Can Progressives an Libertarians Find Common Ground on The Budget?

In This edition:

- Judge Napolitano Interviews Ron Paul & Ralph Nader Together

- Democracy Now! on Obama's Budget

- Tell Congress: Don't pull the plug on NPR and PBS! (Added 2/16/11)

- Alan Simpson On NPR's Morning Edition (Added 2/16/11)

- Liberty Radio's Scott Horton (Libertarian) Interviews Chris Hedges (Progressive)

- More on Obama's Budget

- Wolf Articles
__________

Judge Napolitano Interviews Ron Paul & Ralph Nader Together


__

Democracy Now! on Obama's Budget

AMY GOODMAN: Obama’s plan includes two modest tax hikes for banks and oil companies. It also calls for ending the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in 2013 and returning the estate tax to its higher 2009 levels. But it comes less than two months after Obama signed into law a measure that temporarily extended the tax cuts and reduced the estate tax, adding over $500 billion to the federal deficit. According to the White House, the deficit will reach a record $1.6 trillion next year.

The Pentagon meanwhile will see its first spending reduction since the 9/11 attacks, but only at modest levels. The budget allots $553 billion for the Pentagon’s regular spending—$12 billion less than what the military expected, but still three percent higher over fiscal year 2011. Another $118 billion is earmarked for war-time spending.
. . . .

JOHN NICHOLS:

And the important thing is, here you have President Obama saying that they’ve gotten down to the lowest level of domestic spending, domestic discretionary spending, since the Eisenhower era. That certainly sounds good as a sound bite, but understand what that means. It means that now Pentagon spending, defense spending, is a dramatically higher level of what our budget goes to. And I wish President Obama would remember what Dwight Eisenhower said about defense spending versus domestic spending. Dwight Eisenhower said, every time you buy a bomb, every time you pay for a bullet, that’s money that comes out of building a school or putting a roof on a house. I just think the President is making a lot of wrong choices here.

__

Tell Congress: Don't pull the plug on NPR and PBS!


Your Voice Matters-Defend Federal Funding for Public Broadcasting and Call Today



David Wu, Oregon 1st (202-225-0855)
Greg Walden, Oregon 2nd (202-225-6730)
Earl Blumenauer, Oregon 3rd (202-225-4811)
Peter DeFazio, Oregon 4th (202-225-6416)
Kurt Schrader, Oregon 5th (202-225-5711)
Jaime Herrera Beutler, Washington 3rd (202-225-3536)
Doc Hastings, Washington 4th (202-225-5816)
Senator Jeff Merkley, Oregon (202-224-3753)
Senator Ron Wyden, Oregon (202-224-5244)
Senator Maria Cantwell, Washington (202-224-3441)
Senator Patty Murray, Washington (202-224-2621)
__

Alan Simpson On NPR's Morning Edition (Added 2/16/11)

Alan Simpson: Cut Entitlements, Defense; Not Aid To Poor

"STEVE: Do you think that it is possible, however you figure out the numbers, to balance the budget or move it close to balance while preserving what we call the social safety net that has grown up in this country across many decades?

SIMPSON: Heating. That Leap group.

STEVE: LIHEAP.

SIMPSON: Yup, that's a critically important thing. That shouldn't even be touched.

You don't need to touch that, you need to go get rid of 250,000 contractors in the Defense Department where you can really pick up some small change.

STEVE: So you think the safety net can be preserved – that's not really where the big money is anyway."

On Defense related spending:

"SIMPSON: Without any question. We have a defense budget now which is larger than all 14 other countries (with the largest economies.) That ought to get you somewhere.

SIMPSON: Yes, except China, of course, and now they're gearing up.

We found stuff in the Defense Department that you can't believe. Here's one for ya. There's a DOD health system, its separate from the Veterans Administration, its separate from Obamacare. It affects 2.2 million military retirees.

Their premium is $460 a year and no co-pay and includes their dependents and the cost to the U.S. is $53 billion a year.

STEVE: So maybe people ought to pay in a little more that's what you're saying...

SIMPSON: And, I'll tell you what, you mention that, here come the reserve officers, here comes the VA, the veterans groups and they'll rain boulders on your head.

That's how you pass or kill something in this country, you use emotion, fear, guilt or racism, and I've been in them all – I did immigration, nuclear, Social Security, ageing – I learned where the long knives are.

And as long as people are buffaloed by that, and fogged by that on the basis of protecting their hide from any peril, as H.L. Mencken once said, we're in deep trouble."

__

Antiwar Radio's Scott Horton (Libertarian) Interviews Chris Hedges (Progressive)

February 14, 2011| Democrats, Left, Republicans, Tyranny | Scott Horton

Chris Hedges, author of War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, discusses the present state of affairs, best described as a convergence of the fictional dystopias in 1984 and Brave New World; the language of tyranny, ranging from soft seduction to overt threats, depending on the audience; how working class outrage is diverted away from the entrenched elite, and focused on scapegoats and fantastic conspiracies; the destruction and co-option of traditional Leftist institutions; and how federal debt is currently serviced by issuing more debt, a problem of sustainability that neither party will address.

MP3 here. (20:10)

Chris Hedges, whose column is published Mondays on Truthdig, is a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City. He spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than 50 countries and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, for which he was a foreign correspondent for 15 years.

Hedges was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism. He also received the Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism in 2002. In 2009 the Los Angeles Press Club honored Hedges’ original columns in Truthdig by naming the author the Online Journalist of the Year and granting him the Best Online Column award for his Truthdig essay “Party to Murder,” about the December 2008-January 2009 Israeli assault on Gaza.

He has written nine books, including Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, I Don’t Believe in Atheists and the best-selling American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. His book War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction.

[ See also “Death of the Liberal Class.”]
__


In case you missed the link above to Chris Hedges' article, Recognizing the Language of Tyranny, here are two excerpts:

"Those who administer empire—elected officials, corporate managers, generals and the celebrity courtiers who disseminate the propaganda—become very wealthy. They make immense fortunes whether they deliver the nightly news, sit on the boards of corporations, or rise, lavished with corporate endorsements, within the vast industry of spectacle and entertainment. They all pay homage, even in moments defined as criticism, to the essential goodness of corporate power. They shut out all real debate. They ignore flagrant injustices and abuse. They peddle the illusions that keep us passive and amused. But as our society is reconfigured into an oligarchic system, with a permanent and vast underclass, along with a shrinking and unstable middle class, these illusions lose their power. The language of pleasant deception must be replaced with the overt language of force. It is hard to continue to live in a state of self-delusion once unemployment benefits run out, once the only job available comes without benefits or a living wage, once the future no longer conforms to the happy talk that saturates our airwaves. At this point rage becomes the engine of response, and whoever can channel that rage inherits power. The manipulation of that rage has become the newest task of the corporate propagandists, and the failure of the liberal class to defend core liberal values has left its members with nothing to contribute to the debate.

. . . .

All centralized power, once restraints and regulations are abolished, once it is no longer accountable to citizens, knows no limit to internal and external plunder. The corporate state, which has emasculated our government, is creating a new form of feudalism, a world of masters and serfs. It speaks to those who remain in a state of self-delusion in the comforting and familiar language of liberty, freedom, prosperity and electoral democracy. It speaks to the poor and the oppressed in the language of naked coercion. But, here too, all will end up in the same place."

__

Obama’s Budget and the Rot of American Capitalism

By Patrick Martin

February 15, 2011

Excerpt:

"Behind the “debate” in Washington and the media over the budget is a massive lie—the claim that the budget deficits are a product of excessive social spending. Obama’s budget director Jacob Lew summed up this grotesque falsification an op-ed column published in the New York Times February 6, under the headline, “The Easy Cuts Are Behind Us.” Lew claimed that the causes of the projected budget deficits were “decisions to make two large tax cuts without offsetting them and to create a Medicare prescription drug benefit without paying for it, combined with the effects of the recession…”

This list is notable for what it leaves out: the cost of two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq, which runs into the trillions; and the bank bailouts, where more trillions in public funds were placed at the disposal of the financial aristocracy, with no questions asked. The military budget by itself accounts for the lion’s share of the ten-year deficit: more than $7 trillion of the projected $10 trillion."

_____

Wolf Articles (From Wally Sykes)

OPB (ran on hourly news)

Ecotrope

East Oregonian

AP article was picked up broadly

Oregon Wild blog article



GOP budget bill lifts wolf protections
Seattle Times
February 14, 2011
BILLINGS, Mont. — A Republican budget bill would strip gray wolves of Endangered Species Act protections across most of the Northern Rockies.
A provision tucked into the continuing budget resolution directs Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to reissue a 2009 rule that took wolves off the endangered list in Montana, Idaho and parts of Oregon, Washington and Utah.

Rocky Barker: Are wolves still “non-essential” in the West?
Idaho Statesman
February 14, 2011
When U.S. District Court Judge Donald Molloy placed wolves in the Rocky Mountains back on the endangered species list in 2010, the main impact was on hunting.
Ranchers have still been able to have wolves that attack their livestock killed —with little argument.

