When the most dimwitted national leader in history was in power, he got every damn thing he wanted.

[Stinky The Clown]

I'm talking about George W. Bush.



The balance in Congress didn't actually matter. He got whatever the fuck he wanted.

You want War? Yes Sir. Here's your war. You want a second one? NOOOOOO problemo.

Tax Cuts? Here ya go, Cowboy.

Corporate welfare? Notta problem.

Looser oil drilling regs? Happy ta he'p ya!

Fer Krissakes, they looked like the fucking We Love George glee club. He asked. They gave. You remember this kumbaya moment on 9/12?



But now?

We control it all and we can't pass a fucking unemployment benefit package in a fucking election year? All we get is some shit healthcare bill that actually cares only about the health of Big Bidniss.

Are you FUCKING kidding me?

Are you FUCKING serious?

Yeah, I know. I have heard it all. Blue Dogs. Big Tent. Herding Cats. Yadda, Fucking Yadda.






These people are as effective as a fart in a windstorm.

[bif]

1. No shit.

It's truly embarrassing.

[DrDan]

2. absolutely

of course, our strategy of negotiating before the negotiations begin hardly breeds success.

[DrDan]

3. aaaargh . . . . dupe

guess it was worth saying twice though

[branders seine]

4. It's all just a show.

The real decisions are not made in Congress or in the Executive Branch.

That America hasn't existed for a long time. As soon as they are done killing the middle class, we'll see the real authority on the streets, kicking down our doors, arresting anyone who dissents in an unapproved manner.

[glinda]

7. I actually see that happening under the next Repub President.

[KonaKane]

103. You can bet your bottom dollar it will.

If we allow the Rethugs to regain power, they go to work to dismantle every positive of what corrected the Bush years. They will do what their lord and master president says, and they will do it in record time.

Obviously our best bet is to make it our priority that they do not regain power.

[Nay]

147. Problem is, there WILL be a "next Republican president" sometime

in the next 20 years, so to "make it our priority that they do not regain power" is not possible except in the short term.

So, to me, we Democrats have to deal with our blue dogs and idiots like Lieberman much more than we need to worry about keeping the Pubs out of office -- we can't keep them out forever, and if we don't deal with the way Dems are acting, we can only stave off disaster, not prevent it.

[KonaKane]

168. Oh it will be sooner than you think, if we don't get our shit together.

And it goes beyond Congressional solidarity....it goes to us in the public. Just look at some of the internal feuding going on between groups here at DU. That is a valuable microcosm to study.

[truedelphi]

232. The people who have really taken a long hard look at the economy

And the absolute damage done to our economy (and still underway) by having as President a man who is the first Wall Street president -that fact resonates with some 60 % of all Democrats.

We gave a tremendo0us amount to the Bush/Obama Bailout, and now that very little of the Bailout Monies went to help any real long term economic necessities such as jobs, we have nothing to show for it.

Except for the decline of several of the Smaller EU members, who now need Bailouts themselves.

So our Social Security and our employment prospects all suffer, as more austerity is on the way.

[ProudDad]

253. "having as President a man who is the first Wall Street president"

You mean Clinton -- Wall Street and Chicken Man (Tyson's early millions) put him in office - and he repaid them with NAFTA, GATT, "end of welfare as we know it", Outsourcing, Dot-Bomb, Summers, et. al.

Or do you mean Herbert Hoover?

Just those 2 would make Obama at least the 4th "Wall Street" president...

[truedelphi]

257. Ah I stand corrected.

Clinton received a great deal more approval from me than Obama because he was in office before the internet set me free.

But I agree - his actions with GATT and NAFTA, welfare as we know it, the outsourcing and the Dot bomb, and the Rubin/Summers, entanglement have profoundly disturbed and altered our culture.

I hadn't considered Hoover, as that was so long ago, but you are right about him too.

[Hekate]

260. KonaKane --> +1

[branders seine]

283. perhaps. but it will happen, and soon,

no matter which of the corporate parties is in power without truly substantive change in this country.

Not incrementalist fiddling around one or two of the rough edges with some PR value; REAL change.

[liberal N proud]

5. When bu$h was in power, he gave the corporations everything they wanted

He and the republicans worked to give corporate America deregulation and other goodies while Obama and the Democrats (most of them anyway) are working for the people. They can't get anything done because the lobbying keeps by the corporations keeps it from passing.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. But "Obama and the Democrats" have the majority control of two of the three branches of government.

How does that square with your assertion that the problem is rich lobbyists? Surely lobbying the minority doesn't pay such dividends, does it?

[redqueen]

8. Blue Dog Dems vote with republicans.

That's why Bush got his way, and that's why whatever progress we make is going to be excruciatingly slow.

on edit: and he got his way with the USA Patriot Act and the wars because a lot of even non-Blue Dog Dems aren't very liberal to begin with.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Short, concise morality play:

Barton

Poor BP

Shut up

Sorry

Quiet









Play number 2:

Orange man

Work till you drop

Shut up

Sorry

Quiet






Us?

Ha . . . . . nuttin' hunni. Say/do whatever ya want.

[redqueen]

14. Yes, it is interesting how little the Dems capitalize on...

given the weatlth of Republican shittasticness from which they could be making hay.

[Lorien]

32. Dems in general voted with the repugs when Bush was in power because they were threatened

had their arms twisted, were bullied, etc. Obama can do the same when he wants something (like getting a so called "HCR" bill passed WITHOUT a public option) it's just getting him to want the same things that the people do that's the trick.

[redqueen]

36. Who was threatened or bullied?

Just curious.

[newspeak]

279. How soon some of us forget

about the anthrax attack before the Patriot Act vote. Both, Daschle and Leahy were targeted. It was rather interesting that a writer for a tabloid who showed the Bush twins apparently drunk was also targeted and died. Some on the hill and some in the media were targeted, along with those poor postal workers.

Also, don't forget the spying on democratic congresscritters-remember the computer hacking? I think Little Boots was illegally spying on politicians before 9/11. All of the shite they did, I'd think I was looking at the Mob.

[whathehell]

249. I really wonder about Obama...I wonder about his "democraticness"

and his sincerity....At this point, frankly, I do. not. trust. him.

At best, I think he's lame. At worst...A stealth republican.

[bvar22]

63. And the White House actively campaigns FOR more Blue Dogs.

How is THAT working out for us? :shrug:

[Bryn]

243. Yeah like Big Dawg and ...

who backed Lincoln causing us to lose Bill Halter. We are getting that big dumb useless guy named Boozman! Thanks to them!

[oldhippydude]

69. Blue Dogs

don't forget W had both houses of congress until 06..we did not stand a chance for 6 of his 8 year term

[redqueen]

71. "W had both houses of congress until 06"

Excellent point, thank you!

And welcome to DU, too. :hi:

[newspeak]

280. remember after 9/11, the * administration mentioned the

"shadow government?" I wonder who is part of that group--same ones who cavort at the Bohemian Grove? Big business and parts of government (mostly repugs) deciding policy for the country while getting drunk, pissing in the woods and burning an effigy symbolizing "care?" To me, burning an effigy symbolizing "care" means we are sociopaths and we don't give a shite about the plebes as long as we can make more money and gain more power.

[Warren Stupidity]

190. Oh? They had a 60 vote majority in the Senate?

When was that exactly?

[saracat]

131. And the President didn't WANT a public option. He SAID so.

The President is more aligned with the Blue Dogs. He is willing to settle for anything to get a WIN. Any kind of a WIN. Just like when he publicly supported the repeal of DADT but privately asked the lawmakers to put it on the back burner. And apparently you forget that Prsident Obama also supported the patriot Act and supported its renewal. Gimme a break.

[Andy823]

146. You got that right!

I can't stand the republicans in congress, but I have to admire the fact that they are able to get almost "ALL" of their member to vote the way the leadership wants them to vote! Even when Snowe and Collins have voted sometimes with democrats, since Obama got elected it has been few times they have crossed the line, and when they did they were threatened by the leadership and made to back down on some things they might have normally voted on with the democrats.

I have to agree the biggest problem the democrats have is the blue dogs! They are not really democrats and when they side with the republicans it helps the republicans no matter who is president. When a republican is in the WH, their votes help get what the republican president wants, when there is a democrat in the WH, their votes help the republicans block any bill the corporations don't like, and as you said, even some other democrats are beholding to the corporations and their "donations" and vote the way their corporate masters want them to vote!

It really wasn't Bush getting his way, it was corporate america getting their way! Bush was a puppet, and Cheney pulled the strings for the corporations.

[newspeak]

281. but it's easy to get things voted in

that helps big business or war profiteers--now if you want to vote for something that helps the plebes (help not rip off)-now that's another matter.

