Jack & Jill Politics

I watched many of the Sunday shows today. Most had Republicans on spewing their repub talking points. Very few liberals and or progressives on these shows. Tavis Smiley and Cynthia Mckinney didn't have much to offer. President Obama needs to keep the heat on Fox and the Friends of Fox Media. The MSM doesn't want this President to succeed. It is obvious and sickening to watch.

Remember, Roland's Show on TVONE will repeat at 5pm EST

oh my,

LUDACRIS is now sitting with the panel - suit, tie and all.

LOL

I did a double take because I didn't even recognize him at first! He all grown up and stuff!

Deborah Mathis went there about Cheney...

I'm not convinced....I think he was in that wheelchair on Inauguration Day, because HE DIDN'T WANT TO STAND FOR BARACK OBAMA.

bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha

We knew it from the beginning! There Wasn't a damn thing wrong with him!

LOL....but they've got to do better if they ever wanna top Rep Grayson calling Cheney a vampire on Hardball Friday....now that was a thing of beauty.

now, THAT is a clip I'm going to have to find..thanks for that hat tip.

Please do....when I read this, I couldn't believe he just went there - but honestly, who doesn't think Cheney isnt some sort of dark being from the underworld?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/24...

LOL

Roland Called out Dick Cheney

' Mr. Five Deferrments because he didn't want to go to Vietnam.'

GO ROLAND.

fyi

the slave catcher from last week's panel is on again this week - it's Robert Traynham from Roll Call

i seen him....disgusting

Tavis was on Meet the Press?

should I watch?

Did you eat a big breakfast?

YEP.

NFL OPEN THREAD IS UP

Thank you.Now I am out from talking politics and LETS GET READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL!!!!!!!

It's great post. I hope alot of people read it. Changing thought processes is very important.

The Democrats may lose Va. and NJ through no fault of Barack's. Corzine and Deeds don't seem to be sharpest candidates. Maybe they should loose DC, too...
http://natturnersrevenge.blogspot.com/2009/10/m...

lucky for Corzine, the GOP nominated a crook, AND Corzine, unlike Deeds, has balls, and is willing to FIGHT LONG AND HARD.

Corzine will win

Deeds screwed himself, he was one of them folks like Ariana who think they know better rather than listening to the plan they had for him to win.

I have a question for the board.Why is it when people criticize the President they always say I supported or I am a former supporter but?First, the majority of us even while showing our disappointment or support never say what we did .Second nobody gives a rats ass about your so called faux support.Methinks since this a open thread there may be some democratic quislings among us.In the future criticize all you want but save your so called statement of support for your mental health provider.

Maybe because they realize that in certain quarters on JJP, any criticism of this presidency is met by the equivalent of a firing squad. They may be using this qualifier as white flag. Your post perfectly encapsulates this. You've already deemed the critics as "faux support[ers], "democratic quislings," and in need of mental health services, for feeling the need to use a qualifier.

I'm at a loss as to how one engages in constructive debate and seeks to persuade the other to better understand and "buy in" to their position, when the underlying sentiment for the beginning of the conversation is, "you're a liar, you're not a supporter of this presidency, if you deigned to criticize the President." I would think that would color any further discussion and leave all parties with little to no insight into the other's position.

You have a point but unless you are a redumbican I have never called anyone a liar.My POV is this, we are in two camps.We either close ranks or let the other side win and if they win all of us better get the vaseline ready.Maybe I am just being paranoid but criticized if its necessary but when you know you under attack close ranks and fight back.Napoleon once said"When your enemies are making errors dont help them"

But aren't you implicitly calling someone a liar when they begin a post with the aforementioned qualifier, and you call that support "faux?" I don't have a problem with closing ranks, when it's called for -- I do have a problem with excluding folks who avow support for this presidency and are excluded from the said ranks because on occasion, they have a criticism -- differing opinion -- about a particular policy or legislation. Nothing good comes out of group think. One certainly doesn't grow or learn.

"May we never confuse honset dissent with disloyal subversion." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

I don't have anything against closing ranks either, but I want to be sure I'm helping to close ranks for the right reason. From the tenor of most of the comments here, it seems to me that the idea is to close ranks simply because someone criticised the President. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the content of that criticism.

No when I call out a liar I will say it be it over the net on in your face.Like I said if you want to criticize dont try to preface it with I am or was a supporter because I dont give a shit.And if you feel you have to do that then I will suspect you.

"We either close ranks or let the other side win and if they win all of us better get the vaseline ready."

Precisely!
That is what all the folk who think they are just being democratic and excercising freedom of speech, do not get about politics. It is zero sum. You have to determine what side you are on and STICK up for your TEAM when they are being punched, attacked, sandbagged or assaulted.

If you just attack the administration and regurgitate the negative poltical memes, then the administration has no POLITICAL support.

It has nothing to do with free speech and democracy...it is all POLITICAL.

"That is what all the folk who think they are just being democratic and excercising freedom of speech, do not get about politics. It is zero sum. You have to determine what side you are on and STICK up for your TEAM when they are being punched, attacked, sandbagged or assaulted."

In other words....YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

Yes!...that was what I was trying to say, lol!!

YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!!

damn skippy...you don't play just to play...you play to WIN!!

