Bailouts and the Auto Industry

Decisions made for short-term profits, but which have great risk for the long-term future of the company. When that risk hits later on, its the taxpayers that are told that we have to bear the costs.

Sound familiar? It should, because its pretty much the shape of American 'free-market' capitalism these days.

And just like everything else we've seen, such bailouts can only work in the short term and are destined for long-term failure.

Lets take a brief look back at the American auto industry. In recent years, they've made their profits, such as they were, from selling big gas-guzzling SUV's. Lots of people tried to point out the flaws in this. They had awful fuel economy. This meant we imported more oil, which meant the balance of payments deficits for our country got worse. Also, by burning such huge amounts of fuel, they were awful for the environment and contributed to global warming.

But the big three American auto companies didn't care. They were looking at the short term profits quarter by quarter, and this is where they were making their money. So, they kept churning out more and more SUVs.

The people who were talking about Peak Oil were pointing out the problems with this. They'd always predicted that as we started to reach the peak zone, and its a long gentle curve, not like the peak of a triangle, that what you would see would be strong oscillations in the price of oil. It would go up sharply as people started to panic of oil running out and speculators moved into the market. It could just as easily drop quickly when people adjusted to the high prices and economies went into recession and demand drops.

So, the first time this happens, when the price of gas spikes up to $4 a gallon in the US and the economy starts to tank, the big three auto companies take a big hit. Even thought they should have seen this day coming, they weren't ready for it. At least not in the terms that you'd expect in a free market business. Toyota is selling their Hybrid Prius' as fast as they can make them, and none of the big three American companies have a product that can compete.

In a competitive free market, this is how these companies would be expected to compete. To be looking ahead and making sure that they have products that would be attractive to potential customers. Businesses that fail to do that would go out of business.

So, now we all about how a collapse in the auto industry would be a disaster. We are told that we can't let them fail. Sound familiar? We were told the same about the wall street giants a couple of months ago. But now, lets ask this question. Did the big three auto-companies count on this all along? Perhaps they did think that they were ready for the future. Its just that in early 21st century America, the smart way to be ready for the future is not to pay engineers to develop attractive products, but instead to make large political contributions. That way, when times get rough, the politicians bought with those contributions will act to bail out your company.

Here's the really ironic part of this. Just exactly who is going to bail out the big three is left vague in our corporate media. Its not even directly referred to as the government very often. And there's this bizarre discussion in parts of the news as to whether the money should come from TARP funds or from last year's energy bill.

But the key thing to know is that the person who will be bailing out the auto industry is you. Its your money as taxpayers that they want. Or, perhaps its more accurate to look at your children and grand children and know that they are the ones expected to bail out these companies. Because we don't have the money today to do this, so its more money we have to borrow. Its more debt we have to incur. Your children and grand children will be paying it off for a long time to come.

There's one group of people to whom this must sound quite strange. Funny how you don't see them on the corporate TV channels. I'm referring to the American workers who've been laid off by these same big-three auto companies. The big-three auto companies were perfectly willing to tell these tax payers to go get stuff when they thought that moving their jobs overseas would make a few more dollars of profit on the corporate bottom line. And now they have to come back to these same tax payers and ask them for the money to save the stock price of their companies.

Nope, you don't see too many interviews with laid-off auto workers asking how they feel about their tax dollars about to be given to the same auto companies that told them they were no longer neccessary.

The problem is that America is deep in debt. At all levels ... personal debt, corporate debt, government debt. At some levels, we've reached the point where we can't borrow any more. The values of our homes have fallen, so we can't borrow against that any more. Credit cards are maxed out. Our jobs are either disappearing or in danger. Corporations can't borrow anymore either. So, the one credit card that hasn't been maxed out yet is government debt. Right now everyone is trying to pay their monthly bills off that credit card.

In terms of personal finance, we'd all understand what that means. If our finances are in such a bad shape that we have to be paying our monthly bills off of the one last credit card that isn't maxed out, any sensible person would know that a crash is at hand. But, that little bit of wisdom never makes it onto the corporate TV news. There we just hear about how we just have to give another $25 billion away to one more group of business people who made bad decisions that let to short term profits but a long term crash.

CommonDreams Refugees

The comments on the post below have told me a couple of things.

1) There are actually people who read this site. At least occaisionally. Wow!
2) Anyone who is critical of Obama and the Democrats is being booted off of the CommonDreams website.

The latter makes me thing that people need a place to gather and discuss. Its better if we gather together and stay in touch. While the forums at CommonDreams used to be a place to do this, it seems apparent that the new Democratic censorship is going to make this hard to do there.

I don't know if this site is the place to do that. But, I'm willing to help where I can. CD refugees are welcome to comment here. I'd also be willing to open up the posting privlidges here to allow others to write here if they are interested.

And one thing that could certainly be done is if CommonDreams refugees want to post links or email to stay in touch, this thread could be a place to do that.

But, I'm also thinking maybe its time for a new site. I might try to get something started. Maybe have links to articles on other sites, but with the ability to comment freely on that site. So, for instance it could have a link to an interesting article on CommonDreams, but then it could also allow a free and uncensored discussion of that article.

If anyone is interested, leave a comment below. Not only about my ideas, but with your own.

A new era of Democratic censorship

Its amazing how if you scratch a Democrat, under the fake out outer covering, they act just like a Republican. I dared to post some comments on the CommonDreams site that tried to point out that everything might not be as rosy as the Obamabots are saying it is in the glow of their victory. They tended to point out that Obama still supported the wars, was pushing the wall street bailout, and generally hadn't really promised anything 'progressive' during the campaign. And that he won the campaign with record amounts of corporate money in his accounts, topping the amounts Bush had run on.

Do that on a Democratic site like Common Dreams, and that gets you blocked and banned these days. The Democrats are as intolerant of dissent as the Republicans. That's going to be one of the interesting things to watch in the coming months, as all the 'progressives' start to wake up to that fact. Especially since the Democrats and Obama won't be enacting a progressive agenda and won't be following a 'progressive' foreign policy. When the true progressives start to raise their voices. When they try to do exactly what the Democrats said during the campaign that they should do and try to 'hold the Democrats feet to the fire.', when that colides with the little fact that the Democrats are as intolerent of dissent as the Republicans, then it will start to get interesting.

No issues

Watching CNN, at least for what I can take before the mute button gets pressed again. And I noticed something about their coverage. They are going into great depth about voters where they live and what their demographics are and who is voting for Obama and who is voting for McCain.

If you want to know that in S.Carolina, black voters went 96% to Obama and white voters went 72% to McCain, CNN will tell you all about that. If you want county by county breakdowns in Indiana of how many voted for Bush last time and how many are voting for McCain this time, CNN will tell you all about that.