[liberal N proud]

9. If it keep Congress from passing legislation not friendly to business

It pays off for the corporation. Obstruction is to the corporate lobby is better than laws passed they don't want.

[rhett o rick]

43. The problem is that we continuously think this is a conflict between Dems and Repubs. It aint.

Yes the Dems have majorities but not those working for We the People. The conflict we have today should be viewed as the "we the People" supporters and the corporatists. The "we the people" group clearly does not have majorities in the Congress. Expecting all Democrats to support "We the People" is distracting and counter productive. We need to purge our party of corporatists. Until we do, we are lost.

[SemperEadem]

160. No they don't. The corporations have majority control of all 3 branches

the question is which branch gets how many degrees of it?

The corporation is the monarch in this country. That is why our constitution is being shredded in favor of the absolute monarchy of corporations. We're going to look like 17th Century England before Charles I was relieved of his head if we don't get a grip.

[havbrush]

238. dem traitors

There are several dem senators and reps who consistently vote with the rethugs. It's not just lieberman. Rahm Emanuel helped get many of them elected if you recall. They need to go and he needs to go.

[KansDem]

59. He even gave them this...

...and the no-bid contracts started flying!

[CanonRay]

10. He got what the Corporations wanted

now we don't get what the Corporations don't want. Corportocracy, anyone?

[City Lights]

12. Sucks to be us.

It's infuriating.

Recommended.

[Dinger]

13. Nice Rant Stinky! K & R

:headbang: :yourock:

[phantom power]

15. testify!

:patriot:

[Dr.Phool]

16. Kick and Rec.

[raouldukelives]

17. Lets have a war then

The war on joblessness. I can see the 24 hour news network banners now.

[peace frog]

18. You're preaching to the choir

Halleleujah and Amen, Brother Stinky.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Horseshit

Why are his tax cuts expiring? Because they had to be passed through reconciliation, otherwise they would have been permanent, as he wanted.

Did he get to privatize Social Security?

Did the Supreme Court rule they way he wanted in Lawrence v. Texas?

Did Congress pass the Federal Marriage Amendment as he wanted?

Did Bush get approval for drilling in ANWAR?

No, Bush did not "every damn thing he wanted." Your attempt to compare his results with Obama's is inaccurate.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. Hey Freddie . . . . .

FAIL

He got what he wanted.

WAR

Deregulated Bidniss

Corporate welfare.

You're pecking at the edges.

Google "hyperbole"

But mostly, he got every damned thing he wanted.

(btw: the push to get at Social Security continues to this day, so that one ain't over and the fat lady is not even in costume yet.)

[geek tragedy]

42. He had plenty of Democratic help in getting the war.

Where he had united Democratic opposition, he didn't get shit.

[WonderGrunion]

145. Fail on you

Is Terri Schiavo hooked up to A FUCKING MACHINE today?

Is there a constitutional ban against abortion or gay rights or flag burning?

Minority parties had power even during the 9/11 shellshocked years.

[dflprincess]

157. They don't really want bans on abortion, flag burning or gay rights

if they got them, what would they have left to inflame the base with? Those are issues they pay lipservice to just like Democrats pretend they care about working & middle class voters in election years.

If those were items Bush & the Republicans had really wanted passed, it would have happened.

BTW what the hell does Terry Schivo have to do with anything?

[OwnedByFerrets]

170. You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO correct.

[Romulox]

272. You nailed it: the "Culture Wars" are never meant to be won. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

237. and how many Supreme Court justices???????????????????

[Stinky The Clown]

68. Freddie, Can I be Frank?

You can be Earnest.

Sorry .... bad joke.

Freddie, why do you make this about Obama? This has been going on for a very long time. The alst Democrat who really tried was Jimmy Carter. Before that, LBJ (for all his HUGE flaws).

Clinton went right (much as I like him). Obama is doing it, too, only more so.

But this rant goes waaaaay back. Long before Obama's first big speech at the DNC in 2003.

But go ahead ... make it about Obama if that suits your agenda.

[rhett o rick]

236. No you cant be Frank, your Stinky. Dont try to confuse me. And dont expect and answer from hit-and

run Freddie.

[liberalhistorian]

85. Don't you have a public school you need to go

crush and destroy so that you can put a no-accountability charter school that treats and pays its teachers and staff like shit in its place? Come to think of it, aren't there still some teachers that Arne hasn't crushed in favor of know-nothing corporate dipshits that you can help him take care of?

[Stinky The Clown]

89. I was trying to avoid bringing that obvious thing up . . . . but thank you! +1

edited title to fix two typos

[liberalhistorian]

93. No problem! My parents are retired teachers,

nearly 75 years of teaching between them, and they got shit nothing for it. My stepdad is in a nursing home with early dementia and most of both of their pensions go to pay for it. When their health insurance was raised several years ago, it took a huge chunk of the pensions. I saw how hard and long they worked for years, with very little corresponding appreciation or compensation. I saw parents berating them for things their precious little Johnnies were responsible for (like not doing homework, blowing off tests, mouthing off in class, etc.) And very little recognition that they weren't totally responsible for the performance of their students, that outside factors over which they had not control had a lot to do with it as well.

It damn near killed both of them, finally, as well as the majority of teachers I've known. They are Exhibit A as to why I never wanted to go into teaching and why I feel sorry for anyone who does, especially nowadays. They started their careers before there even were unions, and conditions and pay were really horrible.

[KansasVoter]

91. They are better leaders than the Dems. And they get what they want!!!

[newspeak]

282. better leaders?

huh--they're like "Little Boots", all swagger, that some in this country just love. Some tell outright exaggerations and downright lies and their base eat it up. A bunch of bullies on the playground called congress--and when and if a democrat shows some spine, then they cry and whine and shout "that's not fair." And, they always expect an apology--but when they say the most disrespectful or prejudice thing, that is so publicly outrageous-they may give a token apology.

And some of the public just eat it up, they just love them some abusive bullies-go corporations, give me a lesser wage and I'll work for ya, I don't need no stickin mining safety and I just love that you ruined our businesses and towns with that oily goop-I'll still pull for deregulation for ya-cause ya know that's all that's keeping me from getting a damn job!

It's easier being a leader when you got every damn corporation, a corporate suck up media and and like minded congresscritters behind you!

[TBF]

116. Social Security privatization

is happening now, and you're well aware of privatization efforts given the picture of Arne Duncan in your post.

[liberalhistorian]

144. And precious little he cares about that,

which should be more than obvious. Arne barely ever even spent any time in the classroom. He's just another patronizing, know-nothing corporate dipshit who thinks he knows everything and anything about education, when he knows precious little, and who gets paid three to four times as much as the people who actually DO know and who are actually on the ground, inside the trenches, laboring for very little appreciation and compensation.

[TBF]

219. Agreed,

it is an insult that Duncan was tapped for that spot. Sadly it also illustrates the administration's priorities.

[Vattel]

264. precisely

[Ignis]

121. And changing 100% to 99.99% would change the argument...how, exactly?

Let's not miss the forest for the trees here.

[Warren Stupidity]

191. Another exercise in civil discourse. nt.

[DCBob]

227. Right you are.. Bush also failed on immigration reform..

The vast majority of the stuff he got related to national security and war on terror.

[unblock]

20. never underestimate the power of a fart in a windstorm.

in the scheme of things, the pendulum has swung SOOOOO far to the reich, i'm amazed obama has accomplished as much as he has.
of course, i'd wish these his first few years went more like fdr's, but the pendulum was in a vastly different place then.

what i DO feel like is that obama is actually moving the pendulum in the right direction, which i never felt about clinton. i always felt that clinton was at best stemming the tide or giving up as little as possible.

if we support the left and work hard, then i believe history will mark the start of the obama administration as the turning point, and eventually we will get what we all want. but it will take time.

if we give up, through impatience or otherwise, then obama will be just another blip, a carter or a clinton, a brief ray of sunshine in a long, continuing, ongoing slide toward outright fascism.

[Stinky The Clown]

26. "if we support the left"

Some of us ARE supporting the left. But we get NO support from the guys and gals in power

[unblock]

35. we have guys and gals in power?

i know we have a few guys and gals in OFFICE.
but that, increasingly, is not where the power is.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. Good point

The power is is in the House of $$$

[jody]

21. He took all the cookies with a Democratic congress's approval & the jar is empty. US is broke! nt

[asdjrocky]

22. It's all the same team dude.

The only us and them in the US is the people with all the money and the people without.

[emulatorloo]

25. Different teams, one team is good at party discipline, the other sucks at it

See Steve Benen article below.

[TBF]

221. Word, rocky. In fact I'd widen that to say

in the entire world is it people with money vs. people without.

