stillidealistic's picture

    It's Been Awhile Since I've Cared Enough To Rant

    By stillidealistic on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 11:05pm |

    but the time has come. I have so much pent up anger and hostility I have to rant, or I'll explode.

    I have spent the last two years+ supporting and defending the President. And in spite of how angry I am at him this moment, I will still support him until I see a better choice. Defend? Maybe not so much. Because this time, unless I convince myself otherwise during the course of sorting this out at your expense, what he is doing is indefensible.

    Technicalities? Is the administration really going to stand there and call what is happening in the mortgage industry “technicalities?” Fraud and perjury are now “technicalities?” Is that what we're going to call it when the cops do it, or the prosecutors? Where do we draw the line?

    Now, I bought it when the banks said “We're too big to fail. If you let us go under, the whole country is going with us.” So, out of fear of the consequences of NOT bailing them out, we did it. I didn't like it, but I figured the consequences of not doing it were too horrible to contemplate. Now I'm wondering if it wasn't a mistake. I mean, if we had let them go, we would probably be two years into the second “Great Depression” and working our way out. Instead we are back at square one, back at the precipice, with the difference being that all the fat cats have gotten their outrageous pay and bonuses for two more years on our backs, and millions have been foreclosed upon, perhaps many of them fraudulently.

    What a perfect time for President to come out and say, “We're not doing this again. We bailed you out. And instead of tightening your belts, and using every nickel we gave you to unwind the mess you made, you lined your pockets, and arrogantly went about your way, using the money to buy more influence, thwart our attempts to regulate your ability to do this again, and create more of the shady “instruments” that got us into this mess in the first place. You have run roughshod over your customers, the very people who bailed your sorry asses out, violated their rights, committed perjury, and in some cases, fraud. And enough is enough. We don't need the Attorneys Generals from all 50 states to investigate your practices. We're going to do it for them. You are going to be required to make every effort to keep every single person who owns a home today in that home. You are going to make right, what you have done to this country, and as much as is possible, the world. If you have committed, or caused to BE committed, fraud or perjury, you are going to jail. You are going to forfeit your ill-gotten gains. If necessary we will nationalize the banks for as long as it takes to clean up this mess, and we are going to put into place safeguards that insure that this NEVER happens again. As long as I am President of the United States, not one more corporation is going to have its needs put above those of the most common of men. Period. If that means we need to go into a depression and start from scratch, so be it. This country has been built on the rule of law, and I will not for one more day watch it be trampled. If I do not do one more thing with the remaining days left in my term, I will restore the people's faith in our form of government, take it back from the moneyed interests, and restore integrity to the halls of the White House and Congress. There is not one single thing of greater importance to me. Not one.”

    And I would have him deliver the statement with as much fire and brimstone as a Baptist preacher, then leave the stage and set about doing it, second term be damned.

    A Stillidealistic girl can dream, can't she?

     

    Comments

    The whole thing was a scam Stilli. The bail out....the Fed was quite prepared to make good on all their indiscretions and financial misdeeds without the tax payers help. And those dicey mortgages...just one big fraud.

    We was snookered big time. And still are being snookered big time.

    Don't get me started.


    by cmaukonen on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 11:13pm

    hey, if I'm pissed off, why shouldn't you be, too? :-)


    by stillidealistic on Thu, 10/14/2010 - 11:16pm

      Hey Hey Still . . .

     

    I left a response for you over in Destor's  The Know Your Lender Act Of 2011 thread.

     

    ~OGD~


    by oldenGoldenDecoy on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 12:19am

    Consider the bankers working the carry trade with the money we've given them.

    As I see it, here's how it works:

    A.) We give the banks bail-out money to fix the economy. (You know, address upside-down mortgages and other "toxic assets," etc.)

    B.) The FED gives the banks money at virtually 0% interest to stimulate lending, etc.

    C.) we sell Treasury Bonds so we can come up with the money to give the banks (A.) and to loan it to the banks (B.) at 0% interest.

    D.) The banks take virtually all the money we give them and buy Treasury Bonds.

    The media reports this as "the banks are being cautious."

    Licentious is more appropriately used to describe this circuitous looting of the taxpayers, and Summers et. al. know EXACTLY what they are doing.

    Meanwhile, Obama still focuses upon a top-down fix to this economy. It's Reagan's trickle-down nonsense gone completely mad. And then - just to top it off - we suffer the insult of these crooks on Wall Street and in our own Administration sneering at the supposed immorality of their victims.

    Yeah, c, don't get me started!


    by SleepinJeezus on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 2:34pm

    Hey Sleepin!

    Yes, they buy treasury bonds, but more than that they are buying other banks, lending out the money they get for zero percent at anywhere from 4.5%-8%, and then sitting on the rest.  The gall is off the scale, but the lack of any action on the part of the administration to force them off the dime is even worse.


    by oleeb on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 1:19pm

    Well done.

    I can hear those rafters vibrating in the Baptist country church. And what, someone on our side mustering outrage and indignation?  Now that's talking outside the box.

