LOVE SANDWICH FOR OBAMA

    Mr. President, you are the most intelligent and classy political figure I've seen in my lifetime.

    Mr. President, if you squander this opportunity to reform the banks and Wall St. I will join in a primary challenge to your re-election.

    Mr. President, you can seize an historic moment.

    The populace is feeling two emotions which are related but separate. One is a sense of unfairness. The other is the gut knowledge that the system is rigged. The sense of fairness is relative: a moderately well off person thinks his taxes are unfair, but so do the poor and the wealthy.

    But when the over-arching financial structure is untouchable, unresponsive to the small business engine, unrepentant and unsanctioned for bringing our economy to its knees, and exists as a privileged society of insiders who are gated from the daily concerns and frustrations of common citizens, there can be only one conclusion. The system is rigged. The system excludes the ordinary citizen and small business owner, the system has concentrated the wealth of generations of hard working Americans, the system does what it wants with the nation's capital, the ordinary citizen doesn't have a vote on how the nation's capital is employed. Mr. President, the system is rigged and everyone but you seems to accept that fact as self evident.

    I accept the argument that in the first two years of your presidency you made a choice to repair a damaged yacht rather than let it sink--after all, if the yacht had gone under many more crew members would have died than owners. But now the yacht has been refitted--thanks to forced taxation of the common citizens, and the owners wish their servants aboard so that their cruise may be resumed. They are looking to you, Mr. President, to plead their case, in the name of free enterprise and rising tides, to bring us all aboard for another cruise. The yacht is rigged and ready to sail.

    The mid-term election changed the strengh and configuration of your political enemies. But in fact it has increased the power of your bully pulpit. Infrastructure spending that is the key to recovery and remolding our society and commercial enterprise structure is now limited. Isn't it self-evident that the power now resides in leadership--style and substance? No further appropriations are needed to rebuild your franchise.  But what is needed is imagination, salesmanship and a clear message of whether or not we will remain as two societies, separated by financial privilege.

    Mr. President, use your bully pulpit and your opportunity to enforce the financial reform legislation that is already on the books. In so doing, turn your presidency around. The money and the legislative leverage has been spent. Now your power resides in conviction and inspiration. The key to inspiring economic will and  restoring trust among we the people is to bring the financial industry to heel.

    Mr. President, please accept this love sandwich from a person of modest means, who at relatively high personal cost maxed out his contributions to you in '08. But I'm not going to spend the next two years wondering if you are going to repossess the yacht I helped pay for or if you are going to board the yacht and take a cruise with the owners. I am just not in the mood for champaign and tea sandwiches.

     

     

     

    Comments

    I have serious doubts that he will do what you ask, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.  Our only hope, it seems, is Nancy Pelosi.  No wonder the repubs "advised" us to ditch her.


    Agree. And it's theatre of the absurd when Pelosi and Carl Levin are Geithner's adversaries on financial reform legislation.  From a London Times article Thursday, "Republicans take aim at Volcker": Levin said the languag in the bill was "clear and strong" and wants the regulations implemented accordingly..." But cheered by a perceived lack of enthusiasm from Treasury and the Fed for implementing the (Volcker Rule) the banks believe they may not."


    I hate to rain on parades and all, but the banks have been finding their ways around the ('modified', remember...) Volcker Rule.  That there were holes is evident; that profiteers find ways around regs is not a reason NOT to regulate, IMO, but to regulate better (against the wishes of the White House) and to fund regulatory bodies.

    http://blogs.forbes.com/halahtouryalai/2010/10/27/what-volcker-rule-proprietary-trading-lives/

    Yves Smith saw it in June....

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/07/banks-already-moving-to-evade-volcker-rule.html


    Star-one, thanks for those references. But have you heard one jawboning word about it from our President?

    I agree it's bleak. I think Geithner and Bernanke have already convinced him that to rile the banks is to inhibit recovery. He's planning to win election around the edges with a weak recovery and a rejuvenated youth vote. But no one has successsfully pitched alternative B--to take a no compromise regulatory stance, thereby inspiring us! Egad! We might have the confidence to get out there and partake in this spending game once more. And also, we might have a basis for differentiating ourselves from those tea partiers who will be exposed as the corporate and financial industry shills they actually are. Reform? Conviction? Independents who hate Wall St. like everybody else? Swing Districts?


    I think he's waiting on the Log Cabin Republicans to push it through, just as soon as they get rid of DADT for him. He figures they're an effective Fifth Column, combining intolerance with tolerance, which from logic should equal *EVERYTHING*.

    And if they don't do it for him, at least he can say he tried. Kinda.


