Skip to main content

A girl I grew up with posted something on Facebook. Back in high school we had many mutual friends, many shared moments, but were never close. A sterling individual--never heard a negative thing about her--never knew her other than anything but sweet as can be. And as Facebook is, people you hung out with way back, you add as a friend, or they add you, you check out their stuff, find out what they’re about, and either continue to keep them on the radar or press Hide.

She’s political, a liberal, and like a lot of my liberal friends was all fired up to have Obama elected. Today she posted a status: "Three women on the Supreme Court! It's a great week for equal rights! :D"

I’ve been turning the sentiment over most the day and here’s what I wanted to say:

Did you ever see that movie The Corporation? http://www.thecorporation.com/ It came out in 2003, and the takeaway was that corporate power, under the guise of a legal fiction, is a sociopathic entity in control of governance, slowly enslaving humanity, not to mention destroying the environment. What I wanted to say to this girl I knew, is that unless Ms. Kagan was friendly to corporate power, she’d be nowhere near the Supreme Court. Woman or Man, if you’re on the Supreme Court you’re there because The Corporation likes you.

For my liberal friends, unless you’ve been busy with life, the Obama Administration has done nothing but further the corporate agenda, which is to say the previous administration’s agenda. The most disgusting thing to be found in all humanity is torture. The Bush Administration advocated for it and the lawyers behind those memos giving cover for it are still walking around today. The Obama Administration killed the single payer option to health care reform, said No to a Fairness Doctrine (having more than corporate speech on the broadcast frequencies), has allowed the banking industry to loot We The People for close to a trillion dollars, and all the while hasn’t said a peep about the fact that one single private corporation now tallies 80%+ of all votes cast nationwide, all behind closed doors. If you don’t have transparent elections, you don’t have a free society, the two are one and the same. Thus, we currently are not free, contrary to whatever you think and feel.

In addition to that, you may have read reports yesterday about Verizon Inc. and Google Inc. hashing out a deal behind closed doors concerning the Internet: If you like the Internet the way it is, then you're for net neutrality. If you'd rather pay more for less service, and have a corporation tell you what you are and aren't allowed to see, then you're against it--plain and simple.

I’ve been on the hunt for a solution, and all the information I’ve processed has lead to the conclusion that the only way humanity will reverse the fatal trends of sociopathic/corporate governance is if a tipping-point majority of us advocate for the constitutional principle of holding a convention. Many think it’s too daunting a thing to think about, but it’s not. All political reformations the world over since history began have always come down to one thing: a tipping-point majority saying the same thing at once. That means we don’t need the whole country calling for the Article V Convention, just a tipping-point of us.

Many of you have children, you’d die trying to prevent a sociopath getting hold of your kids. Well, a sociopath not only has hold of your kids right now, it’s got you and all of human civilization too. Are you afraid of advocating for the Constitution because sociopathic governance might target you? It already has and it’s building its mousetrap for us all quickly as it can. The only thing that threatens it is the collective sovereign power of American citizens calling for a convention, because when people come together consensus happens--it’s natural (one of the positives of the human condition).

Talking about the Article V Convention is not fringe, a growing number of citizens are becoming aware of this legal mechanism the Constitution provides. Professor Lawrence Lessig from Harvard is openly calling for it: http://www.callaconvention.org

A former state supreme court judge, and founder of the largest accredited law school in the nation is putting together a virtual convention: http://www.conventionusa.org

There’s a national group (although their website needs work, it shows all fifty states have repeatedly cast applications, and one session of Congress after the next fails to carry out its constitutional obligation to issue the call): http://www.foavc.org

This is not a political issue, but a legal issue, and we’re either going to pressure Congress to issue the call or sociopathic governance will do away with everything we know and love. One way or the other it’ll happen within the next two years.

You want to be Republican, root for Republicans? Be a Democrat, root for Democrats? Great, that’s fine--but we can multi-task too, right? We can root for our founding principles at the same time, right?

