Paul Krugman: Obama Has 'Largely Accepted Conservative View Of The World'

[democracy1st]

FDR, Reagan, and Obama

Some readers may recall that back during the Democratic primary Barack Obama shocked many progressives by praising Ronald Reagan as someone who brought America a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.” I was among those who found this deeply troubling — because the idea that Reagan brought a transfomation in American dynamism is a right-wing myth, not borne out by the facts. (There was a surge in productivity and innovation — but it happened in the 90s, under Clinton, not under Reagan).

All the usual suspects pooh-poohed these concerns; it was ridiculous, they said, to think of Obama as a captive of right-wing mythology.

But are you so sure about that now?

And here’s this, from Thomas Ferguson: Obama saying

We didn’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.

As Ferguson explains, this is a right-wing smear. What actually happened was that during the interregnum between the 1932 election and the1933 inauguration — which was much longer then, because the inauguration didn’t take place until March — Herbert Hoover tried to rope FDR into maintaining his policies, including rigid adherence to the gold standard and fiscal austerity. FDR declined to be part of this.

But Obama buys the right-wing smear.

More and more, it’s becoming clear that progressives who had their hearts set on Obama were engaged in a huge act of self-delusion. Once you got past the soaring rhetoric you noticed, if you actually paid attention to what he said, that he largely accepted the conservative storyline, a view of the world, including a mythological history, that bears little resemblance to the facts.

And confronted with a situation utterly at odds with that storyline … he stayed with the myth.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/fdr-reagan-and-obama/

via
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[ProSense]

1. Krugman is

wrong

[de novo]

2. Nevermind, it's fixed.

[ClarkUSA]

Worked fine for me.

[de novo]

5. They fixed it.

[OlympicBrian]

56. Well, isn't Obama kissing the butts of the US Chamber of Commerce? nt

[Greyhound]

49. Says you,

again.
:eyes:

[ProudDad]

59. You are ENTIRELY correct...

Obama has been a corporate tool since his college days...

For Krugman to act as if this were a recent development is hyperbole...

[chimpymustgo]

158. Sad, but true.

[texshelters]

88. I love the facts you use

to show how Krugman is wrong. Great going, and very convincing.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[JDPriestly]

90. ProSense, I absolutely agree with Krugman.

I remember raising this issue during the primaries. I supported John Edwards because I believed at that time and still believe that he was the only candidate who really understood what was going on in the economy.

In spite of John Edwards' personal mistakes and faults, I was right about the fact that he alone among all the candidates knew what was wrong with the economy. He was the only one to my knowledge who had majored in a business-related subject in college, the only one who had sued big corporations and knew what negotiating and dealing with them was about, the only one from a mill town in which the factory had been closed, the only one who had worked for a hedge fund and seen from the inside what they were up to.

Obama is great on foreign policy. That is his area of expertise. But he has no understanding of economics, and that fact is hurting our country. Of course, even his good comprehension of foreign policy is less complete because he has no grasp of economics. He does not even seem to have much of an innate ability to understand relationships or facts in terms of their likely economic repercussions.

Sad. Very sad.

As for the Clintons, their understanding of economics mostly concerns how to attract money to their own pockets. I can't judge Kucinich in this area because I don't know what his ideas about economics are. The other Democratic candidates were as limited with regard to economics as Obama with the exception of Dodd -- who understands all too well how to channel money to his friends in the banking industry and on Wall Street.

[Milo_Bloom]

94. 123 to 0 says he is right.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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

[pauldg0]

119. He......

...is somewhat of a whiney crybaby!!! I have never trusted him. He is an attention seeker....kind of like Palin but not that dumb.

[saracat]

124. Krugman is NOT wrong, and linking to yourself is bizarre to say the least and does little to

establish the credibility of any argument against him. Krugman is a Nobel winning economist and as such, his opinions are worth more than those of anonymous internet posters or pseudo partisan political analysts!

[_ed_]

155. Very compelling argument

Thanks for educating us with so many facts.

[mzmolly]

167. It seems he's been trying to suggest that Hillary was the more liberal

candidate, since Obama won? I wonder if he'd offer up the same critique for Clinton, if she'd enacted the same policies?

[sabrina 1]

3. Wow, so according to Obama, FDR was irresponsible and

Reagan was a great president? Unbelievable, I had not seen that remark about FDR. No wonder then that he is willing to go along with the destruction of the New Deal.

K&R the more I learn, the more depressing it gets, but the more clear also as to why he doesn't appear to be listening to the people.

[laughingliberal]

6. Yep. nt

[democracy1st]

8. here's the video sabrina

Obama: Reagan Changed Direction; Bill Clinton Didn't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFLuOBsNMZA

[sabrina 1]

15. Thank you, I do remember that and it nearly lost my support,

but I did not know about the statement he made about FDR. That really is disturbing combined with the Reagan remark.

[ProSense]

17. Delete n/t

[txlibdem]

144. During the debate, Hillary called him out on it as well

It's at 1:15 or so and again at 6:35 in the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9F1t9GQzA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

[whistler162]

157. People keep bringing this up as if it wasn't true....

ie... Reagan did change the course of America, politics. It is a very sad fact.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

159. Yep.

[ProSense]

10. No, he didn't

but that doesn't matter.

[sabrina 1]

21. Are you saying those are not his words regarding FDR? Not to

mention that whosever words they are they got it wrong, but those words are definite statement that FDR was irresponsible. I overlooked his Reagan remarks in the campaign, because Hillary was not an option for me, being that she voted for the war, but I was disturbed that he had not said FDR or Kennedy etc. And the convoluted explanation when he realised the damage he had done, never made sense either, 'transformative', more playing with words. Reagan was one of the worst presidents this country has had the results of his terrible policies are still with us.