But, I've been watching for probably an hour and half now, and I haven't heard any discussion of issues. The words 'war' or 'antiwar' are not mentioned. The word 'bailout' hasn't come up once. Wouldn't it be interesting to know how voters who oppose the war are splitting? Or how the minority who supports the war is voting? Wouldn't it be interesting to know how many voters are telling the exit pollsters they opposed the wall street bailout and how the voters who are upset over that are voting?

Of course, there's no difference in reality between Obama and McCain on these issues. So, mainly you'd be seeing the effects of the campaign propaganda. Even though McCain and Obama would follow the same basic course in our middle eastern wars, the two campaigns have tried to use different propaganda to create the illusion of a difference here. The same with the wall street bailout. So, it would be interesting to see the numbers on issues like this.

I'd imagine CNN will show that eventually. At least they usually do. But they are spending a lot of time on what I'd call 'identity politics'. That's telling, because it tells you a lot about an American election. Its not about choosing the course of the nation. Because both candidates will steer close to the same course. So, the election has to be about something else. There has to something to hype or to talk about. The people have to feel that they are deciding something. So, instead we see that blacks are supposed to vote for Obama and rural whites are supposed to vote for McCain. And, I'd suspect if you asked members of either group in person the question of why, the answer that would come back would be more about their identity instead of their policies.

Election results from ....

They say sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. The richest company in the world, the company that rakes in obscene profits every quarter, these are the people telling you who just won the election.

The next President of the United States, brought to you by ExxonMobile. Of course he is.

In the United States of America, we have an election system that is deliberately designed such that money plays a huge role in determining who can and can not win. ExxonMobile makes huge profits every quarter. So, this picture is just so fitting. The choice of the next President brought to you by the company that makes record profits. Yes he is.

Progressives. Those who oppose the wars. Now is the time to act.

To all who oppose the war.  To all who really call themselves 'progressives'.  This is the time to act.
We can see the course of this election.  Obama and the Democrats win this in a landslide.  That's the big course of things and its set and its already in motion.
We are going to see an Obama administration with the Democrats in control of Congress.  We also know that the Democrats won't want to listen to us.  That they'll still want to continue the wars.  That they won't want to prosecute the Bush criminals.   That they'll want to give our money to their rich friends on Wall Street.  That they'll want to call us 'idiot liberals' and ban us from the room.  We know this from the Democrats.  We have seen this from them over the last few years.
How do we make an Obama administration respect us and listen to what we want?  We keep hearing that we have to be the ones to 'pressure' an Obama administration.  How do we do that?
The only language they understand is political power.  We need to show it.  We need to have every Democratic Representative or Senator looking at the combined Nader\McKinney vote in their district or state and saying  'holy cow!'.  The more votes we put on the board right now, the more we get their attention and the more respect we get.  By putting votes on the board right now, we show real political power.
Its a safe vote.  Obama wins this in a landslide.  The Democrats win this in a landslide.  The states 'in play' are traditional Republicans ones like Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina.  To even think about winning, McCain has to sweep every state where he's even within shouting distance of Obama, and then maybe even one or two more.  Obama and the Democrats have this one in a lock.
Spread the word.  Now is the time. If there was ever a moment to vote your conscious and vote for an alternative to the corporate parties, it is this election.  Its a safe vote.  Obama wins big regardless.  The key point for right now is that actually, the closer we make this, the better it is for us.  If the Democrats are holding their breath on election night saying 'oh my gawd!' while they watch the numbers roll in with state after state they thought was solidly in their win column instead becoming razor thin with big vote totals for Nader and McKinney, then that's great for us.  We want to give them a heart attack.  That's the only way they'll take us seriously.
Do you want to really stop these wars?  Then vote your conscience.  Register a political earthquake the Democrats can't help but feel.
Do you really want to protect the environment?  Do you really want to turn the tide seriously back against global warming?  Then vote your conscience.  Register a political earthquake the Democrats can't help but feel. 
We want every congressional  Democrat looking ahead to the 2010 elections while seeing a strong Nader\McKinney vote in their districts. We want each of them shuddering at what the prospects of an angry, progressive, antiwar, third party campaign in 2010 in their districts would do to their congressional careers.  Do you want to really change things?  That's how to do it.
Now is the time.  This is the election.  This is the moment to act.

Transcript of Obama's speech

I can tell I'll be writing a bit about Obama's acceptance speech. So, to be fair, here's a link to the transcript.

Obama's acceptance speech to the 2008 Democratic Convention

And since there are so many attempts to try to tie Obama to FDR, here is also a link to FDR's famous speech in 1932. If you read both, the contrast is striking. FDR used his speech to lay out the specifics of the New Deal to Americans. In doing so, he created a mandate for what he wanted to do once he took office.

FDR's acceptance speech to the 1932 Democratic convention

A political strategy for dealing with the Democratic Party.

Today, the left appears powerless. The Democratic Party has moved to the right side of center-right. And in doing so it treats the votes of the left as something it can take for granted. And it treats the left with outright contempt, referring to them as 'idiot liberals' when they don't realize there's a camera pointed at them.

But the situation is not hopeless. In fact, the political position of the left is actually quite strong.

The balance between Democrats and Republicans in the country is quite close. The last two Presidential elections have hinged on the results of just one state (Florida in 2000, Ohio in 2004). This means changing the outcome of just one state, and not only the one that finally decided the race, can change the outcome of the entire election. Changing the outcome of just a few Senate race, or a handful of House races can change which party holds the majority in those bodies.

What this means is that the Democrats can not afford to lose anywhere. Each party is struggling to hold on to what its got, and then win just a little more than last time from the other. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any margin of error. And this is what gives the left power.

What the left needs to do is to attack the Democrats precisely where it hurts. Pick the races that are going to be close, and then throw concentrated efforts into third party races in those districts. And make it personal. When running against a Democratic incumbent, make it absolutely crystal clear that this campaign is being mounted precisely to defeat them for the actions they've taken while in office. Make it clear that this Democrat is going down because he supported the war, or because he supported telecom immunity.

The goal is to show political strength. That is the problem the left has today. It has shown no political strength at all in decades. Since the 1970's, it has mostly just meekly supported whatever candidate the Democrats had in the race. The Nader campaign of 2000 is the one exception to this on the national stage. And the reverberations of that can still be felt.

The Democrats will never take the left seriously until they know we can hurt them. That has to be the goal. The inflicting of pain on the Democratic party. Make it expressly clear that they've lost the say the Presidency precisely because the left was so mad with them because they wouldn't end the war. Make it completely clear that they've lost the majority in the Senate because they wouldn't oppose or prosecute the Bush administration crimes. Make it precisely clear to the Democrats that they've lost this election because they lost the support of the left.