    And why hasn't Timmeh, to borrow a word, been duct taped to his office chair? Did I mention that I don't like him?

    And, oh, why do we always seem to be on the wrong end of the PR stick? Two weeks before the election and we appear to be taking the bankers' side. God help us.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 12:51am

    Ya got me, Oxy...it's almost like we try to figure out the worst possible route we could take, then head off in that direction. If standing up for people over the banks isn't a Democratic value, I don't know what is. If there is one thing most people can agree on it's that our financial institutions have screwed over us...you would think that with our last dying gasp of breath as the majority party we would latch onto that. I feel like I've jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire.


    by stillidealistic on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 1:00am

    Welcome to our disillusioned world, Still, although I'm sorry you have personal reason to join the club. 

    Still -- I just want you to know how much I admire your willingness to think, and rethink and re-evaluate any position you have held in the past in favor of an opinion that is the only one you can draw -- being scrupulously honest, at any given time, based on new information available to you. 

    You are a loyal person, Still. But nobody's fool. That is an admirable combination. 


    by wws on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 5:09pm

    WWS, thank you for your kind comments.

    I try with all my might to keep my personal situations out of my feelings about what the President does and doesn't do. I know he has to do what is best for the country as a whole, and if what is best for the country goes against what is best for me and my family, I can live with that. In this case, I happen to know from personal experience that not everyone who is heading for foreclosure is there for making a poor choice, but rather for doing what would have been the right thing in normal times, but went south because of corporate greed. My kid happens to be one of the poster children for the program that is supposed to be helping people stay in their homes, but just need a "little" help, and are getting screwed over by their bank (in this case B of A.) All it would take for them is a 2% drop in their interest...not a whole lot to ask under the circumstances.

    But that is neither here, nor there...the bottom line is corporations got us into this mess, they've prolonged it with their recklace use of the bailout money, and are now riding roughshod over people ILLEGALLY, and our President is siding with them out of fear of what will happen to the economy. I would hope it would make me mad, even if I had no such personal knowledge.

     


    by stillidealistic on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 6:45pm

    Wait, I just saw this.  Welcoming Stilli to the disillusioned world?  I think not.  Reevaluating her position from one she's held in the past?  What?  The "only one she can draw"?  What?  Oy.  Never mind.

    I think it's time for me to withdraw from Dag for a while.  It's been nice, though, and my thanks to Articleman and Genghis, et. al. for making me feel so welcome. 

    Good night.

     


    by LisB on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 2:04am

    Add the dadt fiasco to the list of bad bad decisions before the election.  He appeals and the military shafts him.


    by AmiBlue on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 7:27pm

    As a member of your fan club, stilli, I feel that you have truly "earned" this eruption!  You've been more patient with this Administration than most, including me.  I fear that it will be Nancy Pelosi and the House which will pay the most immediate steep price for the failure to enlist the support of the overwhelming majority of the American people to take the kinds of steps that are both right and needed.  

    I just finished reading Michael Hirsh's Capital Offense, an excellent narrative about how we got to the point we're at in re to Wall Street's total domination and complete lack of accountability for eggregious irresponsibility.  I highly recommend it.  One thing I learned is that the European banking community was furious with Wall Street for helping Greece disguise its true level of indebtedness.  On Hirsh's account, the Obama Administration sided with Wall Street on this.  Unbelievable.

    I learned that the much despised Rahm Emmanuel was among those calling for a more assertive response to Wall Street, based on his analysis of the political realities.   

    I also learned that the President, based on some things Larry Summers was saying while auditioning for the job of Treasury Secretary or Fed Chairman that sounded like things Robert Reich has been saying, came to see Summers as the Robert Reich of his Administration's economic team.  Obama said he wanted someone representing the Robert Rubin point of view and someone representing the Robert Reich point of view to present their views in front of him, openly and vigorously.  He realized he didn't have a Joseph Steiglitz or Paul Krugman to do that so Summers was the person he was hoping to play that role.  Well, it turns out Summers, although his views had changed somewhat from what they were during the Clinton years, was no Robert Reich.  And he was certainly no Joseph Stiglitz.

    Now that Summers is gone, Obama could choose to bring in Stiglitz (those two respect each other a great deal but don't get along at all.  Stiglitz suspected Summers froze him out of Obama's circle) to begin the process of righting the ship on economic policy.  Stiglitz is a virtual rock star outside of the US.  He is the most widely cited economist in the world.  His academic reputation far surpasses that of Summers.  He's been right, and far ahead of the curve, on one important issue after another going back decades now.  He's a difficult personality.  But sometimes you just have to accept that and work with it. 

    It really all depends on what conclusions the President draws from the November election results.  From Hirsh's book it's not difficult to identify several other experienced and highly knowledgeable individuals who could join with Stiglitz to provide vigorous alternatives, offered on the inside, for the President to consider going forward.  We can only do everything we can these last few weeks to try to hold the House and Senate.    


