My email in box is crammed daily full of pleas for campaign donations. The pleas are heavily seasoned with "Rove" and "Koch" and other ooga-booga super scary things. The overlying message is the other guys are really really horrible. Well, more horrible than the current administration, so if I don't pony up the insanely popular Affordable Care Act might be repealed. Oh wait, it's not really all that popular. Now if it was single payer, or had a public option, it might be worth salvaging, but pointing the taxpayer money cannon down the throats of rich conglomerates (AHIP & PhRMA) with an auto fire setting is not a real positive policy, YMMV.
The Administrations foreign policy of raining freedom bombs from unmanned drones is alarming, their domestic civil rights record is appalling, their justice department is limited to busting prescription marijuana users and an economic policy that is anemic at best. Still, it is a true statement that a second Obama administration would be far better than a Romney presidency. The problem is how can the Democratic wing of the Democratic party get the President to not take their vote for granted? What can the current administration do at this late hour earn back the vote of the left?
After Obama won the Presidency his motto changed from "Yes we can," to "I got this." His Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, organized a scheme to protect Obama's left flank by giving the heads of several lefty interest groups a seat at the table and explaining the policies of the President. If any of them objected and threatened action, Rahm would threaten to contact that organizations big money donors and tell them the President demands they withhold support--in short cut off their main money supply. Jane Hamsher of firedoglake famously dubbed this "the veal pen." At one such "strategy sessions" certain moderate Democrats were threatened with a primary candidate for weakening the Health Care bill. Rahm declared that was "fucking retarded."
Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs, frustrated at how ungrateful the President's base was declared we should be "drug tested." With such open contempt held by senior staff for the base of this President shows a clear political problem. Reporters who wish to maintain sources declare the liberal wings' discontent as a desire for "ideological purity" when nothing could be further than the truth. That should be reserved for the teabaggers. But Gibbs and Rahm have done real damage to the Presidents re-election chances. How is it possible to actively support the President's re-election without Rahm and Gibby doing a snoopy dance and spiking the football for enacting a center-right agenda?
The health care bill we should be so grateful for was born in the bowels of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank. A Vampire Squid is wearing the Presidents' jewelry, punctuating the Obama domestic economic agenda. Upper marginal tax rate increase? Nope. Inheritance tax resolution? Nope. Employee Free Choice Act? Not so much. Lock up a single crooked Bankster for the most massive fraud ever perpetuated in the history of the planet? Crickets. I guess I'm just a fucking retarded degenerate junkie for not being fired up and ready to go.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Obama Vies For Second Term
In an effort to protect his flank and close ranks among his base, President Obama has made recent overtures to the LBGT community and Latino's. Specifically, he finally "evolved" on his opposition to same sex marriage. This is not a small thing, since this is the first sitting President to endorse gay marriage. Also, congress' failure to pass the "Dream Act," which prevents the children of undocumented workers--who should not be visited upon by the iniquities of their parents--from being deported, as long as they aren't hoodlum junkies and such. He is doing this by Executive Order. He has set out parameters that if immigrants fall into a certain bracket, they will not be deported.
It is fairly easy to categorize those who oppose these two measures as homophobes and bigots, so I think I will. Rush Limbaugh immediately told his "ditto heads" Obama's same sex endorsement was an assault on marriage. His first, second, third and fourth wives were not available for comment. The President, speaking a belief like he did on same sex marriage is a far different thing than telling the Justice Department who not to prosecute. The Dream Act is a reasonable proposition but the President's actions demonstrate a troubling pattern.
The Justice Department is supposed to be independent of politics. Presidents can set priorities--drugs, porn, white collar--etc., but telling the Justice Department who to, and who not to prosecute, smacks of political elitism. Many on the left demanded previous administration officials be prosecuted for war crimes, and indeed when Eric Holder, undergoing confirmation hearings for his successful appointment as Attorney General for the United States, agreed with Senator Patrick Leahy that water boarding was torture, he failed to bring charges once he was confirmed.
President Obama insisted that we "look forward" his reasoning for demanding the Justice Department not do Justice on prior administration officials. Overlooking the fact that all crimes occur "in the past" it fed into the belief that prosecutions are selective and the elite class, no matter how heinous their crimes, would receive deferential treatment from a politicized Department of Justice. America has more people locked up right now than all other countries combined, so the Department of Justice is no shrinking violet when it comes to visiting the full weight and benefit of its resources on the American citizenry, and yet not a single Bankster has yet to be charged, 4 years after nuking the world economy.