We have two choices: the inevitable and fatal consequence of sociopathic governance, or rocking and rolling as Americans--free citizens--dusting off the Constitution, and putting it to work for us here and now. Imagine this: the whole country coming together on the authority of the Constitution, in a deliberative assembly, trying to hash out what 38 states can agree to ratify. Even if we can’t find something 38 states can agree to, the constitutional process of finding out one way or another will transform reality and free humanity.

What will come? Time will tell. I encourage you to think about those you love, what you yourself love, and keep in mind the old adage--you never know what you have until it’s gone. It won’t take all of us to make it happen, just some of us.

Originally posted to John De Herrera on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 07:19 PM PDT.

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

  •  taking the bait (24+ / 0-)

    > the Obama Administration has done nothing but further the corporate agenda, which is to say the previous administration’s agenda

    That's obviously not true. Now the argument can be made that Obama is too close to the corporatists, and I'm not saying I'd disagree, but the above statement classifies you as either under educated or a troll. If it's the former do some reading, if it's the later head over to Digg where you can do more of whatever ...

    As for the Constitutional convention? How about electing some local and state leaders that agree with your agenda? Or is that not Hollywood enough?

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 07:29:01 PM PDT

    •  Well (7+ / 0-)

      according to the information I've processed, Holder has not drawn up anything against Bush Administration officials regarding torture. Since there's nothing more egregious to a sane sensiblity, as the saying goes--'nuff said. In addition to that, as mentioned above, No to a Fairness Doctrine, No to letting banking corporations fail (those that chose to be involved in risk), No to a single payer option.... I'm no troll, I'm as progressive as you can get, and in addition to that I'm a staunch capitalist (there's nothing wrong with capitalism as long as there's adequate Anti-trust law [which Obama as President has done nothing to enact/enforce]).

      What I want is a list refuting these things, showing how it's true the Obama Administration and Bush Administration have fundamental differences.  

      •  this is what is driving so many of you whining (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Walt starr, Alexandra Lynch, allep10

        so called progressives.  Your daily hate for obama and your undermining the man.
        You hide behind such lame excuses as you need to hold his feet to the fire or he is not progressive enough or he's a corporate tool.
        It's none of the above.
        Your almost obsessive and personal hate for the man is that he did not give you that special pony you wanted:  Bush impeached or jailed.
        Your whole agenda is based on the fact that since Bush was not hauled before the court and found guilty you are going make sure to make Obama pay for it.
        Whether you admit to it or not it is behind the insane hate and the fact that even before he was sworn in you guys started you undermining and posting hate rants against the man.
        You are mad because he did not go after Bush.
        Get over it!

      •  No Holder has not (6+ / 0-)

        and did you expect it or did you think Obama was just kidding when he clearly stated he was not going there?

        And do tell how would you like the constitution changed? Hard to agree with your call when I have no clue what you wish for an outcome.

        Finally someone needs to get Obama figured out he cannot be a socialist and a corporatist all at the same time.

        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 Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 08:10:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How I'd like the Constitution Amended (0+ / 0-)

          From here on all state and federal elections shall have a national standard for voting and voter registration, and the Congress shall make this so.

          •  the Congress (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marykk

            could do this without a convention

            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 Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 08:52:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And with the recent (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Annalize5

              Supreme Court ruling which opened the floodgates of socipathic/corporate funding of political speech, you believe Congress will allow such a thing to the floor and sent out to the states? You do realize the dynamic of the recent ruling don't you? It means any incumbant or candidate who thinks of speaking against corporate power will suddenly find themselves on the short end of funding, and it's cold, hard statistical math which shows 99%+ plus of all office is won by who had the most funds.

              And say you don't buy that, then how long will you watch and not see such an amendment which secures The Vote from private interests, before you figure it's time for a deliberative assembly of state delegagtes on the authority of the Constitution?