But if I did not read that right, then please explain.

[Greyhound]

52. Yes,

he did.

There's video and the internet.

Both you and President Obama apparently missed http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/new-rule-everything-you-say-can-and-will-b">Maher's new rules; "You just can't lie anymore -- facts are too easy to check, everything is on video..."

[BrklynLiberal]

70. Yes he did.

Obama: Reagan Changed Direction; Bill Clinton Didn't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFLuOBsNMZA

[Jackpine Radical]

12. But he IS listening to the people.

People like Rahm, Sommers, Bernanke & the DLC.

[Bluebear]

29. Exactly

[emilyg]

114. Right.

[txlibdem]

146. Right wing people

That is the only "people" that Pres. Obama is listening to, that much is clear.

[WillyT]

33. I Tried To Point It Out A While Back...

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9408817

:shrug:

:hi:

[democracy1st]

41. you sure did and thats not the only time you've made that case.

[INdemo]

54. Why would the Repukes go the the trouble of challenging Obama

when they already have a candidate..Obama just needs to use the proper politcal label..Republican

[BrklynLiberal]

69. and sadly, he could not be more wrong about both of them...

Google "FDR's First 100 Days"

[sabrina 1]

74. I just saw a post in this thread outlining FDR's first 100 days.

I have to say, I gave this president more credit than to get something that is a historical fact so wrong.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[bjobotts]

109. Wish Obama would consult Krugman on a weekly basis or have his staff do it for direction.

[roguevalley]

111. slagging FDR is fighting words in my house

I am not impressed with Obama. FDR changed the world and saved the country. Obama is considering deal making with criminals to make rich people richer. Oh wait. he's in that tax bracket too. Nevermind.

[ctwayne]

164. Liberals Need to Live in a Reality Based World

Obama praises Ronnie Raygun because he likes his policies. He criticizes FDR because he dislikes his policies. Obama appointed the Simpson-Bowles Catfood Commission because he wants to dismantle the last vestiges of the New Deal.

[sabrina 1]

176. Yes, sadly the pieces are beginning to fit perfectly.

So now, what do we do? We expended so much energy to win in 2008 and it may be that we wasted a historical opportunity that won't come around again, possibly in our lifetimes. I wish I had known all of this before the election. It is clear, although I resisted believing it, that Obama shares the disdain of the Reagan Repubs/Dems for liberals and for the Civil Rights Era. Either that, or he is just going along for his own personal benefit.

[KittyWampus]

4. Oh for fucks sake. Obama rightly pointed to what made Reagan popular.

He did not, in any way, say he agreed with Reagan.

[ProSense]

11. Some people

are still trying to win the primary.

[BzaDem]

16. +1

[sabrina 1]

65. Who would those people be? I was an Obama supporter

from the beginning. Hillary is a war supporter, I don't support war supporters. Sorry that your attempts to explain people's disappointment in this president are not working. I admit I did have reservations after his Reagan comment, his FISA vote and his catering to anti-gay pastors. But the choice was a candidate who voted for Bush illegal war, and one who didn't. He also opposed mandated insurance, off shore drilling and Commissions to attack SS and try to tie it to the deficit. So, on several issues, he was a better candidate. However, he has changed his mind on the critical issues that got my support and THAT is why I, someone who supported him, is probably even more disappointed than someone who did not.

[defendandprotect]

80. That would be childish and certainly neither Krugman nor those criticizing Obama are that --

If you want to attack the message, go to it --

What you're doing is trying to attack the messengers --

[quakerboy]

87. And others are stuck in the december 2008 Glow

a few of us would really really like to move on to 2012.

[pecwae]

147. Ah, the old

fall back - shift to primary. Yeah, that works.

[Demoiselle]

13. "Dynamism and entrepreneurship" are words of praise, in my dictionary.

Reagan and his pals started this country's steep decline. They and those who followed them pushed a right wing ideology so "dynamically" that we're still sinking.
I am mystified by Obama's comment, and it makes me profoundly uncomfortable.

[Enthusiast]

135. I'm also profoundly uncomfortable.

And I was crazy mad with my elderly mother because she wanted Hillary instead of Obama. I'll exercise greater caution next time around.

It isn't just President Obama's words. It is his actions-like the makeup of deficit commission among other things. This sort of action is undeniable.

[Poboy]

36. "Tax cuts and small government are as American as apple pie"

-Barack Obama


Unfuckingreal.

[kenny blankenship]

121. It is unfuckingreal. Imagine the furor if any other prominent Dem said that

Imagine Reid saying that. He'd be vaporized. Imagine Ted Kennedy saying that. He'd rattle the ice cubes in his Jameson's to let you know he just was yankin' ya. Actually he wouldn't even have to; the room would erupt in laughter. But for the rest of us, there would have to be some kind of follow-on remark, full of hyperbole, exaggerated to let you know that the speaker didn't really mean what he apparently just said, eg: "Tax cuts and small government are as American as apple pie - and also monthly rations of Stolichnaya vodka!"

...or else it would require a follow-on remark that shows the speaker despairs of what is quintessentially American, eg: "Tax cuts and small government are as American as apple pie - just like 'colored only' water fountains and internment camps for Japanese-American citizens."

"Tax cuts and small government are as American as apple pie", as a statement delivered without some indication of irony, is unacceptable from a Democrat. Unfuckingreal and unacceptable.

