Skip to main content

I assure you we are not.

There exist in this country a class war. On one side you have corporatists who want to make the USA a lot more like Mexico. They have effectively taken over our country, our government, and our Democratic party.

On the other side you have 99% of the American people. The labor force. The working class.

Either you're with us or you're with them. This is not Bushian simplicity. This is a fact. The interests and aims of the 1% are so adverse to the interests of the other 99%, that there is little middle ground. In almost every case, whether it's domestic policy or foreign policy, health care policy or energy policy, the interests of the 1% are diametrically opposed to those of the general public.

They are, in fact, our enemy. They seized our country, our government, our media, and used them against us. All in the name of making a few extra bucks.

A  percentage of people here at Daily Kos have their allegiances backwards. Their loyalty is to the corporatists, the president, and the party leaders when it should be to their fellow Americans.

They DEFEND some of the most egregious and harmful actions of our sold out, bought and paid for "leaders" because they are loyal not to principle or the weak among us. They are loyal to power.

They defended Obama's flip flop on FISA. The picking of the rats who caused the financial crisis like Larry Summers into Obama's administration. They defended keeping rats and war criminals like Bush holdover Bill Gates. They defend Obama's escalation of a STUPID and IMMORAL war in Afghanistan.

They defend Obama's lies on removing our troops and mercenaries from Iraq.

They defend the CONTINUATION of Bush's policies on terrorism and violations of civil rights.

They defend Obama's secret deal with the pharmaceutical companies.

They defend Obama's countless attempts to appease Republicans legislatively when he knows or should know they will never reciprocate. He actually allowed Republicans to REPEATEDLY weaken legislation and still didn't get one Republican vote on the same legislation. WTF?

And worst of all, they defend Obama's Republican, conservative, and corporatist alliances while chastising FDL's pitiful little attempt to ally temporarily to defeat this atrocity of a health care bill.

Obama ran as an agent of change. Then, once in office, he became the guardian of the status quo. He FUCKED US on the bank bailout. Too big to fail just got bigger. Goldman Sachs is laughing at us now. They're mocking us.

A year ago they needed our help. That was the time to act. That was the time to win hard new regulations. But instead, Obama pissed our leverage away.

At first I thought he was a healer. Then I began to realize he's just weak. Now I am convinced he's just working for the other side.

On every single issue, amazingly, he has sided with the corporatist lords. WTF?

On every one of these issues above, and many more I didn't mention, that's what it comes down to. You're either on the side of the Billionaire Club, or you're on the side of the people.

Obama is on the side of the Billionaire Club.

Obama appealed to a lot of Republicans because, in many respects, he ran as a Republican. Remember this?

I asked the president-elect, "At the end of the day, are you really talking about over the course of your presidency some kind of grand bargain? That you have tax reform, healthcare reform, entitlement reform including Social Security and Medicare, where everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good?"

"Yes," Obama said.

"And when will that get done?" I asked.

"Well, right now, I’m focused on a pretty heavy lift, which is making sure we get that reinvestment and recovery package in place. But what you described is exactly what we’re going to have to do. What we have to do is to take a look at our structural deficit, how are we paying for government? What are we getting for it? And how do we make the system more efficient?"

"And eventually sacrifice from everyone?" I asked.

"Everybody’s going to have to give. Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game," Obama said.

Only a Republican could look at the plight of the American people for the last 30 years, as we've gone from making less than half for the same amount of work, as everything has gotten insanely expensive, from health care to groceries to college tuition, and our local communities are broke, our schools are broke, our local governments are broke..

Only a fucking Republican could be so out of touch with the economic hardship of the people of this country to suggest that we need to "sacrifice".

The last forty years, since the evil ratfuck Reagan swept into office, have BEEN A SACRIFICE.

I AM A DEMOCRAT. I am a member of the PEOPLE'S PARTY. I am loyal to ordinary Americans who are suffering needlessly while greedy fucks like Larry Summers and Loyd Blankfein plunder our commonwealth.

That's the team I'm on.

Originally posted to labor in vain on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 07:54 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You view things in a much too black and white (16+ / 0-)

    manner...

    as if there is no shade of gray between the hardcore corporatist and the die hard liberal...

    it's not all that dissimilar from the way that teabaggers and republicans look at the world...

    to them there was no shade of gray between torture and giving terrorists Miranda rights...

    to them there was no shade of gray between keeping gitmo open and releasing terrorists on the the streets of NYC...

    here you are engaging in the same deeply flawed reasoning

    •  Someone who sees only in black and white... (12+ / 0-)

      ...is either a great genius or a great fool.

      This diarist is no genius.

      I'm trying to see the upside of letting the Republicans back in. If you think if they get back in, they'll ruin the country so much that we get more opportunities than we have now, you're not just a fool, but a dangerous one, and you're definitely not on my side.

      •  I'd rather not call him a fool... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CuriousBoston

        or dangerous...

        i just think it's always wrong to see things in black and white...the human condition is so much more complex and wondrous than that

      •  Back in? (5+ / 0-)

        I'm trying to see the upside of letting the Republicans back in

        Excuse me, but when did the Republicans get put out? I know, we all voted for Democrats, and we have a Dem in the White House and a Dem majority in Congress, and yet...we still have Republican policies!

        That is what the diarist is so righteously pissed about, and the diarist is not alone.

        Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

        by drewfromct on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:12:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  you aren't seeing the forest for it's trees (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          second gen

          so much changes for the better when democrats are in power...

          •  That's certainly true right now (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            corvo, FutureNow, Morlock, nippersdad

            so much changes for the better when democrats are in power...

            for Goldman Sachs and the insurance companies, isn't it?

            Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

            by drewfromct on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:17:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  that's why he's currently pushing a too big (0+ / 0-)

              to fail tax

            •  don't forget Big Pharma (5+ / 0-)

              and the entire military-industrial complex!

              •  don't forget impoverished children w/o health (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                second gen, CuriousBoston

                care...oops...i guess expanding SCHIP doesn't fit your meme...

                dang i suck at this blame obama game

                •  I don't recall saying (0+ / 0-)

                  that everything he's done has been wrong. :-)

                  •  that's just the tip of the ice berg... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    second gen, CuriousBoston

                    i could go on and on...

                    the little things he's done do add up regardless of how you feel on how he's handled big ticket items...the little things actually will probably have a bigger impact on the country

                    •  The LITTLE things (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      claudew, corvo, FutureNow, dotdot, nippersdad

                      he's done that are positive are sadly far outweighed by the negatives such as the bailout and the craven Corporacrat cave-in on HCR. Not to mention the Afghanistan surge.

                      Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

                      by drewfromct on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:42:11 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  it's hard to make that call when you are (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        second gen, CuriousBoston

                        totally ignorant of the effect of things as small as appointments to administrative agencies...

                        •  Let's be honest: (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          drewfromct

                          The effect of those appointments will become apparent only in the coming years.  As will the effect of those bailouts and "Corprocrat cave-ins."

                          Certainly if it ends up being four years' worth of Obama appointments bookeneded by eight of Dubya Bush's and four to eight of President Mittens' or Caribou Barbie's, the effect of those appointments is likely to be modest.

                          •  false and that's why you don't get it... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            CuriousBoston

                            the lasting impacts of let's say an NLRB decision...are gigantic...

                          •  Depends on the President and Congress (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            drewfromct

                            come January 2013 that can enforce, undermine, or overturn it.

                          •  false you have no clue how the NLRB works (0+ / 0-)

                            sure in theory congress could overrule it...but that is so exceedingly rare...

                            moreover...previous decisions set precedent and the nlrb acts much like an appellate court so it does leave a lasting difference...

                            that's why the reagan years were so detrimental to labor...

                            now if only we could get his appointees confirmed we'd be rolling...

                            and the nlrb is just an example...the fda, ftc, ssa ad infinitum...

                          •  you really need a mirror (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            drewfromct, FutureNow

                            because your own comments display your own lack of understanding.

                            Let me repeat: four years' worth of Obama appointments bookended by eight years' worth of Rethug appointments on one or both sides doesn't amount in a lot of lasting change.  

                            The electorate will judge Obama on the big stuff come November 2012 (or, for that matter, November 2010), and that's why the big stuff had better look good.  Especially if . . .

                            now if only we could get his appointees confirmed we'd be rolling...

                            . . . he ever expects to have a Congress that will eagerly approve all these valuable little appointments.  

                          •  actually i have a perfect understanding (0+ / 0-)

                            i'm a law student...i study the law...

                            i know the effect that administrative agencies have on everyday life...

                            they have a saying about administrative law...it's called "the other 90 percent of law"

                            don't minimize the effect that NLRB decisions have...

                            even if the public is ignorant to it...it doesn't diminish the impact

                          •  I see you're talking past me. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            drewfromct

                            You talk about the power of federal agencies, choosing not to address the issue of how little change the current Administration will effect in them if it has only four years to make appointments, and if many of those appointments are frustrated by a remarkably powerful and effective opposition party.

                            I guess they don't teach that stuff in law school.

                          •  superbly ironic you should mention (0+ / 0-)

                            bodies functioning "much like an appellate court" because if Obama doesn't establish enough momentum and legacy to have a chance at rebalancing SCOTUS -- which functions "much like an appellate court," wouldn't you agree -- then we're going to continue to be royally screwed for decades to come.

                          •  LOL...now you are switching topics... (0+ / 0-)

                            what can obama do other than appoint people who share his view?

                            elections have consequences...so the court is conservative for the foreseeable future...not his fault at all...

                            you are aware he can't amend the constitution which doesn't allow him to "restructure" the supreme court

                          •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            drewfromct

                            what can obama do other than appoint people who share his view?

                            Of course that was my point all along.  Geithner, Bernanke, Gates -- they do all share his view.

                            elections have consequences...so the court is conservative for the foreseeable future...not his fault at all...

                            He has an opportunity now -- and, I would say, a duty -- to create a climate in which a majority of Americans wouldn't think of electing Rethugs for a good long time, preferably long enough to flip SCOTUS back toward sanity.  If you disagree, then I'm delighted to disagree with you.

                            you are aware he can't amend the constitution which doesn't allow him to "restructure" the supreme court

                            If disappointment or disillusionment with the status quo results in the loss of Senate seats, Obama might find any further opportunities to replace SCOTUS justices -- I am assuming this would entail the death or retirement of someone currently on SCOTUS -- will be that much more difficult.

                            You seem to have difficulty with elementary political realities.  Curious.

                          •  Let's not go crazy over the NLRB here (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            drewfromct

                            First of all, the Board is fully capable of reversing itself.  The Clinton NLRB ruled that graduate student employees (TAs, researchers, et al) were employees under the Act.  Then, 2 years later or so, the Bush Board reversed the ruling.  A similar thing happened WRT workers in a non-union situation and Weingarten rights.

                            Board decisions tend to be pretty fleeting, and don't fix anything structurally.

                            The problems with labor law are structural and, to a large extent, are deliberately that way.  It's good to have a sympathetic Board, but a sympathetic Board is woefully inadequate for protecting the rights of workers, because the law they enforce, as written, is ineffective and, in some cases, actively hostile to workers.