Montana pols could imperil wolves
Arizona Republic - Opinion
February 14, 2011
Montana's 2012 Senate race could doom wolves in Arizona. It's politics. And it stinks. The long-fought effort to restore endangered Mexican gray wolves to the wilds of eastern Arizona and western New Mexico is threatened by posturing between two politicians. Montana's Democratic Sen. Jon Tester and Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg, who intends to run for Senate, are each trying to look more appealing to anti-wolf factions in that state. Wolves are pawns.

Inflammatory words inflame
Helena Independent Record – Opinion - from Judge Molloy’s children
February 13, 2011
We are writing to express our disappointment and voice our concerns over the comments that Congressman Rehberg recently made at a joint session of the Montana Legislature. Although Congressman Rehberg didn’t identify by name U.S. District Judge Don Molloy — our dad — it was clear to whom he referred.
For the benefit of those not there, here is what was said: When referring to a recent federal court decision about wolves and the Endangered Species Act, Rehberg stated, “When I first heard his decision, like many of you I wanted to take action immediately. I asked: ‘How can we put some of these judicial activists on the endangered species list.’ I am still working on that!”

The great wolf debate: hunt them down or let them flourish
The Ecologist (includes NYT video)
February 15, 2011
Long a symbol of the US wilderness - and a totem for the environmental movement - wolves are now the focus of a bitter conflict between those who want to increase the species' numbers and those that want to kill them.
[Link may require subscription]

On WikiLeaks--An Article Whose Truths Cannot Be Denied

Excerpt From Article Below:

I want to believe that the Wikileaks documents will change America for the better. But what undoubtedly will happen is a repetition of the past: those who expose government crimes and cover-ups will be prosecuted or branded as criminals; new laws will be passed to silence dissent; new Liebermans will arise to intimidate the corporate-controlled media; and new ways will be found to conceal the truth.

What Wikileaks has done is make people understand why so many Americans are politically apathetic and content to lose themselves in one or more of the addictions American culture offers, be it drugs, alcohol, the Internet, video games, celebrity gossip, text-messaging-in essence anything that serves to divert attention from the harshness of reality.

After all, the evils committed by those in power can be suffocating, and the sense of powerlessness that erupts from being aware of these evils can be paralyzing, especially when accentuated by the knowledge that government evildoers almost always get away with their crimes. The prevalence of such evils can shatter faith in goodness and sometimes even in God. They can transform virtues like honesty, compassion, and hope into vices and make those who cling to them suffer in poverty, depression and sorrow.

So shame on Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and all those who spew platitudes about integrity, justice and accountability while allowing war criminals and torturers to walk freely upon the earth. And shame on Germany and Spain, and all those other guilty countries, for allowing their sense of justice to be distorted by a nation that doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word.

And damn the right-wing outrage over the Wikileaks revelations. It is the American people who should be outraged that its government has transformed a nation with a reputation for freedom, justice, tolerance and respect for human rights into a backwater that revels in its criminality, cover-ups, injustices and hypocrisies.

So savor the Wikileaks documents while you can, because soon they'll be gone. And for the government criminals of the world, and for those who protect them, it will again be business as usual.

Valerie Plame, YES! Wikileaks, NO!
03.12.2010
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/03-12-2010/116041-valerie_plame_wikileaks-0/#
David R. Hoffman

In my recent article Ward Churchill: The Lie Lives On (Pravda.Ru, 11/29/2010), I discussed the following realities about America's legal "system": it is duplicitous and corrupt; it will go to any extremes to insulate from prosecution, and in many cases civil liability, persons whose crimes facilitate this duplicity and corruption; it has abdicated its responsibility to serve as a "check-and-balance" against the other two branches of government, and has instead been transformed into a weapon exploited by the wealthy, the corporations, and the politically connected to defend their criminality, conceal their corruption and promote their economic interests; and, finally, that the oft-quoted adage "Nobody is above the law" is a lie.

Some critics were quick to dismiss my article as politically motivated hyperbole. But with the recent revelations disclosed by Wikileaks, it appears that this article did not even scratch the surface, because it is now evident that Barack Obama, who entered the White House with optimistic messages of change and hope, is just as complicit in, and manipulative of, the legal "system's" duplicity and corruption as was his predecessor George W. Bush.

For example, as I stated in the aforementioned article, the Obama administration has refused to prosecute former Attorney General John Ashcroft for abusing the "material witness" statute; refused to prosecute Ashcroft's successor (and suspected perjurer) Alberto Gonzales for his role in the politically motivated firing of nine federal prosecutors; refused to prosecute Justice Department authors of the now infamous "torture memos," like John Yoo and Jay Bybee; and, more recently, refused to prosecute former CIA official Jose Rodriquez Jr. for destroying tapes that purportedly showed CIA agents torturing detainees.

Predictably, the official mantra supporting these refusals is that "exhaustive" investigations had been conducted. But now, thanks to Wikileaks, the world has been enlightened to the fact that the Obama administration not only refused to prosecute these individuals itself, it also exerted pressure on the governments of Germany and Spain not to prosecute, or even indict, any of the torturers or war criminals from the Bush dictatorship.

This revelation invariably leads to three inescapable conclusions: these so-called "exhaustive investigations" were a sham; the Obama administration never intended to prosecute such crimes and, in fact, went to inordinate lengths to cover them up; and the American government has the proven capacity to influence the legal systems of other countries.

And now, given the fact that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is facing criminal charges in Sweden, it is also evident that America even has the Swedish government and Interpol in its hip pocket.

Of course, I do not know if Assange committed the crime he is accused of. I do know that to the American legal "system" the truth is irrelevant. The minute Assange revealed the extent of America's criminality and cover-ups to the world, he became a marked man. And America is going to do anything it can to silence him.

Already we see the treacherous Joe Lieberman, the man who almost single-handedly killed the "public option" in the health care reform bill so insurance companies can continue to enjoy record profits, intimidate an American server into discontinuing its transmission of Wikileaks.

And we see many right-wing commentators demanding that Assange be hunted down, with some even calling for his murder, on the grounds that he may have endangered lives by releasing confidential government documents.

Yet, for the right-wing, this apparently was not a concern when the late columnist Robert Novak "outed" CIA agent Valerie Plame after her husband Joseph Wilson authored an OP-ED piece in The New York Times criticizing the motivations for waging war against Iraq. Even though there was evidence of involvement within the highest echelons of the Bush dictatorship, only one person, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted and convicted of "outing" Plame to Novak. And, despite the fact that this "outing" potentially endangered the lives of Plame's overseas contacts, Bush commuted Libby's thirty-month prison sentence, calling it "excessive."

Why the disparity? The answer is simple: The Plame "outing" served the interests of the military-industrial complex and helped to conceal the Bush dictatorship's lies, tortures and war crimes, while Wikileaks not only exposed such evils, but also revealed how Obama's administration, and Obama himself, are little more than "snake oil" merchants pontificating about government accountability while undermining it at every turn.

Of course, I realize that analogizing the Plame case to Wikileaks is imperfect, and I certainly do not support the release of documents that could endanger any lives. But it should be remembered that threats to murder Assange are just as reprehensible. In addition, they may serve to dissuade future whistleblowers from raising legitimate concerns about government corruption and criminality.

And I should also note that while I avidly support the prosecution of those who lied, tortured and committed war crimes during the Bush dictatorship, I certainly do not, unlike some critics of Assange, advocate or support any violence against them, or against any human being, regardless of his or her politics.

Now there is talk of charging Assange under America's so-called "espionage" statutes. But American history has shown how these statutes have been incessantly used to conceal government criminality.

When the United States Constitution was being created, a conflict emerged between delegates who wanted a strong federal government (the Federalists) and those who wanted a weak federal government (the anti-Federalists).

Although the Federalists won the day, one of the most distinguished anti-Federalists, George Mason, refused to sign the new Constitution, sacrificing in the process, some historians say, a revered place amongst America's founding fathers.

Two of Mason's concerns were that the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, and that the presidential pardon powers would allow corrupt presidents to pardon people who had committed crimes on presidential orders.

Mason's concerns about the abuse of the pardon powers were eventually proven right when Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, when Ronald Reagan pardoned FBI agents convicted of authorizing illegal break-ins, and when George H.W. Bush pardoned six individuals involved in the Iran-Contra Affair.

Mason was also proven right after the Federalists realized that the States would not ratify the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was added. But this was done begrudgingly, as demonstrated by America's second president, Federalist John Adams, who essentially destroyed the right to freedom of speech via the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to say, write or publish anything critical of the United States government.

Years later, Adams' precedent would resurface during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, this time via the Espionage and Sedition Acts. Although these laws were designed to prohibit criticism of America's involvement in World War One, mainstream religious leaders who criticized the war were rarely prosecuted, but persons and political organizations considered to be "radical," like Socialist leader Eugene Debs and members of the Industrial Workers of the World labor union (IWW), were imprisoned and their organizations decimated.

The McCarthy era of the 1950s brought forth the full power of the Smith Act, which was allegedly created to punish communists who advocated the violent overthrow of the United States government, but was ultimately used to blacklist and, in many cases, economically destroy members of the political left.

