as bad as I believed him to be. Maybe Obama wouldn't have gone after the Marijuana clinics here in Calif. if Rahm was still around.

All I really know is the guy who campaigned in Oct 2008, using Edwards and Kucinich talking points, is not the guy in the WH.

And I love your wood chipper hammer smash analogy. I dn';t jsut love it - I feel it.

If you think it is bad now, just wait till the Trans Pacific trade Agreement takes effect, and we can all be put into Chinese run jails for the second our credit card debt receives a bad rating, with Chinese overseers, and the opportunity to provide some One Percenter a free organ of their choosing without their having to travel to Bejing.

[NCTraveler]

200. The RW causes being advanced were/are the Free Trade Agreements.

That is what lurches the country to the right. Not Manny on DU.

[JDPriestly]

228. Isn't it Hillary's State Department that does the nitty-gritty negotiations

on trade agreements? Aren't the Clintons a lot of the rightward drag on Obama's administration?

[NCTraveler]

243. I don't think Obama is left of the Clinton's. I also don't view the Clinton's themselves as being left

at all. So no, I don't think they drag the Obama administration to the right. How can they drag Obama to the right when they are two peas in a pod.

Do you think Hillary's negotiations are in opposition to what Obama wants?

[frylock]

204. why trouble your beautiful mind?

[sendero]

140. As soon as I see Democrats actually fighting ..

... the tea party assholes, I'll buy into your story.

In the meantime, we've all been "Third Way-ed", sold into a New Democrat paradigm that is nothing but Old Republican.

Not that I give a shit really, anyone paying any attention whatsoever can see that our entire political system has been hijacked, and it really doesn't matter a whole helluva lot who is in office - the same bullshit is going to continue until it can't.

Propping up the rich at the expense of he poor and middle class. Pointless wars and military police actions. Gutting of the Constitution. Put them all on your calendar, they're what's for dinner for a long time.

[truedelphi]

442. Thank you. I agree with your logical statements. n/t

[JDPriestly]

227. Again, if Congress is the problem,

why has Obama used his veto only twice?

[woo me with science]

244. *crickets*

Failure to see reality at this point is a willful act.

[JDPriestly]

277. I remember the Truman and Johnson administrations.

Franklin D. Roosevelt used his veto (pocket and regular) 635 times. He was president for 2 and more than 1/2 terms.

Harry Truman used his veto (pocket and regular) 250 times in a little over eight years.

Johnson used his veto (pocket and regular) 30 times in close to six years.

Obama has used his veto only twice in 3 1/2 years.

Ronald Reagan used it 78 times in 8 years.

GWB used it 12 times in 8 years, and he had a supposedly Democratic Congress part of that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

The veto is one of the constitutional powers of the president. If Obama didn't like what Congress was doing it, he should have used his powers to veto what they wanted to do. Instead he uses his power to decide who gets droned.

Obama knows how to use power when he wants to. He just does not want to use the veto because then he would have to take a stand and maybe offend the Republicans and Blue Dogs. Yet he wants liberal Democrats to support him in November.

A certain portion of politics is about the theater of it, and Obama is a great speaker but not good at the theater of politics.

[KoKo]

292. Well...to be charitable...Obama had just never seen things the way many of us see them......

He was very young and helped along the way. It's hard to look at "who helped you" and not be grateful.

That's the only thing that makes sense to me...but, I'm open to argument about my opinion...but don't want "Troll Trashing" because that stuff just turns me off.

I think some of us have reasoned opinions and you are one of them...who can see from both sides.

If one reads like the "serious of us" across ...trying to make sense and understand...WHY Obama seems to some of us like some kind of TRAGIC morph of Bush II back to Reagan Administation...we see that there are NO ANSWERS...just PUSH BACK...PUSH BACK...not taking into consideration that most of us here that I reply to are LIFE LONG VOTING DEMS...who back in the OLD DU DAYS...used to think we were trying to HOLD THE FORT FOR DEMS...

It's gotten ALL SCREWED UP!

[MannyGoldstein]

295. Those numbers speak volumes, JD

Thanks for that.

[woo me with science]

314. What a great post.

There it is, clear as glass...again. Thank you.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

323. Wow, those are some sobering numbers.

I'm worried about Social Security and don't trust Obama at all on this issue.

[Why Syzygy]

60. Seeds of its own destruction..

I have to ponder whether or not the current deadlock positions were not, at least in part, set up from the beginning by POTUS bending over backwards to soothe and massage the pukes. He really did sort of give them the idea that they had the run of the place.

[SammyWinstonJack]

269. heh.

He really did sort of give them the idea that they had the run of the place.


Yeah, he sort of did.

[bvar22]

312. I don't wonder anymore.

When the White House openly campaigned in the Democratic Primaries for the Blue Dogs who "derailed" ObamaCare, I ceased to wonder, and moved on to knew for sure.

SEE: White House endorsement and support for Blanche Lincoln,
Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010.

The White House is actively working to keep the obstructions in place
because it lends them Plausible Deniability and an excuse for failure,
at least for the shallow thinkers.

"We never had 60 votes."



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[nineteen50]

239. The only time the whitehouse changes hands

is when the 1%ers legislation can't get passed under that sitting party.

[TheKentuckian]

103. Tough to hide behind the Congress skirt when they are cut out of the loop

They aren't even fake writing it, members of the relevant committees can barely see the damn thing.

[JDPriestly]

219. Obama has only used his veto twice.

Compare that to other presidents. I have posted the link to Wikipedia's page on the presidential veto many times. It's easy to find.

When a president is unhappy with Congress, he vetoes bills that contain provisions he disagrees with.

The veto is the tool the president uses to get Congress to work with him, to bargain with him.

Obama's failure to use his veto is a giveaway that he supports what Congress is doing.

Will I vote for and work for Obama? Yes. Because, in spite of his failure to stand up for what is wrong, he is the lesser of the two evils.

If Romney is elected, we won't have even the pretense of the third way. We will have Fascism, outright and direct.

I would like to know how many Republicans in Congress know the details of the negotiations. It's may be just liberals who are kept in the dark.

[Creideiki]

268. The Congress that keeps Obama from going to Wisconsin?

The Congress that keeps Obama from signing executive orders?

Which Congress? Just so we're sure.

Because it's not fair to blame Obama for things that are out of his control. However, there are plenty of things that are in his control.

[kurtzapril4]

289. No no no no no!

You have it all wrong. OBama is the most powerless president in the history of the world! He can't do ANYTHING because of Congress! He can't stand up to the Republics because......I forget, but I'm sure there is a good reason! He can't use veto because.....the Republicans don't approve! See, his hands are tied! What do you expect him to do, lead?

[FarLeftFist]

14. Also, 2 possible Supreme Court nominees.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Actually, that's about all I have left to be hopeful about nt

[bvar22]

272. Even THAT Silver Cloud comes with a dark lining.

President Obama replaced Liberal JP Stevens with a "Moderate Centrists", Elena Kagan.
The make up of the Supreme Court is MORE conservative NOW than when Obama was elected.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justices-side-police-warrantless-search/story?id=13613343



...but not as bad as the Republicans!
Yeah... I'm ALL fired up.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[woo me with science]

340. Yep, and considering his administration

already went all the way to the SC to argue FOR more warrantless surveillance of Americans and FOR strip searches for any arrestee...

...and given his positions on issues ranging from indefinite detention to "kill lists" to spy centers to internet control, any of which could reach the Supreme Court during his second term...

there is even less reason to be sanguine.

[hay rick]

31. More hostages.

So inspiring.

[frylock]

207. yes, very cheneyesque

[Luminous Animal]

39. Supreme court and abortion. That's all we've got left from "The Great Society".

Yay!

[UnrepentantLiberal]

152. Since Obama deadenders here claim he has no power

to do anything but that, Supreme Court pics are the only reason to vote for Obama.

[FarLeftFist]

202. And a damn good reason as any.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

215. I agree.

And that's why I will be voting for him this November and may even canvas for him.

[SidDithers]

213. "Obama deadenders"?...

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

369. Exactly.nt

[TrollBuster9090]

348. What do you mean "also?" That's more than enough reason in and of itself.

And I don't care if Kagan isn't as liberal as Stevens. Three more Stevens' will be a lot more liberal than three more Alitos, which is exactly what we'll get if we don't support Obama.

[woo me with science]

16. Yeah, yeah, we know. Every criticism is perceived as an attack on Obama,

And so the response is about Obama, personally.

Actually, that's one of the scariest parts about what is being done to us now. What's happening to our country is not because of one man. It's not about a crazy leader or despot. It is structural and systemic, and that helps it grow unchecked. People raise these alarms about the infestation of our government with corporate money and corporate goals, and people start whining or defending or accusing them of being mean to Obama or thinking the worst of him. They make it personal.

But this is systemic. This has to do with the infestation of corporate money into the heart of our government and political system, with tentacles so deep that we can't even track them all anymore. It's about corporate money, corporate power growing this corporate empire and police state and war machine, and increasingly co-opting government to strengthen and protect itself, while bypassing the people and taking steps to weaken their resistance....because that is what corporations DO. Corporations, by definition, exist to grow and profit. Guiding principles of empathy or compassion or moral responsibility have no role in that, if they interfere with the profit motive.

We have little to do anymore with much of anything our government does.

We are losing our country to these vultures, and it is happening in a million small and not-so-small ways every day. Every day there is a new one.

[russspeakeasy]

30. Thanks for the sanity, woo.

[TheKentuckian]

38. This is run away from like Godzilla, Woo.

At all cost the systemic issues and even actual policy are ignored in favor of personality. It is all who because they want, are acting as pawns of those who profit from and who are empowered from things as they are, or are the rubes who think they will profit.

[tridim]

50. Don't bother playing the cult of personality card on me.

It's fucking idiotic and childish.

I vote on policy.

[TheKentuckian]

225. I do not monitor the thoughts of individual voters at the polls and hadn't seen you post so I wasn't

calling you out.

I will say since you felt your ears burning or whatever that dictates yours and other folks votes that the conversations tend to focus on personalities be it defense of politicians or indictment of critics and turns that way during about any policy discussion. That may or not be your MO but let's not even pretend that it doesn't happen.

[tridim]

271. It's idiotic to assume that adult Democrats vote on personality alone.

You called out most of DU with that comment.

The claim is being made here repeatedly that anyone who doesn't trash Obama daily is just in love with him and can't possibly have any real reasons to support his candidacy. It's 100% pure bullshit.

[TheKentuckian]

449. My claim is that the dialog is fixed on personality. Internal thought may vary, observable reaction

is what it is.

Don't like the charge then folks can discuss the issues and policies instead of the personalities.

No sense bellyaching when the private thought and the dialog mismatch.

[woo me with science]

174. You are spot on. There is *always* a diversion from the policy.

Last edited Thu Jun 14, 2012, 10:46 AM - Edit history (1)

A disgusting new disclosure about secret deals for free trade agreements is met with insults and accusations of seeking to depress the vote. News of yet another family slaughtered by drones leads to predictable and despicable attacks on the messenger.

Discussion of these corporate, right-wing, and neocon policies is *always* met with bids to distract, insult, and divert, because the policies are indefensible. It happens over and over and over again, relentlessly. We watched it happen in the corporate media, as serious news and reporting of what the corporatists are doing were systematically replaced with faux news...the latest fluff and gossip or breathless hyping of some inconsequential gaffe or dramatic exchange between the two "stars" of the political horse race. It is very sad to see the same infiltration and diversion happening even in small venues like this, where there used to be limits on that type of behavior, because it was assumed to come from trolls.

This is the mess the Third Wayers have made of our party and our political message. What used to be right-wing talking points and tactics are now bipartisan and mainstream, and we have self-proclaimed Democrats mocking attempts at change and calling the outrage over the impoverishment of millions of us "amusing."

[rudycantfail]

270. +1!

Keep posting the truth woo.

[bahrbearian]

216. There are no more pawns left on our side, they were taken out of the game early.

That leaves only Rubes

[raouldukelives]

43. The silence is deafening.

But we still do have some effect. Our own personal choices will have to speak even louder as our rights and even votes are silenced. You can feed and oil the machine. Resign yourself to being a cog at its disposal or stand up for something you believe in. The catch is making the value of upholding that belief worth more than a stock statement or a lucrative career opportunity.
"Well, I stand totally against what the corporation does and bring it up sometimes in the lunchroom when I'm refueling to help accomplish its mission."

[riderinthestorm]

49. No more true words have ever been spoken, woo. Thanks. nt

[bbgrunt]

54. great post. You nailed it.

[laundry_queen]

55. Can't let this post go

without a huge

******GREAT POST***********

comment.

Nail, meet head. Needs to be an Op.

[Quantess]

58. + a million

[joshcryer]

62. This is nothing new. Anyone who thought Obama would be immune from it is kidding themselves.

That's why it's so amusing for me to see the outrage, it never really gets old.

[Luminous Animal]

74. You are right. We should just accept it. Because voting is the only viable

outlet for political expression.

[joshcryer]

76. Nah, just lower your expectations. Then you get surprised once in awhile.

[sabrina 1]

113. Ever heard of 'aim for the sky and you might hit a tree'?

None of mankind's great achievements were ever accomplished by low expectations.

[joshcryer]

115. Hit me up when we have politicians who are worthy of high expectations.

[sabrina 1]

128. We will get closer to what we want when we aim for what we want. Low expectation voters

are why we have we have. You have laid out why nothing ever changes and why we fail to get better representation. Being silent so Politicians do not have to work for votes is a failed strategy as we know now after three election cycles.

[joshcryer]

130. I know of no single politician who is worthy of my expectations.

The system does not allow for such things.

[woo me with science]

175. Yes, let's just wait for them...

[bvar22]

328. "just lower your expectations"

That is a FAR cry from
Yes. We. CAN!

[font size=5]Obama's Army, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font size=5]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]


Ok everybody.
Lower your expectations,
and you won't be so disappointed,


The Republicans had HIGH expectations in 2000.
They Hit the Jackpot with George-the-Lesser,
and they NEVER had 60 votes.




[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[chervilant]

75. Does it help

you feel better to make fun of those of us who continue to 'rage against the machine'?

We are facing a global socio-cultural reordering. The last time anything like this happened, heads rolled (and, their obscene wealth did NOT protect them).

[joshcryer]

79. Not makig fun. I come here for political discussion.

I have other sites where I "rage against the machine." This site is more for interesting political discussion. The outrage that Obama wasn't some FDR got stale, maybe 3 months after he installed his "post-partisan" cabinet, just as he said he'd do. Each little thing from then on was just predictable.

[chervilant]

432. hmm...