[emulatorloo]

24. READ THIS ARTICLE -- it explains a lot. "BIDEN REFLECTS ON GOP PARTY DISCIPLINE"

Steve Benen
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_06/024517.php

It is short - sorry I can only post 4 paragraphs - the set up is important, but here are the last 4:

BIDEN REFLECTS ON GOP PARTY DISCIPLINE

<SNIP>

It often goes overlooked, but it's worth remembering that the Senate Republican caucus, unlike Senate Democrats, have mechanisms in place to enforce party unity and discipline. When Democrats break party ranks on key bills, there are no consequences. Those who let GOP leaders down, however, know in advance that enticements like committee positions are very much on the line.

But this need not be considered criticism, though Biden almost certainly meant as such. Matt Yglesias explained that it's entirely "sensible" for a political party to "demand that its members support the party leadership on procedural votes.

"Had the Democratic caucus adopted such a rule, the White House, the leadership, and the members themselves would have been spared an awful lot of headaches and the country would be in much better shape. After all, every member of the caucus puts some value on his or her ability to secure chairmanships of committees and subcommittees, so such a rule could very plausibly have swiftly led to the creation of a norm against filibustering your own party's initiatives. Vote "no" on final passage if you like, but vote with the leadership on process."

We should be so lucky.

<SNIP>

[redqueen]

27. Thank you for posting this. (nt)

[emulatorloo]

31. You're welcome - very interesting stuff n/t

[KoKo]

33. That's an interesting read....but even more interesting would be to know WHY Dems haven't put

such a "rule" in place or used the threat of losing chairmanships like the Repugs.

I'll give one theory. Harry Reid following in the steps of that milquetoast Tom Daschle.

It appears there's no will for our Dems to discipline. Look at the Blue Dogs who vote lockstep with Repugs time after time.

[kenny blankenship]

39. hmm...where are the apologist assholes?

When I draw attention to the ruinous and total lack party discipline of the Democrats, and contrast it to the effectiveness of the Republicans even when they are in the minority, which they exert thanks to their strict ideological control over their caucus, I draw more attention from apologists than a hemophiliac would get at a vampire convention.

[Zorra]

Seems the obvious question here is, "Why haven't Democrats done this already?".

Could it be...satan?

Something like that, for sure.

[Ignis]

122. Bingo.

This "Blue Dog" crap is just that: crap.

Call a DINO a DINO, and tell them to vote with the party or put on the red sweater.

[Karmadillo]

28. These people are very, very effective. Now, however, it's just easier to see what

they are being so bipartisanly effective at doing. Continue the criminal wars of empire? We can do it! Transfer wealth to the rich? We can do it! Stall on alternative energy & mass transit? We can do it! Avoid single-payer & strengthen the health insurance industry? We can do it! Let Bush/Cheney escape justice for their crimes? We can do it! Trash public education? We can do it! Let the Catfood Commission go after social security & medicare? We can do it! Let oil companies drill & spill & drill & spill? We can do it!

So, heck, they're extremely effective. They just don't happen to be effective at doing the things that would benefit the masses, but after all, that's not what they're trying to do.

[AnArmyVeteran]

30. "We can do it!" needs it's own thread.

I love the way you wrote your post. Very well done. There are way to many people here who automatically attack a person for trying to use constructive criticism. I don't think it's healthy to be a total cheerleader thinking your party can do no wrong. They only way to make leaders accountable is to put a fire under their feet. I posted a similar post but got mostly attacks.

"We can do it!" needs it's own thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8669237&mesg_id=8669237

[Stinky The Clown]

34. I reced ya back up to +1

[Lorien]

37. Well said. On the flipside, their mantra of late has been "No we can't!"

Stop the gusher? No we can't! Reduce unemployment with green jobs and public works? No we can't! End two wars of choice? No we can't! Close Gitmo? No we can't! Overturn the Patriot act? No we can't! End mountaintop removal? No we can't! End commercial whaling? no we can't! Save public schools? No we can't! and on and on and on...it's a weak, helpless, victimized Presidency that can't do anything because WE "don't believe" as we should (guess we're not clapping hard enough). That is, UNLESS it WANTS to do all of the things that you've just listed!

[drdtroit]

187. More like: "I wish we could, but..." n/t

[Octafish]

29. Excellent observations, yours.

A peek behind the curtain shows a very nasty thing, indeed.

[Scarsdale Vibe]

38. Social Security, Harriet Miers, Immigration

Bush got almost nothing legislative that he wanted from 2003-2008. The Dems have accomplished more legislatively in 1 1/2 years than the Republicans did in 8. Scrubbing the rot in the executive branch that accumulated due to 8 years of intentional mismanagement will take a long time as will reversing the radically conservative bent of the Supreme Court.

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Yea'okay

[Stinky The Clown]

82. I HAD to circle back to this ....... Immigration . . . . .

He didn't want immigration reform. It was a loser for him. He wanted to get Latinos on his side. They talked about it, but did nothing serious.

Along come the Dems and the can kicked down the road is theirs. They demagogue and vote in crap like Arizona did and the issue gets back to our side to do. And WE get called cowards on the issue. That's no accident. They really didn't want to deal with it.

Harriet . . . . hahahaha. That was his own personal thing and his party didn't want it. It was the repubics who killed her chances, not us.

[Sebastian Doyle]

95. That radically conservative bent of the Supreme Court could have been much less

if so many so called "Democrats" hadn't confirmed Opie Roberts and Sammy the Fish Alito. Roberts had an entire two years experience as a judge (and even that was Chimp Pro Quo for his financial assistance in the Florida 2000 fraud). He's no more qualified to be "Chief Justice" than I am. And at least I wouldn't have fucked up the Presidential oath of office.

[treestar]

44. 911

That gave Bush endless influence.

[Beam Me Up]

45. But why is this, Stinky?

Imagine you go on a hike in territory you've never been before. It is going to be a long hike and you need a map to help you find your way to whatever scenic spot you're interested in. Now, all that is going to work out just fine so long as you have an accurate map and you know how to read it. However, if your map is inaccurate in some important details OR if you don't know how to read the map you have very well (regardless of how accurate it is), you're going to get confused and lost. Possibly wandering around in circles, not finding that scenic sweet spot you were hoping for.

I think this is a pretty good (although ultimately inadequate) metaphor for why so many of us can't quite wrap our heads around 'where we are', politically. I kept saying all through the reign of *Bush the Chimp that we weren't in political 'Kansas' any more and that 'politics as usual' was no longer an adequate 'map' to help us understand what was going on and what we might be able to do about it.

My understanding of this had begun even before the *Chimp was put in the White House but was further underscored with the shenanigans going on in Florida and the subsequent SCOTUS ruling that put him there. Clearly some very powerful forces were at work to make sure the *Chimp was installed against the will of the majority of the American people. Moreover, it was all played out on the media political dog and pony show stage that led most everyone to believe that the problem was a) a VERY close election and b) problems with 'hanging chads' and thus counting the votes. This latter 'problem' led to the 'help America Vote Act' which, as many of us know, ushered in a digitized electoral system in many places which is prone to manipulation and obfuscation. After all, it isn't who votes that counts, it is who counts (tabulates) the votes.

My sense that something was VERY amiss was further cemented with the events of 9/11. I don't want to take this thread off topic but 9/11 truly is the key to everything that was -- and still is -- MOST egregious about the policies implemented during the *Chimp's reign. Whether we're talking about the massive surveillance of our electronic communications, the erosion of our civil liberties, the 'never ending' so called 'War on Terror' which allowed the invasion of two sovereign nations, rendition, torture and the hundreds of billions of dollars funneled into the National Security / Military Industrial Complex -- all this and much more is directly predicated upon a particular 'reading' of the events of 9/11/01. If one believes, as most people do, that 9/11 was carried out by a bunch of box cutter wielding fanatics, all orchestrated by an as yet to be found 'black sheep' of the *Bush family's close bin Laden friends, then all of that has come in the wake of 9/11 'makes sense', however outrageous it may be. On the other hand, if one has a very different 'reading' of 9/11, one sees all this in a very, very different light.

For me the 'map of the political territory' that is provided by so called 'main stream media' can no longer give us an accurate understanding of where we are, how we got here, where we're actually headed and what we, the American people, might need to do to find our way out of these woods. If one's perception of the political landscape is only derived from MSM sources or even if it is spiced up with other, more 'alternative' sources, most of us still find it VERY difficult to understand WHY our 'elected leaders' behave the way they do. Yes, we can see clearly that corporations have enormous influence on what goes on in DC. But even this perception, I believe, is superficial. Not irrelevant, but still on the surface.