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 10:06am

    I can't think in what way Obama might have seen Summers as some Reich, like him or not).  Summers helped write Gramm-Leach-Bliley, thorouly trashed Brooksley Born and discredited -- no, mauled --her concerns over derivatives and their dangers to the overall future and stability of our economy (and as it turned out, much of the world's).

    http://socialistworker.org/blog/critical-reading/2010/10/05/larry-summers-inside-job

    I've read a few comments claiming Summers cared about the subject of 'wealth distribution' in America; if so, I would guess he meant, given his advice and interference in adopting any rigorous financial regs, that he'd thought money wasn't migrating up upwards fast enough. 

    According to Peter Orzag, Obama is seen as very unfriendly to business.  That's his fault; while his White House blocked regs, he was out cynically waving his pitchfork at them after Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley.  That was when he trotted out Paul Volcker again...

    Stiglitz is great, but he wouldn't allow himself to be sidelined like Volcker, who quit going to work after a while.


    by we are stardust on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 10:36am

    Stiglitz is great, but he wouldn't allow himself to be sidelined like Volcker, who quit going to work after a while.

    Right.  Which may have something to do with why he hasn't been tapped.  So far.  Because if you didn't listen to him much he'd leave and tell, later if not sooner. 

    At least Stiglitz has worked in government.  Krugman might be (even?) less suited to a government position by temperament.  But there are others, including several mentioned in the Hirsh book, whose expertise and good sense would make them extremely valuable additions to the mix, without raising the same levels of concern because, unlike with Stiglitz, no one knows who they are. 

    I wouldn't be a bit surprised if, were Stiglitz to be named to a senior position, the Dow dropped 500-1000 points the first day.  That would say something about how he is feared as the real deal.  If the White House is willing to pay whatever price comes with bringing him on, I would hold out some hope that the President is serious about trying to address, in a much more aggressive and comprehensive way, at least some of the huge problems Wall Street's current role creates for our country and world.


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 10:56am

    LOL!  Maybe that's why you call yourslef 'Dreamer'?  I'm sorry; I can't even imagine anything like that...but I am sincerely cynical by now about Obama and economics and Banks.  Last call sheet I read showed it all: the banks have his ear, period.  Please prove me wrong, Mr. Prez!!!


    by we are stardust on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 11:43am

    Wink (meant to be a wink) You may say I'm a dreamer, but... (you know the rest).  I managed to use that handle for around 5 years now without using that cliched response.  But then again, I haven't had many people overtly "accuse" me of being a "dreamer" in the pejorative sense over the years.  Artappraiser thinks I'm unrealistic and tells me so publicly.  That's fine, I respect her.  Other than you, who I also respect, I don't recall any others who've said that.

    Funny--I gave little thought to picking my handle at the cafe years ago.  I've sometimes thought about changing it to something that sounds a little less...dreamy, in the pejorative sense suggesting someone with a not-quite-there hold on reality.  If you got to know me IRL without knowing what my online handle is, I think "dreamer" is not an adjective that would come quickly to your mind.  Pretty sober type, actually, at least that's how I think of myself.  Although I sometimes mask it with sarcasm I do believe in possibility, and don't apologize for that.  If we cannot imagine a better future we are (even) less likely to create one for ourselves.  I think that's the basic meaning of the phrase "where there is no vision, the people perish," which I think is perceptive and wise. 

    Do you think President Obama may be reflecting a bit on his first 2 years in office on November 4, once the returns are in?  I do.  Not about how he might create utopia, but about where he wants to go from here to survive.  I don't pretend to know what he'll conclude.  I don't think anyone else, probably including the President himself, knows, either. 

    stilli, I hope you don't consider this OT, or badly OT.  If so, I apologize.


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 12:38pm

    Well, now, Dreamer...I am 'stardust', so... Wink back at ya...

    Yes, Obama is engaged in far too much navel-gazing, as per the Times Mag interview; I find it appalling that he said much of this jsut before the midterms!!!  Good think it's not video, or the Koch brothers would be peppering the airwaves with it.  Note the agenda they are working on, too; talk about 'lessons not learned' or maybe the wrong ones.  And yes on the SW website; I also can dream of a better world...  ;o)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all 


    by we are stardust on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 12:57pm

    Not a prob, Dreamer. I like the fact that threads often take on a life of their own, and to be honest, I'm glad to hear a little hope injected into my diatribe. I was in a foul mood last night (as lisB will attest to!) If you think this was a rant, I was really on a rant in chat, and glad not too many were around to witness it.

    Under all my current hostility, I really do think this country has the potential to right itself. But there are sinister forces at work against it. And when I see this man, our President...this person I so admire, taking the side of big banks while they trash the very rules of law that I just KNOW he believes in, it leaves me reeling.

    I completely understand how afraid he must be for our country. I am afraid, and I am am privy to but a fraction of the information he is. I truly believe we are teetering on the brink, and he is doing all he can to keep us from falling in, at a time when there are diametrically opposed views as to how to proceed. We are in uncharted territory. But if we are going to fall over the edge, I'd rather do it trying to save the common man, than trying to save an arrogant, practically evil institution that is DRIVEN to take and grow and consume everything around it...  Our financial institutions are beginning to remind me of a monster running loose destroying everything in its path to feed its need for more, more, more.