I'm not sure why you make the broad-brush suggestion that 'outraged' Obama supporters expect him to be 'some FDR.' I haven't seen much to support your assertion.

I know what I personally DIDN'T expect from Obama. Many of his missteps have exacerbated the global economic distress, but it's hard to predict how he might have been more effective in opposing the Corporate Megalomaniacs who've usurped our media, our politics and our global economy.

I try to focus on Obama's courage: to run for office after the vile and destructive Bush cabal was certainly impressive. But, I wish that his courage was more in evidence with regards to Afghanistan, Guantanamo, prosecuting war criminals, eliminating electronic voting machines, legalizing pot, equal rights, job creation, and reining in the "Just Say NO" Republicans (Tom Rall has a spot-on strip about this).

[woo me with science]

85. No, the outrage is not "amusing."

It is desperately needed.

[joshcryer]

88. It's inconsequential.

[woo me with science]

90. You need to study history. nt

[Marr]

95. So today, criticism of Obama does not mean risking a Romney presidency.

Things change so quickly from day to day, and even thread to thread.

[joshcryer]

109. No, forum posts have little effect on certain policies.

But they can have an effect on the overall narrative which later impacts the vote. It just takes a lot of them to do that.

[woo me with science]

176. ...

[sabrina 1]

315. So you've changed your mind then?

[joshcryer]

317. Nope.

You can demoralize voters if you have enough numbers. You can't change policy after you've elected someone to do something that you don't like even though they told you they were going to do it.

[brentspeak]

365. Obama said he WASN'T going to do it

Did you read the article?

[sabrina 1]

414. Most likely not.

This poster blames the voters for the broken promises. And no amount of proof that he 'said he wouldn't do it' will change his mind.

[truedelphi]

467. Oh so he said he ain't going to do it.

Good to know.

I'll add that one to my list when he then turns around and does it, just like the other 4,111 times he has betrayed America's middle incomed folks.

[sabrina 1]

410. Because there isn't enough outrage, yet. But it's building.

[Mojorabbit]

71. +1000 nt

[Phlem]

89. Corporation's

(according to Thom Hartmann) sole goal of profits first and the detachment of the corporations/CEO's from it's employees, qualify it as a sociopath.

I tend to agree.

I've worked for a few over time now that I think about it.

But what is truly scaring me is the spread of fascism so easily and silently across the nation. Seems to be the point your making and I commend you.

Forever vigilant brother/sister.

-p

[sabrina 1]

99. Thank you for this post. And it is happening because, up to now, we too have gone along with the

insane idea that the time to be silent is 'when an election is coming up'. I don't think there has ever been a worse strategy than for the people to be silent at the only time their Representatives are likely to listen to them or remember their existence at all. Once the election is over, we all know what happens if the people try to talk to their Representatives. All I ever got was either no response (thanks Chuck Schumer) or an automated 'thanks for contacting us' email with no follow up ever, from Clinton.

Now IS the time for the people to tell them what they want. And the complete idiocy of trying to silence people on issues that a MAJORITY of people agree on, such as create and keep jobs here, tax the rich, no more bailouts for the banks, a huge stimulus for the people etc. is beyond comprehension.

If we Democrats get these messages across to DEMOCRATS and they start talking about them in the campaign, then the people will see a difference between both parties. Right now everyone I talk to, no matter where it is, says the same thing 'they are all the same'.

The public votes for its own interests. Democrats need to make a distinction between their message and Republicans by forcefully supporting the issues that the majority of the people want. And they won't do that if they do not hear from the people.

They sure will not hear it from the scores of Corporate Lobbyists drowning out the people in DC where the people have zero representation.

Thanks for reality, Woo. Sick of the fantasy that if we just shut up and vote all be well.

[chervilant]

106. + a gazillion.

Sick of the bashing we get for pointing out that the vile Corporate Meglomaniacs have usurped our media, our politics, AND our global economy. (And, HOW does this awareness equate with 'we want a perfect president'?!)

[sabrina 1]

131. Those are just talking points, intended to distract. You notice those who disseminate

those talking points, never, ever discuss the issues themselves.

Best to ignore them, if they are not going to be part of the solution, they should just be left to their own devices, imo. We let them run the show for far too long, reluctantly because we knew they were wrong, and look at the mess the world is in.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

169. You only get either no response or emails with no follow-up? How do the fund raisers overlook you?

Maybe they are responding. Just not in the way that you were expecting.

[sabrina 1]

460. Lol, no, we are not overlooked by the fundraisers!

[woo me with science]

177. Amen.

The message of silencing and false hope and passivity IS a corporate message. You can tell because it so predictably and relentlessly appears whenever the news and revelations become so egregious and damaging to what people want to believe about their government, that it threatens to push them to stand up and demand something different.

Thank you for this wake-up call and reminder that we *do* have the power and the responsibility to demand change, and that election season is the most effective and critical time to do it.

[tomp]

142. it's the system, the game, theater.

the only reason i will vote for democrats is to oppose the violence and threats of violence against them and the left.

[morningfog]

161. Well said.

[StarryNight]

173. precisely; there's really only One Way- the Money Way. nt

[truth2power]

183. Thank you, woo. Very well said. eom

[liberalnationalist]

193. its Facism

thats exactly what is happening to this country

and we have these Sunday goin to meetin idiots eating it up like its the latest craze.

for the sake of our Constitution, our national security, our domestic tranquility, our way of life...the Federal government should take a long hard look at the churches.

Are they churches, or propoganda machines for Facism? It is obvious that a good amount of the churches out there, especially the Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptists, the penicostals, and others are just that. Propoganda machines for a Hitlerarian Theocracy where we corporatly and religiously ruled. Where the laws of commerce intermingle with ecclesiastical law.

the question is...what are we going to do about it?

[Dragonfli]

223. "This agreement would reinstate important reforms like expansion of the program to cover

service-related workerseer paths. benefits for job losses from overseas production unrelated to free trade agreements, and increased funding for worker retraining. By doing so, this deal would help to ensure that even as the United States aggressively pursues access to foreign markets and the broad benefits of free trade, displaced workers will have the tools and resources to find new carreers in the service related industry."


The Third Way has a plan for our future, we will be the happiest service related workers in the entire world!!!

Let those that know how to get around safety and quality issues have all the manufacturing jobs, They will not need pesky unions and will free us up for what we were born to do, service related work.

It will strengthen the country, just ask Chairmen Baucus.

[Raksha]

251. You are so right. Making every issue "about" Obama personally,

whether pro or con, is just another tactic to disempower the American people even more than they've been disempowered already. The Obama-hating Tea Party racists and the Obama shills on DU and elsewhere are both playing their assigned roles in the same game.

Excellent post - thank you!

[tpsbmam]

265. Brilliant post, woo. Thanks! nt

[chervilant]

70. Yeah,

it's all that 11 dimensional chess, and Teh Bad Ol' Republicans who always Just Say No, and the big mess Bush left, and he can't do anything until after the election, and we're all racists...



Patriotism...last refuge...etc.

[liberalnationalist]

185. do you want Raw Money in there

are you going to wallow in self pitty?

I didn't vote for Obama last time..why? I didn't think he was ready and I though McCain was.
I will vote for Obama this time because he proved me wrong.

Now if dumb Americans would have voted in 2010 or not have voted for that traitor "tea potty" Obama would have gotten more done.

quit complaining about Obama, call Raw Money a LIAR and his party traitorist bunch of bastards...get out there and vote for Obama, straight ticket this time with no apologies.

We have to vote liberal as we can and shove it right in peoples faces.

I say we vote and give a big middle finger FU to the rightwing, their corporations, thier churches, their candidates, and their Slick Willard Shit Raw Money.

[Autumn]

257. You voted for McCain in 2008? Because Obama wasn't ready?

As soon as a liberal runs I'll run right out and vote for them.

[sabrina 1]

308. Lol!

Palin appealed to you too? One heartbeat away from the presidency and you took that risk just three years ago?

[Autumn]

337. A McCain voter coming to lecture us to vote for Liberals.

I think someone outed themselves. Because Obama wasn't ready .

[sabrina 1]

339. I know, but at least s/he was open about it!

[bvar22]

458. ...and showing more honesty and willingness to Face the Truth...

...than many in this thread.

[TrollBuster9090]

342. Whatever he is, I have just five words: three more Supreme Court Justices.

The next occupant of the White House will probably get to nominate three judges to the SCOTUS who'll sit there making rulings for 20 years. This is not about four more years of Obama, it's about TWENTY more years of crackpot reactionary corporate whores on the Supreme Court, handing over the American Democracy to plutocrats and multinational corporations.

Obama has already nominated Kegan and Sotomayor. He has a proven track record about the kind of justices he nominates. Romney we can only guess about, but the guesses aren't very pretty.

[Huey P. Long]

431. 'Loophole'? Take off the blinders.

Treaty Negotiated In Secret – Hidden Even from Congressmen Who Oversee Treaties – Threatens to Destroy National Sovereignty
Submitted by George Washington on 06/14/2012

Democratic Senator Wyden – the head of the committee which is supposed to oversee it – is so furious about the lack of access that he has introduced legislation to force disclosure.
Republican House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa is so upset by it that he has leaked a document on his website to show what’s going on.
What is everyone so furious about?

An international treaty being negotiated in secret which would not only crack down on Internet privacy much more than SOPA or ACTA, but would actually destroy the sovereignty of the U.S. and all other signatories.

It is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Wyden is the chairman of the trade committee in the Senate … the committee which is supposed to have jurisdiction over the TPP. Wyden is also on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and so he and his staff have high security clearances and are normally able to look at classified documents. And yet Wyden and his staff have been denied access to the TPP’s text.

This is similar to other recent incidences showing that we’ve gone from a nation of laws to a nation of powerful men making laws in secret.
-
As University of California Berkeley Professor Emeritus Peter Dale Scott warned:

If members of the Homeland Security Committee cannot enforce their right to read secret plans of the Executive Branch, then the systems of checks and balances established by the U.S. Constitution would seem to be failing.

To put it another way, if the White House is successful in frustrating DeFazio, then Continuity of Government planning has arguably already superseded the Constitution as a higher authority.

-
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-06-14/international-treaty-negotiated-secret-%E2%80%93-hidden-even-congressmen-who-oversee-

=============

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 2012
Obama Plans to Put Foreign Companies Above the Law
Yves Smith

Zach Carter has a must-read new article up at Huffington Post on leaked documents from trade negotiations that have been posted at the website Public Citizen. You should read his entire article, pronto, but here is the money quote:

The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment and reveals the Obama administration’s advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.
-
This is an active effort to undermine US laws and make certain US laws subordinate to non-US tribunal that sits outside any democratic process. President Obama took an oath to uphold the land. I’d like to throw this out to readers. As much as trade agreements (which were approved by Congress) have sometimes run into friction with existing laws, this move by Obama looks to be a far more radical effort to increase the power of multinational companies. And US companies would argue for, and likely eventually get, similar breaks, assuring a legal/regulatory race to the bottom (if you think what we have is bad now, do not underestimate how much worse it could get).
-
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/06/obama-plan-to-put-foreign-companies-above-the-law.html

[Cerridwen]

3. Land mines, Manny, land mines.

We talked about this prior to electing President Obama. Hell, we talked about it before the primaries.

The USTR can do only that which is in its regulations, policies, any legislation, and various other directives.

Let me translate a bit of government-speak in the article to which your link, linked.

USTR told HuffPost that members of Congress can "be accommodated at an appropriate location on Capitol Hill" and said, "We are continuing to work directly with Senator Wyden and his staff to be responsive to the concerns he raises about TPP transparency, and are glad to be doing so; this is an important conversation."

Translation, because that bolded piece didn't need to be included:

"We are under some (policy or information memo or directive or regulation) that doesn't allow us to do what we desperately want to do so please, please, please let us have this conversation. Please."

And this part: "be accommodated at an appropriate location on Capitol Hill". Very specific word choice. Somehow, they are being shackled from doing what they want to do.

shrub left behind some interesting directives and memos. Federal agencies have to operate under the exact letter of the law and are not allowed to speak up for fear of retribution.

Land mines.






eta: left out a word

[MannyGoldstein]

11. So who's in charge of that agency now?

Shrub, still?

[Cerridwen]

20. Manny, the laws and resultant policies and directives

and instruction memos are already "on the books." Do you know the volume of "paper" flowing around the federal government? If someone can't get to "who's in charge," they are stuck in the ditches trying to get the information out.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Senators are yelling about this, and

it happens to be awful.

How much time would it take for the President to tell someone to fix it? Less time than it takes to have dinner with bankers, I'd think.

[Cerridwen]

22. "Less time than it takes to have dinner with bankers, I'd think."

Think harder.

Have you ever worked in a bureaucracy? Especially one that "made it up" as it went along?

Now imagine that and how it would look if someone had 8 years to sabotage it.

[freedom fighter jh]

147. I've worked in the federal bureaucracy. We knew where the rules came from.

Last edited Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:34 AM - Edit history (1)

If the rule limiting Congress's access to info came from an executive order, Obama can fix it with the stroke of a pen -- in a small fraction of the time it takes to have lunch with bankers.

Any other source -- legislation, regulation or policy (which implement regulation), or an existing treaty -- would have had to be approved some part of Congress (either all of Congress or, for a treaty, just the Senate) in the first place and is therefore not likely.

Edited for spelling.

[Cerridwen]

170. Information memos, instructional bulletins, Solicitor's Opinions,

court orders and many more "pieces of paper" are implemented without going through congressional approval as they are interpretations of legislation, policies, EOs, and regulations.

[freedom fighter jh]

275. Yes, you're right, I forgot about court orders.

It's possible, I suppose, that a court ordered the executive branch to restrict the way in which it (the EB) shares info on this matter with the Senate. But with less restriction to "a number of corporate officials"? Doesn't sound right.

I don't buy your argument about the bureaucracy, or lots of pieces of paper, being a barrier. The poor taxpayer on the phone with the IRS finds the system impossible to navigate because he or she hears about different rules and directives from different people and there is no one person who has the time to explain how the whole thing works. That's not good but that's the way it is. On the other hand, a senator who will have to vote on a treaty should get priority. (When I worked at EPA, Congressional correspondence was top priority.) Though the rules may be many, I repeat, the people who follow them know what they are and where they come from; understanding that is not rocket science, as much as it may seem so to someone outside the system.

Any USTR rule must come from the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of government. If President Obama wants to ease the Senate's access on information, he can ask USTR the reason for the restrictions. If it's the executive branch, then President Obama can change the rule. If it's the legislative branch, then Senator Wyden can see what he can do. And if it's the judicial branch then I suppose there's not much he can do.