You usually need a good leader to win. Otherwise you have one who does Favre's all day.

At the end of the day, Favre still a first ballot Hall of Famer.

Oh, I get it now... This is a sports thread.

Damn, you came straight - no chaser.

I watching Roland interview Sen Burris and I'm laughing my ass off. In full disclosure I was never thrilled w/ his choice primarily for him being what he is , a party flack but I argued his appointment was legal under the law. Now here he is arguing for the public option and being firm about it. He knows he is gone in a year but he will go out as the standard bearer for what the President wants.
Roland just asked him would he filibuster if he doesn't get the public option in the bill and he says nothing.
The irony of him fiibustering is just too much to bear. ROTFLMBAO while trying to type.

irony is wicked, RobM.

I think the truth about Obama will reveal itself in the future: What (if anything) does he really believe in? Does he really care about the issues or does he only care about his own career and the careers of some of his Democratic counterparts. Today's headline on the Huffington Post was troubling:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/leader...

"President Barack Obama is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform. In its place, say multiple Democratic sources, Obama has indicated a preference for an alternative policy, favored by the insurance industry"


Whether all of this true remains to be seen. However, I personally do believe that it all is true. The idea that Obama would not fully support the Public Option in fear of an Independent/conservative voter backlash in 2010 reeks of Obama's political cowardice and of the shrewd politics of Rahm Emanuel. If this is all true, it also reveals that the Democrats also want to keep some of the insurance lobbying money flowing into the Democratic party for 2010 and 2012 respectfully. All of this has to be the answer because nothing else makes sense considering that 65 percent of people support the public option. Why doesn't Obama strongly support what most of the American people support?

Obama's chief of Staff, Mr. Emanuel, was integral in helping Bill Clinton push through NAFTA in the 90's - voter turnout was suppressed in the midterm elections amongst progressives as a result of supporting such a conservative policy. That policy - as we all know now - has led to the loss of millions of American jobs since its inception. When President Obama selected Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, I thought it was a bit of a sellout, and I was berated by many people for judging Obama's selection of him so early. But I think we're starting to see the effect of Emanuel with what's going on with the Public Option with The White House.What needs to be understood is that Mr. Emanuel doesn't care about policy, he only cares about political strategy and keeping (and getting more) Democrats in office "by an means necessary". Selling the public option out seems to be what is necessary to the White house so that Democrats can keep some lobbyist money, and so the Blue Dog Democrats can get reelected in 2010.

It seems as though that the perception is that if Democrats in conservative districts get caught voting for what is (falsely) considered a left wing, progressive cause, they will lose their seats. As I said earlier, the Public Option is supported by 65 percent of Americans. Instead of playing this angle up, President Obama, Rahm Emanuel and the rest of the White house prefer to take the easy way out by catering to the false perception of the public option opposed to the facts and reality of the Public Option. They're doing this all for the electoral purposes of Obama in 2012 with independents, and for the electoral purposes of Blue Dogs Democrats who occupy conservative districts in 2010. This is nothing but the brute politics of old, not "change" or "hope".

As a former Obama supporter, I never expected him to get everything done he said he would - I had just hoped that he would fight strongly for the issues that he SAID he supported during the election. Even if he didn't win every battle, just knowing someone in the White house was on my side would have been a big change for me. But it's the same old games with Obama and his Democratic cronies: get elected "by any means necessary " , screw the under and uninsured, the poor and unemployed ("Jobless recovery", yea right!) and lets continue to funnel money to Wall Street and Banks. I don't know when, but soon the people who are being screwed in this country will start to rebel against the corruption of our government "by any means necessary".

Peace.

Why did you support Obama in the first place?

It sounds like you NEVER should have supported Obama to begin with.

They're doing this all for the electoral purposes of Obama in 2012 with independents, and for the electoral purposes of Blue Dogs Democrats who occupy conservative districts in 2010. This is nothing but the brute politics of old, not "change" or "hope".

"change" or "hope" will not pass legislation in congress, it is brute politics.

The popularity of the public option is important and yes it could be used more to push reform but the public option is not as pivotal to HCR as its supporters make it out to be. If it were, the house bills which even have a robust public option would be paid for, bring down the deficit, control future costs, and cover everybody. They don't.

I have seen it argued, that the reason is because it's not open to everyone. Suppose it is, how do you stop either the sickest people from getting dumped into it or the least sick leaving to join it and employers being stuck with a sicker pool and having to pay more for them which will eventually lead them to force all their employees into the individual market?

The public option is supposed to be self-sustaining, how do you keep it from having too sick a pool of customers? If it cannot be sustained, should the government bail it out?

These are some questions a lot of people have which is one of the reasons that despite the popularity of the public option in any poll, the same poll consistently shows that people are at most evenly divided on reform in general even though 4/5 bills have a public option and the President has consistently says he favors it.

It's why the plan should be single payer.

@dthomas

Blah, blah, blah...is there anything at all you do support about this administration?

I just want a heads up, as you seem to criticize each and every policy, position, and action. If Obama solved world hunger you would likely accuse him of being in alliance with the food industry, if he signed a treaty to stop global warfare you would likely accuse him of opposing capitalism and the defense industry..soooo just where do you stand?

Yes, I know about free speech and democracy etc...