    Okay; that was pretty f'ing funny, dude.  My only gripe with it is that I hadn't thought of it first.  Cool


    Hey, those are my glasses, no?


    Nope; yours are the Gucky ones...spelled G.U.C.C.I.  Them dudes.  Tongue out

    (Do watch the video i put up; it's grrrreat!)


    "But have you heard one jawboning word about it from our President?"

    Well, here's the thing if I can collect my brain a little: Obama is pretty fair at saying what he thinks anyone wants to hear while his administration does a different thing.  And llots of people buy what he sells.  Now on fin-reg, that's one I watched pretty damned closely, and you had the best economists jumping up and down, tearing their hair, stamping their feet, watching the White House/Geithner weakening and pressuring Congress against any of the truly meaningful fixes.  (Not to mention the Banking lobbyists performing their magic, but stilll.)

    Simon Johnson (Thirteen Bankers) literally spent the past year speaking to any groups anywhare who would listen to him as to what needed to happen as far as fin-reg, but also to put at least the big five banks into receivership, unwind them and clean out their toxic assets, etc., remove the leadership, and get them running again, but much healthier. 

    There is a long parade of economists who tried to get Obama to listen so that the country wouldn't be faced soon with yet another meltdown, predicted by many, even though the details differ a bit.  And it's not just our country suffering from our fraudulent practices: much of the world bought loads of those toxic bundles of swaps and creepy 'financial instruments', not even knowing what the hell was in them!

    The fraud was extensive, maybe starting with the ratings agencies giving Junk AAA ratings, then MERS helping run the crap quickly through the sales systems.  So yeah; we can say 'Obama wants to make things look good for his re-election'.  I agree it's amotivator for him and many Dems, but it does fuck-all for the economy of the rest of the nation.  It's just wrong, and I have to say by now that Obama ain't a patsy in the deception: he's a player.  And I really hate that.

    I sat watching his radio/internet talk this morning, calling for a three-year budget freeze (WTF?????) and supporting earmark reform, out Republican-ing the Republicans.  Might be GREAT for him politically, but dear god in heaven: a spending freeze means no jobs bill, (and I swear to god they could have sold one to the country).  Does it mean no unemployment compensation extension?  No raising the debt ceiling?  That's the one that will cause the government to default on bonds, which many clever and knowledgeable people believe will kick in busloads of the crap in Erskine/Bowles nightmare cuts.

    So my hopes are fading that Obama wants what you and I want.  Well, NEED, in fact.  Meanwhile we turn more Banan Republic every day.  Man; I wish I had some Happy Pills.  Though not really.  Cool

     


    Brings up an interesting point, maybe its his meds. Did you see Sherlock (PBS) and his super-sized nicotine patches?

    I swear if he nominates that Bean woman I'm going to have to go back on Xanac, even though it has the possible reverse effect of making one paranoid--maybe I'm already there.


    I did see the patches!  Loved when he told Watson he was (some certain stripe of) a sociopath, too!  LOL!  I was so prepared to dislike Modern 'Shair-luck' (as Alan Cumming says), but I really like it.  Tomorrow night is more Moriarity, bwa-ha-ha! 

    Didn't know Xanax could make you paranoid.  Now some anti-depressants make you suicidal, and that doesn't seem quite right, philosophical arguments aside.  ;oP

    Last I'd heard they weren't going to count the Bean-race votes until later in the month; that another plot???  Cool


    As for Sherlock, I remember it going this way. "Sherlock Holmes, you are a psychopath!" Answer. "I am not a psychopath, I'm a high functioning sociopath!"-loved that line. Sherlock seems on very unsure footing with this particular Moriarity--which undermines our faith in his objectivity and mental superiority--hmmm   


    And so have our own people like Mike Capuano.  Unfortunately.


    Gail Collins has a column today where she equates believing in Barack to believing in the New York Mets, and another world championship victory (their only one was in 1969).

    Perusing the history of the Mets, I came across a quote from their right fielder of that era, Ron Swoboda, who made a spectacular catch to help the Mets win the World Series.

    Years later Swoboda was asked, 'How long you gonna keep living off one catch?' Swoboda responded, 'How much time do I have left?'


    'How much time do YOU have left' is a good question for Obama, how much time does he have left to stand up for something he has said he supports, and how much time does he have left in the Oval Office?


    Great quote from Swoboda. I think pinning your hopes on Daryl Strawberry--the movie with DeNiro--would be another.

    I give him until the State of the Union. If he doesn't respond to our frustrations with the financial industry by then, he's not going to.


    I can't get the thought of the Supreme Court out of my mind.  Can you picture more Alitos?  More Scalias?  Sheesh!  Or even more Thomases -- ugh!