      •  your quote was (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marykk

        > done nothing but further the corporate agenda

        Which is flat out false. He hasn't done what you wanted or (maybe) what I'd prefer, but to say that the administration policies are down the line the same as Bushes is ignorant. This is the same ignorance which has led to the Nader Roberts Supreme Court. Obama's done a lot on the margins - see many previous threads on this site if you're interested.

        Do the demographics, the country is no where near as far left as you (or I?). The Dems try to do dishwater health insurance reform, they are demonized as Stalinists. Ask yourself whether any of what you're complaining about is politically possible - or don't you follow political blogs. Politics is the art of the possible.

        Elect some real progressives to represent your state. Put some real legislation on Obama's desk. Then see what happens.

        I noticed someone in this thread saying as they were from a red state their representatives are in the pocket of the corporations. So why the hell would some dress up party constitutional convention change that? There seems to be some magic thinking around here that if corporate money was removed from politics that America would immediately swing left. The harsh reality is a lot of the right wing isn't astroturf. You're going to have to beat them at the ballot box. Open up the Constitution and the well organized Christian wackos will be there as well. And they outnumber you right now.

        If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

        by jgnyc on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 05:30:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  john de herrera (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      john de herrera

      is hardly a troll.

      john, how can I be sure that the websites you have posted links to are on the up-and-up? I have tried to become a delegate to a couple of conventioning sites before to no effect. Are these sites legit, or are they corporatist dead-ends? I think that conventioning may truly be the only way to stop this crap, but boy howdy the impetus just isn't there.

      •  I'm beginning to disagree. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        allep10

        I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but his responses in this thread are swaying me differently.

      •  Crose (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Major Tom

        The http://www.conventionusa.org site is going through changes now. Keep an eye on it, should be set to launch in a month or less.

        I can tell you http://www.foavc.org is not a corporatist dead end, though it appears there are operatives within it thwarting necessary changes.

        Lessig's site http://www.callaconvention.org if I had to bet on it, is a corporatist dead end, but simply signing on still gives the corporatists an idea what the sentiment is. They will get out of the way if enough of us galvanize. I also encourage you to write a letter to your congressional representatives saying you want them to take the floor and say something. Every action has a reaction. I have more news coming soon, so stay tuned.

        •  john, john, john. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Major Tom, john de herrera

          My "representatives" are hardly that. They will never ever "take the floor and say something." They are from Wyoming, and all three of them have the hand of a corporate mucky-muck or a lobbiest rammed firmly up their puppety derrieres, moving their hands and mouths to the music of bigotry, ignorance and pay offs. The people of Wyoming will never be represented by anyone.

          I have bookmarked conventionusa.org, though. We'll see.

          •  I understand, (0+ / 0-)

            but simply acting means something, and crates a crack through which more can flow. As hard as it is to beleive, we're actually talking about physical science as much as we are political science.

            Glad you've bookmarked, please do read the articles by justices Van Sickle and Brennan on the FOAVC site:

            http://www.foa5c.org/...

            http://www.foa5c.org/...

          •  maybe stop electing them? (0+ / 0-)

            Why would a Constitutional convention fix who the people of Wyoming vote for? If your neighbors are electing these characters why do I want your neighbors altering the Constitution? Because corporate money won't be at your convention? Yeah, right.

            Elect some people who have your best interests at heart. Start with a mayor or two.

            If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

            by jgnyc on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 05:35:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary, john...thank you. nt (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Tom, john de herrera, crose, sanglug

    "The first step towards madness is to think oneself wise." ~Fernando de Rojas

    by Annalize5 on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 07:48:55 PM PDT

  •  ::sigh:: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chinton, skohayes, marabout40

    - It's beyond ironic that ophthalmologist Rand Paul is so myopic

    by second gen on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 07:52:25 PM PDT

  •  Single payer wouldnt have passed Congress (5+ / 0-)

    I doubt even half of the Democrats in the Senate would have supported it. I can understand criticizing Obama for not getting a public option, but I dont really get criticizing him for not getting single payer, something he specifically ruled as a presidential candidate, and something that never, ever would have passed Congress.