During the 1960s and 70s, after the courts diluted much of the power of the Sedition laws, government tactics used to "neutralize" persons and political organizations became more covert. Some, like actress Jean Seberg, had false rumors circulated about them in an attempt to destroy their careers. (Seberg ultimately committed suicide as a result of one of these rumors). Others, like Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt, were framed and imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. And still others, like Chicago Black Panther leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, were murdered outright.

The ironic thing about these so-called "espionage" acts is that they actually invert the concepts of crime and punishment. Most criminals break laws that others have created, and people who assist in exposing or apprehending them are usually lauded as heroes. But with the "espionage" acts, the criminals themselves have actually created laws to conceal their crimes, and exploit these laws to penalize people who expose them.

The problem with America's system of government is that it has become too easy, and too convenient, to simply stamp "classified" on documents that reveal acts of government corruption, cover-up, mendacity and malfeasance, or to withhold them "in the interest of national security." Given this web of secrecy, is it any wonder why so many Americans are still skeptical about the "official" versions of the John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King Jr. assassinations, or the events surrounding the attacks of September 11, 2001?

In the past, whenever I wrote about the evils of the Bush dictatorship, I often quoted a question folk singer Phil Ochs rhetorically asked during a 1968 concert in Vancouver, Canada: "What can you do when you're a helpless soul, a helpless piece of flesh, amid all this cruel, cruel machinery and terrible, heartless men?"

Ochs subsequently committed suicide in 1976, and while I am uncertain that this was the correct path to take, I can certainly understand his frustration. Although the election of Barack Obama gave rise to the "outrage" expressed by the so-called "tea party" movement, if there is any political group in America that has a right to be outraged, it is the Progressives. They bought into Obama's message of change and hope, believed that the criminals of the Bush dictatorship would have to answer for their crimes, and naively dreamed that America's respect for peace, justice and human rights would be restored.

But, as Wikileaks and the antics of Obama's "Justice" Department have shown, the Progressives were deceived. Yet, as in the past, they are forced to be supportive of Obama's duplicity because the alternative is worse.

I want to believe that the Wikileaks documents will change America for the better. But what undoubtedly will happen is a repetition of the past: those who expose government crimes and cover-ups will be prosecuted or branded as criminals; new laws will be passed to silence dissent; new Liebermans will arise to intimidate the corporate-controlled media; and new ways will be found to conceal the truth.

What Wikileaks has done is make people understand why so many Americans are politically apathetic and content to lose themselves in one or more of the addictions American culture offers, be it drugs, alcohol, the Internet, video games, celebrity gossip, text-messaging-in essence anything that serves to divert attention from the harshness of reality.

After all, the evils committed by those in power can be suffocating, and the sense of powerlessness that erupts from being aware of these evils can be paralyzing, especially when accentuated by the knowledge that government evildoers almost always get away with their crimes. The prevalence of such evils can shatter faith in goodness and sometimes even in God. They can transform virtues like honesty, compassion, and hope into vices and make those who cling to them suffer in poverty, depression and sorrow.

So shame on Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and all those who spew platitudes about integrity, justice and accountability while allowing war criminals and torturers to walk freely upon the earth. And shame on Germany and Spain, and all those other guilty countries, for allowing their sense of justice to be distorted by a nation that doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word.

And damn the right-wing outrage over the Wikileaks revelations. It is the American people who should be outraged that its government has transformed a nation with a reputation for freedom, justice, tolerance and respect for human rights into a backwater that revels in its criminality, cover-ups, injustices and hypocrisies.

So savor the Wikileaks documents while you can, because soon they'll be gone. And for the government criminals of the world, and for those who protect them, it will again be business as usual.

David R. Hoffman
Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru

Notes About the 2010 Election Debacle

The predicted disaster for Democrats and those who still call themselves "progressives" has occurred. Corporate and special interest money, along with corporate media inspired voter confusion, has helped to defeat two of the last few thoughtful and progressive Congressional voices--Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson--and the "just say no" Republicans have taken over the House of "Representatives."

The only high point for "progressive" Oregonians is that John Kitzhaber has apparently won the Governor's race here.

The message for low income and forgotten Americans is that the Republicans and many Democrats, neighbors, and in some cases friends, simply do not care if you live or die. The "war of all against all" is now upon us. The elites in both parties do not understand and cannot comprehend your situation. They know little about your lives--what you have felt, seen and experienced. This has been especially spelled out in the debate over healthcare, and reinforced by Obama and the rest of Congress in ignoring the plight of the jobless and those being foreclosed upon by the bailed-out banksters.

In thinking about where our country has ended up over the last two years, I am wondering if the only solution for the poor and the abandoned jobless is to find the resources to buy a decent gun, ammunition, and a cleaning kit.

In a recent article concerning the plight of people in England, John Pilger quoted the English poet Percy Shelley. The situation in Britain, you see, is not so different from our own.

See: The Party Game Is Over. Stand And Fight

Shelley wrote:

Rise like lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number.
Shake your chains to earth like dew.
Which in sleep has fallen on you.
Ye are many – they are few.

In the time of Shelley, or Thomas Jefferson, such thoughts would have been taken seriously, but not in our times of American domestication, when we accept the most subjugating insults and loss of our basic rights, like sheep in an impoverished pasture.

What follows are some thoughts on the election from some of our informed voices in what is left of the "progressive" movement in America:

Michael Moore on Midterm Elections

In the morning, President Obama is going to hold a press conference, and he’s going to take the wrong path. He’s going to say what we really need now is more bipartisanship and more kumbaya. And the other side wants none of that. And I don’t know—I don’t know how much you have to be battered and bruised to understand when the abuser is not going to stop abusing.

Ralph Nader: Dems Face Losses to "Most Craven Republican Party in History"

The corporations now dominate every department and agency in the federal government, from the Department of Defense, Department of Treasury, Department of Agriculture, Interior and other departments. By that I mean, the outside influence on these departments is overwhelmingly corporate, even the Labor Department. Number two, they have something like 9,000 political action committees—auto dealers, insurance companies, banks, drug companies—funneling money into members of Congress and the White House. Number three, they’ve put their executives in high government positions. Now, nobody comes close to that kind of triple control of our government. And when Franklin Delano Roosevelt sent a message to Congress in 1938 to set up the national—temporary national commission on corporate concentration—and they did pass that—he said in his message, when government is controlled by private economic power, that’s fascism. That was in 1938. And now, more than ever, we have a corporate government in Washington, DC, corporate-occupied territory, that is destructive of any semblance of democratic process. Voice for the people, voice for labor, a voice for small taxpayers, consumers, they’re shut out. They’re excluded.

Doomsday for Democrats?
By RALPH NADER

The mass media-exaggerated aura of the Tea Party, pumped by Limbaugh, Hannity and the histrionic Glenn Beck, has put the Democrats in a defensive posture. It is giving the puzzled Republicans an offensive image. I say puzzled because they can’t figure out the many disparate strands of the Tea Party eruption which includes turning on the Republicans and George W. Bush for launching this epidemic of deficits, debt, bailouts and unconstitutional military adventures.

Being on the defensive politically becomes a nightmarish self-replicating wave among that 10 percent slice of swing voters who can make the difference between a big win or a big loss. These are also the non-hereditary party voters whose philosophy is to “throw the bums out” again and again until they get themessage.

US Is Not Greatest Country Ever
by Michael Kinsley

The theory that Americans are better than everybody else is endorsed by an overwhelming majority of U.S. voters and approximately 100 percent of all U.S. politicians, although there is less and less evidence to support it. A recent Yahoo poll (and I resist the obvious joke here) found that 75 percent of Americans believe that the United States is "the greatest country in the world." Does any other electorate demand such constant reassurance about how wonderful it is - and how wise? Having spent a month to a couple of years and many millions of dollars trying to snooker voters, politicians awaiting poll results Tuesday will declare that they put their faith in "the fundamental wisdom of the American people."

Not me. Democracy requires me to respect the results of the elections. It doesn't require me to agree with them or to admire the process by which voters made up their minds. In my view, anyone who voted for Barack Obama for president in 2008 and now is supporting some tea party madwoman for senator has a bit of explaining to do. But the general view is that the voters, who may be fools individually, are infallibly wise as a collective - that their "anger," their urgent desire, yet again, for "change," is self-validating.

Everybody will be talking in the next few days about the "message" of the elections. They mean, of course, the message from the voters. This is one of the treasured conventions of political journalism. Yesterday, the story was all about artifice and manipulation, the possible effect of the latest attack ad or absurd lie. Today, all that melts away. The election results are deemed to reflect grand historical trends. But my colleague Joe Scarborough got it right in these pages last week when he argued that the 2010 elections, for all their passion and vitriol, are basically irrelevant.

Nov. 2: The Death Knell of Corporate Liberalism
by Matthew Rothschild


I feel like one of Custer’s relatives after the Little Big Horn.

Except that Tuesday’s slaughter at the polls was not unexpected. It marked the death knell of corporate liberalism, and it signed the death certificate of petty gradualism.

I’m tired of the Democratic Party’s excuses, and Barack Obama’s apologists.