The first reaction of most people to this would be, 'oh my gawd, that means the Republicans will be elected!' And, yes it does. But stop and think a bit more about that. First there's the very real question of just how much better the Democrats are than the Republicans. But even conceding that the Republicans can at times be worse than the Democrats, lets continue to think this through.

What's going to happen fairly early on in the next election cycle? The Democrats are going to come to the left and try to get the left not to do that to them again. Aha! Now that the left has shown that it can exercise some political power, it gets treated like a player in the game. Now the left is sitting at the table negotiating with the Democrats. And both sides of the table know that the left can defeat the Democratic dreams of power in the next election if it chooses to. So, what do you want to ask for? Because now by defeating those Democrats in the last election, you now get to ask for almost anything. And the Democrats will want to give it to you.

I know what I'd ask for. I'd try to get political reforms to open up the system. All the stuff the 3rd parties have talked of for ages. Instant run-off voting, campaign reform, election systems reform. Long term, that gets more for the left in terms of getting into a chance to really hold political power than a 'win' on any one issue. But, with lives at stake, I'd say getting an end to our wars from such a negotiation wouldn't be a bad thing either.

From where we sit today, its hard to picture the Democrats giving any of that to the left. But remember, after defeating their dreams of power in one election, they are going to know we can do it again in the next. We will literally hold their chance at political power in our hands. We can ask for anything we want, and suddenly the Democrats will be trying to find a way to give it to us.

So, while it may seem counter-intuitive, the real path towards change in this country lies with defeating the Democrats. It does not lie in helping the Democrats win, that only leads to more of today's status quo. The key to obtaining real change in this country lies in doing everything we can to defeat the Democrats.

And besides, we'd get to have some fun doing it. We'd get to support candidates who really do believe in our views. We'd get to run campaigns that really matter, and that are right in the thick of the action. And we'd get to retire from politics a few Democrats who really need retiring. Another benefit from this, we get to hone our own campaign skills by working with tough campaigns in tough races. Not only would that be fun. And not only would it be fun to get to dance on the Democrats graves for a change, but that's yet another way in which the left would come out of such a strategy stronger politically.

Democrats against democracy

Well, the one thing that is clear this week in Denver is that we no longer live in a democracy.

How could it possibly be a democracy, when the people are forbidden to talk with their political representatives? And that is clearly the message delivered by the surveillance cameras and the helicopters and the amazing numbers of police in riot gear. Our representatives have no interest in what we say, and they want us pushed as far away from them as possible. Our representatives don't want their lives interrupted by even a faint squeak of protest, thus the riot police have orders to keep any protesters out of sight.

And, as I occasionally watch bits and pieces of this farce of a political convention, that is also the clear message. What is the role of a delegate at a modern political convention? Apparently the role of a delegate is to wear funny hats. Apparently the role of a delegate is to dance in the aisles. Apparently the role of a delegate is to attend expensive parties from which the public is banned. Apparently the role of a delegate is to provide a backdrop to a giant photo opportunity. Or just to be the live studio audience for the television infomercial.

One of the problems is that I am old enough to remember when it was different. To remember when a political convention was the gathering of a party. To remember when delegates at times had more important duties than the wearing of funny hats. I am old enough to remember when a party used to gather and debate its platform, and the planks that made it up. To remember when it was the members of the party, gathered together once every four years in a convention, that decided such questions for the party.

At this convention, there is no room left for quaint notions of democracy. The candidate has of course long been decided before the convention. Even the quaint notion of letting the convention have a say in who is the vice presidential candidate has long been discarded as well. Note very carefully the way the vice president is decided before the convention even begins. Note carefully that the vote of the delegates is now just such a formality that the results can be announced a week in advance. I suppose there might still be the farce of a vote. Where each delegation chair will make some cute little line about their state before the formality of rubber stamping the decision of the party leaders. But this has become meaningless ritual. The real notion of democracy that used to underlie it is dead and gone.

That is very representative of today's farce of democracy. Decisions are made at the highest levels. At best the people might occasionally be asked to rubber stamp that decision. Another meaningless ritual that has lost all its real meaning.

Think for a moment about the farce we've seen in meaningless ritual of the primaries. At the surface, it at least looks like democracy. Voters going to computers to indicate their choice for the next candidate. But what choice were voters really given? Because, by now its surely obvious that at least one of the candidates was lying during the campaigns.

Stop and think a minute about what we've seen. The primaries began with one clear Democratic front runner. Hillary Clinton was running for a third term of the Clinton administration. The problem of course was that way too many members of the Democratic Party knew exactly what this meant. In the corporate media, the corruption of the first two Clinton terms is now described as Bill Clinton's famous problems in keeping the zipper of his pants closed. But that was never the true corruption of the Clinton years. The true corruption of the Clinton years was the way the Clinton's sold the services of the Presidency to the highest bidder. There was little that was out of bounds. They happily sold off America's economic strength. The trade agreements of the Clinton years were the death knell to the notion that America would build anything real and of value. Our manufacturing capability was sold off for a short term bump in the corporate balance sheet. Today's economic problems all trace back to that. We are a nation of debtors who don't produce anything of real value any more. All of our trade deficits, the falling dollar, the bubbles in the speculative markets, they all stem from this basic problem.

The Clintons were willing to sell anything. Our manufacturing base, our democracy, our freedoms. It was the 1996 Clinton\Gore campaign that tore the giant loopholes in the post-Watergate political reforms that tried to limit the role of money in an election. It was the 1996 Clinton\Gore campaigns that opened the door to the hundreds of millions of dollars that have flowed into first the Bush campaigns and now the Obama campaign. The Obama campaign has raised over $400 million dollars so far. And despite the mythology spread by the campaign, this hasn't come in $20 bills from concerned college students. Instead, that is corporate money that is flowing in through the giant loopholes that the Clinton's ripped in our campaign finance laws.

This was the problem the Democratic front runner had at the start of the primaries. Way too many members of the Democratic party knew exactly what another Clinton Administration would mean. They knew it would be what the rest of the world would call either a center-right or a pure right-wing government. That beyond a couple of litmus test issues like abortion, that a third Clinton term would mean yet another government of the money, by the money and for the money. A big portion of the Democratic party wanted something different.

Thus evolved the farce of the primaries where it appeared that the party would indeed be able to choose something different. A slick new candidate was presented, one who spoke of hope and change. Sure, he was awfully vague on what that meant. But he looked good and he looked different. He used the words 'hope' and 'change' so often that they became associated with his name. The candidate made noises that if elected he would indeed make changes to America's foreign policy and to its economic policy. He said he'd be willing to talk with our enemies, instead of just bombing them. He said he'd be willing to renegotiate the trade deals that have so crippled our economy and sent so many of our good paying jobs overseas.