                            "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

                            by Pesto on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:37:42 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Under the Senate Bill, The one that Obama is (3+ / 0-)

                  reported to be supporting, the SCHIP program is going to be subsumed within the Medicaid system is it not? And the "fiscal responsibility" council proposed by Pete Peterson, wingnut extraordinaire, that is being supported by the White House has Medicaid in its' sites, does it not?

                  How does an temporary expansion of SCHIP just prior to eliminating it and then gutting the program that ate it help kids?

                  A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

                  by nippersdad on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:27:51 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  schip is essentially an expansion of medicaid (0+ / 0-)

                    anyways..

                    it was implemented to help people who didn't qualify for medicaid but who still couldn't afford health insurance, have their kids get healthcare...

                    so expanding medicaid to subsume schip isn't something that is going to be necessarily "bad" for children...

                    •  No, it wouldn't be bad for children, (3+ / 0-)

                      were it allowed to stay funded. I feel like I have seen this play before. Expand some program and then gut its' funding later. Unfunded mandates do not help kids, and that is precisely what Peterson's council is aiming for.

                      A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

                      by nippersdad on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:47:00 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  On how many fronts can we fight? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              second gen, CuriousBoston

              There is a massive underestimation of the length and breadth of how much the Bush Administration screwed the country, and how long it's going to take to repair the damage. The fact that you didn't get everything you wanted in the first year does not dismiss the massive improvements that have been made in things you don't pay attention to, and shows that you're not really up to speed on how President Obama does things.

              You want to call it 11-dimensional chess, that's fine, but it's a lot simpler than that. There are a lot of incremental changes in a lot of different areas that are being built upon. We're rebuilding the foundation of a house, and you're upset that the people doing it aren't fixing the leaky roof that the last set of contractors left.

              •  shhhh! don't let the facts get in the way (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                second gen, CuriousBoston

                of their wrath

                •  Yeah, well. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  second gen, CuriousBoston

                  This attitude has me incredibly annoyed. Because, in my house metaphor, the attitude displayed in this diary is "let's get the contractors who put the hole in the roof back so we can get better guys to fix the foundation next time." It would be hilarious if it weren't so damn maddening.

              •  With all due respect to how awful Bush was (4+ / 0-)
                1. The class massacre started long before Shrub was even born;
                1. Bush's policies were an accelerated, exaggerated manifestation of that conflict, but even conceptually those policies didn't set themselves apart from the basic ideology that's ruled Washington for decades;
                1. As to your house analogy, I think you have it wrong:  the foundation is cracking, the house is sliding down the face of a cliff, the gas pipes have cracked and a fire has broken out, and you're reminding us that the new owner has installed some nice, new curtains and is thinking about patching the roof.

                "Run, comrade, the old world is behind you!" -- Situationist graffito, 1968

                by Pesto on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:31:13 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Using your house analogy, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                drewfromct, Brooke In Seattle

                most contractors would tell you that it is fairly easy to jack up the house and fix the foundations, but once the roof is allowed to become porous the war on saving the house is lost. There is little point in fixing a foundation when the entire structure has become unstable due to the rot which has set in because the roof leaks.

                A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

                by nippersdad on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:33:20 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  They say in Harlen County (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        drewfromct

        There are no neutrals there
        You'll either be a Union Man
        or a thug for J.H. Blair

        Which side are you on, boys
        Which side are you on

        - Florence Reese

        "Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people." - Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1821

        by Jeffersonian Democrat on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:59:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  and the point of that is? (0+ / 0-)

          i don't care what the hell they say in harlan county...it doesn't change the point

          •  wow, it doesn't change the point (3+ / 0-)

            you don't care what happened in Harlen County

            and you blog on a democratic blog?

            Amazing.

            The attempt of the United Mine Workers to organize the coal industry in Harlan County in the 1930s resulted in outbreaks of violence, drawing national attention. In 1937 a US Senate subcommittee began an investigation into allegations that workers' civil rights were being violated. Further violence ensued. The governor sent the National Guard in to protect the owners' property. Victory came in 1939 when the UMW was recognized as bargaining agent for most of the state's miners.

            The bloodiest battles to build a union have been in the coal fields -- in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois, Colorado, and Kentucky. And surely the toughest and meanest of all the coal field where men fought for a voice and a place in the sun was "Bloody Harlan" in Kentucky.

            In 1931, coal miners in Harlan County were on strike. Armed company deputies roamed the countryside, terrorizing the mining communities, looking for union leaders to beat, jail, or kill. But coal miners, brought up lean and hard in the Kentucky mountain country, knew how to fight back, and heads were bashed and bullets fired on both sides in Bloody Harlan.

            It was this kind of class war -- the mine owners and their hired deputies on one side, and the independent, free-wheeling Kentucky coal-miners on the other -- that provided the climate for Florence Reece's "Which Side Are You On?" In it she captured the spirit of her times with blunt eloquence.

            The point is ignored, by you obviously, that sometimes it is black and white and one needs to take a side

            "Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people." - Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1821

            by Jeffersonian Democrat on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:19:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you are talking about physical violence (0+ / 0-)

              different situation...

              my apologies for not knowing about the violence in harlan county...but to be fair i doubt it's common knowledge on this site

              •  actually I am talking about class war (3+ / 0-)

                that has been taking place non-violently for many generations with a few violent flair ups here and there.

                In the class war, it's coming to a point where one needs to take a side, one will have to see it as black and whit out of necessity

                No need for an apology, but I would instead encourage you to look into the labor history of the US

                "Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people." - Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1821

                by Jeffersonian Democrat on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:38:02 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  It's "Harlan". (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brooke In Seattle

          If you're going to play rabble-rousing class warrior on the internet, you should at least try and get the spellings correct.