    •  True that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Whimsical, allep10

      and the Great Recession was really a Corporate Insurance Policy because without the corporations, the economy will never get moving again.

      And both Obama and the CEOs are smart enough to realize that the corporations put Obama into an untenable situation before he ever took office. The Banksters saw the writing on the wall,and decided to come clean on the crap that had been going on for years to put a wall between them and a new Progressive administration.

      And make no mistake about it, this is the most Progressive Administration in more than sixty years.

    •  Hold up JJ32 (6+ / 0-)

      Obama had the tide of world opinion and approval behind him coming in. For you to say it wouldn't have passed Congress is to say he didn't know how to be President, and had no idea what political science is. And perhaps that's true, but I doubt it based on other things we know to be true in reality.

      •  Bull puckey (3+ / 0-)

        He would have gotten 30 votes max in the Senate at his height.

        You obviously have no clue about how the Senate works or the constituency of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate.

        •  I'm afraid (4+ / 0-)

          you fail to remember Obama was a member of the Senate. If he was what he presented himself to be, and as smart and articulate as he is, it would have been a cakewalk for him to bring this country back round past the hot air of Congress. Political Science is all about the art of the possible right? Based on where we are today he and his team would seem to be bush league.

          •  I'm afraid (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            perro amarillo, skohayes

            you fail to remember that Senators have statewide constituencies which preclude the vast majority of them from ever taking a more progressive stance than slightly left of center.

            That he got a Health Care Reform bill even passed after over a century of it being bantied about in political circles is PROOF that Barack Obama is everything ever claimed about him regarding his intelligence and articulate abilities.

            •  Have you read the bill? (4+ / 0-)

              I doubt it. And I doubt you have any idea what people say day in and day out regarding their insurance/coverage. I've worked in a pharmacy, I know first hand. And I know that sociopathic corporations are deleting medications from formularies as we speak. Do you know what that means?

              You're simply parroting what you've been told to make you feel good. The HC reform as passed gives socipathic governance a pass to do what it's been doing and will continue to do. Based on my direct knowlegde of the situation and your comments there really is no sense in debating this at this point. What I hope is that instead of resisting what this diary says, that you simply think about it for a day or two. The appearance of change and actual change are two different things. We can split hairs over this issue or that, the fundamental point remains--corporate governance is not on the wane.

            •  I think you mean "bandied about"... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mint julep, john de herrera

              He actively chipped away at what was possible, progressively.

              He twisted arms to get the Dorgan drug reimportation bill voted against by enough Dems to squash what originally had a lot of Dem support and a lot of GOP support, would ya believe?! Whether you believe or not, the fact stands.

              He made a bad deal with drug companies, with Tauzin, and his campaign talk became so much phony babble to get votes.

              He also suffocated the public option. It had broad public appeal and it could have gotten thru the Senate, had he wanted it to... but, see, he didnt. want. it. to. get. thru.

              Again, he made shitty early deals with the insurance industry to keep it from becoming law.

              He also dumped on the unions with his excise tax. Didnt want that during the campaign. That was bad John McCain's bad idea.

              What a difference a day makes! (As the song goes...  talking inauguration day - the drug reimporter, public option tantalizer,  middle class champion/no excise tax campaigner... vanished.)

              You can say you like Obama and even say you love him, you can say you like what he's doing and like his policies, but please dont try to pretend he is what he isnt.

              You can tell the truth and still be his fan.

              After all, a lot of people stood by Bush's rightwing policies and they were happy to publicly support him.

              Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

              by NYCee on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:16:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  No doubt he has influence (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes

        But there is a limit to that influence. First of all, world opinion means nothing when it comes to get single payer through Congress. When you have a hcr bill without a public option that barely gets through Congress because of conservative Dems, I dont know how a single payer gets through. I can understand the frustration, but I dont think it is fair to blame Obama for single payer not being passed.

        •  There is no limit (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mint julep, Major Tom, joanneleon

          when you have a vast majority of America (and the World) behind you. If you remember correctly, near the end of the Bush Admin, we had Republicans posting on this site, saying they hated what governance had become, rallying Obama to make things right.

          •  And majorities nationwide are MEANINGLESS (0+ / 0-)

            in our system of govenrment.

            The Senate simply does not function on anything approaching simple majorities nationwide.

            In fact, less than 20% of the population has the power to stop ANYTHING if key geographies are opposed to it because of how the Senate functions.

            •  You're Wrong. (0+ / 0-)

              With the filibuster, just 11% of the U.S. population can control the entire Congressional agenda. Furthermore, those sparsely populated states are located in the Deep South, Midwest and Rocky Mountain States - and all are oil exploration states. So good luck with a "Green Energy Economy."

              •  Hmm, maybe you cannot do math (0+ / 0-)

                11% < 20%

                I stated less than 20% of the population has the power to stop anything.

                In other words, your argument supports mine.

                •  Indeed, You're Right (0+ / 0-)

                  However, my number is more accurate and proves that there really is no pure democracy in America (by reason of the filibuster), and that the cards have been stacked against the populations of the big states.  

                  •  Bingo (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    skohayes

                    so for Obama to have used the bully pulpit to guarantee passage of a public option, let alone single payer, 90% of the country would have had to get behind it.

                    •  Then Fight the Real War (0+ / 0-)

                      The real war should have immediately been declared against the undemocratic filibuster itself, and then go from there. Indeed, Obama should have used all of his initial power and momentum to kill the filibuster maneuver from the get-go. I say that because if President Obama is going to be a one-termer, it will likely be because of the filibuster - and the Republicans know it.

                      •  I'd rather have less than 20% (0+ / 0-)

                        capable of stopping anything than have less than 20% capable of passing anything.

                        I VEHEMENTLY oppose altering the filibuster. It's all that stood between us and complete despotism in 2001.

                        •  I Say Thank Goodness (0+ / 0-)

                          That you're now in the minority concerning your views about retaining the filibuster. By the way, do you agree that the filibuster has been a terrible nemesis and huge impediment to enacting President Obama's intended agenda?

                          •  I definitely agree with that. (0+ / 0-)

                            There is no doubt, the threat of a filibuster has done more to stop a progressive agenda than any other single facter. The same held true when FDR was president and when LBJ was president.

                            Had there been no filibuster under Bush, there would be no Obama administration, so I oppose any attempt to dispense with the filibuster with every fiber of my being.

                            Nothing you or anybody else has to say against the filibuster will EVER convince me that getting rid of it is anything other than insane.

                          •  Oh, one other thing (0+ / 0-)

                            It takes a two thirds majority to alter the filibuster rule under the rules of the Senate. The only way to get around that would be for the chair to completely ignore the Senate Parliamentarian's ruling on altering the rules of the Senate.

                            So I don't see the filibuster rule going away any time soon, thank GODDESS!

                            Rule 22 is the only thing that stands between total despotism and freedom in America.

                    •  That's ridiculous. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Major Tom, john de herrera

                      There was a minority against it nationwide, there were enough votes to get it, had he wanted to do it. He didnt want it.

                      Reconciliation?

                      Take a google ride.

                      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

                      by NYCee on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:23:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Bull puckey (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        missliberties

                        A majority nationwide is meaningless in the Senate. Statewide constituencies combined with how the Senate functions means a minority of 11% nationwide has the power to shut down any legislation it chooses.

                        You need to brush up on how the Senate works and the population of the states.

                        •  Im saying he had popular support... (0+ / 0-)

                          AND he could have done reconciliation and gotten it thru the Senate.