So, the members of the Democratic party, in primary after primary across the nation, made the choice to go with this new candidate. They rejected the corporatism of the Clintons and instead decided to send their party and their nation in a different direction.

The only problem was, it was all a giant fraud. As soon as Barack Obama had the nomination in hand, he immediately started telling everyone that his entire primary campaign had been a giant lie. Suddenly the idea of changing our foreign policy was off the table. He would only talk to our enemies if his preconditions were met. Or do deliver ultimatums that precede the usual bombings. He pledged to ally his foreign policy with the same right-wing goals of the Cuban terrorists in Florida. And to make certain that America's interests were secondary to that of Israel.

The candidate's pledge to renegotiate trade deals like NAFTA were then dismissed as the overheated rhetoric of the campaign. And most telling, the same old crew of advisers and party hacks that had characterized the Clinton years suddenly coalesced around the new candidate. While the members of the Democratic party had voted for change, suddenly it was revealed that no change was possible. It was revealed that an Obama administration would look amazingly like what a Hillary Clinton administration would have looked like.

This is today's Democratic Party. Its primaries are a fraud, and its political convention is a farce. Today's Democratic party treats its members as people to be lied to and manipulated. Today's Democratic Party relegates its delegates to the role of dancing in the aisles wearing funny hats while the next speaker for the TV infomercial gets ready in the back room.

And if no democracy is allowed inside the party, there is certainly none allowed outside. What is perfectly clear today is that there is one thing that the Democrats are willing to fight, and that is democracy. A Democratic Party that constantly shocks its members by its unwillingness to fight its Republican opposition shows that it has no problems at all fighting the people of this country who still want democracy. A party that seems spineless instead morphs into a vicious attack dog should words like 'Nader' or 'Green Party' be mentioned in their presence. A Democratic Party that is unwilling to use the political or legal process to fight to defend its own votes in rigged elections suddenly is willing to go to great lengths to fight say the petition signatures that might put an independent or Green party candidate on the ballot. A Democratic Party that is too cowardly to fight the Republicans unleashes the riot police on any citizens who might dare to try to march in the streets in protest.

Yes, there is one thing that is certainly clear here in Denver this week. The one thing the Democratic Party certainly hates is democracy. From its lying candidates in its rigged primary campaigns, to its delegating the delegates to the role of mere extras, to the attacks on any who dare protest, the message of the Democratic Party in this area is quite clear. Democracy is not allowed.

All decisions are to be made at the highest levels. And they are to be made by politicians who refuse to even to talk to the people any more. If the people of this country say they want these wars to end, the leaders of the Democratic Party instead promise to expand the wars. If the people of this country say they want national health insurance like every other civilized western country, the leaders of the Democratic party respond with proposals to make it a crime not to buy corporate health insurance. If the people of this country say they want the laws upheld and political criminals prosecuted, the leaders of the Democratic Party respond by taking impeachment off the table and by promising not to prosecute the criminals of the current regime after they leave office.

Yes, the one thing that is most certainly clear this week in Denver is that the Democratic Party opposes the very idea of democracy. From the fact that its primaries were a fraud because of the dishonesty of its candidates, to its turning its convention from a democratic event to a corporate sponsored infomercial to its sending the riot police out to deal with any dissent, its all too clear we are on our own.

If you still believe in America. If you still believe in democracy. If you still believe in a free country, where our freedoms are protected by the rule of law and a series of checks and balances between branches of the government. If you still believe in the Bill of Rights, and its guarantees that we would be free of a government spying on its citizens and its guarantees of a chance of political expression, then its all too clear that today's Democratic Party is a part of the problem. Its all too clear that this Democratic Party has sold its soul to AT&T and its other corporate sponsors. If you want democracy in America, its all too clear that the Democratic Party is not the answer. In fact, the clear message from the riot police being ordered into the streets by the local Democratic mayor is that the Democratic Party is the enemy of democracy.

And the real puzzle of the week is why the American people seem willing to accept this?

Candidates for Sale

There's an important article up on Rollingstone.com. Candidates for Sale by MATT TAIBBI

Its an important look at the money being raised by both the big corporate candidates. And what they've already done and are likely to do for that money.

What is it, some 70% of Americans say America is 'on the wrong track'? The key thing is to realize that if either Obama or McCain wins the election, we'll stay on that wrong track.

Obama issues threats, just like Bush

Obama early in the primaries ...

"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith," he said. "I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hell bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior."

The Old Obama in the primaries, after Hillary (the other allowable 'liberal' choice) had just threatened to obliterate Iran with nuclear strikes ...

Obama, appearing yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press, struck back with calm outrage. "It's not the language we need right now, and I think it's language reflective of George Bush," he said.

"We have had a policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk," the Illinois senator added, "and in the meantime have made a series of strategic decisions that have actually strengthened Iran."

Now we get Cowboy Obama for the general election ...

Obama reportedly told Olmert that he is interested in meeting the Iranians in order to issue clear ultimatums. "If after that, they still show no willingness to change their nuclear policy, then any action against them would be legitimate," an Israeli source quoted him as saying.

I've always been struck by the way Bush 'negotiated'. He basically just issued ultimatums. Then, if the other side didn't fold, he went straight to military action.

What Obama just said is that he plans to continue exactly the same technique. In other words, he just promised that the next four years under President Obama would be a lot like the last eight years under President Bush. I guess the only place to the right of that for McCain to go would be to say he'd just skip the ultimatum step and go straight to military action. But, its not like that's a huge difference because Obama's ultimatum or else policy eventually leads to the same actions.

He also just promised the Israelis that if Bush doesn't start a war between now and leaving office, Obama will pick up that ball and run with the same policy next year.

I just hope all the progressives who think Obama is 'anti-war' are paying attention.

Rockets Red Glare

“If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything in my power to stop that, and would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

That is Sen. Obama speaking from Israel, according to this article on Dissident Voice.

The rather obvious question is, if Sen. Obama were living in Gaza and it was the Israeli military sending rockets and bombs into his house, what would he do?
=====================
And in general, it seems to be the typical response that when one group of people fires bombs and missiles at another, then they fire more bombs and missiles back to 'do everything in their power to stop that'.

Of course, realizing this means realizing that the way to stop bombs and missiles from raining down on your and your children is not to fire more bombs and missiles back at others. Instead, the way to 'do everything in your power to stop that' is to find a way to have peace.

Pretty sure that's not what Obama was intending to say. Which means that he just isn't willing to do anything about the fatal flaw of both American and Israeli policy.

Money, Civil Disobedience and other stuff

Money .... can't help but to notice that the little Maplight.org widget above these posts has updated with June numbers on campaign finance. Obama must have raised about $50 million last month compared to McCain with $25 million.