          The "choice" offered by capital is illusory. If you cannot afford the choice, you don't have the freedom to choose.

          by high bitrate on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:43:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yea, I caught that after (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            drewfromct

            I hit post, dammit!  Doing the face face palm, because you are right, if I want to rabble rouse, I need to have my shit in order

            Usually my typos are due to living in a foreign language for the last six years, use it or lose it, even if it is your mother tongue.

            But that wasn't the case here, I simply substituted an 'e' for an 'a'

            I supposed that substitution took away the point I was trying to make.

            "Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people." - Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1821

            by Jeffersonian Democrat on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:49:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  oh, and forgot to address another good point (0+ / 0-)

            of yours about "playing" a "rabble-rousing class warrior on the internet".  I actually do not own any pajamas, but I am involved in class war

            Wir stehen an Eurer Seite! DIE LINKE Thüringen unterstützt den Streik im Gebäude-Reiniger-Handwerk. Seit dem 20. Oktober stehen bundesweit in zahlreichen Betrieben und Einrichtungen die Besen still. 8,7% mehr Lohn fordern die Beschäftigen. Bodo Ramelow, designierter Fraktionsvorsitzender der LINKEN im Thüringer Landtag, und die Erfurter Landtagsabgeordnete der LINKEN Karola Stange besuchten am 23. Oktober früh um 7 Uhr die streikenden Kolleginnen und Kollgen bei der IG BAU in Erfurt. Ramelow forderte einen flächendeckenden gesetzlichen Mindestlohn und erklärte, DIE LINKE unterstütze die Forderungen der Gewerkschaft und ihrer Mitglieder nach mehr Geld.

            http://www.karola-stange.de/...

            That was the latest strike I was heavily involved in

            "Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people." - Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1821

            by Jeffersonian Democrat on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:54:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Pretend that my German is limited to... (0+ / 0-)

              ..."wo ist der Biblioteque" or "wie geht est Ihnen" and tell me what that says.

              The "choice" offered by capital is illusory. If you cannot afford the choice, you don't have the freedom to choose.

              by high bitrate on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:57:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Basically (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                drewfromct, Brooke In Seattle

                we were supporting a strike for a nation-wide minimum wage and that we, The Left Party actively supported the unions for wage fairness.  The point being, I not simply a cheeto-eating, pajama-wearing, internet rabble-rousing class warrior.  I do walk the walk

                "Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people." - Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1821

                by Jeffersonian Democrat on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 10:03:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  It actually gets worse... (8+ / 0-)

    Take a good look at who Bernanke is appointing as head of oversight at the Fed.

    In my estimation, this is pure hubris, and a deliberate attempt to show maximum contempt for the people.

    Bernanke is free to hire who he wants, but Obama should be telling any camera aimed at him, that he's waiting on Bernanke's resignation as he speaks.

    It makes me sick to be so betrayed.

    •  it's not Obama's call AT ALL (0+ / 0-)

      and why would he want to alienate Bernanke like that...he still has to work with him to get stuff done...

      •  No he doesn't (10+ / 0-)

        he still has to work with him

        Bernanke was appointed by Bush. Obama did not have to re-appoint him.

        Why has Obama left so many "loyal Bushies" in positions of power over the financial and military sectors?

        Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

        by drewfromct on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:09:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  but right now he has to... (0+ / 0-)

          and don't you think there were some good reasons for not wanting to totally overhaul leadership at the Federal Reserve given how dire the situation was...

          you can obviously argue that he should have totally cleaned house and it's a valid one...but i also see some wisdom in Obama's move..

          if i had my druthers, i'd rather he clean house...

          pretty soon he won't have a choice as bernanke and geitner are becoming more toxic by the second so it's almost moot

          •  In other words . . . (4+ / 0-)

            right now he has to appoint Bernankes and Geithners because pretty soon they'll be so toxic the matter will be moot?

            Strange logic there.

          •  but, but but... (8+ / 0-)

            ANswer the freaking question.

            You loyalist care so much about Jane Hampshire aligning with Republicans.

            "Why has Obama left so many "loyal Bushies" in positions of power over the financial and military sectors"

            You don't know and you don't care. All you know is LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!!!

            •  "loyal bushies" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CuriousBoston

              anyone who was a loyal bushy is not someone who would be willing to work in a democratic administration...

              i think he decided that with respect to the economy it'd be better to bring in the experienced guys, even though they are the ones who fucked it up...rather than have to bring new people up to speed...

              i agree he should have to answer for his decisions and it's a shame that no journalists have pinned him down on it...

              but to project evil motives on him is unreasonable in the absence of any evidence that your interpretation is more reasonable than mine

              •  Sorry, but (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                corvo, nippersdad

                I find that to be rather naive thinking on your part. Wouldn't a real "loyal Bushie" relish the opportunity to stick around in a Dem administration and tear it down from the inside, if given a chance. Or have you forgotten the damage done by a certain Linda Tripp?

                Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

                by drewfromct on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:26:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  lol so there are double agents (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tnproud2b

                  working for our government who are secretly trying to take down the government out of loyalty to president bush...

                  and i'm the naive one?

                  listen to yourself Glenn

                  •  As a matter of fact (3+ / 0-)

                    the entire premise of conservative ideology is to take down the government from the inside in order to privatize it and outsource government function to for-profit corporations. Try googling the name "Grover Norquist" or the phrase "Starve the beast".

                    Where were you for the last 8 years, anyway?

                    Yes, I suppose you are  being naive.