[Poboy]

154. I enjoyed your expansion. Very amusing visuals.

But yes, this man has no concept of what it means to be a democrat. Its astonishing how out of touch he is. How willing he is to sell us all out to big business.

[_ed_]

156. He's a conservative

I hate to break it to everyone, but we elected a very conservative Democrat. He fooled us. He's the logical conclusion of Bill Clinton and the DLC.

[Poboy]

166. He did indeed make fools of us. I specifically voted for him and NOT the

Clinton/DLC agenda.It was a conscious, deliberate decision. I, like many others I think, supported HIM over them, because he claimed to NOT be them....HE IS THEM!!!

[sabrina 1]

64. And was he correct in his assessment of FDR? Do you

agree that FDR was 'irresponsible'? Never mind that he got the history wrong.

[Poboy]

168. Oh yes, and the insult to FDR as well. This guy is a piece of work. -nt

[sabrina 1]

175. Thank you for your response, the commenter to whom I posed the

question, has chosen not to respond ~

[liberation]

132. You know, when your argument devolves to telling people to stop believing their lying eyes...

... you need to start taking stock of where you're standing.

Cheers.

[Fumesucker]

7. K&R, thanks for posting..

[democracy1st]

14. Cornell West on Obama's first 2 years

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVG0sC6Kf-s

[ProSense]

18. Cornel West on the last Democratic President

We know during the Clinton administration we got the tightening of the mandatory sentences that’s had devastating effects on poor communities, especially disproportionately black and brown poor communities...there’s a sense that we kind of whitewash the Clinton administration—welfare bill, crime, deregulation and so forth...They were very much responsible for stripping the powers of the Glass-Steagall Act that made that crucial separation between investment and commercial banks.

His criticisms are not unusual. He expects more from Obama.

More here

[jonnyblitz]

22. yeah Clinton SUCKED too , thanks for reminding me. nt

[ProSense]

26. Try telling that to Krugman. n/t

[sabrina 1]

67. In retrospect, he was right about Clinton also. I feel foolish for my

time spent defending Clinton against the right. Their reaction to his affair, nasty as it was, got him support from people who would otherwise have been looking at his policies. His economic team were also from Wall St. and his signing of the bill that ended Glass Steagal set us on the course, as Sen. Dorgan said at the time, that resulted in the current disastrous crash of our economy. I wish I had known more then and paid more attention to what he was doing. Whether they intended to or not, the rabid rightwing saved Clinton's presidency, ironically.

[BrklynLiberal]

78. Excellent analysis....and a painful truth.

[Enthusiast]

136. I have come to the inescapable

conclusion that the entire "get Clinton" thing was part of a massive ruse, a smokescreen. This is a ruse we are still operating under.

If Senator Dorgan knew this then why didn't everyone else? "Remember that term, 'too big to fail'. That is no-fault capitalism." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veAOoQEy0PI

[Hell Hath No Fury]

173. I was a Clinton enabler.

I defended him tooth and nail against the impeachment attempt, in fact I was one of the first signatories to MoveOn's original petition telling Congress to "move on" from impeachment.

That partisanship stopped me from seeing just how disasterous many of his policties were for our country, and from demanding his shift away from them.

I vowed to never make that mistake again, which is why I make no bones about calling O out on his bullshit.

[defendandprotect]

82. Many of us criticize Clinton -- and it still doesn't make Obama a better president .....

Mainly the gist of the criticism is that the Democratic Party has been co-opted by corporatists --

began many decades ago --

that's where we were in the end with Clinton -- and that's where we are now with Obama

with even more water over the dam.

[JDPriestly]

93. It all started with LBJ who was a protege of Brown & Root

which merged eventually with Halliburton.

[Mimosa]

96. J.D., most people here (who are smart) don't even know that.

Nobody in his or her right mind can claim anybody who makes it to Congress, the Senate (especially) or the Presidency hasn't beem imprimatured by the big corporations. :( These days the business of America is WAR. Our industrialists moved jobs for the working class to countries with cheaper labour. What's left here are service sector, heavy arms manufacturing and financial sector jobs.

We were not allowed to have civilised universal health care because the powers in charge probably told Obama that a million health insurance related jobs would be lost if there were a public option. That scared him since he'd look bad in the short term. So we got stuck with the same old system many of us can no longer afford. I can't even sleep because I worry about no *affordable* health care for my partner and I. There's a place between poverty (Medicaid) and middle class security where many millions are stuck.

[JDPriestly]

113. Mimosa, you are so right.

Maybe a more accurate way of saying "imprimatured" would be corralled and branded.

"Free trade" is a way of having an invisible coup. The international treaties supersede local and even federal laws. Thus, "free trade" means that our votes don't count for much.

We don't feel the full impact of the coup yet. But we will.

Once our labor costs and standard of living sinks to that of third world countries (and that could happen sooner than you think), then the "free trade" crowd will attack our environmental and safety laws.

[Enthusiast]

137. Not for long.

"There's a place between poverty (Medicaid) and middle class security where many millions are stuck."

Before too long those millions are going to find themselves in eligible for Medicaid. Of course as we speak efforts are under way to dismantle Medicaid.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

172. Cornell was right about Clinton --

and right about O. And your point is? :shrug:

[laughingliberal]

9. K & R nt

[jonnyblitz]

19. K & R!!nt

[mzmolly]

20. I generally agree with Krugman, but he's gone off the rails with this

nonsense assertion.

Off topic - I hope Paul will send Obama his book, regardless. ;)

[liberation]

133. LOL... I don't think "generally" or "agree" mean what you think they do...

... seriously, who do you exactly think that you guys are fooling?

It is comical at this point.