Clearly President Obama has an eye on the "Citizens United" ruling of the Supreme Court which allows unlimited corporate expenditures on political campaigns. Obama received more Wall Street money in his bid for the Presidency than John McCain. It would be unreasonable not to speculate that a Savings and Loan type of prosecution (circa 80s & 90s) might somewhat thin out Obama's election coffers. The same can be said for his "evolvement" on the LBGT marriage issue. Two incomes with no children leaves a lot of disposable income for campaign contributions. The importance of votes, not money, is the reason for adding the Dream Act Executive order into the Department of Justice, giving them another category of whom not to prosecute.
It is true Obama took office in a country facing a four alarm fire. When the opposition party showed up with hatchets to chop up anything that resembled a fire hose, the President threw the entire country over his shoulder and tried to drag it to safety, while republicans predictably bit his ankles. Yet he insisted on dealing with them, coming out of the gate with the compromise positions which naturally ended up with republican policies after additional compromise. Democrats are tired of this and the President is in real danger of losing re-election. There is a large block, count me among them, of Democratic voters who are drifty. Sometimes we vote, mostly when we have something to vote for or against. I have huge difficulties in voting for Obama since all we get out of him are republican policies and Banksters like Jamie Dimon, famously called a Vampire squid wrapped around the face of America sticking his beak into anything that smelled of money showing up at a recent Senate hearing after losing $3 Billion wearing Presidential cufflinks. He's got sack because Obama's got his back.
It is fairly easy to categorize those who oppose these two measures as homophobes and bigots, so I think I will. Rush Limbaugh immediately told his "ditto heads" Obama's same sex endorsement was an assault on marriage. His first, second, third and fourth wives were not available for comment. The President, speaking a belief like he did on same sex marriage is a far different thing than telling the Justice Department who not to prosecute. The Dream Act is a reasonable proposition but the President's actions demonstrate a troubling pattern.
The Justice Department is supposed to be independent of politics. Presidents can set priorities--drugs, porn, white collar--etc., but telling the Justice Department who to, and who not to prosecute, smacks of political elitism. Many on the left demanded previous administration officials be prosecuted for war crimes, and indeed when Eric Holder, undergoing confirmation hearings for his successful appointment as Attorney General for the United States, agreed with Senator Patrick Leahy that water boarding was torture, he failed to bring charges once he was confirmed.
President Obama insisted that we "look forward" his reasoning for demanding the Justice Department not do Justice on prior administration officials. Overlooking the fact that all crimes occur "in the past" it fed into the belief that prosecutions are selective and the elite class, no matter how heinous their crimes, would receive deferential treatment from a politicized Department of Justice. America has more people locked up right now than all other countries combined, so the Department of Justice is no shrinking violet when it comes to visiting the full weight and benefit of its resources on the American citizenry, and yet not a single Bankster has yet to be charged, 4 years after nuking the world economy.
Clearly President Obama has an eye on the "Citizens United" ruling of the Supreme Court which allows unlimited corporate expenditures on political campaigns. Obama received more Wall Street money in his bid for the Presidency than John McCain. It would be unreasonable not to speculate that a Savings and Loan type of prosecution (circa 80s & 90s) might somewhat thin out Obama's election coffers. The same can be said for his "evolvement" on the LBGT marriage issue. Two incomes with no children leaves a lot of disposable income for campaign contributions. The importance of votes, not money, is the reason for adding the Dream Act Executive order into the Department of Justice, giving them another category of whom not to prosecute.
It is true Obama took office in a country facing a four alarm fire. When the opposition party showed up with hatchets to chop up anything that resembled a fire hose, the President threw the entire country over his shoulder and tried to drag it to safety, while republicans predictably bit his ankles. Yet he insisted on dealing with them, coming out of the gate with the compromise positions which naturally ended up with republican policies after additional compromise. Democrats are tired of this and the President is in real danger of losing re-election. There is a large block, count me among them, of Democratic voters who are drifty. Sometimes we vote, mostly when we have something to vote for or against. I have huge difficulties in voting for Obama since all we get out of him are republican policies and Banksters like Jamie Dimon, famously called a Vampire squid wrapped around the face of America sticking his beak into anything that smelled of money showing up at a recent Senate hearing after losing $3 Billion wearing Presidential cufflinks. He's got sack because Obama's got his back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