Personally I've found it very helpful to adopt an entirely new and different political paradigm: The paradigm of "http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/">Deep Politics":

'DEEP POLITICS' is defined as all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged.

A 'DEEP POLITICAL SYSTEM' is defined as one which resorts to decision-making and enforcement procedures outside as well as inside those sanctioned by law and society.

If you are in unfamiliar territory and want to really know where you are, how you got here and what your real options are in terms of where you want to go next, you need an accurate map. Anything less may lead you further into the wilderness. Many people avoid 'deep political' analysis because it delves into the realm of conspiracy. But we have to acknowledge that SOME conspiracies are real (most big-time criminal enterprises ARE conspiracies), however much there may also be other pseudo-conspiracies that are, at best, delusional fantasies and, at worst, psychological disinformation operations that are designed to lead people away from an accurate understanding of what is really going on.

This latter explains why 'the map and the territory' metaphor is ultimately inadequate. It is true, to understand what is going on in our world, we need an accurate map. However, for our 'walk in the woods' metaphor to be fully accurate, we have to allow for the possibility that our inaccurate map is not only the result of accidental errors but also the result of an on-going, intentional deception by forces that want to keep us lost and wandering in the wilderness.

Thus I've coined the motto: Who ever controls your perception of reality controls you. Whatever you believe to be true, whether it is true or not, will directly influence if not ultimately determine the decisions you make in your life. As Michael Hasty put it in his 2004 essay, "http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_203.shtml">Paranoid Shift": If we acknowledge that an inner circle of ruling elites controls the world’s most powerful military and intelligence system; controls the international banking system; controls the most effective and far-reaching propaganda network in history; controls all three branches of government in the world’s only superpower; and controls the technology that counts the people’s votes, we might be then forced to conclude that we don’t live in a particularly democratic system. And then voting and making contributions and trying to stay informed wouldn’t be enough.

It is important to note, though, that the SYSTEM of control demands a manipulation of belief -- of the perception of what is accurate, true and real.

We don't have to embrace a vast conspiracy to acknowledge that there are very powerful forces at work in our world, forces that sometimes work together for the common aim of further cementing and extending the range of their control and hegemony -- not only of vast economic and vital material resources but the most vital resource of all: Our understanding of who, what and where we are. Many have argued that such vast conspiracies could not happen because there would be no way to keep them secret. But once one begins to understand that it isn't about 'keeping secrets' so much as manipulating and, as much as possible, controlling what people believe to be true and real, it all begins to make much more sense. If I lie to you and you believe me, then you're going make decisions based upon this lie because you believe it is true. Moreover, you're going to repeat the lie you've been told convincingly precisely because you believe it.

The only thing that can begin to break through this kind of deception is a form of cognitive dissonance. When the Stinky The Clown's of this world begin to wake up and say, 'hey, wait a minute, WTF is really going on here?' the question opens up the possibility of understanding our political landscape in a new light and with a new, more accurate map. Indeed, we need a new paradigm, a new map, one which delves into the deeper, murkier realms of 'intelligence matters'. One where we begin to acknowledge that the real structures of power behind the scenes presented by MSM and even most 'alternative' news sources does not change with the comings and goings of political parties or persons. Then we begin to understand WHY it was so important to put a *Chimpanzee in the White House in January of 2000 -- and why it was so important to put a new face in the White House more recently. And, more over, why, even though the party and person have changed, the most egregious domestic and foreign policies have not.

[Initech]

46. Our leaders fucking suck. The biggest dumbass ever got everything. Obama gets called names.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alsame]

70. I completely agree with you. And my tinfoil hat tells me

that most Senate "Democrats" are actually more comfortable being in the minority because it allows them to say all the right things and even vote for what we want while still maintaining the status quo. Pure theater.

[WillyT]

48. Best Little Whorehouse In Washington, D.C. - K & R !!!

:mad:

:kick:

[walldude]

49. K&R..

[NorthCarolina]

50. Could it be that DLC New Dems are politically closer to conservative GOP principles

and therefore are more supportive of the GOP agenda than they are of a Democratic agenda? :shrug:

[karynnj]

61. No - if you look at their scores on any of the indices - either liberal or

conservative, there is a big difference in the parties. (A few place our most conservative with their most liberal - and there was significant overlap even in the 1990s, but they are moving further apart - likely because they have pushed out many of the Senators they had on their moderate edge.)

[Individualist]

218. Kucinich was correct when he said,

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," as was Howard Dean when he said DLC is the republican wing of the Democratic party.

[Ichingcarpenter]

51. You need to be more PRAGMATIC

that way you give everything away and are left in the middle of road with a pair of 16 wheelers
bearing down on you in two directions.

[GeorgeGist]

52. Your judgment maybe premature.

The nation is worse now than when Dimwit left office.

edit:spelling

[newspeak]

284. * had the lowest job creation than any other twentieth century president

* believed that corporations should police themselves-* lied us into a FUBAR-that will cost the taxpayers billions and billions of dollars, while giving his war profiteering friends more of our money with even less accountability. And you really want to know why we are worse off now? Because every damn "screw you" policy that * and his corporate friends passed, including even more tax cuts for the "already getting wealthier and wealthier by the day" crowd. And, as I remember, it is * before leaving office who wanted that bail out the banks bill. Ya see, he tried to privatize SS before the shite hit the fan on Wall Street, but it was a No go-so, he finally had to suck it up and say "oh shit", I ran the country into the ground like I've done to about every feckin business I was involved with.

And, anyone with sense, knew that if you let the wealthy off on paying taxes and you increase enormous amounts of spending for a war hard on (billions unaccounted for in Iraq) and spying on people, that you can eventually break the bank so you can get rid of all of those pesky "social" programs that actually help people in your own country.

[Jennicut]

53. Come on, we know giving corps what they want is way easier for both parties.

Actually trying to get either party to do the right thing is not easy.
And of course, there are threats and probably bribes. Biden pointed it out the other day that he knows of several Rethugs in the Senate that had their chairmanships threatened if they don't tow the party line. This discipline might be good for us but then, it smacks of facist BS too.

[Stinky The Clown]

54. What's more "fascist"?

A) Doing what corporations want you/pay you to do

or

B) Instill some party discipline in the form of removing some favored role for one member who steps out of line






Hmmmmmmmm . . . . . . . that's a toughie.






I'll go with . . . . . A . . . . no, B . . . . uh A . . . . B . . . . ah shit. Too hard for my old brain to noodle out.

[Jennicut]

56. It depends, is the member to be punished Lieberman or someone challenging the administration on the

left? Don't most people here argue that the most left members of Congress have the least amount of power to begin with? We want to give them less power by threatening them with chairmanships(and not just calling them retards)? Like I said, the Rethugs have amazing discipline. They also kick out people that don't agree with them hence why there are no more moderates left in the party. Who will get kicked out first, blue dogs or the most liberal members? I don't always agree with Feingold or Kuncinich but I highly respect their opinions. If you want the ultimate party discipline, they won't even be allowed to talk.

[Kermitt Gribble]

55. K&R! This exact point was an awakening for me.

After suffering through the GOP domination of DC, I was ecstatic with the results of the election of 2006. I thougt "finally, we can put a stop to the reign of terror from the * admin". Instead, the Dems worked to further the idiot's agenda. It's all a dog and pony show.

[Unvanguard]

57. No, he didn't. The tax cuts were smaller than he wanted. And he failed at SS "reform."

Not to mention that he did the tax cuts through reconciliation, which is not an option for a lot of the Democratic legislation.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aquamarina]

58. I want to recommend this post a billion times.

Our dem leaders are flat inept. Yo Harry Reid, yo Nancy Pelosi - YOU are in charge. You call the shots. Stop using the repubs as an excuse to not get anything done.

Good god ya'll.

[karynnj]

60. He got way too much - but not drilling in ANWR or privitizing SS

The 2003 tax cut really should not have happened. By the time of that one, we were in two wars and had a huge deficit. There was no excuse for it - it was passed via reconciliation with only 50 votes and Cheney broke the tie.

Yet there was NO uproar - as there was when HCR had 59 votes and a Senate bill with 60 votes was already passed. The difference in the level of outrage and how it is covered is pretty amnazing.

[bvar22]

65. Drilling in ANWR and privatizing Social Security?

Yes.
The Republican failed at that,
but the "Centrist" Democrats (DLC) will succeed.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[karynnj]

79. They are nobody's "talking points"

What group would even put out talking points on this. Certainly not the right - they have no reason to argue it, not the left or even the all time favorite DLC.

The reason that they are mentioned is that they are the most obvious contradictions to your emotional op.

Seriously - we are copying from each other's papers either. I bet that many (if they bothered) would answer 4 if you asked what 2 and 2 is.