    There is a concern, and rightly so, that if the financials collapse, so will the recovery. But if we have to sacrifice our basic, fundamental laws in order to keep the recovery going, is it really a recovery, or just the illusion of one? And isn't building a recovery on sand because it looks good, worse than just accepting we need to get to the bottom of this mess and rebuild on a solid foundation?

    I don't want to go through a depression any more than the next person. I like my lifestyle, and I'd like to keep it. But if keeping it means that we continue to rot until it is too late to save the country, I'll give it up. This is way more fundamental than just a depression. Changing the way government is run is the change I voted for. And there are many, many, powerful people that like it just the way it is. I don't see how we can let them win, and ever expect to make this government belong to the people again.

     

     

     

     


    by stillidealistic on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 1:13pm

    Stiglitz as Chief Economic adviser.....and then maybe, yes, could you believe Noam Chomsky replacing Gates at DOD? Both about equally likely!


    by NCD on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 1:59pm

    Wait a minute, you're citing the Socialist Worker in support, and you're calling me a dreamer?  Smile 


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 12:43pm

    One of the greatest disappointments in this administration (in the opinion of many) seems to be that Obama et al turn out to have no interest in hearing from -- much less hiring -- experts in their respective fields who are unafraid to speak forthrightly and whose opinion is based on "what needs to happen" rather than being breing based on a politically utopian/bipartisan model.

    Glaring examples of those informed naysayers we needed include  -- say, for example -- Dr. Howard Dean on Healthcare, or Stiglitz on the economy. 


    by wws on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 5:02pm

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026159.php

    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/dean-public-option-pearlstein/

    <BlockQuote>Steven points out that I did not propose a robust public option in 2004 election. The measure of good politics and policy is the ability to accept and identify new ideas.  My 2004 plan may not have included a new stand-alone program....</BlockQuote>

     

     


    by LisB on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 2:12am

    Thanks for that reference, and good post. While I am still a fan of Obama the banking front mystifies me. Either he is a lot smarter than I already think he is and is executing an eight year plan which will become obvious later or he has an absolute tin ear to the disgust progressives are expressing over the capitualation to banks. Geithner's questioning of the mortgage moratorium is the icing on the cake of banker revulsion.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 12:06pm

    Yes, I love how the folks who accepted hundreds of billions of taxpayer funds in the wake of their screwups get huffy about the moral hazard of rewarding people who screwed up in the mortgages they took on. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 12:50pm

    But, but.. that's robbing Peter to pay Paul!


    by DF on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 1:11pm

    Uh...say, where did you get those gucci loafers?  :<)


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 3:41pm

    Yes, there were some people who did stupid things. Some out of greed, some out of ignorance. But some did it innocently, and are only in trouble because of a recession caused by the greed of the people making these loans and selling and reselling them to each other over and over, each time taking a cut of the action, and reaping amazing profits, wages, and bonuses, until the scheme collapsed.

    In normal times, you lose your job, you sell your house. These are not normal times. You, in many cases, CANNOT sell your house. Seems like that needs to factor in somewhere... Foreclosure is not the ONLY recourse in many cases. Especially if it is done illegally. We helped them. Now shouldn't they help us?


    by stillidealistic on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 1:22pm

    There's a scene Hirsh writes about late in his book to try to illustrate the canyon that separates how Wall Street sees itself and thinks about the world versus how ordinary citizens think about themselves and see the world. 

    Hirsh uses it to support his assertion that Washington and Wall Street, after understanding one another quite well when Bob Rubin was working for the government, once again do not.  It's a Congressional hearing and Senator Carl Levin, one of the good guys, is questioning one of the Wall Street CEOs who is testifying.  The long and short of it is that it becomes apparent that the Wall Street firm deliberately misled investors to whom it sold packages of trash, which were rated highly by utterly corrupted Moody's and Standard and Poor's ratings agencies who get paid by the companies that ask them to rate their securities.  Beyond this, the Wall Street firm also literally placed bets so that, when the value of these securities they are selling to customers plummets, as they fully expect, they will further profit beyond the initial sale of the junk securities.

    Levin is trying to get this CEO to acknowledge that there is something morally wrong, indeed reprehensible, about this.  The CEO either does not see this, or will not acknowledge this. His attitude is buyer beware.  He tries to explain that the relationship of his firm to his clients is no longer--not for roughly the last 15 years or so--one that is something like a mutually understood duty to offer sound investment advice to their clients, or at least not establish a conflict of interest whereby they have an interest in the securities they are marketing to their clients going to hell.

    I guess I must have missed that memo or announcement, when those rules or understandings were changed.  

    Wall Street seems about as far removed from feeling any sense of responsibility to help correct the problems and try to make amends to the people it has wronged as is possible.  Still.  They don't get it.  They don't believe they have to come to a different understanding because they are so powerful they can buy all the influence they need to prevent public officials from telling them they can no longer do certain things.  That will not change unless and until a public official with power confronts them, all the while explaining to the public in terms ordinary people can understand, exactly what he is doing and why, and why the public needs to go to the barricades with him on this.  This is what they have really good speechwriters and communications advisors for. 