Yada Yada Yada!

Democratic voters deserve exactly what they get because of people like you dthomas. You don't understand the ebb of flow of politics. I'm calling BULLSHIT on this article on the huffingtonpost. Just because it's there doesn't mean it's gospel. A lot of these leaks are done purposely for "strategic purposes" I don't know how many times there have been arguments on the website about the Public Option and the President's support of it or lack there of. "We won't have one, and then we will and blah blah blah" Every two seconds some limped wrist Obama voter like yourself comes on this website as says dumb things like "As a former Obama supporter" every time you think Obama doesn't whistle the tune you like. Where the hell was all your rebelling when Bush was making a clusterfuck of everything? How come you didn't go against the government "by any means necessary" then. I don't know if you noticed but a few months ago people were saying the public option wasn't even a possibility. Now not only is it a possibility it's damn near a guarantee. You think that happened magically? LOL Maybe the guy you voted for had something to do with that? But people like you keep on falling for these stupid headlines that are only posted to drive views for the Huffington Post. You are totally missing the bigger point of this agenda. But hopefully you and your ilk are permanently off the Obama train because I have two words for you. GOOD RIDDANCE.

Why is there such an emotional response to people who critique Obama with reason and facts? You may not agree, that's fine. But there is a visceral angry response to people that present a point of view that is not favorable to the president here.

You ignore all my analysis about Rahm Emanuel, NAFTA in the 90's, the Blue Dogs. and the lobbyist influence in the Democratic Part. Then you exaggerate my point of view by saying I'm basing my entire opinion on one article on the Huffington Post. Please get a grip and think for a second. Obama has a history - and so does Rahm Emanuel... that has to be placed in the CONTEXT of the article of the Huffngtonpost. That's the point.

My response wasn't geared toward your critique of Obama. I talking all this "revolution" talk like your bed wetting liberal ass is going to pick up a weapon a do something. If Liberals wouldn't start a "revolution" over Bush why would anyone take you seriously about "revolution" concerning over Obama after 11 months. LOL It makes you look like a total idiot when you talk like that. You and code pink are going to start a revolution? LOL From what I can tell about your analysis I think your problem is with Rahm more than anything. If you are so disappointed in Obama you need to look in the mirror. You voted for him. Maybe you need to question your judgment. Obama has never been a liberal and he didn't run as one. The problem with you for some reason that's what you thought you were getting. He's a left-tilted centrist and thus far he's been acting like one. I got what I wanted. Sux for you.

"I talking all this "revolution" talk like your bed wetting liberal ass is going to pick up a weapon a do something If Liberals wouldn't start a "revolution" over Bush why would anyone take you seriously about "revolution" concerning over Obama after 11 months. LOL"

I never talked about picking up a gun - that's your silly interpretation. Obama's own campaign was actually revolutionary because people mobilized behind a candidate that they believed would bring change to the country - it wasn't anything violent about it. Also, in case you haven't noticed, there is growing angst on both the left and the right about the direction of this country has been taking along with anger about our elected officials being enslaved to industry. You foolishly frame all this as a right/left Obama/Bush, progressive/moderate scenario. It's not.

People in general are tired of the banks running the country, the unending wars, the rising unemployment, the expansion of the military industrial complex, and the limited accessibility of proper health care coverage. People may have different ways of trying to fix the problems, but the CONTINUING status quo is what is going to push American citizens to a revolutionary movement not Obama, Bush or any other politician you want to throw out there.

"You and code pink are going to start a revolution?"

Why do you try to marginalize my opinion by suggesting that I'm apart of code pink? If was, I would say so - and I'm not. As I said, you foolishly believe that the angst that people are feeling is just a left wing thing, it's an American thing.To me, Its seems like you're just doing this as a childish way of painting my beliefs and opinions as fringe, unreasonable or out of touch.


"The problem with you for some reason that's what you thought you were getting. He's a left-tilted centrist and thus far he's been acting like one"

He is a centrist - he's not left tilted anything. Also ,I judge Obama against his own words and poor policy, not against any misconception about him. I criticize him for his health care plan because he SAID he supported a public option for everyone and now doesn't. I criticize the stimulus because it hasn't stopped double digit unemployment like he SAID. I criticize him for not repealing DADT like he SAID. I criticize him for supporting the funding to mercenaries like Blackwater who do things like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/world/middlee...

I criticize him for increasing the colonization in the Middle east and for not standing up to Israel and their oppressive policies towards the Palestinians with ACTION. I criticize him for being the first so called "African American president", yet refusing to go to the World Conference against racism based on lies: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/14/naomi_kle...

No, there's no confusion or misconception on my part about Obama - anymore. I'm not the one confused.

The angst people are feeling is an American thing you are correct. I also agree with actually on stimulus. The funds were back loaded and not front loaded. I think you are trying to clean up your revolution comment so we will agree to disagree on that. If you knew Obama was centrist how come you voted for him?

Repealing DADT has to been done through Congress to be effective and that will take time. If he doesn't do it through Congress any other administration that doesn't like DADT repeal and activate again.

Stimulus, I concur with you on that and he should be criticized.

What colonization of the middle east are talking about? Iraq and Afghanistan. You want to snap his fingers and pull out troops? That's not feasible.