[scheming daemons]

81. "Emotional OP" is a perfect description... Stinky has a very selective memory

He's only remembered the Bush successes... and forgetting the times where we stopped the Bush agenda.



I would argue that we stopped Bush on more initiatives than the GOP has stopped Obama.


Obama has gotten a surprisingly high percentage of his initiatives through congress in 18 months. Much better track record than Bush (thank God).

[Stinky The Clown]

87. If you said that TO me, it might be the PERSONAL ATTACK it is in this context.

Nothing selective. Read this entire thread and you'll see where I'm coming from.

Most important, you're way off base with making this about Obama. He doesn't even hardly play into it. The Congress is the far bigger target of *my* ire . . . . even as that is counter to the agenda you seem to have. Get out of the filter and try some free style thinking.

:eyes:

[karynnj]

150. I agree with you - especially if speaking of the domestic agenda

The President has far more latitude on foreign policy and it is extremely difficult for the Congress to really force changes.

The biggest things that Bush got through that effect the domestic agenda, were the 2 supreme court appointees, the tax cuts, and the prescription drug plan. The latter was poorly designed and a giveaways to Pharma, but it was a long term Democratic goal. The tax cuts were written to expire - because the cost estimates did not otherwise work. The Republicans then thought that they would be able to prevent them expiring - by calling doing so tax increases.

The Democrats could gain the upper hand by letting them expire. Now, as many point out, the conservative Democrats and the moderates end up with the leverage at the end to push things that we don't want. But, the Republicans lose a lot of leverage if the "status quo" that happens without the bill is the 2001/2003 rates.

In fact, the biggest long term influence that Bush will likely have is Alito and Roberts - and we could have (and should have) stopped Alito. We would have had the leadership Democrats followed the principled Kerry and Kennedy rather than Schumer.

[Ignis]

214. Wow, you can read other posters' MINDS?!?

Can we all get a hit off that stuff?

[Stinky The Clown]

83. Seriously ... see my post 82. "Immigration"

Nice try, though.

[Stinky The Clown]

84. Dupe - self delete

Nice try, though

[scheming daemons]

80. People are just pointing out the obvious issues of where your OP is incorrect

...or do you have a problem with hearing facts that contradict your preconceived notions?


They're not "talking points", Stinky.... they're just obvious facts that you overlooked in your otherwise righteous rant.


You have a selective memory. Bush did NOT get everything he wanted. He was thwarted on many occassions.

Yes... he got some things he wanted.... but he was stopped on other things.


People are just presented facts that you conveniently forgot. It's not always a sinister conspiracy.

[Stinky The Clown]

101. Does saying the same thing twice make it mare . . . . I dunno . . . . forceful?

Cuz it sure doesn't make it any "righter"

[scheming daemons]

216. You tell me... you've said the same thing about a dozen times in this thread

...still not factual.


Bush got some of what he wanted, and was denied on other things that he wanted (thank goodness).


I know that truth invalidates the point of your OP, but that doesn't make it less true.

[Yavin4]

62. What Bush Asked for Benefitted Corporations and the Wealthy

Everything on your list, the wars, the tax cuts, the corp. welfare, all of it benefitted the rich and the powerful who then donate to both politcal parties.

What Obama wants to do benefits the people, and we don't have any juice in Congress.

[Uzybone]

64. nonsense

Bush got some things he wanted, and failed miserably (thank goodness) at some other things. Many of the things he got will continue to haunt us for many years.

But to say he got everything he wanted is utter BS. We shouldn't talk as ignorantly as the RW.

[Stinky The Clown]

74. Uzy .... read my replies through out this thread.

VERY far from "utter BS" ..... much as you'd like that to be the case.

And mostly, this isn't about Obama. So let's can that crap, too.

[Rex]

66. It is the political love affair between modesty and death.

Dems seem to eat up Repuke atrocities with gusto and ask for more! Thank you sir may I have another! :eyes:

It is the ONE thing I hate the most about Dems!

[valerief]

67. That's because the corporations who run the world owned him and his Congress. nt

[Poboy]

75. Have you forgotten?

For the previous 8 years, we were 'keeping our powder dry'!

Its bullshit of course, and they are deaf to our cries.
Complicity.

They REFUSE to fight for what is the popular will of the people, yet fight for every immoral musing of the corporations.

[madfloridian]

76. Recommended.

[Qutzupalotl]

77. We don't have a counterpart to Cheney

pulling strings and twisting arms behind the scenes. That's the big difference IMO. I doubt Bush could have gotten half of what he wanted without him.

[fatbuckel]

78. That`s why there should be a test in order to get the right to vote.

[Stinky The Clown]

88. I think *THAT* issue was properly addressed about a century ago.

Bad idea. I get the sentiment, but bad, bad, bad idea and not a smart move to suggest it in this forum.

[KonaKane]

106. Maybe it's time to resuscitate it.

In the past, it was about denying the vote to Black people. To hell with that. But, I am totally comfortable with making it harder for STUPID people to vote.

Think about it. I am not allowed to climb into the cockpit of a commercial airliner and fly the plane because I do not have the training and the proven mental ability to manage the task. Why should casting a vote that steers the government of my nation be less important?

[Stinky The Clown]

153. Sorry. I just can't go there.

But good luck with it.

[NNN0LHI]

86. Leaving Max Cleland out of that story is disingenuous as hell

We could have had a lot more Democrats lose their seats to Republican scum if they had voted against a war that was going to happen no matter how they voted.

Would you have preferred we had lost more seats and still not prevented the war?

Now some of the people are pretty young on this board and probably don't even know the story of what the Republicans did to Max Cleland. But you have been right here all along. You should know better.

Don

[great white snark]

90. No Shit

VERY good point NNN0LHI. Stink's selective memory is deplorable.

[Stinky The Clown]

92. I've never hidden the fact that I, too, favored going after bin Laden in Afghanistan

That vote, from my view, was contemporaneously righteous. Not so much in hind sight. But at the time it seemed right.

Iraq . . . . no fucking way.

The scene on the capitol steps shown in the OP . . . . disgusting on so many levels.

[NNN0LHI]

99. Yea, but you didn't favor running ads against Max Cleland featuring bin Laden and Saddam Hussein

Because that is what the Republicans did to him when he wouldn't vote exactly like Bush wanted him to.

And Bush and his minions used the Iraq vote to get other Dems on the record to question their patriotism in the future the same way. For a vote that was meaningless as Bush was going to war no matter what. Isn't that what really happened?

And to leave that historical fact out of your OP for those who are too young to remember what happened back then is disingenuous. Its like telling half the story to someone while acting as though its the entire story.

Agree or disagree?

Don

[Stinky The Clown]

182. Don, I have no argument with you about this.

I'll bet you're aware that I often post about Max. I bet you also know I often rail against that chickehawk turd, Ol' Saxby.

And again, I don't disagree with you.

I just fail to see what bearing this has on the larger issue I'm discussing.

Really. :shrug:

[Sebastian Doyle]

94. Maybe that's because the "pragmatic" DLC New "Democrat" woodchucks

agree with Chimpy about what's extremely right for this country?

It's not the previous 8 years we have to undo, it's the past 30.

All the deregulation. All the tax cuts for the rich. All the corporate prostitution.

Unless we undo every last piece of this shit, this country will continue to go down the sewer.

[newtothegame]

96. We didn't use our votes to get a doer. We used our votes to get a sayer.

And MAN did it sound good when he said it.

But hey, at least we all took pictures of our ballots to show our kids someday.

[NJmaverick]

97. Privatize Social Security? NO! Drill ANWAR? NO!

this OP= FAIL!

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

107. The post pointed out the glaring factual errors in your OP

of that I am quite successful.

[LoZoccolo]

118. Yes, but if they are "talking points" then that automatically cancels them out.

All you have to do on DU is act like your opponent is tiresome, and then they are wrong.

[Stinky The Clown]

162. Hey Mav .... how 'bout my trivia question. Can ya help an old clown out, buddy?

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

151. Why are you crying?

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

164. Mav ..... he's eatin' yer lunch, pal!

Hahahahaha

[NJmaverick]

165. That would be another fact you got wrong

As he is not "eatin" my "lunch", I ate that a long time ago. You should be more careful to fact check your work.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

196. It is good to follow the rules. n/t

[Ignis]

197. Oh, was a rule broken?

[LoZoccolo]

198. Was the post deleted? n/t

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

203. You will have to ask the moderators about that. n/t

[Ignis]

206. Only the mods can tell me to which post you were referring?

Well, that's convenient.

[LoZoccolo]

209. The mods cannot read my mind so long as I keep this spaghetti strainer on my head. n/t

[Ignis]

210. Ahh, there's your problem right there.

It's got HOLES in it! Holes just big enough for the Mind Ray!