But there must be a reason for it, and it should not be hard for President Obama to find out what his government is doing. Most likely he does have the power to change it.

[Autumn]

4. Sucks, yes it does.

This, "The general public and most nonprofit organizations have no access to the documents, although a number of corporate officials can see them." is what really pisses me off.

[Luminous Animal]

40. The nerve to support a Democrat? Horrors.

[rhett o rick]

384. The post you were responding to got hidden yesterday, yet the poster continued to post in this

thread today? I thought after you get a post hidden you couldnt post again in that thread? Do I have that wrong?

[bvar22]

425. Whats up with THAT?

Are some DUers "more equal" than others?

[rhett o rick]

430. Not sure. I also noted in another OP that the OP author rec'd his own OP.

If I had known that option existed, my OP's would have gotten at least one rec.

Weird times.

[bvar22]

447. Some "more equal" than others?

Are there exceptions to the rules for a privileged few?
That particular poster seems to be gloating about some special status he enjoys at DU.
See Post #87.

"And there's nothing I can say on DU that can "get me into trouble".
Nothing.
Bank on it!"

WOW.
Maybe some ARE more equal than others.
That would explain a lot.

[sabrina 1]

445. If you click on the hidden post it wasn't hidden until the day after it was posted.

Don't think they were posting after it was hidden according to the time stamp on the jury's decision.

[rhett o rick]

455. I was wrong. you are absolutely correct.

Thank you for correcting that. I looked at the wrong date.

[dionysus]

179. oh shit.

[Tarheel_Dem]

203. Help me dion. They're starting to become a blur. They've converted from "Third Way" to uber-libera

right before our very eyes. Someone make it stop!

[dionysus]

237. yes, watching stone DLCers "morph" into Kucinizens to cover for the poutrage is priceless...

[Tarheel_Dem]

241. I think it's even worse than that. I think they're, somewhere, magically to the left of Chavez now.

Whodda thunk it?

[dionysus]

242. do note however... some people really are just Naderites. the only reason you

couldn't tell they hated dems before was that we were all too busy hating Bush to notice.

[Tarheel_Dem]

249. It really is that simple, isn't it? Mutual hatred for Bush united us, which is another reason I'll

never forgive him. Just kiddin'.

[Autumn]

206. I have plenty of nerve. And a lot more than just nasty snark which is all you post.

You have nothing else or any opinions on anything except nastiness to other posters.

[Tarheel_Dem]

211. "I have plenty of nerve". I knew we could find a point of agreement.

[abelenkpe]

5. MPAA?! Wtf?

[ProSense]

7. Oh my!

Obama's been a tragic disappointment, but I desperately want to vote for him if only to keep the Trust Fund Bully out of the White House. But, each day, I feel like I'm rooting to be smashed with a hammer instead of being thrown in a wood chipper.

Obama 2012!

Oh, and fuck Third Way!

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Seems apropos:

[WillyT]

27. Well... The Wood Chipper WOULD Be Faster...

Somebody here posted the other day...

"Would you rather have 40 major hard slaps to the face/jaw... or one major knock out punch?"

Still pondering that one.





& Rec !!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. Says the guy who supported Hillary, Queen of the DLC. Just too funny. Third Way?

You have got to try harder.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. $50 if you find evidence of that.

How about an apology if you don't?

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. Not looking for it, but I have a long memory. How's that "cleansing" coming?

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Long and really shitty.

Try doing the right thing, instead.

"A good conscience is a perpetual Christmas"
- Ben Franklin

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. You have an agenda Manny. Why don't you fess up, and let us all in on it. Frankly, I don't....

think it's the noble cause some may attribute to you, but please tell us what we should do, given the two choices before us in November.

I realize there are a couple of loser parties vying for the White House, but surely you're not using DU for such nefarious purposes, right? I'm really curious why you and a handful of the more prolific anti-Obama posters continue to scour the internet for the anything that you feel will suppress the vote? I might add, that none of these posters seem to care about Mitt Romney, it just appears to be an all out ABO campaign.

[MannyGoldstein]

47. Find a post where I support Hillary for Prez, I'll confess all

By the way, the record shows that I was an early Obama supporter and contributor.

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. Not looking in the archives, but if you say so. Then it's so.

Now, will you answer the questions in the post you just responded to?

[MannyGoldstein]

61. Well the works been done for you, down thread

In all seriousness, you should do some research before making accusations, don't you think?

Ask specific questions and I'll answer them, probably tomorrow - I'm off to bed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

65. Don't know what's going on "downthread", but I think my questions were pretty clear?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=806611

[MannyGoldstein]

78. You can't even take the time to read the clear refutation of your awful charge.

Wow. You must be a busy person.

[bvar22]

335. New Rules for DU3:

Everything you need to know about Discussion and Debate at DU3 can be found in the Beavis & Butthead Chat Room at AOL, including making absolutely false accusations about other members of DU.

Forget everything you have learned about logic, debate, presenting you argument, and supporting your position.
All you need to remember is THIS:

1)Never, ever admit you might have been mistaken,
especially when you realize you have really fucked up.

2)Never hesitate to jump into a thread even if you know absolutely nothing about the topic.

3) A one line posts that addresses nothing in the content of OP is the best,
especially if it attacks the messenger.

4)Add lots of these to you post for emphasis:

5)Repeat step 4.

See how EASY that is?
You expect way too much from DU3 and 21st Century America.
Get used to Dumbed Down.
That IS The New Normal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=107392

[MannyGoldstein]

341. Dear Lord that's awesome!

Spot on.

[TheKentuckian]

466. Day-Yum!

[iamthebandfanman]

84. LMAO

more classic head in the sand right wing tactics from someone who has told others their votes didnt count if they lived in a red state so it didnt matter if they voted.

ILL NEVER FORGET YOU WRITING THAT TARHEEL!
ill remind ya til i die or this forum dies, i promise!


choosing to be ignorant because you have a massive ego is going to get you into trouble one day friend!

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. I may have been wrong about Manny's primary support, but you're still in fuckin' Kentucky!

Good luck with that!


And there's nothing I can say on DU that can "get me into trouble". Nothing. Bank on it!

[chervilant]

105. "Massive ego"

That explains a lot...

[bvar22]

428. That type of posting behavior in NOT spawned by a massive ego.

It IS compensation for deep inferiority and inadequacy hiding behind the curtain of an anonymous Internet Discussion Board.

People who behave that way in public are held accountable for their childish outbursts,
especially when the make outright false accusations about others.
They usually walk home with their ass in their hands.
Thus, they seek the anonymity and protection of the Internet to compensate for their inadequacies in REAL Life.
Not a "Massive Ego" at all.
Quite the opposite.

[frylock]

209. and you were an avid bush supporter..

i have no evidence of that, nor am i going to bother searching the archives. i'll just trust my long memory and go with that assertion.

[Tarheel_Dem]

212. Touche!

[chervilant]

86. Wow...

Very few US citizens are aware of DU, Tar. The concept of random anti-Obama posts on DU suppressing the vote is laughable.

Moreover, I had issues with Mr. Obama before he became 'our guy,' the sole contender for the Democratic vote. Then, I had issues with his adjuration that we must move forward, and stop dwelling in the past (a trite justification for avoiding the prosecution of the war criminals from the Bush cabal). Then, Obama appointed a Confederacy of Dunces to key posts in his administration, including Arne "I play basketball" Duncan as SecEd. I'm certain I am not the only person in the nation (or on DU) who feels this way.

Obama's lackluster performance as POTUS is not surprising. I doubt there's a 'leader' on this planet who could stop the speeding bullet of corporate megalomania. Still, I am among those who have noticed that MANY of Obama's decisions warrant the increasingly vociferous adjurations from progressive democrats that he NOT be a sock puppet for the uber wealthy (or the M/I hawks).

Blind allegiance predicated by party affiliation epitomizes the kind of 'patriotism' Samuel Johnson called 'the last refuge of a scoundrel.' We can ill afford such arrogance within our own ranks, even as we struggle to expose this false patriotism among the rank and file Republicans (Eric Cantor comes readily to mind).

In short, dismissing the concerns of Obama's critics is both demeaning and disingenuous, and it will not help us regain our footing in these perilous times.

[Tarheel_Dem]

96. In case you didn't notice, we didn't have a primary. The incumbent is our candidate.

And I, for one, could not be happier. And if you wanna talk about disingenuous, it's the fools who keep trying to equate both parties, and who balk at the suggestion that there's an element on the left, every bit as fucked up in the head, as the teanutters. That's disingenuous.

And as perilous as these times may be, I'd vote for a dead dog, with a "D" on his chest before I'd throw my vote away on some third party loser with high ideals, and not a chance in hell of winning, or having anyone in Congress to work with. You can call my allegiance "blind", or any other demeaning terms you can come up with, but I'm a fucking DEMOCRAT, posting on what used to be a DEMOCRATIC political forum, and I'm damned proud of it.

It was folks like you and Manny who gave us the 2nd Bush. Al Gore, who ironically, is now heralded as a liberal giant, wasn't pure enough. The purists among us needed Sir Ralph.
Fuck Ralph Nader! Fuck Rocky Anderson! Fuck Gary Johnson!, and any other loser mf'er, and their internet moles, who are attempting to split the vote again.

As far as "lackluster", I'd re-read your post for a perfect example.

[chervilant]

98. OMG!

WHERE did I say anything about a primary?! Or, equating both parties?!?

I see that you are mired in your obstinacy. I bet you believe that your vote actually counts.

(The Democratic Party du jour is a pale semblance of the Party of my youth. Again, blind allegiance...)

[Tarheel_Dem]

114. A lot of things are a "pale semblance" of my youth. Rotary phones, B&W teevee, whooping cough....

and I don't miss 'em.

[chervilant]

149. Yeah,

you just keep telling yourself that, Tar.

[Tarheel_Dem]

201. !!!

[Bluenorthwest]

184. Not sure what Party you are in, the Democratic Party held primaries this year, I voted Obama.

as did 88.87% of Democratic Oregonians voting. Now in NC Obama got less than here, just 79.2% of Democrats voted for him there. I wonder if many NC voters suffered from the incorrect impression you put forth here, that there was no primary?
Of course, that primary also involved your House Rep, local issues, and other candidates. No primary is 'one candidate'.
Only 435,000 Democrats in your State bothered to vote for a Democratic opponent to Burr. I hear your turn out was under 20%. Again, this 'we had no primary' crap harmed our turnout. Our low turn out energizes the other Party. The GOP celebrated our low turn out in the Tar Heel State. Their turn out was up. Ours was down.
I voted in my Democratic Primary. For Obama. Did you take a pass on voting this time around? Sounds that way.

[truedelphi]

443. Brilliantly stated. n/t

[chervilant]

462. Thank you.

I'm afraid the person I was addressing (now on my IL) doesn't agree...

[dionysus]

238. boom goes the dynamite...

[MannyGoldstein]

299. Do you think I'm a Republican shill? nt

[Ken Burch]

45. Where the hell did you come up with THAT?

Manny never backed HRC.

[Starry Messenger]

51. Nope.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2787132#2787150
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2939882
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3380084#3380209

And that was just the top three.

[MannyGoldstein]

59. I am blown away that someone would actually check that out and come to my defense

Thank you!

I expect we'll see an apology from Tarheel shortly. Any minute now.

Yep.

[joshcryer]

64. Ahaha, I did some digging, too. It's all so clear.

I totally remember you.

Now it makes sense. Super Obama supporters have, in my experience, have shown to have the most painful reaction to him ... being a politician.

[sabrina 1]

116. No, that makes no sense. No more than the other false claim made.

[joshcryer]

120. All in my experience.

[sabrina 1]

124. Certainly not your experience on DU. I think DUers have been very clear about what exactly

it is they are concerned about and despite the attempts to distract from the facts, there really is no way to misunderstand, unless someone wants to.

[joshcryer]

125. You can't pretend to know my experience of DU.

I think a lot of DUers had rose colored glasses on when it came to Obama. That's fine. And I think it helps quite well to explain their current reactions to him. They just didn't know he was going to do the stuff that he has done, they tuned it out. That's fine.

[sabrina 1]

248. You can think whatever you want, the only people with rose colored glasses on are still wearing them

Here's your 'logic' in a nutshell:

WH pushes bad policies harmful to the working class. American people express opposition to those policies.

Partisans desperately seek rationale for the American people's reaction:

Okay, try:

1) They are bitter Hillary supporters!

Note lack of acknowledgement of the policies themselves. But, oops, wrong, okay move to second illogical rationale :

2) They are disappointed Obama supporters

Note again the lack of reference to actual reasons for reaction and, oops wrong again.

3) Move to false assumption the people are stupid, wearing rose-colored glasses, unrealistic expections etc. etc. But still wrong, and note again the refusal to address the actual reasons for the people's reactions.

Republican strategy almost identical btw. People react negatively to bad policies, Partisans go on the attack:

1) Bitter anti-Bush Liberal, commie, morons and again, no reference to the policies themselves. No? Okay on to next irrational excuse:

2) Never got over McCain's loss to Bush in 2000. Still no reference to the policies themselves.

Right/Left partisans are barely distinguishable in their zeal to silence the people. But thank god for for the majority who care about this country and are honest enough to not allow themselves to become blind, painful as it may be, to the fact that politicians must be held accountable by the people when they are on the wrong path even if, no especially if, it is their own party that is on the wrong track.

[KoKo]

282. Good Points Sabrina 1.......

What you say rings true with so many of us Democrats who worked for years..voted "got involved" and have worked for candidates, signed Petitions, given Money...been out on the streets....

and yet.........and yet........

[joshcryer]

316. Those are all valid reasons people push back against Obama for keeping campaign promises.

I'm not saying don't hold them accountable.

I'm saying good luck with that.

[sabrina 1]

334. You mean like Offshore Drilling? And Mandated Insurance?

We are familiar with your denial of broken campaign promises. Fortunately most of us remember what we supported and why.

Unless you're saying Obama was wrong on offshore drilling in the campaign, and McCain, who he very efficiently eviscerated on that issue, was right after all.

To name just a couple of reasons Democrats supported him.

[joshcryer]

345. I'm sorry you don't remember, but Obama was for offshore drilling.

You just show that some people are still in denial after all this time.

After he was nominated he said he would be open to offshore drilling. (If you search for Hillary and 2008 and offshore drilling you will find thousands of PUMA hits bashing him for that one! Which makes one wonder...)

As far as mandates, Krugman predicted he'd have to have one for adults (Obama already had one for children, but many people forget that one). And anyone with any political sense knew he'd have his wrists held behind his back otherwise the cost projections would've been beyond control.