This President has done more to stand up to Israel than any President in the last 30 years. That's why his approval in Israel is in the single digits. He is trying to actually get things done there which every President that has tried has Failed in trying to do. He is pressuring Israel on settlements and trying to get them back to the table. The situation is complex and extremely tenuous.

As far as the Durban Conference is concerned I don't think the conference was well-served by Ahmadinejad going up there and ranting abuot Israel.

You have every right to critique Obama on those points but I'm sure your political beliefs are a lot more aligned with Obama and than candidate with a R in front of their name. Obama never said he would go to the Durban conference or said he stop the "colonization" of the middle east either.

"Repealing DADT has to been done through Congress to be effective and that will take time. If he doesn't do it through Congress any other administration that doesn't like DADT repeal and activate again."

I understand the point about Congress, but he can sign an executive order repealing the act for right now. There are many in the military who are being discriminated against n the military even though they are serving their country- this just doesn't seem right.

"What colonization of the middle east are talking about? Iraq and Afghanistan. You want to snap his fingers and pull out troops?"

Iraq is not really his mess (although he voted for funding that war over 10 times while in the senate). Afghanistan is what has got me worried. He seems to have plans to increase the occupation there. 8 years ago this made sense, but now it just seems like we're putting all our eggs in one basket with this. Truth be told - everyone knows that there is a much more severe problem with the Saudis and the rogue violent elements in Pakistan (and Obama has addressed Pakistan I'll give him credit), but Afghanistan doesn't even have most of the so called terrorist in its boundaries. Why are we gonna increase our presence there?

"This President has done more to stand up to Israel than any President in the last 30 years. That's why his approval in Israel is in the single digits"

It's all words though, there is no significant leverage used to force Israel to scale back some of their aggressive policies against the Palestinians like the threat of sanctions or withholding money from them. Maybe in time he'll do this - I hope..

"As far as the Durban Conference is concerned I don't think the conference was well-served by Ahmadinejad going up there and ranting abuot Israel"

You're right! Our stupid media did not inform the public about everything else that was going on at the conference outside of the Iranian presidents rantings (not Obama's fault). However, Obama used the the misinformation ( or lack of information) about the conference as a lame reason not to go even when the congressional black caucus did everything they could to make the event politically viable for him. I hope you had a chance to watch the informative piece from democracynow.org that I posted about this. If not, please check it out.

"I'm sure your political beliefs are a lot more aligned with Obama and than candidate with a R in front of their name"

I do have more in common with Obama than with the Republicans. The Republicans are ineffective at doing anything and the conservative movement is run by insane people. But just because I disdain the republicans ( which I do!) doesn't mean that i will ignore some of things Obama has done that I find two faced or troubling.

In all sincerity, I hope that you are right and that I am wrong about how well Obama is doing. Despite my criticism of Obama, i want the country as a whole to succeed.

Peace.

"I got what I wanted. Sux for you."

I take that to mean that you are also a "left-tilted centrist"? If so, how does that manifest itself in terms of your support for the public option? Are you for it, or not?

What's up Plant? Where you have been lately. They finally got internet access at Rikers huh?

Plant you and I have been over this a million times. Go through my posts if you like.(You have done it before)

I support a robust a public option. Always have but I'm not going to react to every soundbite that comes off the huffingtonpost or network news. Most of those "leaks" and soundbites are done strategically just to manipulate the discourse. I'm not getting excited. I've said this a million times and I'm going to keep on saying it. If a health care bill passes without public option and you wanted a public option FLAME AWAY. Call Obama the antichrist for all I care. But all this drama and theatrics before a bill has crossed his desk is asinine and shows how much some people don't know about the process. A few months ago the public option was DEAD remember or is that what they made people think. Now look where we are. Be patient folks it's going to happen.

Always have but I'm not going to react to every soundbite that comes off the huffingtonpost or network news.

But...you're reacting now, and rather dramatically, I might add.

I've said this a million times and I'm going to keep on saying it. If a health care bill passes without public option and you wanted a public option FLAME AWAY. Call Obama the antichrist for all I care.

Oh, if that happens, I wouldn't call him the antichrist.:). That's a pretty uh...dramatic thing for you to be saying, lol.

And no- I really haven't gotten the sense that you support a robust public option.

Plant you and I have been over this a million times. Go through my posts if you like.(You have done it before)

Alright...


"I just don't think a public option is as important as some of you progressives think it is."

"Plants, I know this public option is important to you but have you stopped and thought about what would happen if the Repubs controlled the government again?"

"If they can get something done that lowers costs. Most importantly, gets medicare costs under control and cover some if not most of the uninsured. And punish the health insurance companies for discriminating against people with a pre-existing condition That's reasonable. They can do all those things without a public option."

Thanks for reminding of what I said. How is anything there contradicting of what I said before? All of the posts are made in the context of a conversation. I would love if you posted the links to the pages you got the posts from. I'm still waiting on you to find where I said I didn't support the public option though. I support the public option but not at cost of losing the WHOLE AGENDA. A few months ago to be honest I didn't believe the votes were there and it seemed like to have a public option it was going to come at a great political cost. Obviously, things have changed in a few months. Remember, it didn't seem like the Senate was going to have the votes. Now things have changed. If they have votes. Get it done.