[Ignis]

220. To which post are you referring in this call-out?

Hey, I don't mind being the whipping boy du jour, I just want to get the facts straight.

[Ignis]

183. Perhaps because your posts are the epitome of bathos.

But at least you know your role! :hi:

[Ignis]

247. Thanks for asking "Why are you crying?"

It's delightful to learn that this sort of question is completely kosher with the mods. Now that I know, I plan to use it at every opportunity--without fear of reprisal--in every single thread I see complaining about those mean, nasty progressives.

Hmm...unless of course it's only kosher when some posters do it. That would be troubling, no?

[Ignis]

194. What an incredibly insightful refutation of all points made in the OP.

Every single one of your erudite posts raises the level of discourse at DU, and your posts never, ever contain personal attacks against other DUers.

[grahamhgreen]

212. Drill Baby Drill was a YES. And now - there is no pushback on raising the SS age to 70, when all we

have to do is tax the wealthy with SS tax on all their earnings.

Everyone knows we are being railroaded.

Tax the rich, feed the poor - we will get their eventually.

[AngryOldDem]

98. ABSOLUTELY!

Huge K&R!

:kick:

[Warren Stupidity]

100. +++

[LoZoccolo]

119. NO CARRIER

[Blue Owl]

102. K & R

K & R

[county worker]

105. Dems voted with the repubs for war and the patriot act and tax cuts for the wealthy

Who do you think taught the repubs to say no to everything? It was the Dems who said yes to repub bills.

[IOKIYAL]

108. That GREAT PRESIDENT is now listed as the top 5 WORST PRESIDENTS IN HISTORY

And our CURRENT LOUSY PRESIDENT is at 15 out of 39 and HE'S ONLY HAD 2 YEARS!! THAT'S RIGHT out of 39 shrub is in the bottom 5 and Obama - not even halfway done - is almost in the top 10.


This is such a stupid ass meme I don't even know what to say. Say what you want about Shrub, not even he wanted his name attached to this mess we are in. he did not get every thing he wanted. stop repeating stupid memes and think for yourself.

[IOKIYAL]

109. KICKED in the trash

stop ranting like a child.

[inna]

132. Are you talking to yourself? That figures.

[amborin]

230. K&R

[DailyGrind51]

110. "W" had Cheney and Rove pulling his strings!

"W" damn near choked on a pretzel, when he was left alone!

[librechik]

111. Smart people are here only to kick abuse and mock, haven't you heard?

We don't want no smart president. We want one stupider than us so we can be family and have beer!

A smart president makes us ashamed of how stupid we are, and make us think they're stealing our money behind our backs. They have some secret agenda that we don't understand.

We hate smart presidents! Use your second Amendment Rights, if you know what I mean.

Signed, Tea Party Tilly I love you George Bush!

[rainy]

112. It's because the only way to get elected it to cater to the big money donors

thus Dems. are guilty too. And, even if they believe differently and want things to change their hands are tied by the corporate press. Any candidate talking about real progressive ideas would be ripped apart and laughed out of the running. There lies the problem. The whole country is brainwashed and it is a long uphill battle to try to conquer the powerful.

[Catherina]

113. Rec'd. That's some representation we got. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

114. No he didn't. Abortion is still legal and there is still affirmative action.

He didn't get his immigration bill passed, and we did not declare war on two of the three nations in the Axis of Evil (and many neocons wanted us to go directly to Syria right after that; they didn't get that). English is not the official language. The right-wing base actually has a lot to be dissatisfied with.

[Ignis]

126. That's because RW politicians don't really want to ban abortion.

Why would they ever kill their golden goose of fundraising/GOTV?

[Warren Stupidity]

127. The repubs do not actually want either of those things eliminated.

women's reproductive rights and racism are core organizing issues for their base.

[Ignis]

130. Jinx!

But I got there first. ;)

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

177. It's not like anybody could respond to any post with that or anything. n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

115. The answer is painfully simple

I've done my share of hand-wringing and wondering "How could they be so spineless?" or "How can they be so incompetent?"

The answer is painfully simple.

The folks in Washington have long since ceased working for the voters.
With a few notable exceptions, people on both sides of the aisle serve the same constituents.

And that ain't us.

[NuttyFluffers]

117. it's almost like it's some sort of pageant play, isn't it?...

we should really hope that it's not something so nefarious. that would be bad, no?

[BuelahWitch]

120. Not to mention impeachment being "off the table"

And no one in the Bush administration held accountable because our leaders are "looking to the future, not to the past" or whatever the hell Obama said.

[gerry.guimond]

123. Bush got what he wanted...

My friend. The problem isn't party. The problem is that we no longer have majority rule in this country.I know it isn't politically correct here to say this but I will any way. Party makes a difference. When Democrats are in the minority they have enough respect for the country to pass legislation they agree with.They are not the party of "NO".Senator Ed Markey said today that Republicans have a paradox. They have to run for office to make sure government doesn't work. We need to make a very big issue of the 2/3 majority requirement. It's the root of the problem. Voting for a third party may feel good but it won't fix this.

[Stinky The Clown]

125. This is addressed to all of you who see/saw fit to disagree with my premise:

All you did was cite a few things Bush didn't get. What was really important to them, they got.

Anwar was too obvious. It would have been gravy. What they DID get was massive oil drilling deregulation, the kind of deregulation that has given us the BP debacle that, ironically, Obama is getting blamed for. But yeah, they didn't get Anwar. Big fucking deal.

Immigration was not an actual goal for them. Instead, it was a ploy. They pandered on it, they talked about it. But they were trying to court Latinos so they never pushed hard. Plus, Immigration is a really, seriously, tough issue. They wanted to *seem* like they wanted it, but were happy to demagogue it and then kick the can down the road. Now they get that Arizona law and WE get to be painted as weak.

War. They used our national righteous indignation to go to Afghanistan and fuck it up by doing nothing but install an oil buddy as boss. instead of stopping them at round two, we went right along for fear of being called cowards. Our cowardice was NOT voting against them. By the time the worst of them wanted to try to go at it with another country, it was too late. THEIR cooler heads prevailed, not ours.

Social Security - true enough, they didn't privatize it. Instead, they left that to ....... US. Google up what that catfood commission is doing. The battle for the social safety net's two crown jewels - SS and Medicare - is hardly over. And they're hardly safe.

So don't try to spin this that we pushed back. We didn't. They got mostly every damned thing they wanted.

And about those reconciliation passed tax cuts? They got 'em, didn't they? Now we get to repeal them and be called tax-and-spenders.

Nope, they got what they wanted.

[Uncle Joe]

128. Which goes to show you how piss poor the Congress is, when the *fifth worst ranked occupier of the

Oval Office can get all that shit passed, it goes to show you how totally out of touch the legislative branch is from the needs and best interests of the American People.

*I believe they were being generous with this ranking.

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Stinky.

P.S. The bastard should have been impeached twice, the second time just for good measure.

[Ignis]

129. K&R

I think you've laid it out pretty clearly and concisely: Why the fuck don't we have any party discipline? How the fuck do (D) politicians get away with working directly against the official Democratic party platform?

:argh:

The fact that we didn't grow enough of a spine to stop the IWR still makes my head spin.

[Enthusiast]

133. Right you are.

And there is NO fucking excuse.

[MadHound]

134. What's to say that Obama isn't getting everything he wants?

After all, this is the two party/same corporate master system of government that we're dealing with. Don't assume that what you, as a liberal or progressive is what the Democrats or Obama want. Thus, what they want simply doesn't coincide with what we want.

But they're getting a lot of what they want. They've doubled down on a one war while continuing to drag out another. They're getting to play with, and expand upon all the repressive, anti-civil liberties powers that Bush enacted. They gave a mandated monopoly to the insurance industry. They are dismantling public education. Seems to me that they're pretty successful at getting done what they want to do. Trouble is, it's not what we want or expect them to do.

[grantcart]

135. Really what big legislation did he pass after 2003?

His big issues from immigration reform to privatizing social security went no where.


The fact is after 2003 Bush was not very successful in getting things passed especially big items


But if you repeat your myth frequent enough some will believe it.

[Stinky The Clown]

142. Shame on you. EVERYONE knows that any president's big legislative years are his early ones.

Usually in the first year.

And that's when George got what he wanted.

And why are you defending Bush? That seems sort of odd, coming as it is, from you.

"But if you try to deflect from truth with obfuscatory bullshit some will believe it."





Nice try, Grant. Thanks for playing the game. The home version is one its way to you and should arrive within 14 business days.

[sufrommich]

143. You sound like the one defending Bush. Giving him way

more credit than he's due.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sufrommich]

163. "And why are you defending Bush? That seems sort of odd, coming as it is, from you."

