dagblog - Comments for "So what do you say, Toopers. Can we get a little help here?"

Toast, We. Are, Unless.

we are stardust — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:53:30 +0000

In reply to All of the above, Stardust.

Toast, We. Are, Unless. --And I haven't a clue what can realistically come next, though there are plenty of murmurs around.

It's been interesting to me to watch which have been the 'come to Jesus' moments for Obama supporters, whether critical mass over several issues, or one bridge too far of sell-outs to the Oligarchs, or the lies and/or pretenses. Many of us who were disenchated early, but still hopeful to some degree, kept begging people to put on Jiustice's blindfold, listen to what was unfolding, and analyze things without knowing whose administration we were speaking about. Impossible mind-game, really, but questions and standards worth thinking about, IMO.

War, rendition, Rule of Law, targeted assassinations of Americans and even drug dealers abroad; the White House tanking most effective fin-reg, his justice dept. limiting evidence for suspected 'terrorists' in court, arguing that even groups giving free time to reconciliation teaching between warring factions in the ME was 'aiding and abetting terrorism'. So much wrong stuff.

But this one has been some clarion call for so many; they say even people at Daily Kos are beginning to grouse, and I assume that's a pretty big deal! ;o)

Bernie Sanders want is to demonstrate; some wanted us to 'move our money'; don't know how widely that message has gotten out. I ask, 'What money?' ;o)

Guess we need a Constitutional Convention, find a way to run more parties' candidates, with run-off voting. But we also have the SCOTUS we've got, and goddam if the R's win the Wite House in '12, it will be a sight to behold. All those social issues like abortion and gay rights and immigration and ....well, you know the rest.

Guess we'll have to keep our ears peeled about actions that might help; but for today? Keep being pissed, Ramona. And telling us about it.

All of the above, Stardust.

Ramona — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:25:52 +0000

In reply to There's a lot here, Ramona.

All of the above, Stardust. You've got it. I watched Obama make decisions that were baffling at best, and I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. No longer. I've watched the Dems in the house and the senate twiddle their thumbs when they should have been taking action and I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I gave up on them long before Obama, but I wanted to believe they would at long last do the right thing. The few who are fighting back have my undying devotion, but they have about as much chance of making a difference as I have.

I wonder which countries will come in and help us nation-build when the time comes? I really think we're toast.

I think "intellectual

Ramona — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:16:12 +0000

In reply to Yes, and F Roosevelt also did

I think "intellectual curiosity and knowledge of history" is what we expected of him, yes--and he seemed to have it, didn't he? So what is going on now? How could he make such stupid mistakes, knowing how easy it is to fact-check and come down on him for it? I think it's more that our own miscalculation. Something has changed him, and I suspect it's a too-heavy leaning on the people the people he chose to advise him. Why he chose them in the first place is another mystery. We can't blame everything on Rahm Emmanuel. Obama is the top dog. He's the decider.

Go, Dan. That little presser

we are stardust — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:51:14 +0000

In reply to Also pertinent in this

Go, Dan. That little presser will no doubt be quoted for a long time..Historical cluelessness about one of two most crucial safety nets we all pay into, whining about what 'he' did for us even if we still whined about health care cost containment via public option, la la la...

I loved this concerning his 'error's' on SS:

The White House press office chose not to address the issue.' Yeah I can see why not... ;o)

Also pertinent in this

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:25:18 +0000

In reply to There's a lot here, Ramona.

Also pertinent in this context:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/while-whacking-left-obama_n_794061.html

There's a lot here, Ramona.

we are stardust — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:13:47 +0000

In reply to Great article, Stardust.

There's a lot here, Ramona. Free association: Against Obmama and Rahm's claim that you should waste a good crisis, they did just that, IMO, in terms of not tackling fin-reg out of the gate. People yell at me that health care was more important, but after his backroom deals with hosptials pharma, and insurance, he turned it over to Congress anyway.

I'll say straight out that he lied on Jon Stewart when he made the insane claim that his administration 'fixed the economic meltdown' or some such for far less than the S& L crisis cost'. Now, the creative accounting of pretending that most banks have paid back their TARP loans being used as any sort of metric is so bogus; Bloomberg estimates that the cost to the nation was more like $12.8 trillion, figuring in guarantees, too. And then the Fed list of emergency loans sure adds to that estimate. Just utter lies.

But Obama did tell us he admired Reagan's gamechanging whatever-it-was. Sigh. And we thought he was just courting moderate Republicans; silly us!

Cry, kick ass, smack politicians on the Hill for being so unconcerned and unhurried while so many are losing their jobs, unemployment, houses, hope, metal health. Sick. Morally depraved. Clueless on purpose.

Yes, and F Roosevelt also did

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:30:43 +0000

In reply to Great article, Stardust.

Yes, and F Roosevelt also did his first Fireside Chat, announcing and explaining measures he was taking to deal with the banking crisis, on March 12, 1933, 8 days after taking the oath of office, which was on March 4 back in those days:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-hindery-jr/political-malpractice-in_b_784108.html

That's a pretty shocking misstatement by the President. It displays gross ignorance of perhaps the most relevant US history to the situation he actually inherited, versus the situation in which he constructed his campaign themes, and is shocking coming from a President many of us hoped had the kind of intellectual curiosity and knowledge of history that his predecessor lacked. I guess one might make a pretty decent case that that explains a lot of what has happened, if it is generally reflective of what this President knows and perceives about Roosevelt's early presidency.

Great article, Stardust.

Ramona — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:31:00 +0000

In reply to I looked at the Millionaires

Great article, Stardust. Twice he says he wants to cry. I know how he feels. Obama and his White House just seem more and more clueless. Are they just thrashing around trying to make excuses for their ineptness, or are they working on a cynical agenda that was there all along? I'm beginning to think the latter.

Hindery says:

We hear from sources within the White House that the President and his closest advisors have concluded that the "electoral thrashing" we all just saw had more to do with larger economic forces and strategic decisions about health care and economic stimulus than with the particular operations of the White House. In their very own words, "it wasn't that the White House did things wrong, but that it did the wrong things."

How can the administration say on the one hand that it "did the wrong things" and then on the other hand exonerate itself by saying that "it wasn't that the White House did things wrong?"

Obama also shows a blatant disregard for the truth

To this point, just a week ago, on November 8, President Obama very mistakenly said that he and his administration "didn't do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically." The truth is that FDR took office on Saturday, March 4, 1933, called Congress into special session to meet five days later on March 9th, and by June 15th, at the end of the "Hundred Days", had seen almost all of the early New Deal financial legislation passed.

(Actually FDR called his cabinet together the night of the inauguration to start in on the problems ahead. He also chose Harry Hopkins, a social worker, to put together the New Deal. The genius of FDR was in the people he listened to and put to work. Obama, right from the start, seemed almost to want to stick it to us with his choices.):

I saw the latest Move-On ad this morning, where ordinary people took to their web-cams to tell the President he's wrong about extending the tax cuts for the wealthy. Masterfully effective, I think. But then I'm the choir their preaching to.

I looked at the Millionaires

we are stardust — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:46:19 +0000

In reply to So what do you say, Toopers. Can we get a little help here?

I looked at the Millionaires list; the only name that stood out is a man who blogs at Huffpo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-hindery-jr/political-malpractice-in_b_784108.html

I would go for sending

we are stardust — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:23:05 +0000

In reply to Yes, well there is this one

I would go for sending checks. That's money that gets spents. This public fight may help advertise it if working people get payroll tax holidays, but otherwise polls show few eve know they're getting more in their paychecks. (Gotta wonder about that, though.) Checks. Self-employed don't get 'tax holidays'. ;o(