                    Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

                    by drewfromct on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:46:06 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  but they never do starve the beast (0+ / 0-)

                      and again just b/c it's a conservative philosophy embraced by grover norquist does not mean that the people working in the obama administration with conservative beliefs share that ideology

                      it's like xtianity...there are catholics, and protestants...to assume one shares all the beliefs of a catholic b/c they are xtian is not fair

                      •  LOL! (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        drewfromct

                        I'm seeing a lot of state governments running immense deficits right now, not to mention a Federal government that is now buying its' own debt. Debt service, if you recall, is one of the single largest expenditures of government now. Who, pray tell, is benefitting from the opportunity costs of having lowered taxes to the point where we cannot fund our own government?

                        Until such a time as taxes are raised, drowning is an apt metaphor.

                        A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

                        by nippersdad on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:54:15 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  loyal "bushies" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                nippersdad

                anyone who was a loyal bushy is not someone who would be willing to work in a democratic administration...

                Does Robert Gates ring a bell?

                "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

                by catnip on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:02:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  he's not a loyal bushy (0+ / 0-)

                  i'm sure you'd call john yoo a loyal bushy too...

                  he's never met the man

                  just b/c he worked in the bush admin and he's a conservative doesn't make him a loyal bushy...good grief

                  •  then (0+ / 0-)

                    You seriously need to define "loyal bushie" if you don't think John Yoo is one just because he never met the guy. Are you really going to defend John Yoo, of all people?

                    "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

                    by catnip on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 10:29:56 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  That would be the guy who imported AQ into (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  drewfromct

                  Afghanistan in the first place! Talk about creating your own opportunities. Loyal Bushie is an understatement.

                  A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

                  by nippersdad on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:55:39 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Why? (6+ / 0-)

            Why does he have to go on working with the very same people who crashed the economy and looted it in the first place? do they have a gun to his head? If so, all the more reason to take them on and take them down.

            So far, nothing Obama has done or is doing makes any sense unless we accept the premise that he is on their side.

            Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

            by drewfromct on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:16:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Because they are who run the country (0+ / 0-)

              This country is owned and operated by bankers. Obama knows who he's working for. He knows better than to cross them. He might get them mad at him.

              At the time in this country when we most needed a fighter, we elected a weak pathetic appeaser. I'm seriously wondering at this point if they even had to pressure him with anything.

          •  Their very toxicity was the reason that a lot of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            drewfromct

            us never supported their appointments to begin with. That the poison has now rubbed off on the Presidency is not something that could not have been predicted. This is a self inflicted wound, and it would be well to do something about it now before it continues to fester...not that that will happen before it is far too late.

            A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

            by nippersdad on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:38:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  because he agrees with them. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drewfromct, Morlock, dotdot, nippersdad

          Certainly we can't argue that Obama is appointing people whose policies he finds unhelpful, if not repellent.

          •  you'd sooner believe (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ubertar, Darkmoth

            that obama is a corporate manchurian candidate who spent his whole life as a progressive only to sneak attack on working people as prez

            than you would that he maybe just didn't feel like it was a good time to change leadership in the middle of the crisis

            •  The former option (4+ / 0-)

              is at least more intelligent.  The latter might be well meaning, but it's certainly foolish.

              Sorry, but the middle of a crisis is high time to change leadership, and especially if that leadership had a hand in creating or perpetuating the crisis.

              •  53% of the public voted for "CHANGE" in 2008 (9+ / 0-)

                That "change" wasn't, in hindsight, well-defined.  It presumed, however, new faces in new places pursuing new policies.  I didn't have a "CONTINUITY"  sign on my front lawn in fall '08.

                Upon taking office in 1933, FDR consciously chose to turn DC upside down.  Obama faced the worst domestic situation of any newly-elected POTUS since FDR, yet prudence dictated that he just rearrange the furniture a little?

                Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

                by RFK Lives on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:26:38 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  and there are a whole host of wonderful new faces (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CuriousBoston

                  just run through the other administrative agencies besides the Fed...filled with people from all walks of life and all points of view..

                  it actually makes me proud to be an american

                •  FDR did that? (0+ / 0-)

                  heh.

                  FDR was elected by a re-aligned party system, which had its own part in turning DC upside down. The domestic situation was bad when Obama took office, but not even close to 1933.

                  A quarter of the workforce was unemployed. Farmers were in deep trouble as prices fell by 60%. Industrial production had fallen by more than half since 1929. Two million were homeless. Due to the lack of employment, organized crime and outlaws were on the rise, such as John Dillinger. By the evening of March 4, 32 of the 48 states, as well as the District of Columbia had closed their banks.[43] The New York Federal Reserve Bank was unable to open on the 5th, as huge sums had been withdrawn by panicky customers in previous days

                  Not even close.

                  In his first 100 days, Congress passed everything FDR asked. He passed the Economy Act:

                  proposed to balance the "regular" (non-emergency) federal budget by cutting the salaries of government employees and cutting pensions to veterans by fifteen percent. It saved $500 million per year and reassured deficit hawks such as Douglas that the new President was fiscally conservative.

                  he didn't support the troops, either:

                  Roosevelt strenuously opposed the Bonus Bill that would give World War I veterans a cash bonus. Finally, Congress passed it over his veto in 1936, and the Treasury distributed $1.5 billion in cash as bonus welfare benefits to 4 million veterans just before the 1936 election.

                  He created the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, which was later declared unconstitutional.

                  The mythologized FDR programs mostly came after 1935 -- the Second New Deal.

                  Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Sometimes it rains.

                  by gooners on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:40:58 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  FDR was a Fiscal Conservative (0+ / 0-)

                    He OPPOSED the Social Security Act.

                    His legislative attempts, minus a few exceptions, in the first year were garbage.

                    It took progressives and populists threatening to run Huey Long as an independent in the '36 election to get FDR and the Democrats to pass anything worth a shit.

                    A lesson to all the pony party members whoi think the way to get progressive policy is to tattoo their lips to Barack Obama's ass.