Your words to another poster.

Who's doing the implying?

[grantcart]

167. Your OP's main theme was "he got every damn thing he wanted"

Its not true as your reply indicates.

So why are you trying to make the ex President appear to have been a more successful chief executive than he was.


Basically Bush got tax cuts pssed, which frankly is a gimme in politics, and got an education bill passed, and then deceived the people about Iraq.

History will not mark him as a very effective initiator of legislation but you are welcome to use what ever you want to try and diminish the already impressive record of President Obama's first 18 months in passing landmark legislation. Of course you do realize that "Bush was great with Congress and Obama can't pass shit" is Republican/Limbaugh propoganda.

[Hawkowl]

136. This President doesn't play hardball

That is the bottom line. There is no repercussions to obstructing this president IF you do it from the right! If you try it from the left, you are a "fucking retard".

[Redstone]

137. Indeed. Well-said.

Redstone

[truedelphi]

138. Fart in a windstorm. That phrase says it all. n/t

[crazyjoe]

139. My question is why don't we put up a unemployment package that isn't

amended with every pet project our Senators can think of? That's why the fuckin thing won't pass!!
If they really cared about the unemployed, they could fix this easily. But they won't.

[WonderGrunion]

140. Bullshit!!!! If bush got everything he wanted....

We'd have a fully privatized Social Security system and millions of seniors in poverty from the financial collapse.

We'd have constitutional amendments against Gay Rights, Flag Burning and Abortion.

We'd have permanent tax cuts for the insanely wealthy.

Terri Schiavo would still be hooked up to A FUCKING MACHINE!!!!!

Even in the worst days after 9/11, our Democratic minority had enough power to stop action on dozens of insanely apocalyptic ideas that dimson and crew wanted passed.

Until you recognize that, you have no serious position from which to criticize President Obama.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jwirr]

141. He had a yes congress the whole time. Now when we have a good

president we have a no bunch (mostly repugs) that can stop almost anything even when it is clear that the country needs it.

[KonaKane]

166. and plenty of saboteurs from our own side, sad to say.

It's one thing to engage in self criticism while facing off an ideological enemy. It's another thing to aid them.

[Bob Loblaw]

148. Just to set the record straight

according to another post, he is ranked as the second most dimwitted national leader in history.

[Stinky The Clown]

154. Actually, it was fifth lowest

But he's on the way down.

Further, there's no evidence the others were more dimwitted. They may have been crooks or lazy. But not dimwitted. George is the dimwit among dimwits.

[Cronus Protagonist]

155. I'm happy to recommend this OP, Stinky

I wish someone would say just that to Obama and the entire Democratic caucus on national TV and have them wake the fuck up.

[SemperEadem]

158. he got away with it because he had a bigger goon squad

where is ours? why isn't it organized?

Dems worried more about what was going to be said about them on fux noose if they didn't go along or if they complained than they were in finding their goddamn spines and standing up for what was right and not giving a rip about what anything on the right had to say about it.

[Stinky The Clown]

159. All true

[stevenleser]

229. Good, you admit that much at least. Now go the rest of the way.

Take another look at your OP and how a large portion of the people here treat Obama and then answer the question about why Obama doesnt have a bigger goon squad.

The Repukes are behind a Repuke President all the way until he is gone, then you hear any issues they had with him. In the meantime, they all have his back. So, yeah, he seems much stronger.

And I am not just blaming those of you to his left. I'm blaming those on the right of the party as well. I happened to hear all of the bullshit that the centrist Dems were spouting when Obama started suggestions about investigations re: the CIA and other stuff like that. Most of you probably didnt get to hear that stuff. I did.

A Democratic President has no way of keeping his entire base behind him. Until we figure out a way to do that, we're screwed.

[OwnedByFerrets]

169. Haven't you figured it out by now?? They ALL, and I mean ALL

serve their corporate masters AND take care of themselves. NOTHING else matters to them.
The ONLY one who remotely seems to care is Bernie Sanders. And if he lived in a different district, he might not give a fuck about us either.

[humbled_opinion]

171. Authoritarians usually do...

The problem with the left is that we are too nice, we try and gain concession and talk about consensus. They talk about dedication to a set of unbendable core Principles (right or wrong) it shows a strength that we just don't possess. We just want everyone to get along. Well that doesn't work as Obama has painfully found out. I agree if Obama had actually stood up for what he believed in and not caved in he would be in much better shape politcally. It trully is a shame he caved on core principles, granted his heart and mind are in the right place but his action and leadership getting us there is sorely lacking.

If things do not drastically improve, and based on the current climate it doesn't look like they will, Obama will be a lame duck in JAN11, with a House and Senate full of Coporate, capitalists that want to cut every single social program that America offers, and hanging a multi trillion dollar defecit around Obama's neck. Not to mention the senseless and costly investigations they will call for everying from Blago and Rezko to his birth documents and college essays.

This will inevitably lead to Hillary challenging Obama in the 2012 Primary and winning and going on to win the Presiency and fix all the things that all her predecessors screwed up.

I never really understood how she lost the primary but if I put my tinfoil hat on and see where we are today I think she is probably pretty glad that things are turning out exactly like they are.

[jobycom]

172. Bush knew how to bully and sell Congress to get his way.

Clinton knew that. LBJ knew that. It's a leadership skill that takes experience and a knack. Leaders without it just sit back and hope everyone else works out something they can sign.

[OwnedByFerrets]

174. I disagree...Monkeyboy is too much of a coward to bully anything....

they did what they did because they WANTED to do so. Any symbolic posturing as dissention was purely that, posturing. They serve their own interests, not ours.
Btw, if there is/was a bully, it was cheney.

[jobycom]

175. Cheney, Bush... same package.

All bullies are cowards unless they have their gang around them. Bush bullied people as governor and as president when he wanted something, and he did it well. The Republicans in Congress went along with him because he controlled the purse strings of the party and thus controlled their futures--that's why McCain flip-flopped on the Iraq invasion--and the Democrats went along with him for a variety of reasons. Some, like Edwards, just agreed with him, or at least thought their best interests lay with him. Some, like Clinton and Kerry, went along with him on some issues to try to influence him on other issues. Some beautiful people opposed him, but Bush didn't need everyone--just enough.

Bush wasn't very bright, and he had no understanding of the consequences of his actions, but like most bullies he had a shrewd survival instinct. He was Draco Malfoy, to a tee, except in the last couple of books when Draco developed a moral conflict. Bush drank his moral conflicts to death.

[HughMoran]

173. Ridiculous revisionist history designed to bash Democrats

Horsepucky.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

180. I said that you could respond to any post that way.

I didn't think I'd give you the idea to actually start doing it.

[Warren Stupidity]

179. is your response within the boundaries of civil discourse?

[HughMoran]

192. It sure is

...and it is aligned with the spirit of this post as well.

[Ignis]

213. Which one of the first four points in the OP was revisionist history?

You want War? Yes Sir. Here's your war. You want a second one? NOOOOOO problemo.

Tax Cuts? Here ya go, Cowboy.

Corporate welfare? Notta problem.

Looser oil drilling regs? Happy ta he'p ya!

:shrug:

[HughMoran]

222. It's not in the details

It's the 'looking backward' revisionism that's disingenuous. Obama will be lauded a lot more than he is now when he's out of office, we all know this.

Why is Bush rated 5th worst President and Obama 15th best in less than 2 years as President??

:think:

[Sparkly]

231. This isn't about a contest of Bush vs Obama and who's "better"

It's about how Congress does or doesn't DO what the president says he wants.

The Chimperor practically turned this country upside down, to the point the freakin' Bill of Rights was in jeopardy, even when they didn't have both houses of Congress.

Why isn't that happening now? Why compromise until bills are lukewarm dishwater, and still not get them through (and still get called "Socialists" etc.)?

Democrats do need to stand up to the GOP the way they did to us. Does that mean they're "better?" I don't care if it means they're cabbages and kings -- there's no reason for Democrats to be any less effective in the circumstances we have now.

[Ignis]

285. Well, I think it's big of you to admit that the facts aren't in dispute...

But rather the OP's framing and/or analysis of those facts.

I mean that seriously. :hi:

[WileEcoyote]

178. Bush was the unabashed sales rep for the Illuminati

So of course he got a free pass at screwing over the people. He was able to make this his agenda without fear from the bankers, arms dealers or Big Oil. These groups have no qualms about killing people.

The Democrats can't sell peace or true sustainable prosperity without incurring the wrath of the same assholes who took down the real leaders. It has to be sold much more subtly.

Just ask Senator Paul Wellstone.