[mzmolly]

165. Excuse me?

What specifically are you suggesting?

[w4rma]

23. Wall Street bailed out. Main Street given a tiny little stimulus. Busting teachers' unions.

Privatizing public education. A "deficit commission" composed of Wall Street fraud artists who want to dismantle the New Deal. He is even supporting the damn invasive searches at airports. :wtf:

[Hawkowl]

32. +1000

There is a reason Obama is talking about not settling for two mediocre terms. He will continue to do unpopular policies because he believes in trickle down economics, free trade, the war economy and the overriding security needs of the state over the people.

I don't believe he is running for a second term. Of course he may delay his announcement and completely hamstring any Democratic nominee by severely shortening the fund raising season. But that would go along with his record of devastating the Democratic party officeholders a la the midterms.

[inna]

71. I agree. Also, I don't think we've seen everything he has in store for us yet, and

that is frightening.

[defendandprotect]

92. +1000% .... in fact, big business got billions from stimulus ....

[kenny blankenship]

24. This is the horrible truth.

and that election was really our last chance.

[soryang]

27. There are no do overs in history

He has blown a historic opportunity for democracy to please his wall street and defense contractor cronies.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[zalinda]

31. It has been proven, it was the young people who didn't show up to vote. n/t

[walldude]

38. No shit. The opportunity handed to him

was amazing. Judging from the racism we see it was a miracle we got him in office at all. And he took this historic moment, this chance to be remembered in history as not only the first Black President but also the man who took America away from the corporations and gave it back to the people, leaving a legacy of a flourishing country and a prosperous middle class, and he'll go down in history as the first black president who is just like all the other politicians.

[somone]

40. There might not be another black president for a long time

Obama really screwed a lot of people who trusted and voted for him. He could have been a contender to greatness.

[Mimosa]

46. Maybe that was the point

And Obama became the fall guy. Who knows?

[inna]

51. not only that, but the fucking Repugs were effectively DEAD as a party;

it took an absolute Miracle to bring them back to life.

:banghead:

[howmad1]

112. The miracle was:

....Obama being the best thing to happen to the repiglican party.

[Ramulux]

76. Its really sad when you think about it

Opportunities like this come once a lifetime and he blew it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

160. +1

[whatchamacallit]

25. DUH. n/t

[inna]

28. My very first red flag was typical rw smears about "the excesses of the 60s" etc

- later traced word in word to the certain think tank foundations.

As cynical/dismissive/pessimistic/(realistic?) as I was about the both Democratic candidates in 2008, I still CRIED TEARS OF JOY (and I mean, wept like a baby! total emotional release, and more hopeful about the future of this country than EVER before) 2 years ago.
(Edit to add: on the night of the election.)

I guess the lesson even for the cynics like moi is that... one cannot be cynical enough. :shrug:

[Hydra]

34. It was a powerful moment

Even I got caught up in it...even as I wondered why Bush and Cheney were guests of honor at the Inauguration.

That was surreal.

[EFerrari]

37. That was my experience, too.

Unfortunately.

[Enthusiast]

138. Plus one!

Same here.

[immoderate]

35. Obama has never done anything except service the plutocracy.

Everything that passes contributes to the inequitable distribution of wealth. (Look up Gini Index.) The sops to corporations, the union busting, privatization of schools, bailouts that favor wealthy stockholders over workers. There is a trend here. Democrats have tanked on every progressive move. Obama's "accomplishments" are all at the expense of the middle class and the working class.

--imm

[somone]

42. There is very little courage or leadership

He seems to prefer the path of least resistance every time. Very nice speeches, though.

[inna]

43. What absolutely killed me was the news that the plutocratats Quintupled (!!) - Yes, Increased 5-fold

- their income in 2009. *As If* Income/Wealth Inequality wasn't atrocious enough already.

(I know, it's hard to believe. ***Fucking Quintupled*** in 2009. See this, for example: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/taxes/top-us-incomes-grew-five-fold-in-2009-to-a-519-million-average/19688820/ )

- All that while the working class took one hit after another. I mean, there is "service to plutocracy", and then there is service to plutocracy. I could go on and was actually going to cite a couple of more absolutely egregious examples, but.... this is so sick that I'm going to stop, now.

[democracy1st]

180. Not only has his judges not been nominated,but GOP Control Of Federal Trial Courts

Has Increased Since Obama Took Office


The AP’s Mark Sherman reports that GOP obstruction in the Senate has allowed Republicans to further entrench their control over the federal bench, even though a Democratic president is now naming judges:

A determined Republican stall campaign in the Senate has sidetracked so many of the men and women nominated by President Barack Obama for judgeships that he has put fewer people on the bench than any president since Richard Nixon at a similar point in his first term 40 years ago.

The delaying tactics have proved so successful, despite the Democrats’ substantial Senate majority, that fewer than half of Obama’s nominees have been confirmed and 102 out of 854 judgeships are vacant. <...>

When Bush left office, Republicans had appointed just under 60 percent of all federal judges. Twenty months later, the number has dipped only slightly to a shade under 59 percent, according to statistics compiled by the liberal Alliance for Justice. Because of retirements, the percentage of Republican-nominated district judges actually has gone up.

The data comparing Obama’s confirmation rates to those of recent past presidents is truly grim. In late July, a Center for American Progress issue brief analyzed the percent of each president’s nominees confirmed since Carter. For Obama to see the same percentage of his nominees confirmed as past presidents have seen, the Senate would need to more or less double its pace of confirmations:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/06/gop-district-courts/

[SaveOurDemocracy]

39. K&R So many were so happy to overlook all the hints...

dropped throughout his campaign. I never bought into the rhetoric. All pretty words, no real investment in substance. A brilliant marketing campaign that fed off people's dreams and hopes. The goal was to elicit an emotional response as opposed to critical thinking. IMNSHO

[SammyWinstonJack]

83. +1000!