Of course, Obama was a moderate, he never showed any significant liberal policies, and after elected he surprised me with a few liberal things, like expanding Pell Grants, food aid to schools for impoverished children, expending unemployment. Of course, these things came at a great cost, and it is arguable whether they were worth it.

[sabrina 1]

367. "Obama Slammed Opponent McCain’s Offshore Drilling Plan as ‘Political Posturing'"

Presidential Candidate Obama Slammed Opponent McCain’s Offshore Drilling Plan as ‘Political Posturing from Washington’

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama’s announcement to lift the ban on offshore drilling for oil along some of the U.S. coastline contrasts sharply with what he said as a candidate on the campaign trail in the summer of 2008.

In June 2008, Obama slammed his Republican rival John McCain (Ariz.) for his support of opening the nation’s coastline for oil exploration and drilling, calling it “political posturing” and an ineffective way to gain energy independence.

He also accused McCain of flip-flopping on his support of a moratorium on offshore drilling in 2000, a position Obama said was “certainly laudable.”

......

“Much like (McCain’s) gas tax gimmick that would leave consumers with pennies in savings, opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best since America only has three percent of the world's oil.

“It's another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil,” Obama said.

On a campaign swing through Florida, Obama spoke out against offshore drilling as ineffective and political.

Edited to include link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/31/barack-obama-drilling-offshore-approves

Barack Obama reverses campaign promise and approves offshore drilling

Obama took the Republican slogan "drill, baby, drill" as his own today, opening up over 500,000 square miles of US coastal waters to oil and gas exploitation for the first time in over 20 years.

The move, a reversal of Obama's early campaign promise to retain a ban on offshore exploration, appeared aimed at winning support from Republicans in Congress for new laws to tackle global warming. Sarah Palin's "Drill, baby, drill" slogan was a prominent battle cry in the 2008 elections.

And there's lots more including video of Obama's own words. No Democratic Presidential Candidate has ever promised to lift the ban on offshore drilling.

There is also his explanation on why he reversed that promise, claiming he had learned 'new things' since entering the WH and basically called those who opposed it for so long as old-fashioned, not in possession of the latest information of how safe rigs were now. 18 days after he made those unfortunate statements, he was proven to be tragically wrong. 11 men died on a rig what was by no means safe. I hope he fired those who changed his mind, I know I would have.

Obama opposed offshore drilling slamming McCain and showing he understood why it would not help lower the price of oil, the false claim made by Republicans.

[joshcryer]

370. Obama flipped after he was nominated but before we voted for him.

It is a campaign promise. Please do not try to pretend otherwise.

He was against offshore drilling during the primaries because Hillary was against it (she voted no on ANWR and many other offshore drilling things). Once he got the nomination he "evolved" his position.

[sabrina 1]

374. He evolved about a lot of things once he got the nomination. So what is your point?

That is precisely the problem people are having with him, do you understand? He says one thing, then does another. All this for you to finally get to say what people have been saying all along. It was a bit late for us to do much about it by then.

What a waste of time.

[joshcryer]

377. My point is that he's been consistent and done everything he said he do within his power.

Some things are beyond his power, however, and those things congress has prevented him from doing the progressive things and then sided with him with the right wing things.

The problem I think is that too many people thought he was a liberal, and no one here wants to admit that they were wrong when they thought that.

[MannyGoldstein]

379. "Any bill I sign must include... a public option..."

[joshcryer]

381. Krugman pointed out that naivety.

And it sold well to the masses. Remember his Harry and Louise ads?

edit: Krugman pointed out that he didn't have the power to pass that legislation without a mandate.

[MannyGoldstein]

382. Can you provide a link?

Obama's words are unequivocal.

[joshcryer]

383. Sure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

Obama was powerless to do health care without mandates and because he didn't have mandates he had to sacrifice the public option. It was junior level political shit there.

[MannyGoldstein]

385. I get the mandate - but what does that have to do with a public option?

Although now that you bring it up... was candidate Obama unaware that he needed a mandate, or was he lying that he wouldn't have one in his plan?

[joshcryer]

387. It was a political miscalculation.

He couldn't have predicted that Scott Brown would be seated thus forcing him to dump the public option in order to get "bi-partisan" support.

Had Ted Kennedy lived a little longer we would probably have the public option plus a mandate.

The mandate was necessary because all CBO projections without the mandate showed costs of health care going out of the roof.

Obama could not have those cost projections in his 2012 political campaign ads. The public option had to be the sacrifice.

I call it naivety, as I think he thought he could get by with both and which is why he made such strong proclamations about the public option.

Had he been for both he could've argued for both and likely got both, but because so much time was spent 1) getting the mandate put in there and 2) wrangling over the public option during that time (death panels, anyone?), there was no time to get it passed while Kennedy was still alive.

[MannyGoldstein]

391. So Scott Brown was elected before Obama deep-sized the public option

In a secret back room deal with Pharma and docs?

Really?

[joshcryer]

393. Yep, and they said "we'll try again next year." Of course, then we let the teabaggers win.

So there's that.

[MannyGoldstein]

395. Scott Brown was elected many months AFTER Obama agreed to drop the public option

In secret back room deals with Pharma and hospitals. Do I need to provide references?

[joshcryer]

396. The Public Option was still alive Nov. 8th. 2009. Scott Brown got elected on Jan. 28, 2010.

Obama's new proposal had exchanges on Feb. 22, 2010, with the public option dropped.

I'd be interested in your sources.

[MannyGoldstein]

397. NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html

[joshcryer]

400. Ted Kennedy was on his death bed when that article was written. What are you saying?

Next? This is a far sight from Obama having back room deals with pharma.

[MannyGoldstein]

406. So? In June of 2009, when Obama ceded a meaningful public option to Pharma and Hospitals in

a secret back room deal, Obama knew Brown would be elected?

Really?

[joshcryer]

408. He didn't do that. He merely opened up the door for the possiblity of wrangling.

Simple politics. It's hard, I know, it's really hard. But the public option was still alive. The "death panel" shit was getting a lot of sway and the teabaggers were showing their rise.



It's like people totally forget the history. Then again, maybe not so much.

[MannyGoldstein]

434. So you're claiming that the NY Times is wrong?

That the secret back room deal was never made?

[sabrina 1]

392. Sen. Barack Obama ex­plains his op­po­si­tion to lift­ing the ban on off-shore drilling.

http://wn.com/Obama_Lifts_Ban_on_Offshore_Drilling

Excellent argument from Obama againstOffshore Drilling.

[joshcryer]

394. I think you linked the wrong thing.

Or failed to actually watch the video linked:

Of course, that's from 2010 and doesn't address that he flipped his position after he got nominated but before the elections...

[sabrina 1]

404. Go to the first video on the left under the one you posted.

All links go to the main page apparently. It is a great speech, the kind of speech you expect from a Democrat, clear, concise, and obviously he understood the reasons why the ban had remained in place for 29 years. Too bad he evolved to the Republican position, although even Bush Sr. kept the ban in place.

And as we saw, the Republican position, McCain's position, was demonstrated to a tragic disaster, proving once again, that Liberal ideas are superior, based on what is good for people.

11 men died that summer, already forgotten, the supposed benefits of lifting the ban are nowhere in sight, nor will they be. The Gulf is environmentally destroyed for years to come, maybe forever. But the oil guys got what they wanted finally, after 30 years of fighting them off. But it is the voters who are stupid according to you.

Oh, and fyi, when you change your position from being right to being wrong, that is not called 'evolving'.

[joshcryer]

405. Yep, it is too bad, glad he did it before the elections.

That way at least some people with rose colored glasses would know what they were getting in to.

I think next time we should show more scrutiny toward the candidate once they get elected there's little you can do to change their minds (unless what they want to do is beyond their power, such as electing a congress to over-ride, etc, but then that requires voting).

[truedelphi]

446. All I want of Obama/Biden is the same level of government

I got back during Eisenhower/Kennedy.

One: Faced with the prospect of massive unemployment created by the hordes of returning GI's, Eisenhower saw to it that:
the nation built up a free way system, which meant that local people got employed to build these highways. One of the biggest, non-military tasks that this nation has ever undertaken.

Other projects that the Eisenhower Admin took on was that of building community hospitals, and community colleges. With all the construction jobs available, American families were employed and had sufficient incomes to demand housing. They left their cramped one bedroom homes for houses with two and three bedrooms.

Two: Remain totally confident that the banking system needed the regulation of Glass Steagall. No one in either of these Administrations ever did anything but praise Glass Steagall. And certainly, a Tim Geithner-type, who manipulated the monies offered by the government to his Best Buddies on Wall Street would not have been offered up the position of Secretary of the Treasury. In fact, had there been a Geithner-type around during the Kennedy Administration, Bobby K would have made quick work of the guy using RICO styled prosecutions.

Few people are aware of it, but Kennedy was of the mindset of removing the Federal Reserve from being the secretive, protected institution that it is, and perhaps that is one of the reasons he was done in that fateful day in Dallas.

There are also indications that Kennedy would have pulled us out of the war in Vietnam, saving us from another twelve years of fighting it. But no one I know is afraid that Obama will even touch the MIC's plans for another one hundred years of war.

[xiamiam]

247. agreed..its because he had such an opportunity to be a hero when we needed one..and he chose

yes chose, to be mediocre and much further to the right than anyone in America expected..excepting great speeches and great smile...and babies like him. Other than that, he is a disappointment and voting for him is going to be difficult if you are truly have democratic principles at heart or if you give a rats ass about humanity and ending the never ending war on terror. We are in a trainwreck together and none of us imagined we would be here when we voted for him in 2008.

[Starry Messenger]

68. I remembered, but felt some links for back up would be effective. :)

Not that anyone should have to apologize for supporting any Democrat in '08. That's why we have primaries.

[MannyGoldstein]

112. We need to apologize for everything these days.

Sigh.

Thanks again.

[Poll_Blind]

66. You're a liar. Manny NEVER supported Clinton in the primaries. nt

PB

[joshcryer]

72. Not necessarily a liar, but it would've been easy to check before alleging it.

The poster could've legitimately remembered wrong, that wouldn't make them a liar, merely miisinformed. But it was really easy to check. Manny was a big Obama supporter.

[MannyGoldstein]

77. Don't you think that attempting character assassination without checking the facts is pretty awful?

This disrespect for facts is a huge part of our problems.

[joshcryer]

83. Yes, it was horrible, no doubt.

For instance, when I say Jane Hamsher was a Hillary shill, it is a fact. I would never allege someone was a Hillary shill or supporter without checking the facts, as that was a big deal on DU. The PUMA purge and all.

But I do see how that poster could've legitimately misremembered a sarcastic comment you made. I personally don't recall you much during the primaries (though I spent a lot of time defending Hillary).

[Marr]

101. And the lack of an apology?

Did they just 'miss' the part where the lie-- excuse me-- the "misremembered" information, was posted, do you think?

[joshcryer]

107. Eh, most of that exchange happened before the post was made.

The poster said they'd take their word for it.

I'd apologize for making such a misinformed statement, though.

[sabrina 1]

118. Most people wouldn't make such a misinformed statement about another DUer, would they?

Most people don't personally attack other people simply because they have some differences of opinion.

And what would have been wrong with Manny voting for Hillary anyhow? Why would someone use that as an insult? It was intended as an insult. She is a Democrat and she was a legitimate candidate so what was that irrational outburst all about even if it was true? And what did it have to do with the OP?

[joshcryer]

121. I don't know, I've been called quite a few things by people I felt were misinformed.

But then, I never attribute to malice which can most easily be explained by stupidity.

I tend to try to assume the best of people.

Had Manny been a big Hillary supporter it would've lent credence to the PUMA implication. It is certainly a valid insult, as you may not remember, a lot of PUMAs gave Obama a very hard time.

As I said, the poster should apologize, but allegations about the poster are without merit.

[sabrina 1]

126. No it's not a valid insult, it's just a plain old personal attack trying to distract from the real

issues. It's as old as the internet.

As an Obama supporter at the time, I was disgusted by their behavior also for which there was no excuse. Many other Obama supporters like me, had to keep apologizing for them.

There was no way to defend the behavior of either group, so many people simply left them to their nastiness and went to work in the real world.

I don't think anyone cares whether the poster apologizes or not. What would s/he be apologizing for? Getting Manny's candidate wrong? That wasn't the problem with what s/he said. The problem was the intent to insult. Getting the insult wrong was just amusing, like trying to punch someone and hitting the wall.

Manny being a Hillary supporter or an Obama supporter or a third party voter has zero to do with what Manny is upset about. What you are trying to do is avoid a discussion of what he is upset about, which is pretty clear.

[joshcryer]

127. It would be if it were true, you even admit that they were nasty.

What he is upset about has no relevance to my responses in this thread defending a poster from baseless insults. I already said the poster was horrible and wrong for their actions, that doesn't merit being called a liar.

[sabrina 1]

226. The lie was not in the error re the candidate he supported.

The lie is in the accusation that Manny only cares about these issues for political reasons. If you tell a lie, you risk being called a liar. Apologizing for the candidate error doesn't deal with the lie that people are only upset over these policies for political reasons, does it?

Btw, I seem to remember you calling me a liar over and over again until we got the jury system and you attempted to do it in a more nuanced way. You had no compunction about doing so. So I'm not really buying our outrage over this frankly. I haven't seen you rush to the defense of people being called liars or anything else by right of center commenters. It's okay to have a bias, it's not a crime, however you can't try to paint yourself as 'even-handed' when the record shows that bias.

[joshcryer]

309. It is political.

You called be plenty of names over the past years, and every time it's been untrue, so what can I do?

[sabrina 1]

336. No, never call people names, not even Bush, as I rely on facts more than stupid name-calling

to make my points. Produce these name-calling posts and I will apologize.

Disagreeing with you is not name-calling just so you know.

[joshcryer]

351. Sure, here's one.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=407674

Your insults are more disguised, though. Boxing people in who disagree with you with the far right, never actually addressing the people you are referring to. I know that they don't refer to me because they're dishonest smears, so I ignore them for the most part and don't bite.

[sabrina 1]

355. So no name-calling, thank you. What you call 'boxing people in' is generally called stating

facts which are hard to counter. Honest people admit when they are wrong, the only people who feel boxed in, are those who only care about attacking and winning and feel like victims when they are proven wrong. Not my fault if they start out from a non-winning position.

[joshcryer]

357. I'm not convinced you've ever convinced me I've been wrong about anything ever.

I'd be open to evidence to those ends, though.