    I can't get out of my mind how effete and self satisfied these men appear. What is is about the authoritarian personality--potty training? Alito and Roberst have never seen a corporation they weren't in love with--wait a minute,they are people aren't they? Bask in the warmth of all that grandeur and power. Plebs--pooh, mommie. Note: Attend some rallies for corporate shills during spare time.  


    Ugggh, believing in Gail Collins is like hoping Maureen Dowd will write a non-self-obsessed column.

    Like hoping the Mudhens will beat the Yankees.


    How much time does those on the Left have left to stand up for what they believe in?  Obama will only be as powerful, from a lefty p.o.v., to the extent that the left makes itself felt on a grassroots level.  The ball is in our court.


    Uh, the left is standing up, as in Jane Hamsher, Marcie Wheeler, Glenn Greenwald, Digby, Cenk Uygur, etc., etc. - all vilified by the Administration for being unserious, dirty hippies, not bi-partisan enough.

    As the Administration & DNC chose the boring Blue Dogs to back, it was Progressives who more won their seats in the election, which means.... we have to reach out more to the right!!!  Bwaah hah har de harrrr!!!!  I feel like I'm in a Tim Burton movie.


    Aaargh - Obama classier than Mandela?


    Or De Klerk dealing with Mandela, knowing he was giving away white supremacy, but taking it gracefully and in a way that smoothed the path for the nation.

    Or Gorbachev, dismantling empire, when criticized about slow pace of change, asking Bush Sr., "what would you have us do, fire on our people in the square a la Tiananmen?"

    Or the rebel leader Gusmão from East Timor.

    There have been some giants. Just like the Nobel Peace price, Obama gets these praises tacked on way too quickly. First the work. Then the beer.


    I think we all drank too much beer in '08. And I should have specified the U.S., although that isn't much competition, is it? Great writing, by the way.


    Well, have a bit o' this instead of Xanax...well, this plus a shot or two, anyway. Tongue out

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN5V-6yCbpg&feature=related


    Love the Blues Brothers.


    So have we finally arrived at the furious break-up sex phase of the left's relationship with Obama? ... at least there's some sex. Though I'm not sure how to picture this love-sandwich of yours, there's the left, Obama, and...

    the center.


    Ew. Now I feel violated...


    I on the other hand still believe Obama and I cen be good friends.  Things got complicated, through no fault of anyone (it's the system damn it), and, hopefully, we can find some common cause in the near future.


    good one.


    And a Howard Johnson's sandwich to all youse!


    Friends with privileges? Or no?Sealed


    Well, not without bringing along some derivatives.


    Touche!


    I'm a bit of a masochist. I'd still do 'im...


    You and me, both.  But I have a hard time letting go of relationships...alas.

     


    Just hum along with me...


    Hmmm:

    Obama Approval Advances to 47%, Up From 43% Pre-Election

    Weekly average of 45% and demographic support patterns are unchanged

    by Lydia Saad

    November 8, 2010

    ....While the increase in Obama's job approval rating since the election is small in absolute terms, the fact that it is up at all after his party's major congressional and gubernatorial losses is notable. According to Gallup trends, former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush saw their job approval ratings decline after their parties' midterm election losses in 1994 and 2006, respectively....

    Whether the increase in approval for Obama is sustained may depend in part on its cause. If the increase was spurred by the stock market rally or Obama's foreign trip, it's likely to revert to where it was before rather quickly. If it is based on reactions to the positions Obama has taken in the aftermath of last Tuesday's elections, it could remain near 47% for a longer period of time.....

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/144347/Obama-Approval-Advances-Pre-Election.aspx


    A cup of coffee, a sandwich, and you-ou.....o.k., I could get interested again.


    Also too, re: primary challenge to your re-election,

    just found this one:


    Roughly a third of Democrats (34%) say they would like to see other Democratic candidates challenge Obama for the party’s nomination in 2012. In December 1994, far more Democrats (66%) supported a primary challenge to President Clinton.

    from

    Pew, November 11, 2010
    Mixed Reactions to Republican Midterm Win
    Public Less Happy Than After 2006 and 1994 Elections

    @

    http://people-press.org/report/675/

    Am actually surprised at that Clinton number, that's one I didn't know. I guess at the time I was too involved in trying to figure out who the heck were these peeps who shockingly wanted a GOP Congress and neglected to pay attention to what self-identified Dems were thinking.

    And hey, come to think of it, there's still two weeks until December, hah.  His approval numbers will certainly be interesting to watch for the next few months. Especially, as the poll stresses, voters still don't think much of Congress--to take it back to your analogies, looks like the new House will not be having any honeymoon, it's like the suitors want a divorce already and they haven't gotten married yet.


    Latest Comments