Yes, Bush and Cheney trashed the place like a couple of crazed heavy metal bands in a hotel room.

Yes, they left an exploding economy on Obama’s desk.

Yes, the Republicans in Congress obstructed Obama at every turn and conspired to stop him at all costs.

Yes, the Republican rabble did everything in their power to discredit him, from concocting the birther controversy to spreading the “Is he a Muslim” nonsense.

And yes, the Supreme Court opened the corporate floodgates with its execrable decision in the Citizens United case. As a result, spending by undisclosed outside groups mushroomed by more than 500 percent from the 2006 midterm elections.

Those were the objective conditions, and they were about as nasty as they come.

But Obama didn’t help himself by trying to placate the Republicans and by muddling his messaging.

He didn’t help himself by lowballing the stimulus and by rejecting a moratorium on foreclosures.

He didn’t help himself by playing a Washington insider game, by trying to buy off a couple of Republicans in Congress and by playing footsie with huge industries, like the banks and the pharmaceutical companies.

This was timid corporate liberalism, RIP.

Obama was given a mandate for change, and he squandered it.

He never mobilized the base to take on the vested interests.

Example: health care. He didn’t call people to march on Washington for universal health care, or at least Medicare for all who want it. So a few tea party hucksters were able to hijack the debate. He didn’t even push Harry Reid to give the health care bill to Senator Tom Harkin’s committee, throwing it instead into the untrustworthy arms of Max Baucus.

As a result, an inferior law came on the books with some important insurance reforms in it, but it didn’t threaten the private health care providers or the pharmaceutical companies. And it didn’t deliver the immediate relief that most Americans needed.

On the jobs front, he refused to follow the lead of Christina Romer, head of his Council of Economic Advisers, or the recommendations of Nobel Prize winners Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz. All three said he needed a stimulus package that was at least 50 percent larger than the one he proposed. Nor did he propose a new WPA, like FDR did when the country faced a similar, if not quite so staggering, free fall. Obama was afraid to come on too strong. So he came on too weak.

Same on the banking front. Obama could have, and should have, nationalized Bank of America and Citibank, or at the very least, compelled them to halt foreclosures and write down the principal on all their mortgages by 25 or 30 percent. But Obama didn’t get anything from the banks in exchange for the hundreds of billions of dollars the Treasury doled out, and the trillions in guarantees. And so the bankers laughed all the way to the vault, and even some Republicans scored by running commercials against Democrats who voted for the [Bush/Republican inspired - Chris] bailout.

Same on the environment. Obama sold out the cause at Copenhagen, and with amazingly bad timing he came out for offshore drilling just weeks before the BP disaster, in hopes, again, of getting concessions from Republicans and from industry.

His messaging was as poor as his governing. First he blamed the Wall Street CEOs for their obscene bonuses; then he called them “very savvy businessmen,” adding: “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.”

Similarly, on the budget, first he argued for deficit spending; then he said we need to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term.

This was confusing to millions of Americans, dispiriting to the base, and diverting to his enemies.

But basically, he didn’t give people enough tangible benefits to say, OK, I’m with him. He’s helped me. I’ll vote for Democrats again.

You can’t tell an unemployed person that you’d have been twice as unemployed without my help. You need to give that person a job now.

You can’t tell an elderly person you’re closing the donut hole on prescription drugs—by the year 2020. You need to close it now.

You can’t tell an adult with a pre-existing condition that you’ll force insurance companies to cover you—by the year 2014, when you may be dead. You need to cover people now.

You can’t tell families being foreclosed upon that you’re trying hard to keep them in their homes. You need to keep them in their homes now.

But to do any of that, Obama would have had to confront corporate power head on. But he, and Rahm Emanuel, and Larry Summers, and Tim Geithner were unwilling to do so and ideologically unprepared to even consider it.

They lived by corporate liberalism. And Democrats around the country died by it.

The Tragedy of Under-Reaching
After the Election Disaster: Back to Basics
by Norman Solomon

The mass-media echo chamber now insists that Republicans have triumphed because President Obama was guilty of overreach. But since its first days, the administration has undermined itself -- and the country -- with tragic under-reach.

It's all about priorities. The Obama presidency has given low priority to reducing unemployment, stopping home foreclosures or following through with lofty pledges to make sure that Main Street recovers along with Wall Street.

Far from constraining the power of the Republican Party, the administration's approach has fundamentally empowered it. The ostensibly shrewd political strategists in the White House have provided explosive fuel for right-wing "populism" while doing their best to tamp down progressive populism. Tweaks aside, the Obama presidency has aligned itself with the status quo -- a formula for further social disintegration and political catastrophe.

Payback at the Polls
by Robert Scheer

Barack Obama deserved the rebuke he received at the polls for a failed economic policy that consisted of throwing trillions at Wall Street but getting nothing in return. His amen chorus in the media is quick to blame everyone but the president for his sharp reversal of fortunes. But it is not the fault of tea party Republicans that they responded to the rage out there over lost jobs and homes while the president remained indifferent to the many who are suffering.

At a time when, as a Washington Post poll reported last week, 53 percent of Americans fear they can't make next month's mortgage or rent payment, the president chirped inanely to Jon Stewart that his top economics adviser, Lawrence Summers, who was paid $8 million by Wall Street firms while advising candidate Obama, had done a "heckuva job" in helping avoid another Great Depression. What kind of consolation is that for the 50 million Americans who have lost their homes or are struggling to pay off mortgages that are "underwater"? The banks have been made whole by the Fed, providing virtually interest-free money while purchasing trillions of dollars of the banks' toxic assets. Yet the financial industry response has been what Paul Volcker has called a "liquidity trap"-denying loans for business investment or the refinancing necessary to keep people in their homes.

Instead of meeting that crisis head-on with a temporary moratorium on housing foreclosures, as more than half of those surveyed by the Post wanted, the president summarily turned down that sensible proposal. Instead he attempted to shift the focus to his tepid health care reform and was surprised that many voters didn't think he did them a favor by locking them into insurance programs not governed by cost controls. Health care reform was viewed by many voters with the same disdain with which they reacted to the underfunded and unfocused stimulus program. Neither seems relevant to turning around an economy that a huge majority feels is getting worse, according to Election Day exit polls.

That is a problem that is not obvious to the power elites whom the leaders of both political parties serve or to the high-paid media pundits who cheer them on. The tea party revolt, ragged as it is, fed on a massive populist outrage that so-called progressives had failed to respond to because of their allegiance to Obama. As a result the Democrats squandered the hopes of their base, which rewarded the party with a paltry turnout at polling stations.

Election 2010: A Disaster for Peace
Posted By Justin Raimondo On November 2, 2010

The expected Election Day Republican “wave” that broke over our heads is a disaster for the anti-interventionist cause in the immediate sense – but there may be a silver lining.

The disaster is embodied in the various GOP warmongers who will be placed in key positions in Congress, and a good case could be made that among the worst of the worst will be the probable majority leader in the House: Eric Cantor.

Cantor is a walking, breathing stereotype, a neocon through and through, who pays lip service to the “tea party”-ish idea of limiting government spending, but is in reality committed to lavishing tax dollars on any project as long as it can be somehow construed as contributing to US security. Thus, ForeignPolicy.com references his views on “foreign aid” and the budget:

“Cantor told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the president’s proposed budget might have to be rejected outright if Republicans take power – after separating out U.S. aid for Israel, of course.”

Cantor is a big fan of Israel’s, and has gone so far as to say that, in the context of tensions between Washington and Tel Aviv over the settlements and other issues, “Israel is not the problem” – leaving unspoken the presumption the US is at fault. In line with the Israel lobby’s campaign to goad us into war with Iran, he demands that the US cease negotiations with Tehran, impose draconian sanctions unilaterally, and openly threaten the use of force. . . . .

Far worse than anyone I have yet mentioned is Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida Republican, who never saw a war she didn’t salivate at the prospect of and has called for the assassination of Fidel Castro. She is a militant supporter of Israel, constantly criticizes the US for not kowtowing quickly enough to Tel Aviv, and is a vocal supporter of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a Marxist terrorist organization that has provided much of the phony “intelligence” purporting to show Iran is developing nuclear weapons. She will be chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee when the GOP takes the House.

The big problem with a Republican-dominated House is that those GOPers who take an interest in foreign policy issues are invariably hawks: these are the committed neocons, like Cantor and Kyl. The tea partiers, for their part, avoid the issue, focused exclusively as they are deficits, taxes, and budget-cutting.

There is, however, a silver lining to all this: the Empire is going bankrupt. Our invasion of Iraq is estimated by economist Joseph Stiglitz to cost some 3 trillion dollars, when all is said and done. Neocons Bill Kristol and the heads of the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation came out with an op ed warning the tea party types not to go near their precious “defense” budget with the cost-cutter’s knife. But the tea partiers are unlikely to listen to Kristol & Co., or, indeed, any members of the Republican establishment, who, after all, presided over the spendthrift Bush administration all the while proclaiming their support for what they called “big government conservatism.”

Objectively, the momentum for cost-cutting will run up against the neocons’ militarism, and a conflict seems inevitable. Yet nothing is inevitable when it comes to human affairs, so we’ll just have to see what happens.