Its striking to someone who's followed politics for a long time that its the Republican who's taking the public financing route for an election, and criticizing the Democrat for not doing so. That alone speaks volumes about the current campaign. Along with the numbers showing that Obama is out fund-raising McCain by Republican-like numbers.

Follow the money, and usually it will show you the winner in American politics. And, you can count on a candidate not biting the hand that feeds it. Want to know why Obama is disavowing everything even moderately progressive that he said or even hinted at to get the Democratic nomination? Just watch the dollar amounts tick over on that little Maplight.org widget and you'll know the reason why. That and the "AT&T Convention" handbag for the corporate party here in Denver tell you all you need to know.

------------------
Sometimes people are critical of the Palestinians for not opposing the Israelies non-violently like Dr. King or Ghandi might do. This article over at DissendentVoice.org tells you what happens when they do. "A West Bank Town’s Struggle to Survive"

I strongly believe that people should try to achieve needed change through legal means provided by society as their first option. In a place like America, that means contesting elections and using the courts to enforce laws when possible.

But, the question becomes, what do you do next if you find that the system is rigged to prevent change by those means? To me, the next stage is non-violent civil disobedience.

In order for non-violent civil disobedience to be effective though, you need a couple of things. One is that hopefully your opposition is willing to stay within the rules and not respond with violence in return. If that doesn't happen, you get the line from "V for Vendetta" :

"What's going to happen? What usually happens when people without guns try to stand up to people with guns."

Even that's not the end of the road for non-violent civil disobedience. Ghandi was met with violence at times. And the people just marched forward and let the police beat them.

But that only works when your opposition is willing to listen. What happens if this occurs, but no one knows about it.? Note the lead to the article about Palestine where it notes that this village that is attempting to resist the Israelis is only found in press searches 71 times. How effective is non-violent civil disobedience when no one knows that its suffering at the hands of a violent opposition?

And what are people, who are suffering and who legitimately have grievances, to do when legal attempts to ask for change are blocked and non-violent attempts to step outside the law are met with violence?

Self Evident Truths

Just because these words should always be said on this day. And the corporate media will stop at just acknowledging the right of the pursuit of happiness.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends,
it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed,
will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,
it is their right,
it is their duty,
to throw off such government,
and to provide new guards for their future security."

-- The Declaration of Independence

Why do Democrats hate freedom?

Why did the Democrats just vote to help legalize President Bush's lawbreaking, and also to further strip away the rights and liberties of Americans? A website called maplight.org may be shedding some light on the question.

Telecom donations tied to FISA vote

" Maplight's analysis, crunched using contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics, found that the 293 House members voting last week in favor of the wiretapping compromise received, on average, more than double the amount of money as those who voted against it."

And, when I went to excellent website that Maplight.org has started, I dug a bit and created the table illustrated above. Now, one striking thing is the dates of the data in the table. They go back to 2001. But, when you look at the top three on the list, while Sen. McCain and Clinton had been in the US Senate that whole time, Sen. Obama has only been on the national stage for about half of that period. Yet, there he is very high up the list.

This vote was highly damaging in several ways. For one, it was the last step in essentially legalizing President Bush's illegal spying on Americans. Remember, President Bush initially stood up before the nation and announced both that he had already been breaking the law on a regular basis, but that he would continue to do so. In a nation of laws, that should have sparked immediate impeachment hearings. Instead, the Congress with full 'bipartisan' support has passed laws legalizing the unconstitutional spying on Americans. And now this bill goes further and gives immunity to the companies that knowingly collaborated in these illegal acts.

Furthermore, it blocks any attempt to find out the scope of the program or other information. The lawsuits that were progressing on this issue were the only real avenue of getting to that information given the inaction of the Democratic led Congress. This bill shuts those down.

Further, it establishes a very dangerous precedent in that the President can bypass everything you thought you knew about how a law was made in this country and just make up his own laws at any time. You know at some point in the future that advisors to a President are going to be discussing some future illegal act by a President and that this issue will come up in the discussion as an argument for the President to act illegally.

And, while the public debate has been over telecom immunity, this bill also contains a very dangerous expansion of the government's ability to spy on Americans.

Sen. Feingold will attempt to filibuster FISA bill

Even worse are the provisions of the bill that will make it very easy for the government to essentially suck up the communications, all communications of Americans that go overseas, whether it's an email or a text message or a phone call to a daughter, junior year abroad, or a child who's in Iraq or a reporter or a business associate. This is one of the greatest intrusions, potentially, on the rights of Americans protected under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution in the history of our country.

And gee, there's Sen. Obama with $200,000 plus in his campaign accounts from the industry he just said he supports giving immunity. Of course, like any politician he'll say that's not why he voted.

But, try going to visit Sen. Obama's office to discuss this issue with him? Give it a try. See how far you get. If you are really lucky and persistent, you might get a brief interview with staff who will listen to your pitch and then cite back the party line on why Sen. Obama just gave away the rights your forefathers died to obtain for you.

Wanna bet the executives of those telecom companies that have funneled so much money into Sen. Obama's coffers wouldn't have any trouble at all speaking to the Senator about this issue? Wanna bet their phone calls got returned by the Senator? Even if it is not as nefarious as buying votes, it is certainly buying access. Access that you as a citizen who is concerned about a government that is taking away your rights would never had is certainly granted to the big companies that funnel money to these politicians.

And, with Sen. Obama now foregoing public financing, what do you think the odds were that he was going to turn and bite the hand of an industry that's funded him so well and that he is surely counting on for more donations into the fall campaign?

Obama keeps turning right

The hits just keep on coming. Now its NAFTA. I was watching Democracy Now! this morning, and the guest Joseph Nevins, mentioned that Obama had recently given a speech where he'd changed his stance on NAFTA since the primaries.

Gee, what a shock.

A quick search found a link to CNN article about the speech.

Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.

Can I say "I told you so?" For someone like me who always felt like Obama looked like a con and didn't believe him, this isn't exactly a great shock. And especially in this case, since one of his advisors had let it slip months before that Obama was lying about NAFTA. Remember this ...

Goolsbee "candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign" but reassured Rioux that Obama's NAFTA-bashing "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans." Three weeks later, Canada's CTV News reported that a "senior member" of Obama's campaign had phoned Wilson personally to advise him to "not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA."

At the time, the Obama campaign denied this story. But gee, guess what turned out to be the truth?

At this point, huge alarm bells should be going off about Obama. During the Democratic primaries, Mr. Obama tried to position himself as the Great Progressive Hope. The problem is, apparently it was all a lie. Now Obama is apparently giving a series of speeches where he is disavowing everything he said in the primaries. We've seen it in foreign policy. Now we find out that all that talk sympathetic to workers who've lost their jobs was just 'overheated rhetoric' in the campaign.