And I admit to being wrong to other people who do provide actual facts lots of times, so that's saying something.

[sabrina 1]

361. Well, I don't really care whether you admitted to being wrong or not.

I care about issues, not internet games. Winning to me means that the people are being properly represented and that is what I work for. What someone on an internet forum thinks of me, lol, I can't think of anything I care less about. I know to some people it is the most important thing in the world. I respond to people because this is a discussion board and people learn from discussing issues, mostly me. Why you are here, I have no clue, it's not my business.

[joshcryer]

366. Fair enough.

I learn nothing from people who can't bring facts to the table, so for me it's just interesting dialog, and nothing substantial.

[sabrina 1]

373. I disagree, people learn when those who bring non-facts to the table are corrected.

You seem to be working hard to demonstrate something here, but I'm not sure what. It's as if you want to say something but are holding back.

If you are worried about speaking plainly to me, don't, I rarely alert, so feel free to say what is on your mind. I think, and I could be wrong, that you share the opinions of the small group you generally defend here but are trying to appear to be impartial. It's fine to align yourself with those who best represent your views. So rather than go around in circles, just attach a + 1000 to their comments. I assure you it won't bother me in the least. I am only interested in the opinions of people I respect.

I have to go, party time!

[joshcryer]

376. Same here!

[Kaleko]

474. Hello??? Your link proves the exact opposite of what you claim.

Dissembling... This is what you have become known for, joshcryer. Sorry to say.

[joshcryer]

476. More hateful insults.

[Kaleko]

480. Yes, more hateful insults to people's intelligence and reading comprehension coming from you.

What else is new?

dissemble |diˈsembəl|
verb ( no obj. )
conceal one's true motives, feelings, or beliefs: an honest, sincere person with no need to dissemble.
• ( with obj. ) disguise or conceal (a feeling or intention): she smiled, dissembling her true emotion.

ORIGIN late Middle English: alteration (suggested by semblance) of obsolete dissimule, via Old French from Latin dissimulare ‘disguise, conceal.’

[joshcryer]

481. I can't imagine anyone clicking that link and considering it "concealing one's true motives."

I was insulted for "lacking understanding" on an issue I had read up fully on before I even posted. That is typical and par for the course.

[Kaleko]

487. You've been trying to discredit Sabrina and others here

with patently false accusations for a long time. Your posting record is a testament to dissembling when caught in sneaking in yet another untruth.

Also, having the last word in an exchange doesn't mean your arguments are sound.

[joshcryer]

488. OK, whatever you say. Make it personal.

Still bitter about the fact that I didn't back down over the bigoted statements I observed, I guess.

[Kaleko]

489. Perfect case in point: who are you accusing of making bigoted statements -

me or Sabrina1?

[woo me with science]

187. +100000

[rhett o rick]

386. The poster got a post hidden yesterday, so theoretically he cant post here.

However, I noticed some post made today. Maybe I dont understand the system.

[joshcryer]

388. Yep, looks like they got booted from the thread.

I said they should've apologized...

[rhett o rick]

389. Wrong placement.

Last edited Fri Jun 15, 2012, 09:09 AM - Edit history (1)

[joshcryer]

399. Oh gosh, and I must be his enabler.

[rhett o rick]

421. Very sorry. I didnt intend that post for you. nm

[joshcryer]

409. They get booted from the thread?

[sabrina 1]

407. Hillary is Democrat. What is wrong with democrats supporting a democrat?

'Shilling for Democrats'. Bad Jane Hamsher, she should have shilled for McCain!

[iamthebandfanman]

82. Given that the truth was given to the person

to look at, and they refused...
id say that makes them a liar.

choosing to be ignorant after being given evidence otherwise isnt being misinformed, i know that much. maybe stupid, or ignorant, but not misinformed. lol
informaton was there to get, they rejected to even look at it.

[joshcryer]

108. Wait up, if that poster is on ignore, there's nothing to "look at."

I've been mocked and ridiculed for posting information while another poster had me on ignore, only for them to make derisive and stupid statements requesting the very information I had posted! When told that my post had the information they mocked it.

I'm not saying that's the case here, however, as it does appear the poster saw the link after replying to a post then diverts to talking about agendas.

[Poll_Blind]

117. My, my. Just look at the contortions you're going through to cover for them, though. nt

PB

[joshcryer]

119. Oh gosh, I am just putting a sense of perspective.

Everyone loves to just expect the worse in people.

[Caretha]

160. He kinda looks like

a pretzel, huh?

[SwampG8r]

143. when first said it was a mistake

when repeated and doubled down on after refutation....well that makes it intentional and therefor a lie
so yeah thats a giant ass liar we are talking about

[joshcryer]

144. As of this post the posts still have their times shown on the right there.

It looks like the poster kept saying it but after it was pointed out they diverted.

They should apologize but other than that I don't think calling them a liar is productive or necessarily accurate.

[Marr]

97. Your lack of an apology here makes you seem unprincipled and unworthy of regard.

It takes a small man to smear someone with a lie, and an even smaller man to skip the apology when caught.

[morningfog]

162. Ad hominem to avoid actual discussion. Weak sauce.

[LiberalAndProud]

32. I, too, long for the good old days.

Protectionism was the first economic policy implemented by the United States government after independence from Britain. Under the argument and guidance of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe, protectionism was implemented as a national economic policy. Realizing that the benefits of union with the United Kingdom had been severed as a result of independence while the economic ties remained in favor of the British Empire, the early American leadership saw that a new national economic policy was required. Accordingly, protectionism was viewed as a means to protect the less developed American industrial and agricultural economy from more efficient British goods whilst also gaining additional revenue for the Federal government. In time, tariffs were increased, subsidies apportioned, and infrastructure developed which allowed the expansion of the American made goods and their replacement of British made goods within the domestic economy. Thus, protectionism finally broke most of the economic bonds that had tied the American colonies with the British Empire thereby enabling the United States to establish itself as an independent major power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism

Clinton and Obama, on the other hand, have negotiated free trade agreements. I am homesick for old fashioned American values.

[Zalatix]

37. China and Germany practice protectionism now. Yet they're being hailed for their success.

[Egalitarian Thug]

46. Well of course they are. Both those governments have to care for their people as both are prone to

action, unlike Americans which will elect to sit and pretend every time in every circumstance.

[LiberalAndProud]

129. We have so few advocates for protectionism now.

It turned into a dirty word at the same time 'liberal' did. Sad making.

[Zalatix]

132. Fortunately the public is STRONGLY in favor of protectionism now.

If you stand up against free trade it's almost an "I win!" button nowadays.

[truedelphi]

444. Google the Trans Pacific Trade agreement, now in the works

And you will be totally willing to join me in my time machine so we can get back to an era where things made sense.

[LiberalAndProud]

454. I know, my friend.

It grieves me that Democratic presidents will be remembered for signing these agreements. I pine for what our party once was.

[Egalitarian Thug]

41. I completely understand and sympathize. It's the classic Hobson's choice.

Put another way, "would you like some KY with that, sir?"

But it is what it is and we're not the nation nor the people we once were. Our only hope lies with the kids, because the "adults" are the biggest fools or thieves in history.

(And how many here have noticed that over the last 15 years the world has passed us by?)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

48. Our government is supposed to work with checks and balances. Except for Sen Wyden (D-Ore.),

how many other Democratic Senators and Representatives are taking an active interest in even trying to get information about this latest wage-lowering, middle-class busting, let's-ship-even-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreement?

Maybe it is different for you, but in my State where we have one Democratic Senator, a contact with the Senator's office seems to elicit little more than a solicitation for even more funds. The other Senator is a Republican. The Representative for the district is a right-wing tea-bagger who defeated a Blue-Dog Democrat.

If this is not right for America, where are the Democratic Senators and Representatives? Do they not know that another "free-trade" agreement is in the works?

Thanks Manny.

[bbgrunt]

52. The extreme right-wing looniness allows Obama to

really betray the progressive ideals and then stand back and say: "so you'd vote for those crazies?"

The bad cop/good cop thing has become surreal....as we get a glimpse behind the curtain we realize they're all working for the same team.

[woo me with science]

180. The debt ceiling debate, the health insurance negotiations....

and now we will be treated to the "debate" over military cuts. The script is familiar, isn't it, and the outcomes predictable as rain.

[Bonobo]

53. So am I and here is a perfect example of the dynamic at work.

The other day I was listening to Chris Hayes filling in for Rachel Maddow. He started out talking about how the Right Wing is attacking Obama with their talking points about how Obama hates business. That he is the most anti-business administration, etc.

Hayes then goes on to show precisely how wrong this is, about how corporate profits are higher as a percentage and in real numbers than they have been since 1966 or something... and he is gushing about it, boasting about it. He goes on and on about how Obama has OUT-REPUBLICANED republicans in his policies. The same thing is true about how he has shrunk government, fought terrorism and on and on.

Is it not yet clear that this is a case of "Don't throw me in the briar patch!"? That the Democrats have been deftly maneuvered into accepting Right wing policies? Just listen to Rachel talk about Cap and Trade or other former Republican policies that Obama has adopted and then, as thanks, been vilified by the Right anyway and called a socialist?

The Right moves right, the Left moves right. Then the Right accuses the left of being too far left and so the Left moves even FURTHER to the right to try to shake off that criticism. Is this intentional or just dumb?

Should I start a new OP on this? It drives me out of my mind with frustration...

[MannyGoldstein]

56. It is truly the craziest thing I've ever seen

I've watched the same thing, jaw gaping. Definitely deserves an OP - might want to wait until more folks are awake and on the site!

[Poll_Blind]

69. I vote for new OP, but I have an even worse ice cream headache for you, which is related:

If President Obama is re-elected, the Third Way 'pukes will hail it as a vindication of their rightward shift. If Romney wins, they can claim exactly the same thing.



PB

[Bonobo]

122. That is indeed a puke-worthy thought.

And so sadly and tragically true.

[joshcryer]

73. Go for it. Don't expect a civics lesson.

I, frankly, am bored of the outrage.

[chervilant]

91. Then,

WHY are you even contributing to this thread?

[joshcryer]

111. Huh? I can't express my bemusement from the thousandth thread on these subjects?

I would fucking love if someone posted a real, genuine, civics discussion, but guess what? Because there wouldn't be outrage and it would be sensible it would sink in short order.

[sabrina 1]

135. I haven't seen any comment from you on the actual issue.

Most of us cannot afford to be bored by having even more jobs shipped overseas. Must be nice to be so secure and not have to worry about your or your kids future.

But don't expect too many people to share your boredom, these issues are the heart of what voters care about.

[Bonobo]

137. I must remember that entertainment and amusement is the primary issue for some.

God forbid an opinion should be stated by too many people that it becomes stale and boring.

Josh needs to read "Amused to Death" by Neil Postman.

[joshcryer]

145. I'm familiar. It applies to states like the US as well as totalitarian states.

It's basically the Spectacle in action.

The presumption by you and others is that everyone is unfamiliar with the processes that the OP is decrying and anyone who doesn't automatically jump in lock step fawning and agreement must therefore be part of the problem.

No, the problem is the state in and of itself and as long as it exists the problem will exist. There's no getting around it, there's no avoiding it. Those of us who have learned to live within it, of course, are condemned eternally by some ideal that is incapable of existing. I'm reminded of this every single time an FDR fawning thread is produced and I point out inconvenient truths about FDR, which not one person on DU has really challenged. (There was one person, I think it was Manny, actually, but after I pointed out the truths they never refuted me, but that's par for the course.)

[Bonobo]

146. I really don't know why you think the process of rightward drift is inevitable.

From my POV, people respond to leaders who are firm in their belief systems and do not equivocate or wobble -who are strong advocates for their beliefs.

The problem lies, in this case, with one side either trying tone reasonable and seeking middle ground (if they're not engaged in collusion, that is) while the other moves relentlessly to the right, pulling up the slick and making the rope taught as they go.

As the Right goes crazier and crazier ever to the right, the left is pulled along each time it cedes ideological ground and, thus, the short term memory of the chronic amusement-seekers (shiny object worshippers) forgets its former position and allows its ideology to be RE-DEFINED by the opposition.

In the examples I gave, this process is clear. And its result is equally clear. A redefinition of the mid-to right positions as the "Left" and a continuous movement to the right as a result.

To me, it could not be plainer and I fundamentally disagree with you that it is unavoidable due to the "realities" of the system as it exists. Like I said, a strong pull from our leader firmly to the left would, by definition, bring us back some of the ground we ceded.

After all, I believe right and common sense is largely on our side. We also have the numbers on our side if only we had advocates that promoted the interests of the majority over the 1%.

[joshcryer]

148. Until the democratic party is united, as opposed to effectively 3 parties in one...

...there is hardly much that can be done about it.

The democratic parties' 3 factions (liberals, moderates, and conservatives- particularly the conservatives indebted to the MIC) must become one. It will take several generations for the liberals to overwhelm the democratic party, but until then I see no reasonable outcome.

And then you won't get what you really want. There will always be interests that the party will uphold above the individuals of society. The republican party will die out, and then another "more liberal" party will take their place (or rather, the democratic party will become the "right wing" party). This is a gradual evolution that bemoaning and bitching about cannot change. You cannot force the electorate to vote the way you desire, we remain a minority.

You can "light a flame under the feet" of the party, that's all well and good, but they will ignore it if it doesn't fit their constituency. They can't deal with the possibility that a position that they might feel deep down being voted upon being used against them.

There's a reason Obama has a lot of No Votes.

[Bonobo]

150. I don't feel like we are talking to each other, but AROUND each other.

I simply do not see that you addressed my post above. I think it was quite clear.

I explained the process of what is happening and how to stave it off to some degree.

You did not deny or admit the process as I detailed it exists nor did you address the issue of how a strong POTUS can advocate strongly for a position and, in doing so, gain back ground ceded unnecessarily.

Bemoaning and bitching, the phrase you used, is needlessly condescending and belittling -oh, and unconstructive.

[joshcryer]

151. Fair enough, you inaccurately blame the middle grounders, I blame the demographics.

The demographics don't support your view of the party or the people. Sometimes I think we live in a delusion where we think we represent the American people. Of course, we don't.

[Bonobo]

153. That is more clear.

So, in effect, you are saying that Obama's policies are moving to the right because America is more to the right (than I think it is).

There is no way to prove whether this is so or not. I suspect there is a vast group of people whose opinions can be swayed or at least influenced when language is used cleverly so as to capture an issue.

I think the democrats do that poorly either accidentally or on purpose (because they are paid for and bought off).

I also think that they do not advocate their positions strongly enough and thus give the impression that they do not have strong convictions. Thus ground is lost to people that DO have strong convictions, albeit nasty ones.