     

     


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 3:58pm

    I don't know when it was that we realized these firms are out for themselves, but fortunately for us, it was way before the crisis. Unless they have a fiduciary responsibility to look out for your best interest, you have to assume they will screw you if they can....sad, but true.

    We lost several opportunities to make a bunch of money because we made investment decisions that made sense...not investing in tech during that bubble, and not investing in housing during the recent bubble were two of them. We didn't make a ton of money, but then we didn't get creamed when the bubbles burst, either. Unfortunately we can't say the same for CalPers.


    by stillidealistic on Fri, 10/15/2010 - 5:18pm

    Hi Stilli!  It's been awhile.

    I'm glad to see the scales are falling from your eyes about Obama and his coterie of corporate Democrats whose purpose is to defend the status quo and those who profit from it as opposed to the pap they sold millions back in 08 about change.  You can apply the very same logic to a plethora of issues and when you do you will clearly and finally see the ugly truth about our Dear Leader.

    A couple of things.  First and foremost, don't think we avoided a depression.  We didn't.  We are smack dab in the midst of a depression that's going to make 29-39 look like nothing.  The bailout should have been a nationalization of the banks that would have both preserved the banking system and summarily gotten rid of the crooked banksters who caused many of the problems and who so obviously engaged in a massive fraudulent scheme to rob the people not just of the US but of the entire world for their own profit which is precisely what they did.  Obama has defended and protected those criminals from day one so his inexcusable inaction on the foreclosure situation is quite predictable albeit reprehensible particularly when (at the most craven political level) he could be capturing the votes of millions of grateful homeowners who might not lose their homes if only he were to freeze foreclosures entirely.  But doing something politically beneficial for Democrats, even when disaster looms in just a couple of weeks, isn't somthing President Hoover, uh, I mean Obama is willing to do I guess because he's oh so saavy at the 4 dimensional chess game of US politics right?  Sorry, couldn't help the snark there.

    Stilli, this has been this guy and his crowd's M.O. all along: protect the rich and powerful from any consequences of their actions up to and including criminal activity, preserve the status quo at the expense ofthe citzenry, refuse to fight against the obstructionism of the Republicans or defend even the record of the White House itself from the insane and unceasing attacks of the right, and whenever an opportunity presents itself to alleviate the suffering of the tens of millions out of work , losing their homes, jobs, etc... turn a blind eye.  It isn't quid pro quo corruption like the kind Republicans engage in, but it's a corrupt and jaundiced posture all the same.

    What we have needed all along Stilli is a real Democrat who not only cares about common people but is willing to fight for them.  Obama has demonstrated beyond any doubt he will not fight for anything at all under any circumstances.  And of course, I too will vote for him again like so many others simply and only because the Republicans are even worse but as you are beginning to see now, they are only worse in terms of degree.  There is the Republican Party and it's right wing crazies and then there is the Republican Obama Wing of the Democratic Party.  He works in concert with the real Republican Party to isolate anyone left of Attila the Hun and marginalize them so no real change can be put in place and then looks to those same people and groups to whip up Democrats to support them at election time.  What kind of people do that to their own team?  We have little choice but to continue to support him and the Democrats but it's absolutely critical for people to recognize that when he is done we need to stop electing corporate/centirst/Republican Lite Democrats and instead support and elect genuine Democrats who will propose and fight for Democratic policies.  Obama never has done that and he never will.

    Oh, and I'm sorry I've taken so long to comment but I've been out of town and kinda out of it generally in terms of the web.  Cheers!


    by oleeb on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 12:44pm

    Hi, oleeb! Good to see you. I haven't been spending much time blogging, either, for many reasons, but primarily because I got the wind taken out of my sails w/ Josh's abandonment. I am enjoying myself here on Dag, and slowly it is beginning to feel like my new primary residence.

    Now, on to your comment. Scales off my eyes... Don't think I'd go that far. You continue to see Obama as  a malevolent person, where I do not at all. You see him as having ulterior motives, I see him more as a partial victim of circumstance (finding himself in between a rock and a hard place, with little clear cut direction to be taken and few good choices available to him), partially as a bit naive and or idealistic, as I am (particularly as it relates to his attempts to compromise w/ the repubs) and partially as getting some really bad advice from people he trusts. I still believe he has the country's best interests at heart, and is having a hell of a time figuring out how to proceed in the context of how screwed up everything is, and how inextricably linked all the different parts of the problems are.

    So, I'm still giving credit where credit is due, the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, and expressing my dissatisfaction as it is warranted. Not as much "progress" as you would have liked to believe, I'm afraid!

    I just got through filling out my absentee ballot, with a straight dem ticket. I had to hold my nose to do it in some cases, but I did it. As far as I'm concerned, to do anything else, is to vote for a repub. And THAT I will not do.