                          Got. It. Now?

                          I know you are tremendously invested in your 11% minority nationwide makes Senate block Obama from doing his heart's desire, but that problem just isnt as incredibly multi-purpose as you want it to be!

                          Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

                          by NYCee on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:57:20 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  And again, you are wrong (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            missliberties

                            You do not understand how reconciliation works if what you are asserting is how you believe it works.

                            If you recall, a bill was passed and signed into law. Further alterations to that bill that were strictly budgetary in nature were passed via the reconciliation process.

                            The key was sixty votes on the first bill to overcome the filibuster. Reconciliation could never be passed on its own due to the rules of the Senate and how reconciliation works.

                            Please, go back to school and take a Political Science 101 course. You desperately need it.

      •  You seem never to have heard of lobbyists. (0+ / 0-)

        Money talks very loudly in Congress.

        "It is a communist chocolate hellhole and I'm here to stop it ever happening." Eloi Cole

        by perro amarillo on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 08:43:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And speaking of the SCOTUS, if you (0+ / 0-)

      want to see differences between Bush and Obama, you only have to look at the SCOTUS justices. Citizens United decision, 5-4, two Bush appointees in the majority, Obama's only appointee(at the time) in the minority.

    •  But, progressives refuse to accept that much (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jj32, skohayes, MufsMom

      of what they hate obama for is the venue of congress.
      Not the president.
      they will not go after or blame congress.  They prefer to blame the president as if he is sole dictator of this country rather then an elected official with limited powers.

      •  That's what this diary (0+ / 0-)

        is about--the blame of Congress. Thus, the convention clause of Article V. It's there for a reason. It's there to impeach Congress.

        We're all taught the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are our two most important founding legal documents. What we're not taught is that the former was written into the latter--a peaceable reformation against a long train of abuse.

      •  Do you recall Obama saying, "America, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mint julep

        I fought like hell to get you the public option and now folks are (chuckles wryly) tryin' to pin the blame on me, sayin it was my fault it didnt get thru. Well I tell you, I sent my folks down to Congress and had them push for reconciliation for the public option, had them pushing 24/7, but, sadly, America, we just couldnt make them see the light."

        Did he say anything close to that?

        Where are the reports of his behind the scene fight to get the PO, as we got reports about his early deal to quash it and as we got reports about his men going down to the senate to zap Dems into voting against Dorgan's drug reimportation amendment, again because of previous lousy deals he made?

        You have no such reports, not even a report, because it just didnt fucking happen.

        It happened the way he wanted it to happen.

        You are entitled to your own positive sentiments about Obama. You are not entitled to your own special facts about what went down because of what he did or didnt do in creating the crap HCR bill we have today.

        Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

        by NYCee on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:34:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry he didn't apologize to you (0+ / 0-)

          but that has zero to do with what happened.

          •  Do you have dartboard aversion? (0+ / 0-)

            I would have said "bullseye aversion" but your response is so far flung, I think your dart flew out the door.

            Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

            by NYCee on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 11:01:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm just commenting that (0+ / 0-)

              you set up a preferred quote that would have been enough for you to accept he tried - which was an apology for failing.

              America, (1+ / 0-)
              I fought like hell to get you the public option and now folks are (chuckles wryly) tryin' to pin the blame on me, sayin it was my fault it didnt get thru. Well I tell you, I sent my folks down to Congress and had them push for reconciliation for the public option, had them pushing 24/7, but, sadly, America, we just couldnt make them see the light."

              and then claimed that because he didn't say that he didn't try.

              A main reason Obama didn't support drug reimportation was was the law wasn't about only about reimporting drugs made in America but shipped to Canada (and then back) but allowing importation of drugs from foreign manufacturers. http://www.katherineeban.com/... is something you should read if you think that's a great idea to save money.