Now all we get from Sen. Obama is the old Clintonesque bull about 'labor' and 'environmental' standards. The only update to this old red herring is adding the word 'enforceable'. Of course, politically you have to realize he's added that new word to try to get around the fact that most people have figured out this was just window dressing in the Clinton era to try to get people to accept a very pro-corporate trade deal that was going to cost Americans jobs and drive down our standard of living. The trick is to realize that the Clinton era Democrats of course never said that the labor and enviromental standards they were touting were in fact 'unenforceable'. Expect more of the same from the Obama Democrats. The trade deals will continue to enhance his big contributors, and a few years later everyone will know that his 'enforceable' standards didn't mean squat.

Shouldn't Democrats and people on the left be very concerned by now that the Obama that was presented in the primaries was essentially a fraud? Don't these quotes above from Obama clearly say that the man was simply willing to say anything and take any position in order to win the nomination? Why is it I can almost hear him making an under-the-breath comment of "gee, you really believed that?"

Here's the core of the problem. We know what the Democratic Party represents. We've seen the Clinton presidential era, we've seen their lack of opposition to the Republicans when in the minority, and we've seen the actions the Democratic majority in Congress is taking. Almost as I type they are fully funding the war (again), and massively expanding the government's powers to spy on Americans without a warrant. And just along the way they are making sure the telecoms that have been funneling them money all this year can't be sued for breaking the law and spying on us when the spying was illegal.

We can see the ACTIONS the Democrats take. We see them support the bankruptcy bill that the banking and credit card industries wanted knowing this economic downturn was coming. We see them supporting a bill big pharma wanted that protected big pharma profits by blocking Americans from shopping for meds overseas. We constantly see from their ACTIONS that the Democrats support an aggressive militaristic empire abroad that spies on its citizens in the name of security and that they follow trade and economic policies that benefit their big contributors at a big cost to the rest of us.

Sen. Obama in the primaries tried to pretend that he opposed this. Sen. Obama in the primaries tried to differentiate himself from Sen. Clinton (who is directly connectd to these same policies) and pretend he was an alternative.

But, clearly he is not. What we are now hearing on a regular basis from Sen. Obama is "Ha, Ha, I fooled you!".

Its way too late for the Democrats to correct their mistake. The only people who can change their votes are super-delegates, and not only are they the same Democratic party hacks who support these psuedo-republican policies, but the only alternative is probably DLC founder Hillary Clinton who's been the poster child for these policies for two decades now. And the real clincher is that the Democrats won't think its been a mistake. Listen closely and you'll certainly hear the Democrats tell you that its perfectly normal to lie to the party members to get a nomination then radically change all your policies to something different. That alone should tell everyone to get far, far away from the Democrats.

Nope, its clear the Democrats are not the answer. Its clear that this is the time for everyone on the left to move to campaigns and parties that really represent our interests. Supporting politicians that disrespect us by lying to our faces to get our votes in not the answer. There are candidates on the ballot this year that have shown a committment throughout their public lives to representing our interests and fighting corporate interests. I speak of both Rep. McKinney and Mr. Nader (links in column on right).

If you vote for Obama, you are voting for a candidate that is going to continue the policies of Clinton, Reid and Pelosi. The fine print always said this, even though the candidate and his campaign said otherwise. And now we know that Obama will directly lie to you to get you to put him in office. What he wants is power. And what he's just shown is that he lacks the morals and character that would keep him from saying anything to get it.

There are clearly better choices on the ballot this Nov.

Obama and Financial Reform

One thing is clear about today. The deregulation of financial firms that occurred in the Bill Clinton 1990's is a key factor in the current financial crisis and recession we are facing today. So, I was interested in what the supreme agent of change, Sen. Obama, had to say about financial reform. Especially in the light of articles like those from Pam Martens about the large amount of contributions to the Obama campaign. How strong would Obama be in terms of imposing regulatory reform on a group of people who were key backers of his campaign from the beginning?

A google search on Obama and financial reform led to this USA Today article on a major speech by Sen. Obama on financial reform that occurred on March 26,2008.

The USA Today article also contained a link to this PDF file containing the full text of Sen. Obama's speech. The speech is worth exploring both because of its presence as perhaps one of the key issues that should be considered in this campaign, and also because its a classic example of what seems to be Sen. Obama's approach to speaking and policy.

In classic Obama fashion, on the surface it seems very nice. He is an articulate man who clearly has the good writers one would expect from a major political figure. He (or his writers) can show a grasp of the problems facing the country, and can usually annunciate them with emotion and impact. He, or his writers, can add enough details like long names of international agencies that make Sen. Obama sound well informed. He also appears to be saying he wants to make reforms to address the problem.

If someone just listened to the speech once, and did so rather casually, then I could easily see them walking away from an Obama speech being rather impressed. The problem lies when you look a little deeper. Being able to sound good is something that citizens should just treat as a given and then ignore. The key question of the day is what would a President Obama do about the crisis in our financial system. And when you look at the details it seems that the bark is far worse than the bite.

Here are the key items in the speech from the USA Today article, with some notes and comments about their true meaning.

• Giving the Federal Reserve system more oversight authority over institutions to which it provides credit as a "lender of last resort." Although Obama did not outline specifics, saying those would depend on the level of the Fed's assistance, "but at the very least, these new regulations should include liquidity and capital requirements."

Is he kidding? The Federal Reserve is one of the agencies that's gotten us into this mess. And one of the ways they've done so is to fail in their existing responsibilities to regulate banks. There are strong opinions out there that the Fed's policies under Greenspan helped create the bubble which is now deflating while trying to avoid a downturn after the earlier "dot com" speculation bubble deflated.

And Sen. Obama's big answer is to put this group in charge of 'oversight' of these firms. Talk about putting the fox in charge of guarding the henhouse. These sound like nice words until you stop and think about it.

If you really want regulation and oversight, what you do is you create an independent body that has the legal responsibility to handle that. You create clear and transparent rules that are fair and which must be followed. Then you put an independent body into the task of making sure those rules are followed. You want a body to be free of any other duties or roles that might cause a conflict of interest. And its clear that you want to instruct them to be aggressive in making sure the rules are followed, if for no other reason than to regain confidence in financial markets and the big players in them. Putting the Fed in charge of oversight does none of this.

• Strengthening capital, liquidity and financial disclosure regulations for financial institutions. "Transparency requirements must demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counterparties," Obama said.

The first two are obvious and basically a return to earlier and saner policies. The very bank friendly regulators have obviously loosened up the rules on capital and liquidity way too much. The last is nice. That's it, nice. The idea of transparency is a good one. It is again obvious that you must have transparency in order to have a fair market. The problem is that this is almost the classic do-nothing reform by any politician that wants to sound like they are for reform but don't really want to do anything. They always offer 'transparency' as the answer.