Edit: I strongly criticizeded rikyrah and others because I felt there was a Public option or nothing mantra that I didn't like. Don't misconstrue that as me being against the public option.

Things have changed? If things have changed so much, and there is now no political cost to be paid, why is it still necessary to "play chess"?

That's been my whole point on this thread, and on the one about Huffington. If you believe she is lying, tell us why you think she and others are lying, instead of just focusing on the fact that she said "leaderless". That would be refusing to give into "drama", but the fact that she said "leaderless" overwhelms everything else. Is the President actually pushing the "trigger" plan, or not? That's the question.

For goodness sakes Guns...how many body blows ya gone deliver with this one post? LOL....and this line "You and code pink are going to start a revolution?"...........OMG...that's classic! LOL

He asked for it. He was totally off his rocker with that "revolution" talk.

" Every two seconds some limped wrist Obama voter like yourself comes on this website as says dumb things like "As a former Obama supporter" every time you think Obama doesn't whistle the tune you like."

He's gone from a supporting a robust Public Option for everyone to supporting (if he still does) a public option that is restricted to just 5 percent of Americans in his most current plan. That's a fact.

He's gone from campaigning against mandates to buy private insurance to supporting mandates to buy private insurance. That's a fact.

There are other things as well that I have mentioned in other post about Obama's past tendencies along with Rahm Emanuel. I don't base my opinion on one article on the Huffington Post , I have based it on that, AND the the many other things that I outlined (keeping lobbying money, getting Blue Dogs elected) in my post.

"Where the hell was all your rebelling when Bush was making a clusterfuck of everything? How come you didn't go against the government "by any means necessary"

I debated the brain dead conservatives on Townhall.com (and other places)the entire Bush administration. Got called all sorts of names at Townhall.com.ironically just like I get called here just for supporting progressive policies. Well, instead of debating brain dead conservatives who supported Bush, now I debate brain dead blacks on Jack and Jock Obama who continue to support Obama even when he perpetuates Bush administration policies - which in my opinion - will lead to a revolution in this country.

'He's gone from a supporting a robust Public Option for everyone to supporting (if he still does) a public option that is restricted to just 5 percent of Americans in his most current plan. That's a fact.'

I think Obama supports what he thInks will pass through CONGRESS. Anything other than that would be foolish. Just admit it you are pissed that you aren't getting your "panacea of all health care problems" single payer.

I ask you where was your rebelling during the Bush administration and you tell me about debating people on Townhall.com

LMAO- SMH

"Brain dead" blacks hmmmm. I'm brain dead because I don't throw away the person I voted for after 5 minutes. I vote for agendas. I don't get all excited because I may have a disagreement on one or two issues. I'm brain dead because I understand there is a lot more at stake. We have a:

healthcare bill with a public option that's going to pass
SC justices are going to appointed that are aligned with my beliefs
DADT going away
Comprehensive Immigration next year
Troops coming home from Iraq
The justice department actually beefing up the division that handles discrimination cases

and whole host of other things that are too numerous to name

I'm not dumping this President because you want the US to look like San Francisco.

"I think Obama supports what he thInks will pass through CONGRESS."

Do folks like you care about what actually gets passed or just that Congress and President Obama passes anything? I mean, just passing ANYTHING doesn't mean that what is passed would be good for the country. A mandate that 95 percent of people buy private health insurance is not a good thing from perspective. In fact, a mandate to buy private health insurance wasn't a good thing from Obama's perspective if you actually followed the campaign. But many Obama supporters have amnesia about this now.

The status quo is unacceptable. I care what passes but I will never take your attitude ,"WHAT I WANT OR NOTHING." That's absurd. Things will never done with that attitude. The health care plan is about lowering costs and getting people covered. It's not single payer. No bill is perfect. I think a mandate is a great start. The 5% public option isn't perfect but if a bill like that passes it will be a VAST IMPROVEMENT from what we have now.

You're right. During the campaign, the most striking difference between Obama's and Clinton's healthcare proposals was the disagreement on the "public mandate".

healthcare bill with a public option that's going to pass
SC justices are going to appointed that are aligned with my beliefs
DADT going away
Comprehensive Immigration next year
Troops coming home from Iraq
The justice department actually beefing up the division that handles discrimination cases

...and then...


I'm not dumping this President because you want the US to look like San Francisco.>

Funny, that seems to me to be "San Francisco's" wish list, too.

Wrong, a San Francisco wish list would be:

Pull out of Afghanistan Now
Legalize Gay Marriage
Legalize Marijuana
Institute Single Payer Health Care
Institute the Fairness Doctrine
Legalize late term abortions in all states
Legalize all the illegal immigrants in the country

and I'm not for anything on list with exception of maybe the Marijuana lol

..and "San Francisco" doens't want anything on that first list? They don't want DADT to go away? They don't want more liberal SCOTUS justices? They don't want the troops to come home from Iraq,,,and so on? Come on, you're playing games.

You list of what they (apparently) want that you don't want doesn't show you to be a "centrist" as much as it shows how much you buy into rightist rhetoric. I mean, "Institute the Fairness Doctrine"? That's a right-wing straw man. There hasn't been any big wave of liberals agitating for the reestablishment of the fairness doctrine.