Thanks for your reply.

[joshcryer]

155. I'm saying Obama's right in the middle, straddling both sides.

I think that the American population is far more to the right than liberals recognize.

You can prove this by looking at the polls about where American's stand on capitalism vs socialism (there's one done every year), then you look at the policy positions that Obama advocates (drone wars, really? I thought we wanted out of Iraq? Apparently we did, but we still want to murder people wholesale).

The democrats themselves are far weaker because they have to contend with factionalization. The republicans know how to do unity, and do it well, with votes in the 90% or higher, while democrats waffle, but as I said, the democrats are not one party. They're three, at the minimum.

[raindaddy]

189. Americans Will Say They're Conservatives Untill You Ask Them About The Issues

Americans will say they're conservative, especially when we're in shaky times. But when you ask them about specifics they're a lot more liberal than the media wants you to believe.
Americans are fed up with Middle East wars, yet they continue. They like Medicare and Social Security and want to maintain them, they're slated for an overhaul. Most Americans want to bring back our domestic manufacturing base/millions of jobs that were shipped overseas, via these same conservative trade policies. They want to legalize marijuana. They want to raise taxes on the wealthy. They also want jobs!!
There are a hell of a lot pluses here for the President and the Dem party. Traditional Dem values!!! If they can't shift the public dialogue in their direction in a middle-class depression, they either are more interested in maintaining their $eat in congress or they're leaning more to the right than the Dem voters recognize.

[joshcryer]

313. I'm talking about issues here.

For instance, Americans love the drone wars and even don't mind domestic drones, as long as they don't go after speeders. All the way up until the elections American's supported the Afghanistan war, and after electing a President who was going to finish it responsibly, we're going to naively think he's just going to leave immediately? Yeah, good luck with that. No politician in their right mind would do that. We're the ones who are a blood thirty nation, we're the ones who get the government we deserve.

[bvar22]

437. Instead of looking at what you like to "think",

lets look at some REAL polls on the issues.

Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

In recent polls 2005!!! by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives&quot .

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

8. 92% of ALL Americans support TRANSPARENT, VERIFIABLE elections!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x446445

...so the problem is NOT with the American People.
The "problem" is the Democratic Party's lack of will to actually represent The People
by aggressively marketing the above issues.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[sabrina 1]

290. We don't have to guess at where the American stand regarding issues. All polls taken without

partisan input, just on issues, show that a majority of Americans support Liberal Democratic issues.

The truth is the government doesn't care what the people want, that ought to be clear to anyone not wearing rose-colored glasses by now.

What counts to elected officials is what Corporate interests tell them, through their multi-million-dollar lobbyists, is important. The people have no lobbyists in DC.

[joshcryer]

311. Yeah, OK, marriage equality only just in 2011 made it past 50% support.

Meanwhile the drone wars show overwhelming support by the American population.

[sabrina 1]

338. And why did marriage equality finally get support from the American people?

It sure didn't happen by having the attitude that's 'this is the way it is'. No, we FOUGHT for that change. You are simply arguing against yourself now. That was a clear example of the people speaking out and criticizing the president's position on marriage equality. But if we were to listen to those who constantly told us to 'stfu' and stop 'demanding ponies' and how 'single issue voters' would lose elections, please, don't force me to dig up that battle. But thank you for making my point. If you want to get things done, you must fight and speak out and refuse to listen to political operators, whose only goal is to 'win', but 'win what'?

The 'drone' issue is not yet known to the American people, as you well know, the MSM has not covered it. The WH would not acknowledge it even existed. Like all other issues, it is only now thanks to great journalists such as Jeremy Scahill eg, that the issue is finding its way into the American dialogue.

People cannot support something they know nothing about. Or as happened with Bush, support something they have been lied to about. 70% of the people supported Bush's lies about WMDs. Now that number is down to 40%, even though the lies have all been uncovered.

As more information reaches the people, those numbers will change. But to ask people 'do you support using drones to protect national security'? Lol, nice try.

[joshcryer]

354. That's right. We fought in courts, we fought on the ground, because the President wasn't...

...going to do anything about it.

Indeed, when the President finally did do his DADT study, DU was all up in arms about how he could do an executive order, and things like that.

The President "evolved" as soon as the polls said "the majority of people support it." That's why I think he'll "evolve" on marijuana decriminalization.

[sabrina 1]

358. Well now you are finally making MY point. The people must lead the way. You've been arguing

against that throughout this thread. You've stated its pointless because it's 'the way things are' that you 'expect nothing' etc etc. Now, thankfully, you agree with those of us, Manny included, that the people must fight and speak out, otherwise YOUR position 'it's the way things are' is how things would stay.

I like it when people finally see the light

[ZombieHorde]

253. Excellent debate rebuttal. nt

[sabrina 1]

413. He didn't address your post. But I read it and couldn't agree more, you are absolutely correct

there is absolutely no reason for the shift of the Democratic Party to the right.

Well, actually there is an explanation for it. Read Josh's posts eg. Thankfully as more and more people reject those views, we have more hope of actually changing things. We are stuck this time with little choice, but I hope that this is the last time. I know that people are thinking very hard about the future and about their own part in helping to keep this terrible system in place.

But from everyone I talk to, especially young people, things are very different as far as the apathy of the people, and the 'loyalty' to one party or another goes now than they have been in the past. Even as the partisans attempt to dismiss the shifting sands beneath them and continue to attempt to bully people into continuing the status quo, their own leaders are ensuring that things will not remain the same.

It wouldn't be the first time in history for a major change to take place within the system.

[chervilant]

417. Great posts, as usual

I fervently hope that We the People will address the use of electronic voting machines (and all other methods of usurping our votes), and resume using exit polls to assess the accuracy of our elections.

[MannyGoldstein]

156. Like this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=790016

[joshcryer]

138. Let's hope they care.

Otherwise they might sit home like in 2010 when these issues could've been resolved.

Anyway, I can readily admit that as a white straight 30 something male basically nothing matters much to me, I won't be affected. But if the administration extends unemployment, extends pell grants, those things matter to other people, so I sympathize when it's done.

[sabrina 1]

258. Let's hope they care enough not to remain silent and to push their elected officials

to not support the destruction of the working class.

Note, still no reference to the actual topic of the OP.

And thanks for introducing yet another red herring.

If this was about ethnicity and not about America's working class you might have a point.

What is your point btw, keeping in mind the topic of the OP this time?

[joshcryer]

310. I'm pretty sure people stayed home because they were disillusioned by people...

...incapable of understanding the political process.

[joshcryer]

420. What issue? The only people that see it as an issue are those who can afford iPads.

The people who are actually poor and impoverished have much higher priorities.

[sabrina 1]

436. Wyden certainly does

but then, he cares about US Sovereignty and the rule of law. We get it, you are bored by all of it which is why you spent so many hours in this thread telling us how bored you are.

And the Unions, targets of these righwing policies, are now organizing against it which which will give Wyden the support he needs to exercise his RIGHT to oversee these trade agreements.

This is one of the worst revelations about Corporate influence on our government so far and we have only seen part of what is in those documents. 600 Corporations writing laws, many of the foreign, for this country. Yeah, no one is going to care about that, except Americans.

Tell me, do you think Congress should give up its right to pass laws and just leave it to the Corporations from now on?

[chervilant]

415. hmph...

Didn't sound like 'bemusement.'

(Actually, sounds like you need a visit from the grammar police...)

[frylock]

214. josh only cares about outrage if it's happening in the middle east

[joshcryer]

401. I'm a sucker for underdogs.

[sabrina 1]

451. Which is what this OP is about, underdogs. Don't see much comment on

those underdogs, you know, the working class whose jobs, what is left of them, are being sold by over 600 Corporations, how many of them foreign btw, in exchange for slave labor (more underdogs fyi) for profit, not profit for the underdogs though.

I love how they dismiss the devastation of their selling of America's working class to the highest bidder with a promise that WHEN these workers lose their jobs here, not to worry, they can spend the time training for service jobs, like Burgher King I suppose, partially owned now by Goldman Sachs. How great for the biggest most corrupt Corp in the world.

I guess in the interim their children can starve, but then when did the Global Corps, as they operated in third world countries, speaking of real underdogs, worry about starving those populations to death so long for profit.

Try reading a bit on what this means, read 'Diary of an Economic Hitman' to see how the underdogs fare under these policies all over the world. Or 'Shock Doctrine' which has now come to first world countries.

I have a weakness for underdogs also, which is why this is to me an outrage. Is there a category for underdogs somewhere?

[bvar22]

429. I LOVE it.

Pretend boredom about the "outrage",
and, yet, ALL over this thread like a Sheepdog defending his flock,
multiple posts,
and NEVER ONCE mentions anything about the content of the OP
or the Trade Issues and Secrecy of the White House in promoting them?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I never noticed.

[ljm2002]

92. I wish I could believe the Democrats have been "deftly maneuvered...

...into accepting Right wing policies". Unfortunately, I think the reality is that both sides are willingly serving the interests of the wealthy elites. Our side is a little more compassionate, that's all -- but in the end, they are going the same direction as the right wing because they are perfectly happy to be going in that direction.

We're the ones who have been deftly maneuvered. We've been maneuvered into giving up unions, good jobs with good wages, pensions, middle class expectations, decent public schools and infrastructure... We are led to believe that the politicians on our side will fight for us, when in fact they can barely see us, so eager are they to cash in on the rivers of money that flow around politics these days.

[woo me with science]

246. It's the same script over and over again...

on austerity budgets, on tax cuts, on health insurance, on military spending...

On issue after issue, we are treated to the drama of the debate and negotiations...but over and over, we know exactly what the outcome will be...and we have no say in it.

Either that, or it's all done behind closed doors completely.

There's a lot of predictable theater along the way, but in the end we are always the cows in the chute again, heading to the slaughterhouse to be sold.

[sabrina 1]

134. This must be a strategy because Laurence O'Donnell did the exact same thing the other night

and I was waiting for him to finish by asking Obama why he caters to the Right as O'Donnell described, when no matter how far to the Right he goes, they still keep claiming he's a Commie, Liberal Leftie?

But then I realized he was saying all this is it was a good thing that the Republicans would not give Obama credit for. And I had to ask myself, why? Who was O'Donnell trying to impress? He was turning off Liberals, does he think if touts Obama's Republican policies they will get the Republican vote? Because that will never happen. It made no sense at all and it probably made a lot of Liberals watching pretty upset.

[Caretha]

163. Is this intentional or just dumb?

You know the answer to that.

Sometimes we don't like the answers - we just shake our head in disbelief, and that serves no one, especially oneself.

[jtuck004]

63. Manny, it's like this.

A guy goes in a restaurant and orders a big expensive meal. Steak, drinks. Then just as his friend joins him he gets up and leaves.

Then he accuses the friend of running up the tab.

--Then you come in and sit down and say "has the tab been paid?".

"No"

"How long you been here?"

"Almost 4 years. I've been charging everyone an extra 15 cents on their dinners and trying to pay the tab with it."

"But they can't make more money to pay the bill like that".

"I know"

"But many of them are unemployed"

"Yeah, I've noticed there are less customers these days, but the cafe is doing fine".

____________________________________________________________________________


You gotta vote for the guy in the chair or the guy that stiffed him. And if the other one comes back he is gonna be h-u-u-u-u-ngry.


I do wonder if there is a "Third World Manny" in the future. Because, as is the case so often, real life is perceived as fiction, and people re-write it to what they want to read. So nothing really changes...

[flvegan]

67. I'm only posting

to laugh openly at post #29. And everything it's about.

[Puglover]

166. Yup.

1. Throw out a great big lie.
2. Get called out on it
3. Double down
4. Get called out 3 or 5 more times.
5. Disappear.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. The Third Way is the slightly slower lane to the same destination the Repbublicans are headed for.

But, we are blessed with the illusion of Democracy because we get to choose between Capitalists.

[chervilant]

94. Well, I say,

at least they could *kiss* us before they bend us over...

[LiberalAndProud]

123. Not exactly the same ... We have our differences.

Gay rights, women's choice, public safety net (sort of) and religion are the dividing lines now. Economic policy and individual civil rights, not so much. Norquist will have a stronger hand in a Rmoney administration, so the differences are not small. Just not large enough.

[roman7]

133. i know it ,that guy

needs to get it together & send me a memo before he dos stuff

[sabrina 1]

136. He doesn't need to send you a memo unless you are a member of Congress. He does need

to inform Congress who are our Representatives and that is what Wyden is asking for.

[cbrer]

139. Thanks for this post

It illustrates at least 2 main problems. Primarily the lack of progressiveness of either party, along with the willingness to maintain the status quo. But also, in a deeper, perhaps sinister sense, the observation that both parties are leading this nation away from a great future. And further towards the Fascist future we're being funneled to.

[rrHeretic]

141. I know Manny and

I pretty much feel the same as you except for me voting is no longer an option I wanna choose. It's totally futile and before anyone else jumps on my case about at least voting for the lesser of 2 evils:

1. If the republicans win everything all it means is that corporations will control 95% of what goes on and what type of bills are proposed and passed.
2. If the democrats win everything it will only mean that these same corporations will have about 92% of a say in the actions noted above.

We are living under classic fascism but nobody seems to get it.

[MannyGoldstein]

158. Actually, I recommend that you vote, and vote for Democrats

Because the alternative truly is a lot worse. We have an obligation to muddle through until help arrives.

[chervilant]

418. We have an obligation to

muddle through, until we can position ourselves to be the change we hope to see in this nation. We will have to 'fight' our battles, and I remain hopeful that our revolution will sustain the use of Satyagraha and non-violence.

(We teachers can definitely use and encourage Satyagraha.)

[datasuspect]

172. evil in any form needs to be fought and resisted

not rationalized, mollycoddled, and integrated.

[chervilant]

419. Which reminds me...

“Remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS.”

Mahatma Gandhi

[SidDithers]

154. And another outrage widget hits the shop floor...

**thunk**

Sid

[morningfog]

164. Another thoughtless dismissal of a serious issue.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

194. No thread on corrupted US policy/elections is complete till the Canadian clown car shows up.

[SidDithers]

195. ...

Sid

[dionysus]

240. hey Sid, need some extra clown white? you can write "Greewald/Manning 12" on your car windows

with it and drive backwards around your block...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

256. He would probably want to spell it correctly. Spelling it "Greewald"would make him look idiotic.

[dionysus]

259. Greewald.. Greenwald.. Douchewald.. doesn't matter much each way...

[morningfog]

205. It's just Dis Mithers being Dis Mithers...nt

[SidDithers]

210. ...