    But then on the other hand, I voted yes on legalizing pot, and that was fun.


    by stillidealistic on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 6:59pm

    What a pity.  I thought you were making progress.

    Let me be clear about what I think Obama is: a very typical hypocritical, cynical political climber who doesn't give a damn about you or me except insofar as it serves him.  That is exactly who he is and who he always will be.  He takes advantage of the goodwill decent people like you show him and uses it to double cross you and then blame it on circumstances, etc... 

    Millions of good people enable him by going out of their way grasping at straws to invent reasons why he had no choice but to do what he did though he obviously had many other options.  This is little more than updating the ancient myths of the tyrant, who, in the eyes of the peasantry was, if only the truth were known, really a very good King who was led astray by evil advisors but has the best interest of the peasantry at heart.  In times of old this myth only served to make life worse for the peasants of course just as it only serves to make things worse for us today.  The whole image of the thoughtful, highly intelligent "different' President is just good marketing.  He isn't that at all: he's a politician and a very, very typical one at that.  Unfortuantely, he's a politician without the slightest concern for fighting for anything and that makes things all the worse in a time of crisis like the one we find outselves in. 

    I don't think he's got a particular hidden agenda.  I think his agenda is very straightforward: he's out for himself like every other typical politician of his ilk.  He knows who will and who will not be able to help him when he's out of office and it sure ain't you and me so we get lip service while they get unlimited 1st class service 24/7.  It's the big banks, brokerages and law firms in New York who wil take care of him handsomely for his service and to whom he kowtows obediently. 

    One day you will realize how obvious this is along with millions of others but far too late to do anything about it.  In fact, it is far too late already.  One wonders if you'll finally get it when he backs the catfood commissions recommendations for cutting Social Security and Medicare that are coming just after the election and which he has indicated on numerous occassions he thinks is necessary?  Or will it be when it becomes even more clear (though I can't see how it is possible) that he has been lying about repeal of DADT all along, and that is why he is keeping up the legal challenges in anticipation of at least one chamber of Congress going Republican so he can blame keeping DADT on them?  Or will it be when he actually has a US Citizen assassinated on his personal orders as though he were an absolute monarch and in violation of every legal standard and precedent this nation has ever had or stood for? 

    It will be interesting to see just which straw will be the one to break the camel's back as the open betrayal of the middle class and his water carrying for the mortgage bankers on the foreclosure issue, despite making you angry, hasn't done the trick (which is pretty remarkable in and of itself).  I've not lost hope for ya though!  ;)


    by oleeb on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 12:47am

    Oleeb, not commenting on the substance of your comment but could you spare us the condescending tone towards this, among other fellow respected dagblogians you seem unable to resist dissing at times?  It's offputting when I see you treat other people that way, to me anyway, and I am one who is sympathetic to some of the substance of what you write.  It comes off to me as though you think you're simply more advanced and enlightened than others.  Can you at least take a stab at not conveying that quite so obviously in such an in your face way?  Not suggesting you pull your punches in the substance of your comments, just treat people a little more courteously, that's all.  Thanks for listening.


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 1:21am

    As long as we are reflecting on the relative merits of other people's comments, it sure would be nice if you responded to the substance of comments instead of going meta on a discussion that doesn't even involve you.

    If your comment consists entirely of telling another poster how you think they should be making comments - while bragging that you aren't even bothering to substatitively reflect on the meaning of their words, it is an absolute waste of site resources. Stilli is more than capable of taking care of herself.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 1:56am

    So do you think it is inappropriate to say something to a fellow denizen if we think s/he was out of line in the way they treated another?

    BTW I wasn't bragging about anything, just trying to make a point that I think oleeb treats denizens roughly sometimes in a way that might interfere with the substance of what he's writing being heard.  I've seen this happen FTF in work situations frequently, where a person is saying some things well worth hearing, but in a way that is needlessly offputting. The result is that the substance of the remarks isn't heard so much as the ugly tone.    

    Oleeb is certainly well able to disregard my suggestion/request if he wishes to.  Interesting to me that you are calling me for intervening in an exchange you see as not involving me by intervening in my exchange with oleeb, which was not intended to involve you. 

    Perhaps I should have tried to communicate what I said privately.  At the cafe awhile back I had asked for a feature that permitted private, mutually voluntary communication between denizens for this, among other reasons.  They had that feature for a short time and I was chagrined when they did away with it.  Not trying to show anyone up.  Peace.


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 2:42am

    I find your finger wagging terribly ironic.


    by oleeb on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 2:47pm

    How so? (if comment directed to me)


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 2:58pm

    Your'e kidding right?  You don't recognize your own self righteous superiority?  Your holier than thouness?  Hmmmm?  Wow!


    by oleeb on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 4:30pm

    I see, so it's not holier than thou to tell fellow denizens how challenged you think they are in a rude way, which you do often imo, but it is holier than thou to call someone on that.  I guess we just have a disagreement about which of us is irony impaired in this context.  (I'm sure I have said things that were irony impaired and I know I've wronged fellow denizens at times.  I do want to know if I have and I try to make it right when I know about it.)  I'll leave it at that.  Not interested in a pissing match with you.  I've asked genghis if there is a way to send private emails to other denizens that the recipient is free to accept, and reply to, if they wish.  If there is, and genhis shares that with us, and you feel I've been unfair to you and would like to pursue that with me offline, pls feel free to contact me. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 5:02pm

    There already is such a method, Dreamer.  If you click on a user you can see their profile, you can "track" their comments in the next tab, and you can "contact" them via invisible email address in the third tab.