Another discouraging aspect of the GOP’s triumph is that it will give Obama very little room to maneuver on domestic matters – and he’ll have little choice but to concentrate more of his attention on foreign policy. This is not good, from an anti-interventionist viewpoint, because the President will no doubt use foreign policy issues to gain Republican support for his domestic initiatives. This increases the influence of the McCain-Cantor-Petraeus more-troops-to-Afghanistan lobby – but it gets worse….

US Voters Drink Reaganism's Kool-Aid

By Robert Parry

Obama’s Mistakes

Obama’s core political mistake may have been trying to stabilize a very sick patient – the U.S. economy – rather than applying more radical remedies. His stabilization approach largely worked, at least for those heavily invested in the stock markets which have rebounded to two-year highs.

Obama’s stimulus plan and auto bailout also saved many jobs that would have been lost if he had adopted a laissez-faire approach.

His other option would have been to shake up an already badly shaken system by, say, nationalizing ailing Wall Street banks. He also could have challenged the Washington power structure by ordering investigations of Bush-43’s war crimes and bringing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to prompt conclusions.

But that course of action would have risked a wider economic collapse, even worse joblessness and bitter conflicts between Obama and potent political/media interests in the power centers of Washington and New York. He would have faced even more accusations of overreaching.

Plus, the weak American Left would have provided little meaningful political support. More than likely, it would have continued to find something to criticize.

The media reality that Obama faced was what I encountered last month when I was driving late at night from upstate New York back to Washington. To stay awake, I sampled what was available on the AM dial and was stunned to discover how many different right-wing voices there were sneering at Obama and the liberals. I could find no channel that offered an alternative.

Even decades into this dangerous media imbalance, the Left mostly continues to ignore its messaging gap. Wealthy progressives spend some money on tracking what the Right is up to (i.e. Media Matters) and subsidizing non-controversial investigative journalism (i.e. ProPublica and the Center for Public Integrity), but they still do little to support real independent journalism that examines systemic problems or high-level crimes.

After Obama’s election in 2008, the Left’s most promising – though flawed – media effort, Air America Radio, was deemed expendable by wealthy progressives. Rather than spend the money and provide the management skills to improve Air America, they pulled the plug in January 2010, the same week of the Supreme Court’s ruling on corporate donations. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “US Democracy’s End of the Road.”]

Today’s other progressive media operations remain fragile or limited.

MSNBC, which is owned by General Electric pending a sale to Comcast, has experimented with a liberal evening line-up (only after failing at everything else, including trying to out-fox Fox). But MSNBC could easily shut down its experiment if it senses a risk to the interests of its corporate parent, whether GE, a charter member of the military-industrial complex, or Comcast.

Faced with this paucity of independent or left-leaning media, many rank-and-file progressives have turned to the liberal-oriented irony of Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who sponsored a massive rally for sanity on the National Mall last Saturday.

However, as many progressive writers have noted, Stewart and Colbert are primarily entertainers, not activists committed to changing the political/economic system.

So, Tuesday’s congressional elections represented the latest wake-up call to American progressives that they must make a much bigger commitment to building media. However, they have shown a remarkable tenacity to hit the snooze button no matter how loud the alarm.

Instead of action, one can expect a number of articles from the Left about how Obama and the Democrats failed because they weren’t leftist enough. Despite all the evidence, the Left remains obstinate against the need to reconsider what it’s been doing for the past several decades.

The bottom line is that the Left has a fanciful view of its own influence, or perhaps its problem is an unshakeable faith that the working class will somehow naturally understand its own interests.

However, a near-voiceless progressive movement and a noisy Right telling fearful Americans that they should again follow in Ronald Reagan’s footsteps make a dangerous combination, only likely to get worse when Reagan’s centennial birthday is lavishly celebrated in 2011.

Based on Tuesday’s elections, the American people appear eager to march down the old road marked by Reaganism, even if the path leads to vats of Kool-Aid laced with arsenic.

Darker Economic Days Likely Ahead

By Danny Schechter

Here are the key issues we will still be facing – and many may still be in denial about.

l. There has been no real recovery. Unemployment is up and so are foreclosures. The mortgage mess is only getting worse, and the relationship between these two issues has been confirmed by a new report by the International Monetary Fund.

If there is no progress on foreclosures, there will be no progress on jobs.

AP explains, “A growth rate of 5 percent or higher is needed to put a major dent in the nation's 9.6 percent unemployment rate.” They cite reasons why that's unlikely well into next year and maybe beyond.

The Economic Policy Institute reports: “‘Never since World War Two has it taken so long to recover to pre-recession levels of GDP,’ said Economist Josh Bivens.

“Although the pace of growth in the third quarter marks a modest increase from the 1.5 percent annualized rate of growth in the second quarter, it is a sharp deceleration from the 3.7 percent annualized growth rate show in the first quarter.”

2. Millions of Americans are facing the end of all benefits. What will they do then?

Some will turn to despair and slide into poverty, others, perhaps to crime. And many more to more radicalized politics on the left and right. Mao’s axiom that revolutions are not tea parties may be relevant, even prophetic in this context of continuing economic decline.

3. While some banks and individual banksters, thanks to the bailouts, have done well, hundreds of banks are facing insolvency. The Credit Writedowns site reports: “The U.S. Banking Crisis Has a Long Way to Go.”

The “Calculated Risk website maintains an unofficial problem bank list compiled from publicly available records. The list has now reached 894. The FDIC has an official list of troubled banks and the number of troubled banks was last released August 31 when the total was 829. The FDIC does not make the names of troubled banks on their list public.”

The Guardian in the United Kingdom has even published a map of failing American banks at http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/nov/02/failed-banks-map-us .

3. The Federal Reserve Bank is moving slowly and sluggishly. Fed Head Ben Bernanke, a Republican, reportedly wants more stimulus money pumped into the economy but has been too frightened to antagonize members of his own party. Many economic wise men fear his plan will fail.

Notes Dean Baker: “A Washington Post article discussing the risks associated with another round of quantitative easing raised the possibility that the Fed could lose its credibility if the program does not lead to the intended growth. It implies that the loss of credibility would be a major harm.

“It is worth noting that the whole economic collapse came about because of the Fed's failure to notice and/or do anything about an $8 trillion housing bubble. Given this enormous failure, it is not clear how much credibility it currently enjoys among people who follow the economy.”

4. The gap between the very rich and what was once the middle class continues to grow, according to Holly Sklar who explains, “Before Wall Street drove our economy off a cliff, bullish Citigroup strategists dubbed the United States a ‘plutonomy.’ They said, ‘There are rich consumers, few
in number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take. There are the rest, the “non-rich,” the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie.’"

Jacob Hacker of Yale and Paul Pierson of the University of California at Berkeley argue that “over the last generation, more and more of the rewards of growth have gone to the rich and superrich. The rest of America, from the poor through the upper middle class, has fallen further and further behind.”

The number of Americans making $50 million or more has increased five fold.

And so it goes. . . .

Rocky Road Ahead for Democrats and Obama, plus July 27th Baker City Council Meeting.

In This Edition:

- Rocky Road Ahead for Democrats and Obama

- Frustration and Fireworks at July 27th Baker City Council Meeting

- On YouTube--"Democracy" sung by Don Henley, written by Leonard Cohen

- And Until they take it down: The Last Resort by Don Henley & The Eagles
________________

Only two items in this blog, plus music. The first concerns the upheaval on the "progressive left," in which the comments, especially the lower half or so, are the more informative and enlightening. The second is three YouTube videos concerning the heated atmosphere at the July 27, 2010 Baker City Council Meeting. I've little to add to either segment, except that my hopefully objective descriptions of the Council Meeting clips can be found on YouTube, which is only a reflection of one of many aspects of Baker City, Oregon.

Correction:
Either on my blog, or on the Herald website comment section, I used the following reference in the comment(s):

During the recess Bonebrake approached Pope and asked why he was opposed to the Council interviewing the two applicants.

“Oh go to hell,” Pope responded.

Pope argued that he was not allowed to express his anger toward other council members, and he accused them of not being trust worthy.

See: City Council will interview 2

After watching and listening carefully to the tape yesterday, I don't believe that the Herald's comments, or mine that depended upon them, were acurate. It appears to me, that the Herald didn't quite get it right. If you listen to the YoutTube video Fireworks and Frustration at July 27th Baker City Council Meeting, you will hear Milo telling Mayor Dorrah to go to hell, not Aletha Bonebrake.
__________

Rocky Road Ahead for Democrats and Obama
Published on Friday, August 13, 2010 by The Hill
‘Professional Left’ Not Ready to Back an Obama Primary Challenger in '12
by Sam Youngman

As angry as it might be, the professional left isn't ready to back a primary challenger to President Obama just yet.

Two high-profile liberals on Thursday said they are not interested in running against the president in 2012, and liberal bloggers say any challenge to Obama would be fraught with difficulty.

"I haven't heard of a credible name that has been floated that would challenge President Obama," said David Sirota, a prominent liberal blogger. "I haven't heard of that. I think it would be very difficult to do."

Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, who is also a columnist for The Hill, said he didn't think Obama would get a 2012 primary challenge "in a million years." In an e-mail, Moulitsas also said Obama shouldn't be challenged.

Still, some influential figures on the left, which erupted in fury this week at criticism White House press secretary Robert Gibbs made in an interview with The Hill, suggest a multitude of voices in New Hampshire and Iowa could be helpful to the party.

"I have always encouraged a diversity of voices in the primary process, within all parties and at all levels of government," said Jane Hamsher, founder of Firedoglake.com, a leading liberal blog.

"It's a sign of a healthy democracy," said Hamsher, who suggested this week that Gibbs's comments could depress turnout in the November midterm elections for Congress.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a frequent presidential candidate, both said Thursday they had no plans to challenge Obama.

Gibbs invoked Kucinich's name in The Hill interview, saying some on the left wouldn't be satisfied if the prominent progressive who has called for a Department of Peace were in the Oval Office.

But Kucinich told ABC he had no plans to challenge Obama in 2012, and he pressed Democrats to concentrate on coming together.

Challenges to sitting presidents have been uncommon in recent elections, but they are hardly unheard of.

President George H.W. Bush faced a primary challenge from conservative commentator Pat Buchanan in 1992 after Bush won scorn from the political right for breaking a pledge not to raise taxes.

After his election, President George W. Bush was determined to avoid the same fate.

Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, told The Hill on Thursday that the younger Bush was largely inoculated from intra-party challenges because he worked to make sure he "kept an open door to all elements of the party."

Like Bill Clinton in 1996, the second president Bush did not face a meaningful primary challenge when he was up for reelection.

Rove, now a commentator on Fox News, said Obama's advisers need to take steps on a daily basis to protect him so that he does not face a challenge from the left.

"The president's people ought to be doing things in a way that keeps from providing people reasons to challenge him," Rove told The Hill.

Liberal commentators this week said they had plenty to complain about. They're disappointed Obama has not closed the detention center at Guantanamo Bay despite his promise to do so. Most also oppose Obama's handling of the Afghanistan war.

The left was disappointed Obama did not do more to achieve a public option in the health insurance bill, and they would like the president to do more to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Sirota said liberals feel "100 percent" taken for granted by the Obama White House.

He and others on the left are worried Obama is taking a page from Clinton's playbook and using triangulation to move to the middle in advance of reelection.

Liberals are wary of some members of Obama's inner circle, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who worked in the Clinton White House and is a former investment banker.

"This is an administration that is teeming with Clintonites and former corporate-connected people," Sirota said.

Rove believes Obama has little to worry about it. In the end, he predicts, liberals will stick with Obama in 2012 in the primary and general elections.

"They'll grouse about it, they'll bitch and moan about it, but at the end of the day they will [vote for Obama]," Rove said.
© 2010 The Hill
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org

URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/08/13-5

44 Comments so far

quidditas August 13th, 2010 7:45 pm
"‘Professional Left’ Not Ready to Back an Obama Primary Challenger in '12"

Where'd you get that idea? I was ready to primary Obama before he was even sworn in, the minute he adopted the Clinton administration in toto.

How many times do these state criminals get to swing the wrecking ball anyway?

doubledoot August 13th, 2010 7:36 pm
There needs to be a challange made as someone else aptly pointed out if just to move the Pres. form center to left. Remember Ross Perot ? Clinton may not have ever balanced the budget had he not run as a third (the turd in the punchbowl). It did tend to move Clinton more towards a "We The People" agenda that he would have otherwise ignored. It was a means to hold him somewhat accountable. It was very expensive to boot ! I doubt if most Progressive Left or third party potentials would want to shell out that kind of money.

No to Kucinich : He sees aliens !

No to Nadar : for many reasons I won't go into. He's a great consumer advocate but not presidential material. Also the fruitcake factor.

Definitely No to Libertarian Ron Paul. I can't stand a Libertarian any more than I can a Republican.

All three of the above also in my "WAKO" pile !
I don't even know anything about Howard Dean.

I support someone like Richard Trumka;Pres of the AFL-CIO becuse he would embody more of the values and ideals I have. He's fairly articlulate but he's probably not pretty enough to run for President. He has leadership skills and experience ;you don't get to the top of that dog pile w/ out them. Unions definitely know how to organize (a great party). He knows how to fight and will. Unfortunately labor is used to typically supporting the Dem candidate (right or left) and then just going along for the ride. I'd like to see a 'Labor Party' here. They exist in mamy of the European countries. If there were any entity in the Democratic Party that I'd entrust the running of the Gov to it would be a labor leader. More specifiaclly a left leaning labor leader as many uninons have been compromised by Republican types. I know that's true of the UAW (first hand).

I doubt if any labor leader would be silly enough to drop a hat in 2012 ring but beyond that to the 2016-17 election. It's wide open. We just need a dupe for now and any of those three 'wakos' I mentioned would fit the bill. I doubt Nadar would be stupid enough to run and throw more money away in this upcomming election. But Ron Paul : He's our man ! He'd be perfect. He'd attract right wing looney votes as well as the fringe liberal Libertarians (if there is such a thing). We don't need someone to defeat Obama just push him towards a more liberal agenda and at the same time take votes from the Republicans. I personally think Ron Paul and his boy (Ian) Rand Paul are nutcakes. But no matter : If they'd be stupid enough to run (either of them) : Fine !

The point : We on the left have to get physical about this. We've already tried the verbal route and they don't take us seriously. Now it's time to step up the game. Hell : I'll run : That would be good. I've got nothing to loose and every thing to gain. Send donations to "Cmapaign for ME" (lol). It coudn't be much worse that what we've just experienced. And now to get slandered on top of it. Gibbs didn't just mean the "Professional Left" he meant the entire "Left". We've all been pushing left and critiquing the Pres's performance in the negative. Gueas they really didn't mean that "We want your input" thing ; did they ?

Bottom line : You can trace much (if not all) of our present unemployment crisis directly back to NAFA and the Fast Tracking of jobs to cheap labor markets overseas and to management top down Team Concepts designed to elimiate jobs and to the robot technologies designed to eliminate people altogether. Match those with too liberal trade agreements that make this all possible and you have a Republican wet dream come true. You want jobs here : You have to take measures to protect them. You want long term prosperity instead of short sighted, short term profits that make the few rich, rich , richer at the expense of everyone else you have to make some hard (assed) decisions and take some decisive actions. Not pretty and not nicey nice but kick ass and take names. You want the Gov. back ? Take the damn thing ! Let's leave the wako mamby pambies in the dust and get on with it !

cadawa August 13th, 2010 7:15 pm
I respectfully disagree. That's what the suits in the Democratic Party want us to think.

I don't think anyone, professional or otherwise, left, right or center wanted 4 more years of Bush. They certainly don't want another 4.

The Democratic "elite" will refuse to back another candidate.
We have two years to pull it off anyway.

upstartgreen August 13th, 2010 6:18 pm
The hell with the Professional Left. After the Revolution they will go to the re-education camps along with Sarah Palin.

jbarret1 August 13th, 2010 5:59 pm
Get sh*t on by the guy you supported; and then turnaround and fully support him in the next election. Brilliant!

Obama has nothing to fear from this crew.

Mordechai Shiblikov August 13th, 2010 5:48 pm
But Kucinich told ABC he had no plans to challenge Obama in 2012, and he pressed Democrats to concentrate on coming together.

Take a hike to the edge of the ocean . . . then drink seawater.

bfriesen August 13th, 2010 5:47 pm
Wanna bet.....

hsansom August 13th, 2010 5:37 pm
What's the "professional left" anyway — people who make money by being progressives? The counterpart to the "professional right"? To the "professional moderates"?

Doesn't really matter. Nor does it matter whether one of the so-called "professional left" is going to challenge President Zero.

What matters is whether not-very-professional lefties like me are going to be dumb enough to get suckered by The Big 0 a second time round.

Nope.

bfriesen August 13th, 2010 5:49 pm
I think the big Zero you are referencing was in office from 2000 - 2008. And maybe yourself for voting for him.

bardamu August 13th, 2010 7:22 pm
Then you should check the record. 0 hasn't come forward as progressive on a single issue, and has not gone so far left as "moderate" on many.

Unless you like the sweeter lies, how's 0 better than Cheney?

DCH August 13th, 2010 5:09 pm
So Hamsher, tell us about your healthy democracy hypothesis?

I think the voting patterns in the USA reflect the high number of Americans who are mentally ill. Some estimates say 25 % "have problems."

I think 50 percent are clearly mentally disabled.

Mordechai Shiblikov August 13th, 2010 5:51 pm
If stupidity and ignorance are mental or emotional diseases, then, yes, at least half of this nation is downright sick.

keithsoulasa August 13th, 2010 4:18 pm
Even though Obama hasn't turned water into wine yet he IS trying.
A thousand dollar increase in Pell Grants to kids that want to college in summer , making direct federal loans to students, that are automatically forgiven after 20 years . All these things are bits of progress.