    •  Presidents (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Major Tom, john de herrera

      urge congressionals to pass bills. it has always been that way. Obama did practically no true urging. Honestly, it would have passed easily if Obama had done the right urging.

    •  would have been nice if it had been brought (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      john de herrera, congenitalefty

      up & debated though. at least i'd have some sort of list to check against the constant parade of legislators on my television who prefaced everything with "i supported a single payer system." negotiating away single payer before any legislation was even beginning to be crafted was a crappy negotiating tactic. in my very unpragmatistic opinion.

      Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues. The Gita 3.21

      by rasbobbo on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 08:38:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Only becuz we have Blue (0+ / 0-)

      Dog Dixiecrat Corporatists masquerading as Dems. With a true blue 60-40 majority we not only would have a Public Option signed, sealed and delivered, but much of the Obama agenda signed as well.

  •  Im sorry (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes, Keninoakland, ATFILLINOIS

    With the current population we have, I simply do not believe that a Constitutional Convention would work in our favor.

    The founding fathers biggest mistake was assuming that the population would always live up to their responsibility to remain educated.  They did not imagine there would ever be a time when the majority of voters were not merely ignorant, but willfully ignorant, and thus did not build in safeguards against it.

    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

    by Whimsical on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:19:23 PM PDT

    •  ... (0+ / 0-)

      First, the Article V Convention is not a "constitutional convention" but a convention that can only propose amendments to the Constitution we have. If someone did want to draft a new one, they'd have to propose an amendment making that legal, get it ratified by 38 states, then come back and write a new one to propose it. The Framers did not place a self-destruct button in their masterwork.

      Second, a convention requires elections for delegates. This aspect alone would create a balance of power, and in a sense would be a national referendum on the federal government because campaign platforms would be specifically directed at what we need to do today based on all we know to be true. Third, once the convention convenes it operates on standard parliamentary procedure: someone proposes an idea, it suffers debate, the question is called, and it's voted on. The delegates will know that whatever they propose will have to garner the approval of 38 states or it means nothing, so they're not going to be foaming at the mouth and trying to beat each other over the head with their shoe. No, it will be a calm, rational debate about non-partisan issues.

      Even if the country is too polarized to ratify anything, this constitutional process will transform the nation, wake everyone up as to who exactly runs this place, and in that make federal officers stand to attention.

      We are at a point now where it's convention or bust. We're either going to dust off the Constitution and put it to work for us here and now or become the United States of Disneyland. The forces in power, left unchecked, does indeed have an inevitable conclusion.

      It's not a matter of education, but a matter of consensus--when people come together, someone says something that makes sense, and common sense prevails. It's not rocket science to fix the problems we face.

      •  See, here's were we disagree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skohayes, Keninoakland

        It's not a matter of education, but a matter of consensus--when people come together, someone says something that makes sense, and common sense prevails. It's not rocket science to fix the problems we face.

        A sizeable segment of this country, more than large enough to foul up any convention, is , well, stupid.  Worse than that, they're proud of being stupid.

        They will not contribute anything that makes sense, and indeed they will guarantee that common sense does not prevail (because if common sense prevailed, Obama and the Dems wouldn't be having anywhere NEAR as much trouble as they are).

        No a Constiutional Convention ends, I fear, in only one of two ways given the population: complete and utter gridlock or worse, with the stupid people's ideas enshrined into law.

        Thanks, but no thanks.

        "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

        by Whimsical on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:47:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're not making any sense: (0+ / 0-)

          You do realize that once the call for a convention is issued, that there will have to be elections for delegates. Tell me you have imagination enough to conceptualize what this will entail. People will be platforming on specific amendments, and this in turn will show up the Congress for what it is--"Hey, why didn't they talk about this?"

          A convention will take less than a month, and the current gridlock we're beset with can gridlock as usual while the convention makes it wilt in shame.

          A convention ends only one way--returning the power of governance from a sociopathic/corporate governance to people deliberating on the best way to move forward from here.