     


    by LisB on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 5:06pm

    Great! Thanks, LisB!


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 5:07pm

    So, how can you justify saying you will vote for him again?

     


    by kgb999 on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 1:42am

    Could it be he's smart enough to realize that sometimes a vote for the lesser of two evils is the wisest course?

     


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 3:48am

    Could be. I'd be interested in hearing it from him though, as I imagine he'd make a cognizant argument for this position that doesn't seem evidenced by a simple one sentence assertion that seems to equate mental capacity with agreeing to your point of view.

    Not surprisingly, claiming it means you are wise doesn't necessarily convince me the choice you have made is actually an intelligent one. I'm reminded of dynamic described in the book "What's the matter with Kansas."

     


    by kgb999 on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 5:54am

    The sole justification for voting for him will be simply because he is ever so slightly better than the alternative and there is no other viable choice.  I wouldn't blame anyone who chose not to vote for him.  Howard Zinn indicated as much prior to the 2008 election.  He wasn't gung ho for Obama, but between the choices available he was the least objectionable.

     

    I would add that I reserve the right to change my position particularly given the appalling track record Obama continues to build on when it comes to building the police state, his decision to have his regime ape the previous one in terms of lawlessness and specious claims to Constitutional powers for the executive that don't exist and that sort of thing.  Right now though as horrendous as those things are I would still cast a vote for him versus say Romney or Barber.


    by oleeb on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 2:53pm

    building the police state...okay whatever.


    by Elusive Trope on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 3:13pm

    I'd love to see the look on your face when you discover the GPS tracker they surreptiously place on your car without a warrant after you make too many phone calls to people with Arabic or other suspiciously Islamic names or when you see the files they are keeping on all your email and internet habits.  Nearly a million US government employees spending hundreds of billions annually are now engaged in surveillance work and most of it is on US citizens.  What would you call that if not a police state Little Bo Peep?


    by oleeb on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 4:34pm

    You know. That's the reason why I will not vote for him again. The HCR deal was slimy to the point of corruption, but under certain circumstances I can see justifying actions such as that with other factors and still voting for him. In light of the entirety of his administration I probably wouldn't choose to make that compromise, but my viewpoint is not so rigid that I would never consider it.

    But he has violated something that gets to the core of who I am and what I view being an American means. Americans don't torture. Americans don't execute people without due process. Americans don't hold people for decades without their day in court. They sure as hell don't declare that some people can just be disappeared forever based on a presidential decree that allowing them due process would harm national security. I can not cast a vote for a President who does not fight to uphold these most basic American values. That transcends policy to me. His tripling down on the domestic surveillance police state is also a very big bone of contention, but the other issues kind of make the point moot.

    I will still be critical or supportive of various policy issues based on changing events, in fact, considering just how powerless we are to modify executive abuses, I prefer to focus on domestic policy and legislative battles. But I can not in good conscience put my stamp of approval on that aspect of his presidency under any circumstance - which, in my world, my vote would do. The decision is probably easier for me to because I've only voted for three Democrats in my life ... and zero republicans. I don't view partisanship kindly at all - I think American governance deserves better than what boils down to mindless fandom.

    Personally, I would vote for Romney or Palwenty over Obama at this point - given only those choices. But, those are never the only two choices on the ballot, so IMO that is totally a false dichotomy. In every case thus far, there has been a candidate that I felt better matched my own goals than the major partisan offering. Be it green or libertarian or whatever. There are worse things in life than voting for a candidate who probably won't win ... voting for one who DOES win and then turns out like Bush comes to mind as a good example.

     


    by kgb999 on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 4:32pm

    I understand completely the point you're making and don't blame ya a bit for reaching the conclusions you've reached.  The torture issue is unforgivable as are the other lawless actions Obama has either taken or covered up.  I hope that I live to see the day when he, along with Bush and Cheney are put up on charges for their criminal actions.


    by oleeb on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 4:37pm

    http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=yhs-avgb&type=yahoo_avg_hs2-tb-web_us&...

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/26/pawlenty-attacks-deadlin...

    Yup.  MUCH better than Obama.

     


    by LisB on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 4:43pm

    You don't get it. And I don't expect you to.

     


    by kgb999 on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 4:51pm

    Yes, silly little Obamabot that I am, far be it for me to understand those who are much, much wiser than I.  I get it.


    by LisB on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 5:02pm

    Not at all. You are projecting now.

    I'm not a relativist ... you genuinely can't seem to understand that. Or at lest it sure feels that way, because you consistently respond to what I have to say with a link and variations on the statement "Yeah, MUCH better than Obama."