Sid

[sabrina 1]

279. ...

[KoKo]

333. Well...maybe I shouldn't have asked "Sid" on this post. I do hope he will get back to me...

but, we are all busy these days...and this is just a Message Board...so it will take some time.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

363. He's been locked out of this thread.

He was locked out for taunting someone over a failed alert. Delicious irony.

[KoKo]

364. oopsie. I didn't know a poster could be locked out of thread they didn't start....oh well.

I'm sure he will get back to me on some other post. He/she tends to be pretty prolific when they have a mind to it.

[Puglover]

371. Yep and his transparency page is now up.

Yikes 60 star members ignoring? Is that a record?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

372. Wow! That's, um, very revealing.

[QC]

424. Even Loco Bozo only got up to 54. n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

461. x2

[trumad]

157. "Obama's been a tragic disappointment"

tragic--- what the fuck dude?

[SidDithers]

168. It's just Manny being Manny...nt

Sid

[dionysus]

181. someone's gotta carry the torch... "...and he was a giant among men..."

[Logical]

217. And you defending everything he does. No different!

[Romulox]

190. Saving this subthread for later. Want to REALLY digest the richness of the dialogue.

Last edited Thu Jun 14, 2012, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)

This is three of the best posters we got!

[NYC_SKP]

196. I owe you an apology!

Will send a PM:

[MannyGoldstein]

303. The greatest orator of our time is handed a depression

Hires a who's-who of accomplished warriors against the middle class (Summers, Emanuel, Geithner, Simpson, Bowles...), launches realists and friends of working Americans under the bus (Dean, Krugman, ...), clamors for austerity and Hoover economics, asks for deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare, hands trillions to the bankers and sups with them regularly, champions "free" trade bills, ...

Meanwhile, each day, more Americans are busted, homeless, jobless, and hungry.

I'm not sure that I'd call it a success.

[JoeyT]

159. I'd almost be happy to get third way now.

It's all just one way.

[HughBeaumont]

171. + 100.

One way . . . straight up our asses.

[Poll_Blind]

199. Very true, especially compared to Clinton. nt

PB

[Freddie Stubbs]

165. Get used to it

Democratic presidential candidates who stray too far from the center are doomed to failure. The grown-ups who are in charge make sure of that.

[woo me with science]

178. I worry that people get used to it and feel helpless,

Last edited Thu Jun 14, 2012, 08:55 PM - Edit history (2)

when it's so important to stand up and acknowledge what is happening, and demand change.

But you underscore the important point...It's structural and systemic problem, built into the system now. And, really, it's rigged long before that. It's virtually impossible now to *reach* the level of Democratic or Republican Presidential candidate anymore without the backing of the corporate machine...so the choices we get are already on board.

[bvar22]

273. Yeah. I've noticed that pattern.

*Paul Wellstone... KIA

*Howard Dean.... discredited, marginalized, banished

*Cynthia McKinney..... attacked from the Center, isolated, marginalized, cut off from Party support, expelled

*Eliot Spitzer...... Honey Trapped, discredited, isolated, expelled

*Anthony Wiener.....attacked from the Center, marginalized, discredited, isolated, expelled

*Russ Feingold.... attacked from The Center, marginalized, isolated from party support, exiled

*Alan Grayson .... attacked from The Center, marginalized, isolated from party support, exiled

*Dennis Kucinich ... attacked from The Center, discredited, marginalized, isolated, redistricted, exiled

*John Edwards.... expelled and demonized for weakness in his personal life that regularly goes unpunished for others

*Dan Rather... set up and bitch slapped by the Conservative Media over a minor offense, and left hanging

The downfall of some of the above can be partially attributed to their own personal foibles,
but in every case, the party leadership was quick to condemn and abandon, and made no effort to embrace or assist any of these Liberals in their time of need. There ARE politicians in BOTH parties guilty of far more serious transgressions who managed to survive their troubles because of Party support.

*Maxine Waters... currently under attack

*The Congressional Black Caucus..... admonished by the President to quit whining, "Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes" and get behind the President's agenda.
(When has he EVER spoken to the "Blue Dogs" like that?)
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-tells-blacks-stop-complainin-fight-015928905.html

*The Progressive Caucus.... no seats in the cabinet, almost none appointed to positions of any power in the Executive Branch, the White House doesn't take their calls.


*Democratic Primaries 2010.... Strong pattern of endorsing and supporting Blue Dogs and Big Business Conservatives,
even including one "former" Republican running against more Liberal, Pro-Working Class challengers.
(See: Arkansas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado and others)

*Acorn.... Throw to the wolves without hesitation. Couldn't run away fast enough.

FDR & the New Deal/LBJ and the Great Society...
much like the Conservatives have done with Bush-the-Lesser, the New Democrat Party Leadership has airbrushed them out of the Family Portrait.

The "New Deal" and the "Great Society"...flushed down the Memory Hole, never to be mentioned,
but St Ronnie the Reagan?... praised for all his good ideas and "strong leadership".

The pattern is clear.
---bvar22
A mainstream/Center loyal FDR/LBJ Working Class DEMOCRAT,
now relegated to the "Fringe Left" wing of the "New Democrat" Centrist Party

[Blue_In_AK]

287. Absolutely 100% correct, Bvar22

[sabrina 1]

301. Excellent post, it should be an OP.

[woo me with science]

319. Agree that this should be an OP.

Democrats need to shake the illusion that any of this is happening by accident.


Great post, as always. Thank you.

[Marr]

378. Exactly. Well put.

[truedelphi]

468. Very salient observations and

Analysis. Excellent listings of what has gone on in the name of Hope and Change.

[rudycantfail]

470. I've always looked forward to reading your posts

but this post raised the bar - thanks.

[inna]

473. +++ and thank you

[Zorra]

349. These so called "grown-ups" of yours have fracked up the entire world.

I have a much more accurate name for your heroes:

Fascist Sociopaths.

[Laelth]

167. k&r for the thread title alone.

The nausea is widespread.

-Laelth

[Javaman]

182. Hammers and wood chippers.

that's a hell of a choice.

we are the serfs of new America, made to feel as if we matter, but are continually forgotten.

We are blurbs, we are content for political pamphlets, we are the useful tools to be bandied about when political need arises, our hands are shook, promises are made to us by eyes that seem sympathetic, we are smiled at on queue, we are told truths that are only half true, we are the gullible masses who want something so bad that we are willing to take scraps and call it victory; we are the new surfs.

At the end of the day, what do we really want? A fair shake? A fully belly? A secure job? A roof over our heads? A good night sleep?

We all live on the edge of a cliff, praying daily we don't fall off. Once, there were nets to save us if we did. But those nets are either vanishing are in ill repair.

We try our best to look forward, but be have a hard time to keep from looking down into the abyss.

As we walk, the edge gets a little less secure. Bit and pieces falling into oblivion.

We look to the open land and we see armies approaching. Armies of the wealthy, the greedy and the willing tools to be sacrificed.

They run across green grasses of endless beauty. Their sky is always blue, their water is always clean and they never have to worry about the next bill, feeding themselves or health issues.

We are the serfs of New America.

[Erose999]

186. To hell with Turd Way. Kicked and rec'd.

[Romulox]

191. Have you noticed? This is a "Third Way" website... nearly all vocal Lefties have been PPRed...

[xiamiam]

250. true..there are still some of us who remain but its less interesting and less informative without

the old du crowd. Its been a difficult habit to break because for almost a decade I've come here first thing in the am for news. I wonder where they are but I think they've gone to more fertile ground. sometimes its like pushing a rock up hill just asking a question around here. I don't like the folks who tell me I have to keep my mouth shut if I don't like the drone strikes, or the corruption, or the blatant evisceration of the constitution by this administration. This is the same site that would give me fuel to fight if the same things had been done under Bush. I distrust blind allegiance..especially when it contradicts my personal morality and ethics. We're in perilous times and I just wish was a way to just get rid of the corrupt dems and repubs which are two sides of the same coin.

[Jamaal510]

192. What does Third Way mean?

[Poll_Blind]

197. Wiki page is a good start:

Here.

Under Obama, however, the method of undermining "the opposition by borrowing policies from it" has become a kind of phantasmagoria not seen in the last 40 years, at least, in American presidential politics.

PB

[stupidicus]

198. Join the growing crowd

please

I've been battling the proponents and supporters of it since the Clinton days.

What the "man in the street" variety of this can't or wont' understand, is that it is the proximate cause of disillusionment and disenchantment BHO is suffering from on the left. The reaon why this is particularly acute now, as opposed to when the DLC-types launched their mission to allow the tendrils of corporate control to infiltrate the dem party during the Clinton years, was because of the bubble-induced economic joy lacking now, and because after the Bush disaster, they were abnormally high on the remedy BHO represented. (One of the reasons I was encouraged to vote for him, was because he told the DLC to take his name off their member list.) Collectively and individually emotionally, BHO supporters had much farther to fall given the heights hope and change reached, and it is the extra hard landing in reality the many stories like this one resulted in, that makes them "hurt" all the more -- the being "duped" element notwithstanding.

THe truly sad part is, following this "happy v content" model, is that even for those of us that avoided the starry-eyed love affair with him (happy, happy, happy) there's been such a long list of things like this that have accumulated, that even "contentment" is completely outta reach, leaving him little at this point for his reelection prospects but far more voting against the kook Romney, and not for him.

THis is why I've long thought and argued in the wake of the too little stimulus, ACA, and his support for the catfood commission, that fear of rightwingnuttery is the only trump card he has left, and he the only choice we have.

What the "purist" don't realize, is the intregal role all of this plays in the moving of DC and the ideological center line further rightward, and the policy goals of those on the left therefore further outta reach. At this point we'll be lucky but certainly not
"content", to keep things like SS and Medicare intact.

It kinda parallels the "First they came for the ... and I said nothing" line, and was maintained by the same evil apathy they display today when they get on board with things like "kill lists" they'd surely have condemned during the Bush years, given the innocent lives lost as a result of it.

The worst part about it is, they have the audacity to condemn those that condemn or even "mildly criticise" legitimately things that have an incontrovertibly factually and easily defensible moral foundation.

This is why I've been telling lefties and righties alike for the last ten years, that fascism is encroaching, and Bush merely put a militaristic face on it lacked in magnitude prior to his administration.

To those like you I've said said http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/14/michael-tomasky-gives-the-president-some-advice-grow-a-pair-obama.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet, and don't let despair get in the way of hope that are efforts will eventually pay off. Tenacity has a way of keeping it alive.

"When we have the courage to speak out -- to break our silence -- we inspire the rest of the "moderates" in our communities to speak up and voice their views."
-- Sharon Schuster

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could
do only a little."
-- Edmund Burke, statesman and writer (1729-1797)

[proverbialwisdom]

208. Heads-up: SPEECH in Ohio @ 1:45 today. Watch live!

http://www.barackobama.com/live

...just received text message and had to share!

[JDPriestly]

218. Thank you. Is Halliburton even a U.S. company?

Whose country is this anyway?

If a corporation has access to information, then every member of Congress, every staff member of every member of Congress and every American citizen should have access to that information.

Third way, indeed. Why don't we just call it what it is? Fascism. Government by, of and for the corporations (certain corporations, anyway).

[librechik]

220. yup--I've learned to love it

ironically

[treestar]

221. What is the legal argument regarding viewing these documents?

I'm seeing here a very boring legal question that no one on the board knows anything about - it may be nothing (as it so often is). It may be a legit way to proceed under the law. Or an open question. But delving into this boring legal set of issues is necessary before having an opinion.

Looking among this kind of stuff for an excuse to slam the administration is disingenuous. You know there's a boring legal question underneath it all. But choose to interpret loosely to find a reason to be condemnatory.

[nashville_brook]

326. a new enforceable corporate global governance -- not a big deal, really.

just some boring legal shit.

The agreement requires that every signatory country conform all of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures to what are 26 chapters of very comprehensive rules, only two of which have anything to do with trade. The other 24 chapters set a whole array of corporate new privileges and rights and handcuff governments, limit regulation. So the chapter that leaked—and it’s actually on the website of Citizens Trade Campaign, it’s a national coalition for fair trade—that chapter is the chapter that sets up new rights and privileges for foreign investors, including their right to privately enforce this public treaty by suing our government, raiding our Treasury, over costs of complying with the same policies that all U.S. companies have to comply with. It’s really outrageous.

-- Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.


http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/14/breaking_08_pledge_leaked_trade_doc

[treestar]

362. That is an opinion

We'd have to wade through all 24 boring and dull dry chapters to know if we agree.

No one's willing to do all that work but they sure are willing to jump on the outrage bandwagon - completely uninformed.

[nashville_brook]

426. i love that you're "of the opinion" that the secret trade deal is "too boring" to pay attention to,

and when a summary is provided you invoke your opinion that the summary itself is an opinion, and therefore without merit.

socrates wept.

[treestar]

453. No, but why should Lori Wallach's opinion be one I should

adopt immediately and without question? I've never heard of her.

Trade stuff is hard to understand and the "all trade is bad" and all trade agreements evil is a rather overwrought, simplistic stance to take.

All the pages of rules that are referred to - we don't know what they say or what affect they have. We just what some chick named Lori Wallach wants us to think. IMO that's not enough to jump on a bandwagon that these trade deals are wrong or harmful.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

224. The Third Way is a prime example of "The ends (getting elected) justifies the means".

Or, to put it another way, Political Expediency at its slimiest.

[porcinaalbastrucaine]

229. Third way is the GOP way

You want to act like a Pub then be a Pub.

Third Way is a LOSING Way.

[bupkus]

231. The lesser of two evils has become

Pick your poison.

Either way, we're dead.

After all that preceded this, and this, does anyone really believe a second term will be any different?

[truth2power]

232. I hear what you're saying, Manny. Here's something that's been bothering me for a long time...

In the Primary this past spring, there were 3070 Democratic ballots cast in my county. Of that number, there were 513 undervotes in the Obama category. That is, 513 people chose not to even bubble-in his name. Democrats, that is.

That may not be at all statistically significant (about 17% of Dem ballots cast) and DUers can probably come up with a multitude of reasons, running from the plausible to the absurd, for that.

I think a lot of people have serious reservations about Obama and if they can't process those feelings they're going to fester and, just like "family secrets", eventually destroy the whole system from within.

Some on DU are desperately looking for reasons to vote for Obama. Others deny there's any problem at all. The latter is unproductive, IMO.

[porcinaalbastrucaine]

235. In my state primary

I did not vote for Obama as a protest vote.

I will vote for him in November but that is the extent of my support for him.