[BigBearJohn]

127. The goal was to elicit an emotional response as opposed to critical thinking.

That sizes it up all in a nutshell. Spot-ON

[amborin]

44. K&R

[Mimosa]

45. Unfortunately, I believe Krugman is correct.

It's all about trying to get cooperation and approval from the moneyed masters. And if the peons don't understand, so what?

[bigwillq]

47. K and R (nt)

[Greyhound]

48. This is what happens when you buy an advertising campaign and confuse it with a man. K&Rugman.

[defendandprotect]

60. Yes, sadly obvious here -- and understandable in a way... people want to LOVE and look up to

their president -- but this president isn't the one --

And it is something that has to be pointed out because people have to understand

that tendency and keep it in mind -- be sure about who they are supporting and wanting

to idealize.

:)

[Karmadillo]

50. Let's hope we can find an FDR Democrat to run against Obama & the Plutocrats in 2012.

nt

[defendandprotect]

62. 2010 isn't too early to begin working on this -- signaling that this is over ....

[Skittles]

53. NO SHIT

[DeSwiss]

55. K&R -- The sleepers are awakening. n/t

[defendandprotect]

57. Personally ....

I'd like a RECALL on Obama --

How much worse can this get in the next two years??

[SammyWinstonJack]

84. +1000.

[ProudDad]

58. "Has Largely" is the wrong verb tense...

He's been a corporate tool since Harvard (and probably before)...

No surprise here...

[defendandprotect]

75. Here and there I've read about .....

Obama and Kissinger --

Don't know if you're interested, but if so ...



Think someone here at DU in August posted another connection to it --

Came from comments by Obama's National Security Advisor James Jones in a speech

at a CFR Conference stting that he takes his orders directly from Dr. Kissinger ... *

Meanwhile, here's another link to another article on it --

http://www.examiner.com/exopolitics-in-honolulu/kissinger-influence-on-obama-administration-ufo-policy


Seems to be pretty much what is refernced below --

---------------


* This was the post that I picked up -- think here at DU?


"Harry Mellon March 23rd, 2009 8:01 pm
Obama's NSC advisor James Jones recently stated in a speech a CFR conference that he takes his orders directly from Dr. Kissinger. ..."
To that, Red Rick replied:
"Red Rick March 23rd, 2009 8:07 pm
I sure would like a link to this rather startling statement."
I HADN'T read the subsequent reply by Mister Chips (baked or fried? go for baked!) about the infowars.com article with a link to the CFR page, instead having immediately jumped to doing a Web search using <"James Jones" Kissinger> (minus the <> characters) and this quickly enough showed that there's a page at godlikeproductions... that seemed to be a fitting starter. It was; the first post in the page at that site provides a link to the CFR page, which is the one just below. I split the URL over three lines, but also tested a Web search using the title of the page and this would be easier and quicker for people to do. It was the first link that came up for me when seaching using only the title; but people can copy and paste the url in three parts if they prefer to do this too.
"Remarks by National Security Adviser Jones at 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy
Published February 8, 2009
Speaker:
James L. Jones"
http://www.cfr.org/publication/18515/
remarks_by_national_security_adviser_jones_at_45th_
munich_conference_on_security_policy.html
QUOTE:
U.S. National Security Adviser Jones gave these remarks at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009.
"Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through Generaal Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.
END QUOTE
A chain of command in the NSC, today; with Kissinger as C-in-C of the chain, that war criminal and criminal against humanity in other terms? Or, well, just below the C-in-C, who's in the White House presidential office, once in a while, when not out playing golf in Hawaii or whatever, or giving military so warfare helicopter models as gifts to of the British PM, or ..., ya know, anyway? And then who's his C-in-C and therefore the real C-in-C or C's-in-C, anyway? Well, Kissinger's evidently high up the chain anyway.
Now that's a few anyway's isn't it? Anyway, ... I have to take a second out here, needing to push my eyes back into their sockets; they're bulging a little outward, suffering some sudden hyper-outward-extension ... for some reason (known). It's just a little reaction due to sudden chagrin or anger, ah, whatever.
I figured Kissinger was lurking nearby, but didn't realise the creep was quite this close by or at hand.
Well, don't be surprised. I haven't been keeping up much on the recent cries of scandal about the AIG matter, but the following article, while short enough, is strong on this topic and tells readers that it really wasn't worthwhile to waste time worrying about the $163mn or $183mn the Obama administration allocated to AIG bonuses, because this doesn't represent 0.1% of what's really being allocated to AIG's "counterparties", which I believe to understand is only about what AIG owed or owes to others. Obama et al have been working on keeping this latter reality out of public attention; ya know, not wanting to cause a sudden series of heart attacks, etcetera.
You may all have already seen this article, but I'll provide the url anyway, just in case.
"The Real AIG Conspiracy", by Prof. Michael Hudson, Mar 18 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12784
Seems like we better expect Obama to be up to many secrets; keeping them secret, or under masks (say) of deception, as much as possible anyway.
What other surprises are in store for the public now?
Kissinger should be internationally indicted and would justly want him to stand trial or many trials for his many years of many crimes; the man's criminal from A-Z, full range, only he hasn't worn the "hat" of U.S. president or v.p. yet. Well, his criminality is so multi-facted and extreme that there perhaps isn't much difference anyway. Give him 150, 200 or 500 years prison sentence, what's the difference? He wouldn't live long enough to serve a decent portion of the deserved lower number of years anyway. Oh well, it'd just cost taxpayers a lot less money to get rid of him without using the death penalty, then.
It's all nice and dandy that Obama is thinking of legalising marijuana for medical purposes (when it should be totally legally anyway), but this is "smelling" like a way to try to people into some sort of dumb complacency and hopefully no one will buy into the trickery. The herb should be fully legal, I have no doubts about that; but just because we're for certain doesn't mean that we should fall asleep at the wheel of life, either. I'd support the legalisation he says he's thinking of providing, or his spokesperson says he is, but without being fooled into believing that this gesture means he's an honest individual.
They know they're drawing a lot of anger from people, many people, including people who supported him for president, so he's trying to deceive people into continuing to support him, trying to cause them to believe that there is some real good about him for or as president; and there might be a little, maybe (?), but it evidently is mostly (if not wholly) shelved for the duration of the presidency. Otoh, it was also shelved during his years as a senator, too. Oh-oh or ah-oh, uh-oh, ... whatever; you'll figure it out.
What's O'bomb'a up to, really?