    That indicates to me that you don't get it. I'm not calling you names. I'm not trying to insult you. We just view the world through two entirely different sets of eyes so it really makes attempts at communication on some topics pointless. Particularly because you can't seem to avoid construing every damn comment as a personal insult ... and attracting those who define their lives by being aggrieved at other commenter's "tone" into a orgy of meta nonsense.

    That's why, if you will notice, you have to jump in on comments I've made to others because I will not willingly initiate such interactions with you ... neither here nor over on the site where you jumped into a debate I was having with Amicus and told me to get the fuck out. If we communicate on this level about Obama - you've initiated it. Nine times out of 10 trying to discuss things with you is just a draining experience with zero upside. I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true from your side of the equation as well.

    There isn't much point in going around in circles over it. Let's just laugh at Sharron Angle together and enjoy life.

    Namaste.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 11:18pm

    And peace to you as well, KGB.  But, for the record, this is the first time in a long time that I've even responded to you (and with LINKS, no less, hee) and I don't see it as a personal insult when you comment back about my not understanding things....I see it as a diss to anyone who disagrees with your point of view regarding Obama, whether it be me you comment to, or someone else.  But that's okay, because we can both laugh at Angle and say Namaste to each other.

    Peace.

     


    by LisB on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 11:27pm

    She gets it, kgb.  You've detailed your point of view more than enough times for us all to get it.  You've had enough and you won't vote for someone who isn't going to forward the progressive agenda.  No mor'a that.  Nope.  No more. 

    Next.


    by anna am on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 5:04pm

    Why can't you just admit that you were wrong, instead of saying she doesn't get it. I think she got it just right. Neither Romney or Pawlenty are better on torture, and along with all their other short-comings, would be worse...maybe not by a lot, but still worse.

    And, for about the gazziomth time, if you vote libertarian, green, socialist or martian...the net result is the same, a vote for the repubs. It's a free country, if you're cool w/ that, have at it.


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 9:34pm

    News flash: I'm a true independent. I wasn't wrong. I would totally vote for Palwenty or Romney over Obama at this point. That is still every bit as true now as it was a couple hours ago when I made the comment ... and that's all I said. From my perspective, given no other option, I would far rather have someone equally bad as Obama on the issue but possessing the balls to be honest about it ... at least you can legitimately challenge that and debate their underlying justifications as part of the national conversation.

    The republicans, ironically, argue that a vote for a third party is a vote for the Democrats. Go figure. Clearly, both assertions can't be true. Which opens up an intriguing third possibility: both sides are full of shit.

    A vote for a third party is simply a vote for a third party. Period. If people would abandon their fear, it is an electoral path to breaking the stranglehold both parties have on our country. But the powers that be are amazingly effective at paralyzing a large cross section of the population with what can only be described as irrational fear. There are like 20,000 teabaggers, max - and their orginization is wholly controlled by GOP bigwigs - yeah they are totally poised overrun the nation.[/s] The establishment bought your paralysis for a song.

     


    by kgb999 on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 11:39pm

    KGB, I give the Tea Party no credence any more than you do.  Sarah Palin is only liked by about 20% of the Republicans polled, and her numbers dwindle daily.  Do I want a third party?  Damn straight, I'd love to see it happen.  Will it happen in the next four, ten years?  I doubt it.  Starting at the local level, it might happen sooner.  Meantime, I hate to say that dreaded word but "viable" still holds true.  Voting for a non-viable third party candidate today, tomorrow, two years from now means throwing away a vote.  Convince me otherwise and I'll gladly start supporting whomever you find that represents a meaningful third party.

     


    by LisB on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 11:50pm

    Well, of course both sides are full of shit! Does that come as a big surprise to you? The question is, who has the best chance of getting us where we want to be,? You have decided the repubs do.


    by stillidealistic on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 1:54am

    Thanks for including the links, lis...I was going to chortle over the very idea that Romney or Pawlenty would do anything different. You provided proof.


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 9:28pm

    You are very welcome.  The Pawlenty link provides more about his thoughts on Afghanistan and less about torture, but it's still important.

     


    by LisB on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 10:11pm

    Ha! Thanks for not losing hope I will come around! I still have hope, as well, that it will be you who is proven wrong! Time will tell! Laughing


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 3:45am

    I pray you prove me wrong, but know in my heart sadly that isn't going to happen.


    by oleeb on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 2:54pm

    @Dreamer...thank you for your efforts to keep the tone civil. You took a risk putting yourself out there, and I appreciate it.

    @kgb...I'm glad you think I can take care of myself. I do, too! But nonetheless, it was kind of Dreamer to step in. Kindness seems to be an undervalued character trait these days.

     


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 3:42am

    HT, stilli. I know you can take care of yourself just fine.  Smile


    by AmericanDreamer on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 11:14am

    I know you do! I still think it was very kind of you to step up. Tone matters. You pointed it out. I appreciate it!


    by stillidealistic on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 12:49pm

    Latest Comments