Midterm: Further Right Lays Waste to What is Left

November 6, 2010

Re: Obama says he’s out of touch, but offers no concessions

President Obama’s first reaction to the republicans after the midterm results: Let us find “common ground.”  Absolutely amazing – but not surprising.  Everything he gave them for the last two years only further empowered their resolve to destroy him – and any possible remaining chances for Progressive change.  The “common ground” during that span was incessant corporate (Blue Dog) appeasement, which reflected Obama’s actual standing/commitment.  Consequently, his original base was torn – in stages of revulsion.  Anything learned? : “What the American people want is for us to mix and match ideas.”  Wrong!  The majority of citizens wanted the “Change” they were promised – not the same status quo, step-by-step sellouts prevalent since the Reagan years, or updated methods of watering down every measure to the point where the industrial/financial/military circle (neo-cons/neo-liberals) may as well have put forth/planned them themselves – yet openly.

“He noted that he engaged in closed-door, backroom deal-making to get his health care bill through Congress, but said it was necessary and the end justified the means.”  The “end” was a Mandate (during a worldwide Recession/don’t dare call it a Second Depression) – without a Public Option: “If a mandate was a solution, we could try that to solve homelessness by mandating everyone buy a house.”  The “means”: “These are the stock-in-trade tactics of the ‘power elite’ that C. Wright Mills wrote so poignantly about back in the 1950s.”

“It’s an ugly mess when it comes to process.  That is something that really affected how people viewed the outcome.  That is something that I regret . . . but I think the outcome was a good one.”  The “process” was assured as one that would be renewed, to an honorable level.  Instead, the “ugly mess” of corruption, behind closed doors, while being sold as something else, on stage, continued – and this, undoubtedly, “affected how people viewed the outcome” – but not just on health care; it “affected” how everything was “viewed” – overall.  Moreover, since Obama’s  degree of “regret” leaves him thinking “the outcome was [still] a good one,” and leads him to seek even more “common ground,” our society can be assured of what is on the horizon:

Senator Reid: “the biggest takeaway from this election is that the American people want compromise across party lines.”  Yes, that’s the answer: more “compromise” – in one direction.  And, those true colors never cease to reveal – as they continually dye each and every surface.

A “thanks” to Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Robert Gates, and all other summoned advisors for the relevant midterm “outcome” – and all that is soon to follow – due to our president’s “out of [a certain] touch” choices, without (leftist, professional or otherwise) “concessions.”

Update (11/10): “President Obama’s . . . deficit reduction commission just proposed slashing Social Security.”

In relation to narratives created by Fox/Koch Brothers, etc., and what was the continuing mindset of the remaining Bush II minority, Obama appointed a biased Deficit Commission – during a Second Depression.  At the same time, he “Put Social Security on the Table.”  Then, the Deficit Commission’s (predetermined) recommendations were put off until after the midterms.  Now, with a new House, Obama and the remaining Blue Dogs will seek even more of that (veil of) “Common Ground,” and “Compromise” – while we hear more about sacrificing.

Re: What Happened to Change We Can Believe In?
Individual Mandates Bootstrap the Homeless
Foreclosure Fraud? Obama Looks Forward
Obama Put Social Security on the Table

[If FDR and his related Congresses had reacted as Obama and the last Congress, what is going to be (within two decades, maximum), would have already been – by 1945.

Prediction: The 2008 election was the last chance to turn a certain tide.  Since it, instead, served primarily to expose who factually rules and whose side Congress and any President will stand on, we can now look forward to a never-ending series of corporate waves.]

Bookmark and Share

Re: What Happened to Change We Can Believe In?

October 24, 2010

Re: (Frank Rich’s) What Happened to Change We Can Believe In?

Aside from midterm talking points/apologetic slants which obscure warranted levels of intense criticism (leading to actual “change”):

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . telling us to “look forward, not backward” – after instilling the “forward” as what would be on election day, instead of the opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . blocking the  release of a second set of torture photos – after promising the opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . human rights, as he continues the same abuses of his predecessor, with excuses of “possible future threats” (based on Minority Reports?), and information gleaned through torture – after inspiring a hopeful opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . bailing out Wall Street, without prompting a restoration of the Glass–Steagall Act, or providing relative relief to all the commoners who were purposely plundered – after portraying himself as a special interest opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . making secret deals with corporate executives, selling out the Public option, then signing a Mandate – after campaigning on the opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . “the dark cloud cast by” his willingness to defend extensions of unemployment checks, but not a National Jobs Program with teeth (i.e., one that is not $50 billion compared to $700 billion and loaded with even more Cheneyish tax cuts) – after attacking Bush II as his opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . failing to get his (supposed) party to use the slightest of backbones in letting the Bush II tax cuts expire for the wealthy – after guaranteeing the opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . appointing a Deficit Commission, dead-set on gutting Social Security as “austerity”/”self-sacrificing” measures (put off until December to guard the midterm results) – after championing privatization’s opposite.

“President Obama, the Rodney Dangerfield of 2010, gets no respect for” . . . refusing to implement a moratorium on foreclosures – after reams of documents and fifty state attorneys general make it certain that those Institutional denials of conspiratorial Fraud actually seal the opposite.

So, yes, within this “relentless drag on a chief executive who promised change we can believe in,” there is a “fatalistic sense that the stacked economic order that gave us the Great Recession remains not just in place but more entrenched and powerful than ever.”  And, within this environment, who gets “punished” “for bad behavior”?  The “Professional Left.”   But, “Should those [Other] forces prevail, an America that still hasn’t remotely recovered from the worst hard times in 70 years will end up handing over even more power to those who greased the skids.”  True, “[President Obama] sometimes looks as if he’s fronting for the industry.”  Yet, “Voters [somehow] are . . . failing to give the White House credit for its . . . successes,” and “finding it guilty of transgressions . . .” (since the “White House is hardly innocent”).  As a result, how could there be an Enthusiasm Gap?

Re: FBI Raids on Anti-War Activists

Bookmark and Share