The problem is that these regulations are then usually laxly enforced. The regulatory agency will always have other responsibilities, and enforcing a bunch of regulations on 'reporting' issues will always be a low priority. It is also an idea that is open to much mischief in the details. It is very easy to be for 'transparency', but then make sure the details of the rules have some big loopholes in them.

And, it really doesn't do anything. Gee, now there are some new reports out there. Maybe somebody reads them and says 'wow, that's awful'. What happens then? If the 'reform' is limited to just 'transparency', then nothing happens. So, while transparency is always an important concept that we must work for in any free and fair society, when it is presented by itself as the answer to a problem, it usually isn't.

• Creating a financial oversight panel that could monitor and report to the president about such rapid financial developments as the growth of bond-backed subprime mortgages.

Another one that sounds good on the surface. Creating a new body or board that does nothing is another classic do-nothing reform. Note that the boards only roles are to 'monitor and report to the President'. There's no authority to do anything here. Just yet another board that creates yet another report. A bunch of tax payer money wasted to no effect.

It is expected of any competent President and administration that they will pay attention to developments in the financial markets. That should be a part of the basic job description of a Presidential administration. How he wants to do it is his business, but its really better if you don't create some new board or body to do it. Because the things never go away.

And while President Obama might pay attention to their advice (interestingly he never actually 'says' that he will do so), there's no guarantee that the next President will. President Bush would obviously pay no attention to some board writing reports being critical of financial firms and calling for regulation. In fact, its a pretty fair guess that another president like President Bush would just stuff this board with cronies who would produce meaningless reports that all is wonderful and hunky and even dory.

So, all we've done is to create yet another government board that has no authority and that duplicates the duties a President and his administration should be doing anyways. This board will probably never go away and we'll be paying the salaries of board members and staff and renting office space and paying big expenses for them to go to their meetings for years and years to come.

When you see a politician propose a 'reform' that will clearly do absolutely nothing as part of a heavily promoted speech on such needed reforms, it really makes you question what is going on. Is the goal to sound good? Or is the goal to create meaningful reforms that will really fix the problem? Any speech with this reform in it has a very high probability of only wanting to accomplish the first. It smells a lot like trying to sound good AND managing not to upset any Wall St contributors at the same time by proposing ineffective nonsense.

• Providing an additional $30 billion in economic stimulus spending, including $10 billion in a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners. Obama said the fund was designed to help homeowners "sell a home that is beyond their means, or modify their loan to avoid foreclosure or bankruptcy." He also called for overhauling bankruptcy laws, "so families aren't forced to stick to the terms of a home loan that was predatory or unfair."

Good idea for a short term response to the current mess. Better than the Republicans just funneling money to their investor friends in that it actually gives a small amount to actual homeowners to help them. Does absolutely nothing to solve the bigger and more structural problems in the economic system, but its a nice bandaid to help with the current problem. Althought I'd hazard a quick, rough, off-the-cuff guess that its not nearly big enough.

• Strengthening investigations into trading activity that appears to involve market manipulation. "Reports have circulated in recent days that some traders may have intentionally spread rumors that (investment banker) Bear Stearns was in financial distress while making market bets against the company. The SEC should investigate and punish this kind of market manipulation and report its conclusions to Congress," Obama said.

Good, but way too narrow. There are much bigger irregularities out there. This is focused only some very specific cases of market manipulation. But it does nothing about say the people who bragged that they were creating financial instruments that no one could understand in which to peddle all this bad mortgage debt. There are some very big investigations that should take place, and instead Sen. Obama is proposing one or two show trials against a few people.

Note very carefully that this is the only 'investigate' on the list. Now go back and look at the contributor lists to his campaign and see who's walking away not being investigated. Any politician that is going to refuse to investigate his campaign backers is also going to need some sort of showy investigation of someone else in order to make it look like they are doing something.


• Creating a 10% mortgage interest tax credit for homeowners who do not itemize their taxes, cutting income taxes by up to $1,000 a year for "working families" and eliminating income taxes for retirees making less than $50,000 per year.

Another nice idea. Of course, most people I know started itemizing their taxes when they bought a home, so that's not really any real money, but maybe just some people being able to go back to filing 1040EZ forms and still get some interest credit. A $1000 tax cut isn't a bad idea, although not big enough and with the big vagueness on what's a 'working family'. And helping retirees pay less taxes is also a good idea. To me there is a very strong case for a society to say that anyone who's reached retirement age has done their bit and probably shouldn't be paying income taxes. And the limit keeps that from applying to rich investors.

But, again, these do absolutely nothing to reform a financial industry that just scammed and conned a nation into a financial crisis.

That's the whole list. The bad idea of putting the Fed in charge, along with some vague talk about tightening up capital and liquidity requirements. Doesn't even say if they'll go back to where they should be after a long run of loosening them, but at least he says they should start heading back in the right direction.

But for all those pretty words, that's pretty much it.

And, what's not said is very important. When I read through the text of the speech I can find little or not criticism of the massive billion dollar bailouts being given to the financial industry. The only thing close to criticism is the proposal that those getting the money should be subject to some oversight by the Federal Reserve. Not a word of criticism about hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars being made available to financial institutions. And not a hint that he might change or end that giveaway of tax payer money if elected.

The reaction to the speech is telling. First in the USA Today article you get a sense of the truly false debate between Democrat and Republican. McCain said "There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face."

Huh? Obama wants to put the Fed in charge of regulation and create some silly board that does nothing. And McCain is ranting about big government programs? Obama is using a fraction of the amount of money to help homeowners as compared to what's been already promised to bailout the financial industry, and McCain is complaining about 'big government programs'? The guy who supporting spending another $160+ billion on the war in Iraq is complaining about 'big government programs'?

So often, the 'debate' between Republicans and Democrats seems incredibly phony and irrelevant. You've got two candidates that both essentially promise to let the financial industry get off scot-free for a lot of fraud and abuse, so they've got to somehow try to create some sense of difference and debate. Thus you get Sen. Obama making a speech full of very nice sounding words. And you get Sen. McCain giving a stock Republican line while acting completely shocked that anyone would dare to propose even useless and meaningless fig-leaf reforms. A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

And the reaction you did not hear is also telling. Remember Sherlock Holmes and the notion that the most important clue was that the dog did NOT bark? Have you heard any howls of pain from Wall Street over this speech? After all, these are not people who keep their opinions quiet. There are close ties usually between investment companies and bankers and corporate media firms. And every media is full of 'business reporters' who's job is largely to publically announce whatever these companies are saying on a regular basis. So, if they were upset, I think you'd hear about it. Where's the outrage from Wall Street? Perhaps the silence is a rather important clue about what's really going on.