[jaxx]

86. Interesting that conspiracy sites are used as sources.

[defendandprotect]

95. Council on Foreign Relations is a conspiracy site? Many may think so -- !!

Remarks by National Security Adviser Jones at 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy
Published February 8, 2009

Speaker: James L. Jones
U.S. National Security Adviser Jones gave these remarks at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009.

"Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through Generaal Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.


http://www.cfr.org/publication/18515/remarks_by_national_security_adviser_jones_at_45th_munich_conference_on_security_policy.html


Amazing ...

after all we all know this is conspiracy-free America!

:eyes:


Unfortunate Kissinger connection to Obama administration --

Try addressing that issue --

[jaxx]

97. Global research, yes.

Along with godlikeproductions and infowars.

[defendandprotect]

98. Try dealing with the issue as reported by Council on Foreign Relations ....

[jaxx]

99. They are a part of your piece:

<snip> about the infowars.com article with a link to the CFR page, instead having immediately jumped to doing a Web search using <"James Jones" Kissinger> (minus the <> characters) and this quickly enough showed that there's a page at godlikeproductions...

and globalresearch.

[defendandprotect]

100. If you don't want to discuss CFR and James Jones comments re Kissinger ....

why are you responding?

[jaxx]

101. Because conspiracy sites have no place here.

And neither do conspiracies.

[defendandprotect]

104. Council on Foreign Relations does belong here .... try hitting the link!

Otherwise you're going to be on ignore --

[jaxx]

105. Go for it.

And remove those conspiracy sites.

[go west young man]

170. Try this link out and explain the non conspiracy there.

http://usacc.org/content.php?type=page&id=2&chi=5&par=3

It is to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for Azerbaijan. Notice Brezinski in the middle.
Notice Kissinger on the right. Notice James Baker on the left.

Scroll down and find PNAC people therre such as Cheney and Armitage. It's a whos
who of US Foreign Policy. It shows that nothing has changed. Obama progressive?
My ass.

Brezinski advised Obama on Mid east Foreign policy. Kissinger who aided in
the elimination of many South American leftists is alive and well and obviously
involved with the Obama administration. Dispute it please.

[Enthusiast]

140. Right. The U.S.A. has never

been subjected to any conspiracies. So any discussion of a conspiracy should be strictly off limits.

[sabrina 1]

120. I am reading the article from the CFR page. Are you disputing

the veracity of THAT article? I admit, I had never heard of a connection between this administration and war criminal, Henry Kissenger before, but that article seems to verify it. If it's true, then what is there to say anymore? This is the third piece of very disturbing information on this president I have read today. Between his close association with the CEO of the rape machine company, to his slamming of FDR as 'irresponsible' and now Kissenger? I wish we had known all this before the election. He would not be president today if these issues had arisen in the campaign.

[emilyg]

115. Thank you.

[Winston Wolf]

61. Kicked...

...and recommended.

[bluedigger]

63. We really shouldn't be surprised.

We elected a Constitutional law scholar who spent his formative professional years in Chicago, hobnobbing with Milton Friedman disciples. Where do you think he was going to learn his economic philosophy from? He's intelligent, not infallible...

[Skittles]

91. oh I saw it coming

not all of us were fooled

[BrklynLiberal]

66. :( FDR's First 100 Days........

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/First100days.htm

<snip>
Roosevelt's strategy consisted of two parts: first, provide relief for those who needed it most, which often involved a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Second, provide long-lasting reform to the nation's economy, through reorganization and the creation of new agencies. Most of Roosevelt's policies can be described as "taking from one pocket to put in the other." Fixated with a balanced budget, and fretful when it was not, Roosevelt made sure that anything given to one sector of the economy was taken from somewhere else. He did not accept Keynes' recommendation to begin heavy deficit spending, and did not do so until the threat of World War II forced him to.

Roosevelt's legendary "First 100 Days" concentrated on the first part of his strategy: immediate relief. From March 9 to June 16, 1933, FDR sent Congress a record number of bills, all of which passed easily. These included the creation of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Congress also gave the Federal Trade Commission broad new regulatory powers, and provided mortgage relief to millions of farmers and homeowners.