            •  He did not spend his whole life as (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CuriousBoston

              a progressive. He's always been a moderate.

              "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain

              by dotdot on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:58:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Wait, did you say "he"? (3+ / 0-)

            Appointing people whose policies he finds unhelpful, if not repellent?

            WTF do you know about what Obama finds repellent?

            This is why pe9ople call you a cult. Because your views are not based on empirical evidence. They are based on BELIEF.

            The hard cold fact is you have no idea what Obama's real views of anything are. He's a politician. Politicians lie.

            Obama has lied repeatedly - when he said he didn't campaign on the public option. When he was selling snake oil about reforming NAFTA.

            On NAFTA, he even got busted lying by his own economic advisor who told the Canadian government not to take his campaign rhetoric too seriously.

            But you believe what you want. You have that right.

    •  maximum contempt for the people. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drewfromct, MouseOfSuburbia

      We are seeing a degree of it, almost unimaginable, in our government, at all levels, and by too many on "our team."

      You know those ones we work so hard to get into office, and work so hard to keep in office.

      "We are tired of war," he said. "We don't want it anymore."

      by allenjo on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 10:20:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hmmmm (16+ / 0-)

    Either you're with us or you're with them. This is not Bushian simplicity.

    Actually, it is.

    There is a lot of complexity in a society of 350 million people.

    I don't disagree with you about class and corporatism, but I don't think there's much besides self marginalization in your simplistic approach.  Politics has always been about persuasion and movement building (like, y'know, being for "the people" is about respecting them and communicating with them well enough to generate a consensus, not just yelling from your own personal soapbox).

  •  Well, this is a helpful post. (20+ / 0-)

    So, am I a traitor for supporting the President even if I disagree with some of his decisions?  Am I "the enemy"?

    "I know this defies the law of gravity, but you see, I never studied law." -Bugs Bunny

    by KroneckerD on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:05:35 AM PST

    •  Summary of this diary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Maimonides

      Obama= republican

      From the polls only 10% think Obama is not liberal, 42% think he is just about right and 46% thinks hi is too liberal.

      Good to see some folks like this diarist are becoming the exception.

      I AM A DEMOCRAT. I am a member of the PEOPLE'S PARTY. I am loyal to ordinary Americans who are suffering needlessly while greedy fucks like Larry Summers and Loyd Blankfein plunder our commonwealth.

      That's the team I'm on.

      And from this poll you do not stand with the majority of Americans

      "This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected". -Barack Obama

      by indepenocrat on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:25:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are you on the side of ATT and Verizon (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, drewfromct

      on the FISA issue?

      Are you on the side of health insurance companies in wanting to pass this atrocity of a bill?

      Do you stand with Obama in thinking that the way to handle the financial crisis was to give trillions of dollars to crooks and theives to pay off their gambling debts and then let them report record profits a year later?

    •  Just shout "Strelnikov!", and... (0+ / 0-)

      ...you'll be fine with the CP-FDL cadre.

      After the Revolution, of course, all will be judged politically, so you have a safe haven until then.

      The "choice" offered by capital is illusory. If you cannot afford the choice, you don't have the freedom to choose.

      by high bitrate on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:34:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ignored n/t (7+ / 0-)

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:10:08 AM PST

  •  Where have I read all this before? (5+ / 0-)
  •  bill gates is a war criminal? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TooFolkGR, amk for obama, NoVa Boy

    i tell ya boys it's a cryin' shame, all the pretty girls just look the same

    by rasbobbo on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:16:55 AM PST

  •  Checklist For The True Soldier (14+ / 0-)

    -- Do you have a bank account?  Then you are with the banks, not us (I won't even ask about stocks).

    -- Do you buy stuff from corporations?  Then you are with the corporations, not us.

    -- Do you pay your taxes?  Then you are paying for the military to bomb innocent people, and you're not truly with us.

    -- Did you support Rockefeller's stance on the public option?  Then you overlooked his stance on telecom immunity, and you're not with us.

    -- Have you checked with the 99% to see if they're in agreement with your tone and approach?  If not, you're not with us, the 99% out here, but the 99% you imagine are following you.

    -- Did you just read my comment?  It's an enemy point of view!  So you're not with us, or them, or whoever these people are.  You've polluted your brain with a traitorous, alternative perspective.

    You are herewith dishonorably discharged.

    •  I'll play (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jobu, samantha in oregon
      1.  Of course I have a bank account, how else would I receive my VA check?  But it is with the local Sparkasse, the closest equivalent to a credit union.
      1.  I don't buy anything from corporations, but I did buy shampoo froma local store yesterday to wash my hair.
      1.  I don't pay taxes, my VA compensation is tax free
      1.  Not sure what I support with the American health care debate, I do know I have 100% VA health care, single payer and european healthcare as well.
      1.  Have no idea if there is anything that 99% of the electorate agrees on, I suspect not.
      1. Yes, I did read your comment, but I am not convinced it is an enemy point of view, whatever that is.

      How'd I do?

      I do know the President sign into law the largest increase in VA benefits, both compensation and health care, since WWII last year.  I have no complaints.

      On the other hand, as far as the "you are with us or against us" worldview, in this context it reminds me of this

      "Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people." - Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1821

      by Jeffersonian Democrat on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:48:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow, you're a genius (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Morlock, Whimsical Rapscallion

      So the only way I can criticize the system is to remove myself from it.

      I'm sure you live by that standard when you stopped driving due to you opposition to burning fossil fuels.

      As for your less idiotic point, it is true. No one is ever 100% anything. On occasions, Obama pushes policies that I support. Just like Rockefellar.

      But taken as a whole, on average, you look at someone's alliances and where they come down most of the time, and you can see which side they're working for.