By contrast, go to this page on the Nader for President website where he gives his own proposals in the area. There are twelve of them, and at least 8 of those are very serious reforms that are clearly worded to state specific changes he feels that should be made. The list is too long to copy in here without making this already long post incredibly way too long. But follow the link and compare with what Mr. Obama is saying.

Plus, you have a basic ability to have more confidence in Mr. Nader's willingness to follow through on these proposals simply because he's not sitting on top of a campaign war chest stuffed full of Wall St. money.

I did a quick look on her website and on google for statements from Ms. McKinney on the issue and couldn't find any.

The Grand Delusion

Wow, John Pilger has a powerful piece out today.

Obama Is a Truly Democratic Expansionist

"In 1941, the editor Edward Dowling wrote: "The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it." What has changed? The terror of the rich is greater than ever, and the poor have passed on their delusion to those who believe that when George W Bush finally steps down next January, his numerous threats to the rest of humanity will diminish.

The nomination of Barack Obama, which, according to one breathless commentator, "marks a truly exciting and historic moment in US history", is a product of the new delusion. "

...

"Understanding Obama as a likely president of the United States is not possible without understanding the demands of an essentially unchanged system of power: in effect a great media game."

...

"It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionist."

---------------
Follow the link and read the whole piece.

Pressuring President Obama

One of the myths going around right now is that an Obama presidency would be a good thing because the more left minded of us could 'pressure' an Obama presidency better than we could a McCain Presidency.

Well, lets think about that for a moment. And to look at that premise, lets ask if after the Democratic victory in gaining control of Congress in 2006 led to the left being able to pressure the Democrats into gaining what they wanted from Congress.

This is a video you might remember. Its from the day a military mom tried to talk to Democratic committee chair Obey about ending the war. She is shouted down by Rep Obey who rants on about 'idiot liberals'.

Marine Mom and Rep. Obey. We Share your frustration



So, ask yourself this, given the fact that an overwhelming number of Democratic voters wants to see the Iraq war and occupation ended, how effective have they been at 'pressuring' the Democratic leadership in Congress to obtain real action in this area? Has the war and occupation been ended? Has the Bush policy been in any way restrained or stopped?

Nope. What you've seen instead is a Democratic leadership that promised immediately after the last election that war funding would not be cut. They've held to that promise even though large majorities of Americans now think the war was a mistake and that in one way or another we should withdraw from Iraq.

Ie, the course of the war in Iraq has been largely the same over the last two years as if the Republicans had retained the leadership of the Congress. There is little reason to think that the situation has been at all improved by having Democratic leadership in Congress. And this video shows the complete disrespect that the Democratic leadership in Congress has for the antiwar activists who dared to try to talk to them about this.

Note also that this conversation has to happen in a hallway. Presumably because that's the only way this lady could even talk to Rep. Obey. I'm sure she'd have accepted an appointment to come sit and talk in his office if Rep. Obey had offered one. Instead the only means of talking to the Representative was to try to intercept him in the hallway between meetings.

Can it be said that this military mom had any more access to Congress or ability pressure Congress because the Democrats hold the Speaker's office and the committee chairs? The answer to that would appear to be no.

Or, think a bit about the issue of impeachment. Has the large number of people who support at least an investigation into impeachment of George W. Bush been able to 'pressure' the Democratic leadership into doing this? Is there any difference in the outcome of this debate in a Democratically led Congress versus a Republican led Congress.

Now, the main difference with an Obama Presidency is that you'd never be able to intercept the President in a hallway like and talk to him. And its doubtful that any activist would get a meeting with the President to talk. If a member of the House of Representatives won't take a meeting like this, you know the President won't.

So, how is it possible to believe that if Obama is elected President that it would be any more possible to 'pressure' him than to 'pressure' a President McCain?

All of this is given as a secondary reason why people should vote for Obama. Its used in the times when the Democratic supporters have already lost the argument that Obama is actually proposing better policies than McCain. After they've lost that argument, through facts like Obama's recent AIPAC speech, they fall back on this argument that we'll be better able to 'pressure' a President Obama.

Yeah, right.

The real Obama is standing up

From www.commondreams.org

Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama’s Economic Policy

"Just days after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Obama is naming as his economic policy director an economist who has clashed with critics of Wal-Mart by defending the company as a boon to poor Americans."

------------
I can't say I'm surprised by this. We've known that Obama was being heavily funded by Wall Street and corporate America (see the Pam Martens articles

And we've known that the pattern of Democratic Party politics for the last twenty years is for the nominee to lie to the party voters during the primary season. Then they always swerve hard to the right as soon as they get the nomination never to return to the pseudo-progressive lines they used in the primaries.

And, what does it say for Obama's character that he only does this after he has the nomination sewn up? When he needs to talk to Democrats about the President he'll be he tries to sound progressive and chants 'change' like a mantra. Then as soon as he's got the nomination he reveals that his campaign's economic adviser is someone who's been promoting and defending Wal-Mart? Any Democrat should be insulted by this.

There's also been this strange meme where we were supposed to believe that Obama wasn't really the candidate he pretended to be when he makes awful anti-progressive speeches like the ones to the Cuban lobby in Miami or the AIPAC lobby in DC. There's been this bizarre notion that he's really a secret revolutionary whom we have to support on faith.

Well, I guess half of that was true. He wasn't the candidate he was pretending to be in the primaries. Instead he's much worse. The guy who's been defending Wal-mart now has charge of Obama's economic policies. That's Wal-mart, the company that hate unions and doesn't allow any employee organizing, the company that destroys locallly owned small businesses, the company that has helped destroy American manufacturing and good jobs by importing all the made-in-China crap.

Now Obama wants to tell us that what's good for Wal-mart is the 'change' we can expect?

BTW, does anyone notice that the Democrats just gave everyone a stirring choice between a former Wal-mart board member and someone who picks a Wal-mart ally as economic advisor? That's the Democrats idea of a debate. And they worked hard to kick everyone else off the stage.

Green Party of the USA

---------------------
Another article on Obama from today's news. This one about his recent speech to AIPAC. From www.counterpunch.org

Deadly Fallout From Obama's Groveling Before Israel Lobby, By JAMES G. ABOUREZK

"It was left to Barack Obama, a candidate who at one time brought a great deal of hope to many Americans, including this writer, to complete the round robin of pandering to AIPAC, first by wearing not only an American flag pin, but one conjoined with an Israeli flag pin as well. Obama’s nomination has improved America’s image around the world, with the realization that, “everyone has a chance in America,” as the saying used to go. But that is what makes his pandering so painful.

Obama declared Jerusalem indivisible, presumably for the Israelis only, in contrast to the United Nations’ holding that Jerusalem was, and is, an international city, belonging to neither side."