[Historic NY]

242. ROLFLMMFAO Repuke Illuminati.

[abq e streeter]

181. Yes but the repubs have a 41 to 59 majority in the Senate

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ima_sinnic]

201. +1 million

Obama never wanted a public option, let alone single payer--and he made sure none of us would get it either.

[Turbineguy]

186. I think it was the other way around.

Those who wanted power got the most easily manipulated fool.

[Stinky The Clown]

189. * * * * * PLEASE READ THIS * * * * *

I am disengaging from this thread. I've made my case numerous times to numerous posters. There's little more to be said. Snark is replacing discourse. There are winners and losers and enough evidence for anyone to decide who is who.

Please continue to discuss the topic and PLEASE .... don't let them get the thread locked. Let it run its course for all to see.

[LoZoccolo]

193. "Snark is replacing discourse."

"Talking points"..."phone it in"..."same cake as last year"...

[bvar22]

207. Well Done, Stinky.

The only way to win that game, is choosing NOT to play.
:patriot:

[LoZoccolo]

211. The only way?

That would mean that if you did choose to play, and then ran away, you would lose.

[Major Hogwash]

195. Bush was tearing things down, Obama is trying to rebuild and restore

Big difference there.

And if you think giving the shaft to the unemployed is a swift political move, those people get to vote and let their representatives know how they feel about it in just 4 months.

Do you think they're going to forget who shafted them in just 4 months?

[RagAss]

199. We're a fucking shame !

[ProSense]

202. Revisionist history

facts

[LoZoccolo]

204. !

:thumbsup:

[donco6]

215. I suppose when you compromise away anything objectionable to Republicans -

You can get a lot more votes.

[ProSense]

224. Well, that still dashes the theory, doesn't it? n/t

[donco6]

228. Not when it only works one way.

The Republicans got whatever they wanted without compromising anything. We won't even propose a bill without pulling out anything they might not like beforehand.

[ProSense]

248. Reality is not a talking point

Republicans compromise on federal budget
By Peronet Despeignes, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Republicans who have struggled for two months to reconcile House and Senate versions of the 2005 federal budget announced an agreement Wednesday.
But the compromise includes much weaker rules against red ink than the Senate approved, making it unclear whether the deal will get the support needed for passage when both chambers vote this week.

<...>

Republican Sen. Susan Collins, also from Maine, said, "I have consistently said that I cannot support a budget without strong budget enforcement."

Two other Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, strongly suggested they would oppose the measure.

Without their votes, GOP leaders would have to seek the support of conservative Democrats, including John Breaux of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.

link

[donco6]

250. It wasn't strong Democratic opposition that caused the compromise.

But rather, rebellion from their own more conservative ranks who wanted a 5 year pay-go, instead of a one year.

This isn't an example of how Democrats have prevented the Republicans from passing whatever they want.

[MissDeeds]

205. Your post is spot on, Stinky

K&R

:kick:

[grahamhgreen]

208. Obama NEEDS TO PROSECUTE THIS MAN! Yet, he let him off the hook for torture and FISA

[treestar]

217. Republicans stick to the party line

We are above that, remember?

And 911 gave Bush almost carte blanche. No one opposed him. Yourself, you have pointed out it was 9/12/01. At that time, any POTUS would have everyone behind him.

Comparisons are unfair on that ground.

When a few years had gone by, Bush no longer got anything he wanted, and the support for the Iraq War was disappearing.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

223. Bush adm didn't care about the constitution or protocol...

...and they had 5 of 9 votes in the SCOTUS to get their back. I'm sure they are well aware of the fact that a lot of their policies will be deemed unconstitutional, but a decision 20 years on doesn't affect what I want to get done today.

aside: one thing that I'm having trouble squaring is that, when it comes down to it, Dems are trying to change Repubs and vice versa. This reminds me of every toxic relationship I've ever been in. In the end, we both decided we were better off separate, and no one died.

[stevenleser]

225. LOL. You don't even realize how you outed yourself as part of the problem do you?

Amazing

[donco6]

234. No. Enlighten us.

[Individualist]

226. K&R

[rhett o rick]

233. So isnt Pres Obama getting every thing he wants? nm

[BrklynLiberal]

235. Every word...the truth.

[begin_within]

239. Was he really getting what HE wanted, or what his corporate masters wanted?

[Bryn]

240. Amen, Bro!

You're so right! How sad! x(

[Sherman A1]

241. Rec 200!

Hit the nail on the head...

[benld74]

244. And all the GOP and talking effin heads were FOR EVERYTHING HE did

these are the same ones WHO are now doing the HIT JOB on OBAMA,,,

[ooglymoogly]

245. A third world war could not have done 1/10th the damage that

this fool and his handlers did to this country and I will never forgive this admin for not prosecuting him and all complicit for war crimes; For it is now complicit in those war crimes; War crimes that have destroyed this country and all the greatness it once stood for and what we citizens could stand tall for; All....All, up in smoke and mirrors in the man made fog of war. We are not a war machine; We are a fog machine covering the theft of our nation and heritage and the carnage that, that requires.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

246. They are effective - in serving the corporations

thats why W could get things done, it benefited the corporations, not the people.

[bertman]

251. Yoooo, Stinky!!!! OUT OF THE FUCKING PARK!! Just absolutely brilliant!!

Thank you.

Rec.

[varelse]

252. I have nothing to add but my support

You've said it all.

[xynthee]

254. He got everything he wanted and then some! nt

[faceit]

255. Psssssssssssssst....

It's all the same party.

Corporations own it all. The democrats are EXTREMELY effective at doing the bidding of those they truly serve.

Blatantly obvious and pathetic game of good cop versus bad cop.

Until we stop playing their game...nothing is going to change. We have to change the rules. It is up to us. Washington can't and won't save us.

Time to save ourselves.

[myrna minx]

256. K&R

sigh. :-(

[Spider Jerusalem]

258. You've never heard of Carlos II of Spain, apparently.

Bush the Lesser is an intellectual titan, comparatively.

[leveymg]

259. The wars still get funded. But, nada mas for the "little people."

That was always the point, and still is. Different face in the White House, essentially the same policy.

[avaistheone1]

261. Stinky you are on one hell of a roll.

Keep it coming. I am right with you.

You cut through 98% of the crap. Most refreshing!!

:thumbsup:

:kick:

[Greyhound]

262. It seems everyone trying to discount your opinion has only nit-picking

to argue that Idiot Frat Boy didn't get absolutely everything. They even have the same examples.

Funny that.

Chuckles?
:kick: & R

[Cary]

263. Republicans have more discipline

Did 15% of their base bolt because their feelings got hurt somehow? Nope. Never happened. They stuck together and passed their idiotic agenda.

[whathappened]

265. yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

thats just how i feel about all these matters , good post

[groovedaddy]

266. Our corporate overlords don't like your tone of voice Stinky! The truth hurts some times! n.t

[The Wizard]

267. The Military Industrial Media Complex

runs the country, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Our political leaders are either bought and paid for or under constant threat. It happened because too many people were hypnotized by the TV and let it happen. Orwell was right.
When the Supreme Court appointed Bush and usurped all other authority and circumvented the the Florida recount millions of people should have been in the streets.
That an angry mob of paid goons from Washington went to Florida and caused the recount to be suspended while Scalia had time to issue a stay, speaks volumes as to which side is more determined to win.
In essence, we're lazy. The evidence is that we watched passively while the candidate who really won got shafted.

[penndragon69]

268. That's what happens.

Whenever you elect a a DLC moderate,
you get a spineless sock puppet for
the NAZI Reich wingers.

Vote Al Franken or Alan Grayson !

[laughingliberal]

269. K & R nt

[lonestarnot]

270. No fucking shit! Now whatcha gona do about it?

Vote pug? NOT!

[SlingBlade]

271. Nice Rant Stinky. 100 % K & R

[disndat]

273. What if we lose the slim margin

that the Democrats have in the Fall mid-terms elections? Do the people who grumble about Obama are thinking about the consequences. According to some polls, that nightmare possibility is closer than we think.

[Romulox]

274. I think we are witnessing collusion, rather than incompetence.

It is much simpler to assert that the Democrats and Republicans largely share the same goals (with differences largely confined to rhetoric) than to believe that the Democrats are simply incompetent at politics.

[Paladin]

275. Well Said. My Sentiments Exactly (n/t)

[jgraz]

276. Oh, come on, Stinky. We're about to pass HISTORIC FINANCIAL REFORM.

So, to be fair, that's at least *two* farts in the windstorm. :eyes:

[eowyn_of_rohan]

277. He was the stupid puppet for the shadow government - THEY got everything they wanted

[AllyCat]

278. The last line says it all. Over 24 hours so I can't add my rec

Thanks for this!