The success of the First 100 Days was important, because it got the New Deal off to a strong and early start. Later, the conservative Supreme Court would declare much of the New Deal unconstitutional, and Roosevelt's political prestige would decline as his policies failed to resolve the Depression. If Roosevelt had not passed his agenda early, we would probably be without many New Deal programs we take for granted today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

The First Hundred Days

Roosevelt entered office with enormous political capital. Americans of all political persuasions were demanding immediate action, and Roosevelt responded with a remarkable series of new programs in the “first hundred days” of the administration, in which he met with Congress for 100 days. During those 100 days of lawmaking, Congress granted every request Roosevelt asked, and passed a few programs (such as the FDIC to insure bank accounts) that he opposed meaning he closed all the banks for the 100 days and did not open unless they were trusted by Roosevelt. Ever since, presidents have been judged against FDR for what they accomplished in their first 100 days.
<snip>

http://politics.usnews.com/news/history/articles/2009/02/12/the-first-100-days-franklin-roosevelt-pioneered-the-100-day-concept.html

Faced with the spreading catastrophe of the Depression in 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt knew from the start that what Americans wanted most of all was reassurance that under his leadership, they could weather the storm. Amid shattering rates of unemployment, bank failures, and a widespread loss of confidence, FDR said in his inaugural speech March 4: "This nation asks for action, and action now. Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require."

This began an unprecedented period of experimentation during which Roosevelt tried different methods to ease the Depression; if they failed, he tried something else. His success in winning congressional approval became the stuff of legend and established FDR as the most effective president in dealing with Congress during the first 100 days.

<snip>

The new president immediately established a new, infectious atmosphere of optimism. Even Sen. Hiram Johnson, a Republican from California, conceded, "The admirable trait in Roosevelt is that he has the guts to try.... He does it all with the rarest good nature.... We have exchanged for a frown in the White House a smile. Where there were hesitation and vacillation, weighing always the personal political consequences, feebleness, timidity, and duplicity, there are now courage and boldness and real action."

<snip>

No basis in any reality to say that FDR waited 6 months to do something ....

[sabrina 1]

68. Someone needs to send that to this president who apparently is

not aware of FDR's historical presidency. To this president, FDR was irresponsible 'in waiting too long' to handle the problems. Unbelievable. But Reagan was an inspiration to him.

[BrklynLiberal]

72. I am appalled to realize that is what President Obama believes!!!!!!

[sabrina 1]

73. Yes, that was a shocker for me too. I knew about the Reagan

remark, but this I had not seen before. It seems he is very influenced by enemies of the New Deal and the president who is responsible for them. Wish I had known this before the election.

[BrklynLiberal]

77. Me too!!!!

[SammyWinstonJack]

85. Hence his cat food commission filled with New Deal haters.

:grr:

[laughingliberal]

134. Guess it's all starting to make sense, now. nt

[Enthusiast]

142. Me three!

We often hear FDR and the New Deal characterized that way by Republicans and right wingers but never by 'real' Democrats. Unreal and unforgivable. This explains the makeup of the Deficit Commission perfectly.

[ProudDad]

89. Too late...

He's already lost the House and that Millionaire's club, the Senate's going to be even harder than it was...

[Greyhound]

79. "No basis in any reality to say that FDR waited 6 months to do something"

Of course not, but he can hardly go with the "gotcha, suckers!" approach and keep the illusion of choice going, now can he?
:rofl:

[deacon]

81. Krugman missed all the NO votes and continues to do so right down to a nuclear treaty. All garbage.

[unkachuck]

102. K&R....n/t

[harun]

103. Krugman is correct. He won't get much credit here though as many here are

also accepting of the Conservative view of the world (which is based on BS, and is BS).

[inna]

107. yep. most people get it, though, fortunately - even as judged simply by the number of recs.

[bluetrain]

106. This is news? Obama's phoniness has been evident since day one.

[grahamhgreen]

118. Actually, day one, he pretended to close Gitmo.

[Beacool]

169. Yep, once a B.S. artist, always a B.S. artist.

:shrug:

[earth mom]

110. K & R. Some of here on DU tried to warn everyone...

:banghead:

[BigBearJohn]

128. and many were tombstoned.

[pecwae]

148. Too much stardust

on the breeze to see properly.

[emilyg]

117. k/r

[Catherina]

122. Fooled me once. Never Again. Brand Obama is discredited beyond any redemption. Rec'd n/t

[KarenS]

153. Amen!! n/t

[Book Lover]

123. I'm not usually one to point to pop culture and call it prophetic, but I shall do so now:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_N6jkZLJjvqI/TCj9OtBv5QI/AAAAAAAAB-g/0fVNNBzHgxs/s1600/BLOOM+COUNTY+BLACK+CRISIS.jpg

[JoseGaspar]

129. You mention the unmentionable...

Reverend Jackson was one of the best public speakers of my generation. He might have had some problems, but never with his politics. He was far to the Left of any other prominent figure in the Party. His two runs for the presidency were amazing. They hit a Poor Peoples Campaign note that had almost disappeared from memory and, especially in the second run, started to pick up serious labor support... in many cases over the heads of union leadership. This combined with a never ending focus on voter registration created the prospect - for the first time - that an "uncontrollable" force was being organized within the Democratic Party.

It wasn't by accident that the very next Convention introduced Barack Obama, a very minor Chicago politician, in a prime time slot. He had the cadence of Jesse, and he hit the same high notes, but he was entirely content-less... an empty echo of the original. Go back and listen to that speech again, in light of the history since.

I remember watching it and thinking, "this will never work". Wrong. They ate up a guy who said nothing and stood for nothing. In truth, it was because he stood for nothing. And it wasn't just white Liberals driven by guilt. Much more so, it was conservative party big-wigs driven by cynicism... and they weren't all white, either.