Or you can put some republican in there , and roll all of these little steps back.

bardamu August 13th, 2010 7:46 pm
Tell him to drop the water and wine routine and the PR card tricks and focus on quitting the massive harm he's doing, at the very least:

Get out of Afghanistan (really, and stop the show)
Get out of Iraq
Get out of Pakistan
Ground the drones
Stop funding research for violent repression of protest
Actually quit funding and supporting torture, rather than making the claim in name
Quit blowing the tops off of the Appalachians for coal
Quit offshore drilling
Shift his support from nuclear and coal power to wind and solar
Rescind his grudging but genuine support of the coup in Honduras
Do not build the extra bases in Colombia
Quit sabre-rattling at the Iranians
Stop funding the Israeli occupations
Promote single payer healthcare instead of the insurance monstrosity he backed.

Gee, where do you start? How about a little shot in the arm to the states to generate employment instead of draining the money to foreign interests?

Could we see a visible attempt?

Sure an addition to the Pell Grants is a good thing, but $1,000 is not enough to cover the jump in tuitions that has come, in part, from his refusal to help the failing state governments. Even that is a net loss.

This is a massive betrayal of what people in 2008 thought of as his base: left-leaning and progressive-ish Democrats. Sadly, a primary challenge will either fail or fail to gel, though: there just are not enough progressive Democrats to control the party o, r, it seems, deeply influence it.

And I should think there will be fewer in 2010 and 2012, when corporations will be freer than ever to bribe candidates and forestall representation, and the people who were young and enthusiastic in 2008 have been either discouraged or wised up by 0's massive betrayal.

I'm still hoping for wisdom and a shrewder coalition of left-leaners, but I'm not taking any bets.

Diana August 13th, 2010 5:27 pm
good initiatives...but completely useless amid the dire, dire situation we are in. About as timid as one can imagine, and far, far from the substantial initiatives we need just to stay afloat!

Haven't you noticed the economy is still on brink? Haven't you noticed that O is escalating the middle east wars, and even using the same rhetoric as Jr.!? Haven't you noticed that substantial environmental regs are still not in place, EVEN with the horrifying, unending saga in the gulf, which O could've easily used to get his campaign-promised environmental initiatives through?

What IS he trying to do, exactly, Keith? He's barely made an effort for the people, certainly not using the bully pulpit or the mandate voters gave him. (See health insurance: consistently 80% of the people polled wanted single payer. He didn't even make it part of the bargaining process; it was off the table from the very start.)

The excuse we hear over and over for lack of progress is the 'just-say-no republicans.' Sorry, don't buy it. Sadly, what he's shown us is that he really agrees with the republicans and simply uses their obstructionism as an excuse for why things his base wants--why he was voted into office--can't get done.

keithsoulasa August 13th, 2010 6:27 pm
Remember all the money in our political system . Banks even wanted to stop nationalization of student loans . A thousand dollars extra for low income students is useless ? Maybe not enough but considering my mom still has student loan debt this is some small progress . Could you imagine the pure horror we'd be in if Obama didn't sign the unemployment extensions, exttensions all but 2 republican senators oposed.

your entitled to your opinion but president Mc Cain would of been much worse ." The Russian government is run by KGB spies " , " The Vietnam war was winable " I could list more Mc Cain quotes but the point is were better of with an ineffective democratic then a cold war artifact Republican .

Michael Goodhart August 13th, 2010 7:22 pm
Unemployment extensions don't mean anything if you're term unemployed or limping from one temp job to another unable to get a full time job.

What's the point of a student loan when the original costs are too high anyway? My parents didn't bother with student loans. Yeah, I had to temporarily suspend completing my college degree halfway into my third year when they were pushed into bankruptcy but I don't think the college loans would have changed the fate.

Michael Goodhart August 13th, 2010 3:41 pm
Go figure ! The Democratic Party activisits are organized with Netroots and able to meet up face to face. How about progressive challengers and why not just forget about a primary challenge and organize for some kind of a third party revolution?

speakout2 August 13th, 2010 3:39 pm
It is too bad that the "professional left" has either given up on the real Democratic principles and platform or has embraced the neo-liberal DLC platform or both. I am especially disheartened to read that David Sirota is basically giving up and endorsing President Obama. So, the "professional left" has officially become part of the MSM, status quo. Many of them have now made it clear where they stand without ambiguity.

The "professional left" however, does not represent the "amateur left". President Obama has pushed for an agenda that Republicans of the past only dreamed about. If the "professional left" wants to ignore this, well... I would like to hear someone from the "professional left" justify escalation of wars, further loss of privacy rights, going after "whistleblowers" instead of the real criminals, handing out money to financial institutions without conditions (who are now making record bonuses), mandating that people buy PRIVATE health insurance, a "stimulus program" with over 30% of it in tax CUTS and credits... how can they justify this as being from the "left". The only justification I can see is that our country is such a military, corporate empire that anything less is now considered to be "left". If that is the case, this country is going to collapse.

DCH August 13th, 2010 5:17 pm
I would respond that the "professional left" see the writing on the wall (if I may use a cliche'.) They know that the end is near for the republic.

So they want to take all they can, build their own nest and hope to ride out the storm without to much pain.

The rest of us are going down with the ship, as the professional left row away into the night while promising they are only going for help.

It is a sham within a sham within a tragedy.

delia_darrow August 13th, 2010 3:18 pm
Anyone on the left supporting any Democrat should have their heads examined. Who cares which Democrat challenges the Uncle Tom in 2012.

The left has to support third part candidates and no one else.

Or let Palin win, things can't get any worse under the bitch anyway. In fact Democrats are getting away with Right-wing laws and reforms that Republicans wouldn't. We'd be better off with Republicans, at least we have clear enemies in power, not a con artist like Oilbomber.

linkwray August 13th, 2010 4:30 pm
Direct action in the streets will quickly separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of where any movement goes. When you're facing nightsticks and smoke, lockup and probation, criminal record flagging and phonetaps, the stakes get personal real quick. Let's see who shows up to the 2nd rally wearing bandages and talking about how the jail food gave ya' the sxxts. Then the fight is on.

wanked August 13th, 2010 3:12 pm
This professional leftist SURE IS>>>>>> !

MakesMeWantNader August 13th, 2010 3:00 pm
Why is this article using Rove as a source for liberal views?

"Rove believes Obama has little to worry about it. In the end, he predicts, liberals will stick with Obama in 2012 in the primary and general elections."

This Rove statement about liberals is hardly relevant to the elections or Obama's fate. Self-described "liberals" are only 22% of the population. "The Left" is much bigger than that but the "Professional Left" primarily comes from this liberal wing.

Obama is in trouble from "anti-war folks", "progressive democrats", "labor groups", "centrists", "independent voters", "libertarians", "swing state voters" etc.

The fact that now more people disapprove of Obama than approve should be common news although I have not seen it reported on CD. Here is the link from Real Clear Politics:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

What may be less well known is that the "disapproves" are largely "strongly disapproves", see:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/august_2010/obama_...

Obama had a lot of people giving him a chance in the beginning of the administration and his support continually eroded as he continually sided against the public's strongest wishes in favor of entrenched Wall Street interests.

It's not just going against the public's current wishes. Obama has been breaking promises he specifically made to get elected, see for example:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/10/gibbs/index.html

That is a sure-fire way to become a 1-term president. Obama clearly appears to be at peace with this inevitable outcome. He is resigned to support his major campaign donors at the expense of losing 2012. His major campaign donors will still win in 2012 since they control both major horses [D] and [R].

I already predicted no primary challengers to Obama on this site. Co-running with Hillary will be the DLC/corporate strategy to fool the public with false change in 2012.

To Be Determined:

1. Is 2012 the year 3rd parties finally take off?
2. Are progressives going to join Ron Paul libertarians for a 2012 challenge to Obama's ongoing wars and bank bailouts?
3. Are progressives going to kick out pro-war, pro-bank fake Democrat congressmen and women (Democratic Leadership Council / "New Democrats") from office (and yes replace them with real Republicans who vote for same) for a term only to bring in fresh blood and possibly progressive Democrats in subsequent terms?
4. Can Americans strategize beyond any single upcoming election?

Stay tuned.

DCH August 13th, 2010 5:25 pm
He is my answers to your good questions:

1. No.

2. No.

3. No.

4. Hell, No.

Sorry, the Republic died years ago.

rvrwalker August 13th, 2010 1:37 pm
The Milken experiment! Obedience to authority! What is it, 90% of us will always defer to "authority" (the professional left, in this case) Ya don't think the psyops machinery knows that?! Ha!

I'm beginning to think the "professional left" is an entity cooked up by these psyops professionals. After Nader gave them a scare in 2000, the empire's duopoly became understandably nervous that a quantum leap by US progressives could do some real damage to the American Way of politics. Can't have that! The rug was easily pulled out from underneath this bottom up movement. For a long time, it appears. Way to go US Progressives!

In the 2000 elections, 10,000 motivated and impassioned progressives packed to capacity the Portland, Oregon Coliseum, all of them ready to take on the powers that be. All of them ready to draw the line at last. Nader is a very inspiring individual - and he has SPINE! (A powerful progressive with SPINE? - uh oh. RED FLAG!)