Plant, ofcourse they want liberal judges and DADT. The point I'm making my second list is more liberal than the first. There hasn't been a wave of support of the FD because it's a losing issue.

If there hasn't been a wave of support for it, it's because even those nasty liberals don't have a burning desire to see it reinstated.

But, that's still beside the point of the issue here. We're talking about the public option. Is the President favoring the trigger plan, and if so, why? Is he just playing chess, and if so, what is this particular move all about? Is it a complete lie, and he really didn't discourage Reid from trying to insert a robust public option into the Senate bill?

Plant I don't know what the WH's strategy is on a day to day basis. I don't know the truth behind every single leak or insider claiming they have valuable information. All I can do is take all the available information and form an opinion. No do I know for sure about the huffingtonpost article. NO, I don't, It's my opinion it's bullshit. Here is the crux of the matter. Here is something we do know. We are closer to having a public option than we were three months ago. That I know. I give the WH and the Dems in Congress credit for that. That's the point I was making to the people that are ranting and raving about what they were reading in the huffpost article. They read that Obama wants "a trigger" and they take it as gospel.

"We are closer to having a public option than we were three months ago."

That's not true, lets be fair to history. Obama supported a robust public option for everyone in his original plan. He then did a piss poor job of selling it to the American people, capitulated to the conservative pressure against the plan and then reformed his plan to exclude 95 percent of people from the Public Option. That's not progression that's regression.

The President should push for what can pass Congress not pipe dreams. He can ask for single payer but that would be stupid because it doesn't stand a chance for passing. The most robust public option by Sen Rockefeller was shot down in committee I guess you would blame Obama for that.

I don't take it as gospel, but I don't dismiss it out of hand, either.

"He's gone from a supporting a robust Public Option for everyone to supporting (if he still does) a public option that is restricted to just 5 percent of Americans in his most current plan. That's a fact.
He's gone from campaigning against mandates to buy private insurance to supporting mandates to buy private insurance. That's a fact."

Let's suppose 'your facts' (which they aren't as they're nothing but hearsay) are true...who are you supporting nowadays?

Sort of reminds me of those bogus letters written by a marketing firm on behalf of Big Coal that placed letterheads of prominent groups on them to thwart legislation. Same schtick...

"You don't understand the ebb of flow of politics"

I'm looking at the ebb and flow of Rahm Emanuel's historical political hackery, and Obama's past political tendencies.

I clearly stated I don't know if it's all true, but when you look at the history of Rahm Emanuel and Obama, this is definitely possible Also remember, that the story about Obama's deal with the Pharmaceutical companies was broken on the Huffpost as well, and it all turned out to be true.

...and this is good news for Republicans, also!

First the two people who are close to the President,Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod has said PBO wants the public option.The President himself has said he wants a public option.Who are these multiple sources?Names please.I have a good one for you multiple sources have said you are a idiot for believing something that no one wants their names known.If it looks like bullshit and smell like bullshit guess what Sherlock its bullshit.

"First the two people who are close to the President,Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod has said PBO wants the public option.The President himself has said he wants a public option"

"I have a good one for you multiple sources have said you are a idiot for believing something that no one wants their names known."


If you haven't matured to the point to understand that WORDS mean very little, then I'm sorry for you. I clearly stated in my post that whether it's true that Obama is not fully supporting the public option because of politics remains to be seen. However, I stated that I personally (my opinion) believe it to be true given Obama's political tendencies thus far. He SAID he would vote against FISA - he voted for FISA. He SAID he would support Public Finance - he threw public finance under the bus. He SAID he would repeal DADT - ain't happen yet. Obama criticized contractors like Blackwater - yet he continues to sign war spending bills that contract with Blackwater. His administration SAID the if we didn't pass the stimulus we would hit double digit unemployment - yet we're practically at double digit unemployment with the stimulus passed. As far as health care is concerned, Obama SAID he would support a Public Option that everyone would have access to - but his current reformed health care plan restricts the Public Option to 5 percent of Americans.(what gets passed in the Senate and Congress remains to be seen).

Given all this you still want to place more faith and emphasis in what Obama says, or what is aides say, opposed to looking his past ACTIONS that truly reveal his political tendencies? If this is the case, not only are you the "idiot", you're crazy and delusional - and not to mention a cult supporter of an idol and not a principled supporter of the issues.

So sad.

Your posts are nothing but handwringing, chicken little posts. All you need to throw in is Obama said 'the sky won't fall' as you screech...the sky is falling the sky is falling.

So sad.

Thanks for Faux news update. NOT

One, it's Huffington. I doubt Faux writes for Huff.
Two, regardless of the too too many unnamed sources the meme that Rahm Emmanuel is the bad guy rings true. He is the head of the political consideration apparatus, was responsible for recruiting many of the blue dogs whom actually won on Obama's coat tails and clearly thinks he is the Democratic Newt Gringich, the creator of a permanent Democratic majority.
Three, Emmanuel has been sourced as the advisor whom wants no discussion of race(granted all hard left sources) and has the ear of the President on this issue.
Four, the change in tone from the "my personal view" to the call for revolution "by anys means necessary" against President Obama is comical on the face and ruinous to his argument.