I just wish the Democrat on the Ticket was a Liberal/Progressive instead of a Blue Dog Moderate.

I will feel so dirty voting against everything I stand for but it is not like we voters actually have a choice.

[whatchamacallit]

252. That document doesn't exist, it's a figment of your hate filled imagination.

[Theross]

255. Read this as an answer on another Liberal website. It might help understand this news a little.

Question: You know how it's easy to tell if something is a complete load of crap? Answer: The author didn't even try hard enough to keep out a "worse than Bush" quote from the spokesperson of an activist organization. Seriously, multilateral trade agreements aren't getting any worse under Obama than they have been since the Clinton and Bush administrations, they still suck just as bad.

Multilateral trade agreements are extremely complicated affairs that, during the negotiation stage, include all kinds of elements whose implications are difficult to determine. Not saying they're good or bad, just saying this article screams hysteria more than anything else. For example, the original Huff Post piece claims that a similar trade agreement "could overturn the nation's domestic laws at the behest of a foreign corporation." Which is a complete over-simplification of the legal case cited in the article. The "foreign corporation" is not only licensed to operate in El Salvador utilizing a Salvadoran subsidiary, but the claimants in the case in question similarly argue that El Salvador violated several of its own laws in limiting the corporation from operating a mine in the country. So, not as cut and dried as the author(s) make it seem.

[woo me with science]

276. Top of the Greatest Threads, with 140 recs.

Thanks, Manny. It's important to speak above the corporate propaganda.

[KoKo]

278. Kick...Like with Bush II ...I wake up every morning and say "What's Next!" ...

there's always something!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

283. Exactly. I knew he wasn't a raging librul, but I did "hope" (barf)...

we'd get some sort of break from the "what's next?" existence. Double-whammy for those of us in North Carolina -- it's nucking futs in this state!

[quinnox]

280. It is nice to see all the recs, and that the liberal and progressives

wing is still strong at DU.

On a more unfortunate note, its becoming more typical to see good progressives get slandered by lies, and its starting to be a troubling pattern. Make up obvious lies, and then accuse good progressives of it. These shills who do this aren't fooling anyone, it is so transparent, and IMHO should be reported to the admins as unacceptable disruption.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

286. Still strong? As strong as before?

Some are not here. You better believe it.

[quinnox]

288. No, we have lost some, but its good to see

that many libs/progressives remain here. They are the vital heart of DU IMHO. Without them, this website would be just another political message board, and they come a dime a dozen.

[on point]

284. I may be forced to vote republican this year - his name is Obama

[nashville_brook]

324. ouch!

[nashville_brook]

293. this is EXACTLY how i feel too, Manny. this trade action is classic Clintonian fuckery

which we rejected during the primary. Triangulate by making a huge policy shift that massively screws what's left of the middle class, and then fund raise based on it.

Meanwhile, the beltway narrative completely ignores real world actions hurting us in favor of a James Carville vs Mark Penn playing rhetorical slapsies.

It's disgusting. I'm disgusted. Here's an article...

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/12/the_unkillable_clinton_team_versus_obama_team_narrative/singleton/

The unkillable “Clinton team versus Obama team” narrative
Helpful advice from two Clinton campaign vets (and unhelpful advice from two others)
By Alex Pareene

Are “Clintonites” undermining the president by spreading panic to his reelection campaign? Not really, no. Some people formerly associated with Bill Clinton did release a strategy document saying the president should change his economic messaging in order to appeal more to whites in battleground states. Then Zeke Miller at BuzzFeed called some other, different people associated with Bill Clinton, and asked them to comment on the document, and made it a story of Clintonites desperately begging Obama to change course before it’s too late.

What's REALLY galling is that while it's Clintonian *policy* that has provided new angst (in the form of the Trans-Pacific Partnership), the strategy document mentioned above by Team Clinton implores Obama to "feel our pain," vis a vis the economy with a message they're calling "The Middle Class Future."

Again, classic Third Way fuckery.

[xiamiam]

296. after reading this thread i decided to put 2 members on ignore and guess what

the 293 replies were reduced by over 200...and they were not in agreement with you manny..talk about derailing a thread.

[MannyGoldstein]

306. I just had to clean hamburger bits off of my iPad

thanks for the laugh!

[rhett o rick]

390. Let me guess, you put the top dog and his # 1 buddy. But the enablers are still running

loose, looking for their leader so they can post "+1000".

[joshcryer]

398. I can confirm that my "number of star members ignoring" just jumped by one.

Another person not on my jury blacklist.

[Bryn]

331. If I were to understand this ...

A critical document from President Barack Obama's free trade negotiations with eight Pacific nations was leaked online early Wednesday morning, revealing that the administration intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations, contradicting prior promises.

That it would be the merger of corporate and government power thus fascism in the United States. If so I cannot support a president doing this. This is NOT the democratic party I had grown up with.

[ProSense]

332. Good to know that

despite Issa's "leak," President Obama has been enforcing trade laws. Rather than allowing multinational corps to subvert U.S. laws, I expect that he'll continue to push for strong enforcement.

Consumer Federation of America Applauds Obama Administration’s Defense of Country-of-Origin Labeling
http://www.consumerfed.org/news/476

Obama launches trade case against China over raw materials
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002419556

On Tuesday, March 13, 2012, the President signed into law:

H.R. 4105, which clarifies that the countervailing duty law can be applied to subsidized goods from nonmarket economy countries; and the Department of Commerce can adjust antidumping duties applied to goods from nonmarket economy countries when countervailing duties are applied to the same goods.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/13/statement-press-secretary-hr-4105

WTO Upholds Obama’s Tire Industry Relief Decision
http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/09/06/wto-upholds-obamas-tire-industry-relief-decision/




Did Issa leak the trade documents to piss off the left and aid Romney?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002806854

Where the hell are the black helicopters?

[MannyGoldstein]

344. The three free trade deals estimated to move > 100,000 jobs offshore

that were passed last year... Obama didn't sign them?

Well, that *is* good news!

Thanks Pro!

[brentspeak]

352. So you're trying to tell us that Ron Wyden is trying to aid Mitt Romney?

Is that the story you're trying to push?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/obama-trade-deal-democrat_n_1578827.html

Obama Trade Document Leaked, Revealing New Corporate Powers And Broken Campaign Promises

Posted: 06/07/2012 4:31 pm Updated: 06/07/2012 5:22 pm

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has loosened some of its most stringent secrecy policies surrounding a controversial set of free trade negotiations, but the Democratic chair of a Senate subcommittee on international trade is demanding far greater transparency provisions -- and garnering Republican support for his effort.

In late May, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chair of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade, introduced new legislation that would require the White House to share trade documents with all members of Congress and their qualified staff. The move was largely a symbolic act of protest against the secrecy the White House has imposed on a new trade deal, known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The agency responsible for trade negotiations -- the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative -- had denied Wyden office access to any of the draft documents involved in the trade pact, offering an unusual legal argument that only a handful of members of Congress were permitted to view them. After Wyden introduced his legislation, however, USTR partially relented, allowing Wyden to see the documents, but not his staff.

[nashville_brook]

427. +1

b/c Wyden is secretly really working for the neocon/corporatists by undermining the neocon/corporatist message put for by Obama, b/c Wyden knows it's better to make Obama look bad in the eyes of the neocon/corporatists, than to have a neocon/corporatist agenda shepherded by the POTUS.

b/c that all makes some sort of (pro) sense.

[ProSense]

440. That's

b/c Wyden is secretly really working for the neocon/corporatists by undermining the neocon/corporatist message put for by Obama, b/c Wyden knows it's better to make Obama look bad in the eyes of the neocon/corporatists, than to have a neocon/corporatist agenda shepherded by the POTUS.

b/c that all makes some sort of (pro) sense.

...not all that clever. It is a bit too conspiratorial for me, but I could come up with something to help your comment make sense:

"Wyden is secretly really working for the neocon/corporatists" http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002443749

Your words.

ProSense.

[ProSense]

438. Actually,

So you're trying to tell us that Ron Wyden is trying to aid Mitt Romney?

Is that the story you're trying to push?

...I made no such implication, but since I get the gist of your comment, it's not inconceivable that Wyden could support something damaging to the middle class:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002443749

Any questions?

[brentspeak]

472. Yes -- why does Obama keep acting like a Republican instead of a Democrat?

[Jakes Progress]

359. The choir salutes you.

Those that actually see these tactics are just shaking their heads.

[ProSense]

439. Fuck the choir (whatever that means). n/t

[Eastern Winds]

343. Disagree

Obama is better tha Bush or Romney!

[Oilwellian]

347. Good post

I totally agree.

K&R

[Zorra]

350. The third way party is almost as bad as the GOP.

And that's really bad.

☮CCUPY, DAMMIT!!!

[rhett o rick]

423. In some way they are worse. nm

[Honeycombe8]

353. Say it isn't so. My heart is deflating, if it is. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

380. That's interesting

who is driving this?

[Cali_Democrat]

402. Fucking Halliburton?

[pa28]

403. Kick.

This was a fun thread. Thanks Manny!

[inna]

410. #162nd rec here

[rhett o rick]

457. #163 but I was reluctant. Want to keep Manny humble. nm

[Hotler]

422. Wow! That sure brightened up my day. n/t

[WorseBeforeBetter]

433. Kicking, because I love this thread.

The best and worst of DU, in all its glory.

[Blue_In_AK]

448. I love you, Manny.

I don't think there's another poster on this entire board who can draw out people's true colors better than you. This is a very enlightening thread.

[rhett o rick]

456. Let's not get all maudlin. nm

[Blue_In_AK]

459. I love you, too, Rhett

I'm just feeling that way today.

And did I ever tell you how much I like your name? You and Warren Stupidity have the best names on the Board.



Okay, now I'm going to go back to being my usual acerbic self.

[rhett o rick]

464. Good. And for the record, Warren has my vote. nm

[MannyGoldstein]

465. Aw, shucks

Thank you for your kind words.

It certainly a very *weird* thread - it did turn into a pretty representative microcosm of DU. I wish I could say I actually planned it that way, but the only thing I was planning was to grab a beer after I finished venting through my keyboard at TPTB.

[Agony]

463. ...

it's gonna be a long slog for change to come...

Cheers anyway!
Agony

[QC]

469. kick

[limpyhobbler]

471. holy crap this is a long thread

kick

[Kaleko]

475. Epic thread, Manny.

Talk about revealing...

[joshcryer]

477. This thread links to the Huffington Post (a site funded by Scott Walker).

The headline quoted in the DU article linked does not even appear on the Hufftington Post and is patently untrue (the leaked draft agreement does not give corporations more powers).

This thread is certainly epic in so much as how many people didn't digest what they were reading and had propaganda fed to them by right wingers.

[Rex]

478. Right you are, it links to another posters thread

that has a link to the Huff that says, "Obama Trade Deal Secrecy Insulting, According To Key Democrat."

[joshcryer]

479. Except the controversial bit is "Revealing New Corporate Powers And Broken Campaign Promises."

Not revealing a trade agreement during the draft stages is typical committee crap.

The Huffington Post, after they lied, and got their link spread across the internet, changed the title of the article. It no longer exists as was linked by the OP (and indeed at the time the OP was made the title had already been changed).

I have no need to take seriously any article by the Scott Walker funded Huffington Post and I will digest it myself. A lot of people failed to do so which is why this whole thing was amusing, to say the least.

edit: meanwhile, and here's the fucking delicious bit, Darrell Issa was the one who drove the narrative and was the right winger who got the outrage to start to begin with. All thanks to the Huffington Post lying.

[Rex]

482. Ugh...the criminal Issa

what doesn't he have his paws into these days? I will not link anything from The Huff. Might as well be linking articles to the American Spectator!

[Romulox]

483. But "Third Way" Manny SUPPORTS NAFTA??? Weird!

Krugman was right: NAFTA

Last edited Fri Jun 22, 2012, 03:52 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

NAFTA caused a modest drop in the incomes low-skilled-workers, but increased mean income because the rich folks made a lot of money. I'm not sure what your issue is with this - the rich did great, the poor got hurt.

Almost-free-trade with China was much more destructive than NAFTA. If you look through years of my previous posts, you'll see that I've been saying the same thing for a long, long time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=843987

[joshcryer]

484. Heh, this will be so controversial, I actually agree with half of that...

Last edited Fri Jun 22, 2012, 10:54 PM - Edit history (1)

He's right that, at least in theory, states we have trade agreements with have a much lower trade deficit (with regards to us) than states that we don't have a trade agreement with. I only learned this in the past year, it was a startling result.

Note: Obama should still renegotiate NAFTA as he said he would but he only said that because Hillary was to the left of him on that issue... :twisted:

Note 2: NAFTA is the worst of the trade agreements by far, beyond any of the others, if I recall correctly.

edit: it didn't occur to me at the time of posting that he was downplaying the wage disparities that NAFTA caused. Third Way for sure. I only agree with the part that trade agreements can be more equitable than no trade agreements. Not that they are.

[Romulox]

485. So does CATO. nt

[joshcryer]

486. I doubt CATO would want it to be renegotiated.

I have no idea about Manny.

[Romulox]

491. I don't think "Third Way" Manny wanted to touch this. Too confusing, I guess.

Based on responses, I'm not even sure "Third Way" Manny knows which character he is portraying when he supports NAFTA.

[joshcryer]

492. Yeah, I failed hard there, I did NOT agree with their "modest" assessment, which is why I edited.

The effects are by no means "modest" thus my edit to correct what I was saying (hopefully I am not judged has harshly as "Third Way Manny" should be since my "notes" at least indicate a repulsion to NAFTA; it honestly didn't occur to me at the time of posting just how much they were downplaying NAFTA).

Doubt anyone will care though because this thread has basically run its course.

Still pissed the Scott Walker funded Huffington Post was allowed to get so many recs here on DU based on nothing more than a lie and misinformation. But what can you do when you have 20+ people ignoring you...

[Romulox]

493. Hero worship meets cognitive dissonance is the most charitable explanation I can give. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

495. Actual Manny in no way, shape or form has ever supported NAFTA

Even when DLCer Gore was pushing it.

Not ever.

[Romulox]

496. He just disagrees with the consensus that it was a destroyer of millions of manufacturing jobs?

[MannyGoldstein]

497. Any jobs lost is tragic, awful

That being said, the largest credible estimate I've seen is less than a million jobs (from EPI), less than 5% of manufacturing jobs at the time it was enacted. Do you have any credible estimates that are in the millions?

[Zorra]

490. _^_

[unreadierLizard]

494. So....I gather from this thread

that moderates are to be flayed alive/reported to the Politburo?