Of course, Nader was taken down in no time - the always reliable M&M treatment:

Marginalize/Malign! The sheople will go along with anything if the PR is just right. As you know, the left was particularly rabid against Nader.

Supporters of the Democratic Party are spineless, weak, and running on empty. Who in their right mind could support a man who is doing the things Obama is doing. Killing innocent people, many of whom are children!? Are they serious? Their going to support that? Propping up a brutal, bloody military/industrial complex, ditching his base? Screwing them on health care? They are still supportive? wow.

Go ahead, bend over again if you must, and I hope it doesn't hurt to much, but I happen to have a spine and will use it anyway I can. If you want to follow the duopoly around for another round of this, have a great campaign and don't forget to shout: YES WE CAN.

Progressives who are still supporting the empire's duopoly are equivalent to the "good Germans" and by now should be ashamed of themselves.

linkwray August 13th, 2010 2:40 pm
That's quite an interesting spin on Oregon in 2000. Nader, got what, 5-6% of the vote! I'm all for Oregon and in the 30 years I've been voting here 3rd parties have played an interesting an important role in local and state elections. But what did Nader do in Oregon in 2004 or 2008? Years you'd think he'd of thrived in. He got blackballed by state election officials, right? Well, if it can happen in Oregon what do think would happen in more mainstream states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania? Please! I'd rather have direct civil obedience, roadblocking, tax resistence, etc more than pushing the 3rd party boulder uphill. I think it's gotten beyond politics and clictivism. Where's the energy in Portland for that. I was there when 45K protested befor the Iraq War. That beats Nader's # but still too little, too late!

DCH August 13th, 2010 5:31 pm
You would think that Michigan would vote for anybody except the two main parties. Look at Detroit, it looks like Hiroshima just after WWII.

The jobs in the auto industry have pretty much left for the South or Asia.

Good Grief.

moonpie August 13th, 2010 1:25 pm
Nader needs to run against these criminals. There is just no other option, period. Not sure if it should be the Green Party or not, but he's got to run and at least split the vote, who knows at this point, he might even place second and the groundwork for some real opposition might be laid in the process. At least with republicans, we know what we're getting. The results with either party will be the same: more murder abroad and financial criminal behavior at home. The dems are obvious the worst offenders and the biggest liars,

As for the republican candidate, it may be they nominate a candidate who (like Dole, McCain, Gore and Kerry) are just stand-ins/throwaways, so Obama can complete his 8 years. Seems thats the way things are going with the real behind-the-scenes power brokers, everyone gets 8 years.

As for the stalwarts mentioned in this piece, they need to be seen for what they are: liars and backstabbing a-holes (listening, Little Dennis?).

What can we do in the meantime? Don't patronize the "Professional Left" and their sponsors, and withdraw from participation in the economy as much as possible. Stay-off Main Street. Our dollars work better than votes.

sLiMsHaDy August 13th, 2010 1:06 pm
One term "president". If there is no third party alternative on the ballot, I will write in "None of the above". That might be counted in a way as a vote for the rethuglican, but if that branch of the one party gets in, it's all over but for the civil war anyway.

Bring it.

Heavyrunner August 13th, 2010 1:03 pm
There is another party in the U.S. with good candidates and a solid record. The Green Party!

Login or register to post comments report this comment
BillyD1953 August 13th, 2010 11:57 am
I don't plan to ever vote for another Democrat again anyway. The only challenger we need against Obama is a legitimate progressive third party. The Dems (and of course, the GOP) are dead ends for true progressives seeking change. It's a 2-party-all-pro-war system. We can't get anywhere inside that kind of system. We need to work outside of it with a third party. I don't know what chance a progressive 3rd party would have, but it sure beats wasting time voting for Democrats anymore.

Big Mac August 13th, 2010 1:06 pm
Amen BillyD...A primary challenge would show there is hope (sorry) for Progressive change within the Democratic Party. Sorry, There isn't.

We have only so much time, talent and money. Why waste it on the Dems. Besides, they would certainly use every political and legal trick in the book, ethical or otherwise to stop a challenge from the left. They would fight us a lot harder than they ever fight Republicans.Screw 'em.

SJRyan August 13th, 2010 1:54 pm
I would like to see Obama challenged from the left to make him move to the left. That's politics. If you don't demand change or even expect change, you certainly won't get change. I just can't support DLC Dems. The ends do not justify the means. Especially when there are no good ends for Progressives. Obama has nothing to offer Progressives. Gibbs makes no bones about it.

Progressives are the new blacks of the Democratic Party. If we vote straight party line for the next 50 years, we may get a man in the White House but little else.

What do Afro-Americans have to show for their support? Up to 50% unemployment in Detroit. The first black president, Bill Clinton, ended welfare as we know it. Blacks have been displaced in the workplace by Latinos and Orientals. Regressive tax after regressive tax. The worst public schools in the America. No future for their children. The right to stand in line with 30,000 brothers to get on the waiting list for nonexistent Sec 8 housing.

What do Progressives have to show for their support of Obama in 2008? Will it take Progressives 50 years to see what's happenin'?

linkwray August 13th, 2010 11:40 am
This article is about 3 months premature, which, could be its' real point. The brinksmanship of cutting off being primaried may be Gibb's whole reason for going off. I think there will be a diffeerent tune sung after November. If Obama loses the House and or Senate, he's toast. The pols will abandon him quicker than they did single payer. That's how the game is now played. Who will rise? If Feingold wins in Wisconsin and Murray wins in Washington, watch out Obama. The Murray win would allow Cantwell to step out of the shadows while still protecting the state's seniority and economic interests. I think this would be a great ticket. Both are proven vote-getters and fundraisers and neither is particularly fond of Barack, albeit for different reasons. How's that for sideline quarterbacking?

raydelcamino August 13th, 2010 7:08 pm
Although Feingold and Cantwell have introduced legislation that was too progressive for Obama and both have voted against Obama's agenda on a few occassions, Murray has been an Obama rubber stamp every step of the way and even paraded a 10 year old orphan in front of Congress to bolster support for Obamacare. Based on that behavior its hard to believe any Senator is more fond of Obama than Murray.

linkwray August 13th, 2010 7:22 pm
I should have been clearer. Murray's win in November allows Cantwell to run in 2012 or 2016. Washington state Dems need someone down on the farm, so to speak. Murray will get to the White House as Secretary of Something, only. Cantwell has nat'l ambitions, is smart and well-connected in the money chase that is necessary. She's an intersting possibility with Feingold. Hell, I'm all for Bernie but where does he get the money and logistical support. From the deep pockets of CDers?

mtdon August 13th, 2010 11:40 am
it's good to hear the "professional left" finally starting to call Obama on his banskter led economic plans and endless empire and warfare as sound policy bullshit -

obama has surrounded himself with corporate whores ready able and willing to sell out the working and middle classes to enrich himself and his corporate whoring buddies......

my apologies to women in the "oldest profession" -

Stiv August 13th, 2010 11:31 am
"Professional Left"? That would be the people who are neo-con Democrats?

This article is so far out, perhaps it should be left on the "Hill"?

Build a third party or drop dead trying--that's the only lesson anyone on the "left" can take away from the Obama Presidency, anyone that involved in electoral politics.

Oh, and scrape those Obama stickers of the bumpers--yours or any you find in public places...

raydelcamino August 13th, 2010 6:29 pm
Anybody still displaying an Obama bumper sticker has a terminal case of denial and partisan delusion. No known cure for that.

Login or register to post comments report this comment
quickstepper August 13th, 2010 11:27 am
If Markos Moulitsos is a liberal then so is Bill O'Reilly.

Moulitsos is nothing more than a Democratic apparatchik and loudmouth at large.

"Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, told The Hill on Thursday that the younger Bush was largely inoculated from intra-party challenges because he worked to make sure he 'kept an open door to all elements of the party.'"

Translation: Rove threatened any and all prospective opponents with his slander machine.

DCH August 13th, 2010 5:35 pm
And the people who blog to the Daily Kos are just full of themselves.

Tiredoftrolls August 13th, 2010 12:21 pm
Bravo. Same for MoveOn, The Nation etc.

Vote progressive third party. Ditch the Dems.

raydelcamino August 13th, 2010 6:26 pm
Rahm's DNC has been following the Rove playbook to the letter for several years now and will not let a challenger interfere with the their corporate money magnet Obama in 2012.

See Also: Gut-Check Time for Progressives, and
US Staggers Toward Dysfunction
__________

Fireworks and Frustration at July 27th Baker City Council Meeting
These Videos are in reverse order of occurence during the Council Meeting and are best viewed on the YouTube link provided in the title of the video.

Council Bickering Continues through Recess (Thanks for Sharing).m4v (On YouTube)

__

Councilor Pope & Mayor Dorrah Argue, Dorrah Calls Recess.m4v (On YouTube)

__

Councilor's Pope, Dorrah and Duman Discuss CM Problems.m4v (On YouTube)

_____

"Democracy" by Don Henley

_____

The Last Resort by Don Henley & The Eagles (Until they take it down)