      And on average, Obama has made it unmistakably clear which side he's on. The establishment's side.

  •  I agree with the nature of the real conflict (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brooke In Seattle, TooFolkGR

    being between the top 1% and everybody else.

    But I remain unconvinced about the other allegations.

    Try to be reasonable in the way you grow, and don't ever think it is too late. It is never too late. - Lama Thubten Yeshe

    by LibrErica on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:20:17 AM PST

  •  HR'ed for peddling the same trollish content (0+ / 0-)

    in dkos day in and day out. People who shout I AM A DEMOCRAT, invariably aren't.

    Between birthers, deathers and mouth-breathers, the gop has got 'teh crazy' and 'teh stoopid' covered.

    by amk for obama on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:31:40 AM PST

  •  Diarist, just because there are corrupt (7+ / 0-)

    corporatists inside the Beltway doesn't mean that those here who support the President's policies are corrupt or corporatist.

    Many have simply come to different conclusions regarding the outcome of passing what we all consider to be a imperfect bill than we have - they feel not passing anything would be disaster, we think passing this turd would be disaster.

    Similarly, many of them place a higher value on party loyalty than on policy. This does not make them "not on our side"; no matter how fiercely we may scream at each other.

    There are always a few in any argument who do not argue in good faith; we are sensitive to these people on the other side, but not on our own - and we amplify our anger at them towards the whole other side. This is a grave mistake.

    Argue the issues, not the people.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 08:37:29 AM PST

    •  Well said. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drewfromct, CuriousBoston

      Full disclosure: I am an Obama supporter that has been critical of many decisions that Obama has made and of his Administration.

      If the only criticism the President hears is from the teabagging right... then he is pulled toward the Conservative policies.

      Unlike the previous Administration, I believe this President does pay attention to polls, the media, and what people care about. That is a double edged sword. It is up to the Progressive community to give Obama honest criticism when he is moving in the wrong direction. No one else will.

    •  Nice try (0+ / 0-)

      In Kumbaya world.

      Have you been under a rock for the last year? I have seen some of the most admired and trusted names of the progressive movement, Glenn Greenwald, Bill Moyers of all fucking people, DRAGGED THROUGH THE MUD by these little fucking hyenas.

      I have seen this site, which used to have a resounding consensus (my wife has been a member from the beginning) that corporacrat, Republican light, DLC pseudocrats were THE PROBLEM and needed to be expelled from the party, suddenly infiltrated by Republicrats who embrace and defend those very corporatist policies people here were once opposed to.

      Obama has dragged the party and this site to the right. And as long as I can type I'm going to call him and his sycophantic followers on it.

      Being a Democrat actually means something. And the attempts to redefine it, to destroy that meaning are nothing less than an attack on our party and the people we represent.

      •  YOU...THORAZINE...NOW (0+ / 0-)

        so it's obama's fault that people are posting diaries you disagree with...

        why don't you make it easier and tell us what ISN'T his fault

      •  I've seen the same things you have (0+ / 0-)

        And I acknowledge that there are those on both sides who do not argue in good faith.

        You simply have to point out the fallacious arguments and address them, not the people making them. I know it's frustrating as fuck all when you see people do a volte face on FISA or indefinite detention or the Public Option or the excise tax for the sole apparent reason that the President supports it. I know how it enrages when you rail against these policies to be called (or see other truth-tellers like Greenwald) be called a teabagger by these few not arguing in good faith.

        But when you go on the personal attack, you alienate the majority of the other side who may be acting in good faith disagreement.

        Keep it about the issues. See a specious argument, demolish, even mock the argument, not the person.

        It's hard as hell, but it's what we have to do.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:19:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not frustrating (0+ / 0-)

          "you see people do a volte face on FISA or indefinite detention or the Public Option"

          Actually, I see a lot more than that. I see the progressive movement itself  under attack, by Obama's staff who started throwing us under the bus as soon as the election was over, and by the fucking hyenas who have infested this website.

          You can pretend that this is just about issues, but what I am responding to is more than just a disagreement. It is a full scale attack on progressivism itself.

          Every right move Obama has made, from his Republican appointments, to his rolling on pretty much everything he campaigned on, has been defended and cheered by a swarming nest of devotees who didn't hesitate to attack progressives and progressivism itself - calling us purity trolls, tea baggers and even racists for opposing the same exact shit we've been opposing for years.

          What I see around here are a bunch of progressive cowards, afraid to stand up to bullies and thugs. To lazy to even type a fight and defend the progressive movement from these little jackals.

          •  I'll just leave you with this thought (0+ / 0-)

            Even if you admit that a person does deserve to be subject to attack or ridicule, what is its effect in a public forum?

            Personal attacks are like bombs - they inflict collateral damage, inevitably.

            Your diary is like a 2000-pounder dropped on an apartment building just to get at a couple bad guys inside. Don't you think the other residents of the apartment are going to be pissed by that? That they might turn against you; or, if already unfavorably inclined toward you, radicalize their opposition?

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 11:48:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Glenn Greenwald is a self-promoting windbag. (0+ / 0-)

        Jane Hamsher triply so. She'll make a fine running mate for Sarah Palin.  Ralph Nader can act as the power behind such throne as Palin's stringpullers allow Jane to occupy.

        But you knew that already, didn't you?

        The "choice" offered by capital is illusory. If you cannot afford the choice, you don't have the freedom to choose.

        by high bitrate on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:50:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah, another Republicrat chimes in (0+ / 0-)

          Isn't there a Republicans for Obama site you belong to?

        •  I believe you've just given the diarist (0+ / 0-)

          credibility; since you can't respond to Greenwald's criticisms of the Administration's policies with substance, you resort to ad hominem and imputation of motives.