That said the approach of the President to the issues of the day have long given me pause. Governing from the WH as though the WH is the same as running a political campaign hasn't proved to be a winning strategy. If President Obama passes a healthcare bill w/ a public option I will clearly be wrong and suffer the consequences(I know you'll are shining up your dancing shoes w/ the steel toe protectors). Until that happens I believe scepticism is in order.

I can't wait when the legislation passes with a public option so I can watch some of you wishy washy Obama voters eat crow.

I prefer mean w/ mustard. Just remember yu may have to eat it yourself. So I know what is your condiment of choice?

Alright, Rob I'm bookmarking this page. And we'll reference it later. I'm a barbecue sauce man myself but don't worry there will be plenty available at my public option passing party.

Damn you are crazy. If you win you're going to eat crow w/ barbecue sauce. May suggest a Chicago favorite, Harvey Collins Famous Mumbo Sauce. The brother used to own 71st st east of South Park

LMAO. I prefer mine battered and deep fried w/ Texas Pete hot sauce. I really don't think I'll need it. ;-)

Try Mumbo Sauce, too

I had to Google that. LOL. It sounds tasty, but I'm not trying to go all the way to DC for it. :)

It showed up as a DC product? Harvey Collins was an AA who literally owned S 71st E of what is now King Drive in the 60's to Cottage Grove. it was Harvey Collins liquors, restaurant , BBQ, dry cleaners, tailor and i f you could do it Harvey did it. the Mumbo Sauce advertisement ran on black radio WVON. They literally spit out Sauce in saying it. Think Sylvester the Cat

Yep. Shining my dancing shoes!

Faux = fake: not genuine or real; being an imitation of the genuine article;

In today's New York Times "Washington Memo", a whine & cheesed party over the President playing all-male basketball games.
Quick, call a wahhbulance!

Yeah cuz its totally unfair that Hillary and Kathleen Sebilius cant show off their defensive skills in the paint against Obama and Holder.....I just know Hillary got a triple-double game in her that's just begging to come out.

If the two aforemetioned ladies were playing B-Ball with the men (and slammin' on them, to boot), you know what NYT will do: start whining that important things are being undone (Hey! What about H1N1!) (What about those important negotiations with Russia, China?).

The MSM (yeah, you too, NYT!) is full of shit!

I just got to the paper. They actually put this on the front page. The Grey Lady is going down faster than Linda Lovelace

I saw that! It's a damn shame how they whine about anything. Pathetic!

This is a joke right?

NO.

How many co-ed basketball games do you know of? when my former boyfriends would say, ' I'm going to play ball', I'll be honest..if I rolled up later to watch them, I never expected to see any WOMEN on the court. some played in leagues...never saw them play against women...this is a bullshyt article.

"this is a bullshyt article"

Sure it is. It is another attack.


Now it is women's rights, before it was gay rights, then the defense rights (we need 40K) troops, and every day it is about health reform, being his waterloo and how he is NOT TELLING congress what to do. We get headlines like LEADERLESS when if he was strongarming Congress the headline would be EMPERIOUS Obama....please.

Guess, it doesn't mean anything for women's rights that one of his first acts as President was to sign the Ledbetter Pay Act!

Naw, it is more important that he have co-ed pick-up b-ball games...riiiiight.

I am late but is there any female member of congress who is officially on the congress basketball team? no

Jesus he ain't gonna win

in case you missed it...............

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/opinion/24blo...

"The Magic of Michelle

CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: October 23, 2009

Forgive me in advance for fawning, but Michelle Obama is the coolest first lady ever. She clinched it for me this week by jumping double Dutch on the South Lawn as part of a “healthy kids fair.”

The scene underscored my impression of the first lady as utterly unencumbered by convention. She seems to feel free — free enough to loosen up and laugh a little, free enough to let her inner child peek through the veil of parenthood, free enough to be herself.

"I couldn’t imagine recent first ladies jumping a puddle on the sidewalk, let alone two ropes swinging at the same time in opposite directions. So, on behalf of New York City, the so-called double Dutch capital of the world (so much so that this year it became a varsity sport in the city’s schools), allow me to say: Well played.........."

"We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all," says one Goldman Sachs adviser. But tell that to the people of Samson, Ala.

Editor's Note: The shocking transfer of public wealth to Wall Street's pockets is illustrated vividly in Mark Ames' article below, which covers some very disturbing recent events in Alabama, where billionaires and banks are squeezing the locals so hard that they're literally going bankrupt just for flushing their toilets, where violence and the threat of violence are reaching a boiling point and where even the Posse Comitatus Act is under threat. "We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all," said one Goldman Sachs vice-chairman recently. Well, here's a tale of the kind of inequality the finance industry expects citizens to tolerate.

One of this year's more disturbing stories that were ignored was the illegal Army occupation of Samson, Alab., in March following a shooting spree that raged across two towns by a disgruntled worker, leaving 11 people dead.

...

One of the creepiest details to emerge in the shooting rampage were reports that troops from nearby Fort Rucker were brought into Samson and other surrounding areas to patrol the streets. This is a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, every freedom-loving American's worst nightmare.

And now, finally, the Army officially agrees that its occupation of the Alabama streets was illegal, according to an internal report the Associated Press got a hold of, following a Freedom of Information Act filing:

An Army investigation found that soldiers should not have been sent to man traffic stops in a small Alabama town after 11 people were killed in March during a shooting spree.