          If you have time and feel like it, re-read what I replied to you intially. This is not a subjective matter, but objective and based on all we know to be true about humans and the human condition.

          No? No way? OK, sit back and watch.

          •  Youre predicting how humans will act (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skohayes

            That's the very definition of a subjective matter. Especially since I believe you're more or less completely and utterly wrong about how said humans will act not to mention on all you claim know to be true about humans and the human condition.

            You do realize that once the call for a convention is issued, that there will have to be elections for delegates. Tell me you have imagination enough to conceptualize what this will entail. People will be platforming on specific amendments, and this in turn will show up the Congress for what it is--"Hey, why didn't they talk about this?"

            You're the one lacking in imagination if you don't believe the stupid people will clutter up the process for ages with worthless amendments.

            A convention will take less than a month, and the current gridlock we're beset with can gridlock as usual while the convention makes it wilt in shame.

            And now you're dreaming. We won't have even finalized the list of amendments to vote on in a  month, much less completed all the debate and voting.  The ignorant section of the populace will see to that.

            A convention ends only one way--returning the power of governance from a sociopathic/corporate governance to people deliberating on the best way to move forward from here.

            No, that's merely ONE way a convention can end, and not a particularly likely one at that.  Its much more likely that the country crumbles under the weight of years of complete gridlock, or that we come away with something much worse than we have now as a result of the ignorant section of the populace gaming the vote.

            What we have now is imperfect, no argument. But better that then letting the stupid people have a crack at rewriting it to suit themselves.

            "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

            by Whimsical on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 03:15:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  An amendment can do anything it wants (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Whimsical, Futuristic Dreamer

        Including canceling any part or parts of the current constitution.  Common sense does not prevail in this country.  This country elected Reagan and two Bushes. A convention open to any idiotic idea is itself an idiotic idea.  

        •  Hey K. consider this: (0+ / 0-)

          The Supreme Court is an open-ended "constitutional convention" that rewrites the Constitution with each new ruling--for starters. Second, common sense does not prevail on corporate media, and what we see over corporate programming is not the common sense on the street--an important critical distinction you seem to have not considered.

          The country elected Reagan on the fear and lies of the Cold War, and facts be known, we never elected Bush, not even once.

          A convention is a deliberative assembly of state delegates, and as I know first-hand, and as evidenced by many of the members of this blog, there's more than enough of well-informed opinion spread out across this land to make quick work of sociopathic governance.

          Based on your comment, should we one day achieve the political science for the Article V Convention, it's certain you will not be an elected delegate.  

        •  Pretty much. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          skohayes, Futuristic Dreamer

          Common sense does not even come close to prevailing in this country. And while there is a ton of common sense on this blog, this blog is but a drop in a much larger ocean of well, stupid.

          Its a mistake to think that this blog is representative of the country as a whole.  But what else can you expect from someone who believes in such a non-existent concept as 'objective reality'; even if he is technically right that we never elected Bush.

          "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

          by Whimsical on Sat Aug 07, 2010 at 03:57:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You could say the biggest mistake the Founders (0+ / 0-)

      made was not realizing that the vote would be spread out to the masses. They expected it to be run by the minority of white male landowners in perpetuity. Who were all educated by the same schools and philosophies.

      •  I like to think the founding fathers wouldve been (0+ / 0-)

        ok with everyone being able to vote- as long as they chose to stay informed.

        And I think they'd be fine with some sort of test to guarantee  that the votes of the ignorant don't count for as much as the votes of the informed.

        "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

        by Whimsical on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:43:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  OK, I'm out (0+ / 0-)

    any comments after this not replied to only means I have to get up and work on a translation of Hamlet and Macbeth :)

  •  Bull (0+ / 0-)

    Citizens United
    http://www.scotuswiki.com/...

    One of the dissenters? Sotomayer: appointed by Obama

    That took a 2 second google

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

    by deviant24x on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 11:39:15 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site