          This is precisely the sort of fallacy that set the diarist off.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 10:37:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Whatever. Greenwald is a legend in his own mind. (0+ / 0-)

            It isn't as if he's ever actually accomplished anything besides calling himself a "constitutional lawyer", whatever the fuck that means.

            Hell, that's what a bunch of right wing activist douchebags describe themselves as, and look where it gets us.

            The "choice" offered by capital is illusory. If you cannot afford the choice, you don't have the freedom to choose.

            by high bitrate on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 10:50:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I know that (0+ / 0-)

      Some people are just stupid and delusional.

      But there are plenty here who are actually conservatives. They don't have a Democratic bone in their bodies. Fuck them.

  •  Actually... (0+ / 0-)

    it is "Bushian simplicity."

    •  Wow, did you come up with that yourself (0+ / 0-)

      The interests and aims of the 1% are so adverse to the interests of the other 99%, that there is little middle ground. In almost every case, whether it's domestic policy or foreign policy, health care policy or energy policy, the interests of the 1% are diametrically opposed to those of the general public.

  •  asdf (4+ / 0-)

    They defend Obama's secret deal with the pharmaceutical companies

    I defend it, and with good reason. I think that Pharma was powerful enough to crush HCR early, and he had to get them off our backs. You may disagree. You may feel that we could have beaten back the Insurers AND the Drug-makers combined. That's a valid position, even if I disagree.

    Unfortunately, part of the collapse of discourse around here is that everything, absolutely everything, is cast as a good versus evil struggle instead of a simple policy dispute. It's not that you think the precaution was unnecessary, it's that anyone who believes it was necessary is evil. Evil, or bought, or otherwise possessing some fatal moral flaw.

    That sort of demonization doesn't fool anyone who's paying attention, especially not posters who understand political speech, as most of us likely do.

    "Karl Rove giving Dems advice is the DEFINITION of 'Concern Troll'" - punkdavid

    by Darkmoth on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:12:29 AM PST

    •  The entire thesis of you comment (0+ / 0-)

      goes to shit though when you realize I'm not just talking about one issue, or even a few. I'm talking about almost all the issues real progressives have been fighting for for years have been under attack by the administration and his mindless fucking supporters.

      This isn't just about a disagreement over one policy or tactical dispute. The progressive movement itself is under attack, by Obama's staff who started throwing us under the bus as soon as the election was over, and by the fucking hyenas who have infested this website.

      You can pretend that progressives haven't been demonized all you want to, but what I am responding to is more than just a disagreement. It is a full scale attack on progressivism itself.

      Every right move Obama has made, from his Republican appointments, to his rolling on pretty much everything he campaigned on, has been defended and cheered by a swarming nest of devotees who didn't hesitate to attack progressives and progressivism itself - calling us purity trolls, tea baggers and even racists for opposing the same exact shit we've been opposing for years.

      What I see around here are a bunch of progressive cowards, afraid to stand up to bullies and thugs. To lazy to even type a fight and defend the progressive movement from these little jackals.

  •  No HR---but no tip/rec, either. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ThisIsMyTime

    Since the crux of your mini-manifesto/kampf/whatever seems to be 100% Sith---either I'm with you all the way, or I'm your enemy---then so be it.  You may consider your diatribe received, acknowledged, and formally flushed down the nearest public toilet.  Do understand, however, that war is karma's evil twin---and the former can be extremely more, shall we say, "bitchish" than the latter....

    A wildcat strike against a recalcitrant, apologetic Party is the order of the day. Every day.

    by Liberal Panzer on Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 09:17:30 AM PST

  •  Would the diarist prefer President Palin in 2013? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ThisIsMyTime

    With this kind of diary that is what we will get.

  •  NAFTA vs. New Deal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    labor in vain

    It really is that simple.

    Barack Obama won my vote for aligning himself during the election process with the New Deal.  He intimated that he was against NAFTA.

    He has governed in favor of NAFTA.  However you want to justify this, that is how he has governed.  New Deal be damned.

    Ask yourself, how much more NAFTAs, GATTs, Telecoms, GrahamLeach Blileys, Patriot Acts, AUMF-Iraq, Bancruptcy Bill, TARPs and this HCR do you have to endure before you wake up to the notion that these guys do not have our backs?

    This DLC inspired and /or supported legislation has done more to wreck the New Deal than Republicans could ever dream of.

    The Diarist is right in his indignation.  He's right to ask: where do you stand, New Deal of NAFTA?

  •  Bullshit... (0+ / 0-)

    A  percentage of people here at Daily Kos have their allegiances backwards. Their loyalty is to the corporatists, the president, and the party leaders when it should be to their fellow Americans.

    Who do you think elected the President and party leaders? It is your fellow Americans in case you are having a hard time to figure that out.

    You want change. So do all of us but painting everyone in broad brush ain't going to get your point across much around here. Change requires consistency. It requires a step-by-step methodical progress.

    You want to buy a lottery and become an instant millionaire. Fine. But, Obama is not your lottery and nor will anyone you put in office.

    The democratic people of this space are true democrats to the bone except those who don't understand limitations of Government, who want everything they want in a snap. It ain't going to happen. Change requires discipline and consistency and is a step-by-step endeavor. You either embrace it or have President Palin or one of them birthers. Your choice!

    Now, yes there are corrupt Blue Dogs in our congress that are bought and sold by corporate America and if you have any conviction for change and progress, you would work hard to support a true progressive candidate who will support the many progressive agenda democrats have.

    But, this whole demonizing spin that has been going on this President is rather insulting and is being on the team of FDL and company.

    Get a grip!

    ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

    by ThisIsMyTime on Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 07:41:02 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site