The truth is that it wasn't a conspiracy. Things just "worked" that way. This was how they cloned something powerful and dangerous into something run-of-the-mill and controllable... Nothing up our sleeves and "poof", a substitution.

Of course, Jesse couldn't "win". What does winning mean again?

Meanwhile, Krugman is engaging in a very popular form of wishful thinking. Obama "accepted" a conservative view? When? Today? Last year?

Seriously...

[Book Lover]

131. edited again

because apparently, I have trouble reading

[Beacool]

162. At some point in 2008 the party leadership decided that Obama was the "IT" candidate.

Let me just say that enough arms were twisted behind the scenes to ensure that the super delegates went a certain way. Stuff that was shoved under the rug in the name of fake "unity". Suffice it to say that what I saw behind the scenes was disgusting enough that I decided to change my party affiliation to "unaffiliated". The DNC will never get another penny from me or my family. The party broke my heart and left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Well, what goes around comes around..........

:(

[Beacool]

161. Prophetic indeed.

:eyes:



:rofl:

[Horse with no Name]

125. I was paying attention

and I agree (as did many others). It was like watching lemmings being led off of a cliff by a smooth-talking Pied Piper.
We allowed the M$M to choose our candidate. First mistake.
He was totally disrespectful to the traditional left during the campaign.
People got all wrapped up in the fairy tale and didn't care that it didn't have a chance in hell of ending happily ever after.

[highplainsdem]

126. K&R

[highprincipleswork]

130. Krugman so correct, and here's the scary part

Remember when "Saturday Night Live" first came out with Fred Armisen playing Obama? I was so outraged. No, Obama is so much smarter than that, so much wiser, so much more enlightened, so much more Progressive, I thought.

But now, after time has passed, I'm starting to see something not as serious as Krugman's article - but is Fred Armisen's portrayal really so off the mark?

That's what's really scary to me. Oh, in addition to all the other ham-fisted, conservative, poor messaging, watered-down, warmongering, police-state-like, corporatist efforts that pass for the accomplishments of a Democratic administration these days.

[xchrom]

139. Recommend

[breadandwine]

141. There's a simple way for progressives on Capitol Hill to make Obama stop acting like a Republican.

All they'd have to do is tell him that if he keeps it up they will support the GOP's impeachment crap. Brutal but instantly effective.

Bang zoom. Watch Obama suddenly remember he's a Democrat by Tuesday. Then everyone can bury the hatchet and forget it ever happened.




Keep acting like a Republican and STUFF HAPPENS.



If Obama wants to be Bush, we could finally impeach Bush after all.


All it would take is for just one Democrat on Capitol Hill to make such a threat and the fear that it might catch on with other progressive Democrats on the Hill would make the White House crap in their pants and remember who brung them to the party. Mark my words. It would be over in a week and we'd finally have the Democrat in the White House we voted for.

[leveymg]

143. There are lyrics to a song by The Who that captures this (no, not the "new boss same as" song)

This is from Quadrophenia, "The Punk and the Godfather," and it truly captures the tragedy of the "Hope and Change" President:

You declared you would be three inches taller
You only became what we made you.
Thought you were chasing a destiny calling
You only earned what we gave you.
You fell and cried as our people were starving,
Now you know that we blame you.
You tried to walk on the trail we were carving,
Now you know that we framed you.

[Waiting For Everyman]

145. K&R

[elzenmahn]

149. He never was a true progressive...

...our political system won't tolerate a progressive president, as the traditional support structure of liberalism (labor unions, etc), has been decimated by both parties.

But put a Repub in the presidency in 2012, and expect more Scalias, Thomases, and their ilk on the Supreme Court. We really can't afford that, thus my very reluctant vote for him in said election.

[BlueJac]

150. The ugly truth has been spoken, Thanks for the post!

[MissDeeds]

151. K&R

[polichick]

152. Well, I really had doubts after candidate Obama's comment about Reagan...

...and also after he dissed the progressive advances of the 60s (that, incidentally, allowed for his candidacy) - but, if he has really adopted the right-wing view, we have to kick him out of office asap.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

163. Obama referring to FDR's handling of the crisis between

election and inauguration in March of "33" may be the single most disturbing and insightful quote attributed to him
thus far. There is far too much at stake and to little time to allow for the benefit of doubt.

There was another reason for Obama's political expediency as it always seemed to me the Bush and Obama administrations
brokered a deal to jointly except responsibility for what had taken place and what would continue into the new administration.
Paulson was the middle man assigned to sell desperation and largest transfer of wealth to the American people at precisely the
right juncture between the outgoing and incoming administrations. "Acting quickly" would certainly be a requirement for such a
deal to take place, this coming from a president that has always tried to project an image of thoughtful deliberation.

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/11/18/the-story-behind-obamas-remarks-on-fdr-27539/

[sabrina 1]

177. I agree, for me, that quote is deal breaker. So revealing I only

wish I had seen it before the election. The Reagan comments were disturbing but adding this quote to them paints a very depressing picture of just who this president really is.

[Kermitt Gribble]

171. K&R

FDR irresponsible?? Sorry, O - that's inexcusable. This solidifies my vote for a challenger or 3rd party candidate in 2012.

[Dappleganger]

174. I miss candidate Obama...

wish he would return!! :(

[Poboy]

179. Candidate Obama was just a ruse. Betrayal of the highest order.

[DainBramaged]

178. 211 recs can't be wrong

[BrklynLiberal]

181. Krugman's blog has a link to Feguson's post...FASCINATING!!!

Even the comments are incredibly informative.

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/11/18/the-story-behind-obamas-remarks-on-fdr-27539/