An Army report released to the Associated Press on Monday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request said the decision to dispatch military police to Samson from nearby Fort Rucker broke the law. But an Army spokesman said no charges have been filed following the Aug. 10 report.

The report from the Department of Army Inspector General found the use of military personnel in Samson violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federal troops from performing law-enforcement actions. The names of those involved were redacted from the report.

According to the report, the officer's "intent was to be a good Army neighbor and help local civilian authorities facing a difficult, unique tragedy affecting the local community. There were no apparent adverse collateral effects to the support provided."

Indeed. For a lot of Americans, the sight of troops occupying their towns is their worst nightmare come true -- part of the reason that America came into existence was to create a country where this sort of thing would never happen, even if the Army's sole intent was to be a good neighbor and help old ladies cross the streets.

After the Billionaires Plundered Alabama Town, Troops Were Called in ... Illegally

---

When folks make the connection by following the money trail from their financially bankrupt school districts, jails and prisons, towns, municipalities, counties, and states to Wall Streeters who are seeking bonuses for robbing them, they should be going into the streets with pitchforks.

The Wallstreet "connection" in many instances is the reason why infrastructure is decaying as tax burdens are increasing. The financial wizards are receiving $$billion$$ bonuses while schools can't purchase books, can not buy computers, copier paper or even toilet tissue. After these financial schemes, schools are unable repair their buildings, heating or air conditioners after obtaining bonds using school assets. To adjust for increased budgets, school boards turn to school consolidation mostly targeting poor communities.

"We" paid 85 $$billion$$ to "save" the "too big to fail" insurer AIG. Just look at its history:

In 2006, AIG was implicated in the manipulation of local government bond issues. At least $7 billion worth of “phantom bonds,” which were intended to aid the poor and supply computers to inner city schools, have instead only benefited companies such as AIG. In one such “phantom bonds” case in Florida, an AIG unit conspired with other financial services firms to extract fees from a $220 million bond issue that was intended to promote affordable housing for low income families. Unbeknownst to the local government agency involved, AIG’s deal meant the less money that actually went to affordable housing, the more money AIG and its fellow companies would make.

AIG and its co-conspirators eventually took $12 million in fees. Not a penny went to the affordable housing.

---

Money intended to solve poverty problems is literally being stolen by the behemoths before communities learn that the money exists. In the meantime, as the thief from POC communities increase, the poor are blamed for being poor while Wallstreet bonuses increase and dividend checks grow to staggering amounts.

Talk about righteous anger this article hits it on the head. The fact the nonmenklature ignored it is not remarkable. Jefferson County AL problems effects AA's, poor whites, hillbillies and Republicans; why should we the nomenklature care. These problems however are not unique to Alabama. Hundreds of county, state and local governments were sold the same "Opportunity" all are living in hell because of it.
One of the reasons the state and local govenments were so targeted under the stimulus was their inablity to provide solutions to these contracts. This year will feel like a Corona beer commercial to state and local governments next year.
It would have been much better had President Obama governed from anger on Mar 22 2009 when he said he shouldn't upon finding out bonuses were being paid for 2008.

Another great post. Is alter net one of your primary reads?

Not, its one of many.

This should've been "breaking news" over that balloon boy mess...

no lie

Global poverty is a hot topic right now. But anyone serious about ending it needs to understand the true causes ...

The poor are not those who have been “left behind”; they are the ones who have been robbed. The wealth accumulated by Europe and North America are largely based on riches taken from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Without the destruction of India’s rich textile industry, without the takeover of the spice trade, without the genocide of the native American tribes, without African slavery, the Industrial Revolution would not have resulted in new riches for Europe or North America. It was this violent takeover of Third World resources and markets that created wealth in the North and poverty in the South.

Two of the great economic myths of our time allow people to deny this intimate link, and spread misconceptions about what poverty is.

First, the destruction of nature and of people’s ability to look after themselves are blamed not on industrial growth and economic colonialism, but on poor people themselves. Poverty, it is stated, causes environmental destruction. The disease is then offered as a cure: further economic growth is supposed to solve the very problems of poverty and ecological decline that it gave rise to in the first place. This is the message at the heart of Sachs’ analysis.

The second myth is an assumption that if you consume what you produce, you do not really produce, at least not economically speaking. If I grow my own food, and do not sell it, then it doesn’t contribute to GDP, and therefore does not contribute towards “growth”.

People are perceived as “poor” if they eat food they have grown rather than commercially distributed junk foods sold by global agri-business. They are seen as poor if they live in self-built housing made from ecologically well-adapted materials like bamboo and mud rather than in cinder block or cement houses. They are seen as poor if they wear garments manufactured from handmade natural fibres rather than synthetics.

Yet sustenance living, which the wealthy West perceives as poverty, does not necessarily mean a low quality of life. On the contrary, by their very nature economies based on sustenance ensure a high quality of life—when measured in terms of access to good food and water, opportunities for sustainable livelihoods, robust social and cultural identity, and a sense of meaning in people’s lives . Because these poor don’t share in the perceived benefits of economic growth, however, they are portrayed as those “left behind”.

Two myths that keep the world poor

co-signed for some of that T-R-U-T-H!