Monday, November 29, 2010

Carville and Obama's Anatomy

James Carville recently caused an uproar, by saying or actually reiterating that Barrack Obama "has no balls". Reportedly the White House expressed "outrage" at Carville's remark, but Carville called in to John King's show on CNN to say he was not sorry for the remark and would not apologize.

If anything, the White House's "outrage" proves they can get outraged as long as its at someone who isn't a legitimate opponent or threat, like Republicans or Ahmadinejad. No one can remember Obama expressing "outrage" at Iranians being shot in the street protesting a rigged election, ( instead saying he "didnt want to meddle") or "outrage" at signs showing him with a Hitler mustache or "outrage" at Republican lies about the public option. But they were "outraged" about Carville simply stating the truth.

But its not just balls that Obama is missing. You don't need a political cat scan to see that Obama doesn't' have a backbone or spine either and neither do many of the people who still support him none of whom have demonstrated they have the anatomy necessary to admit they were wrong about who and what they claimed he was and supporting him in the first place. Which of course they were.

Obama's missing anatomy has been on display his entire political life but was ignored by the press and his supporters who were all caught up in making race, something you would think they would have known by now is irrelevant to a person's abilities, the most important issue.

What Carville said about Obama has been true about Obama his entire political life and was amply displayed when he was in the Illinois state legislature where he voted " present" over 100 times so he didn't have to vote for or against anything. And displayed as president on everything from healthcare reform to financial reform to tax cuts for the wealthy and dealing with Iran.

And what Geraldine Ferraro said about Obama was also true -- that with his record of non-accomplishment, his flimsy resume, his lack of real ideas, his lack of any substance and maybe the most underhanded and untrustworthy politician since Richard Nixon, if he had been white he would have been considered a joke as a presidential candidate.

What both Carville and Ferraro said about Obama showed that they have anatomically everything that Obama doesn't. And judging by the way the news media treated Obama and treats him now, not to mention the way they covered the 8 years of Bush's presidency, they don't have the anatomy to do their jobs either.And whether they or Democrats in congress or the liberal organizations who turned a blind eye to Obama's catastrophic flaws finally get any is, based on past performance not likely. Unless someone comes along with some political Viagra. Which even then may not help though, as doctors will tell you, admitting the problem is always the first step.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Obama's stupid pet trick on tax cuts for the wealthy

When dealing with anything Obama says you always have to be aware of semantics. One of Obama's most successful semantic games and stupid pet tricks is to say he is going to do something he knows will be unpopular with the left, then when the predictable outrage hits, say that all the silly peons out there simply didn't understand what he was saying, retreat from the decision, wait until the furor dies down then pull the bait and switch anyway. Then count on the press and what's left of the Kool Aid drinkers suffering from Battered Obama Syndrome to take him back and pretend it was all the Republican's fault, they made him do it.

He did it on healthcare, he did it with financial reform, he did it with the stimulus and he's done it with foreign policy including Afghanistan. Its called talking out of both sides of your mouth and no one has ever done it as an integral part of policy like Obama because he has no policy. He only has reactions to whatever his latest political fortunes seem to be.

Axelrod was paving the way for Obama to sell out on his pledge not to extend tax cuts for the wealthy ( a Zen question -- is it really selling out if you never meant it in the first place?) by blaming the election results (which were caused by Obama's selling out on everything else in the first place).

Axelrod said something like "we have to deal with the world as we find it" because of the election results and that extending tax cuts for the wealthy is something they might have to do. This was Obama sending out Siebulus to the Sunday morning talk shows to pave the way for selling out the public option by saying it was just a "sliver" of healthcare reform and wasn't really important. And the reaction was the same. Outrage from Democrats who felt betrayed, then Obama's backing off to make the outrage go away, then dropping the public option anyway claiming he didn't sell anyone out, he was never for the public option in the first place, lying about having never campaigned for it.

Obama's same stupid pet trick is now going on with tax cuts for the wealthy. The fact that these tax cuts would add $700 billion to the deficit at a time when supposedly the Tea Party was up in arms over the deficit which one could also say had some influence on the election results seems to be beyond Obama's non-existent powers of persuasion or observation. Or Axelrod's for that matter.

Obama said the other day that his "no. 1 priority is tax cuts for the middle class". When you understand the bait and switch tactics Obama always uses, counting on liberals to be too stupid to see through it as he did with healthcare reform, and counting on them to support him anyway no matter what he does, you can see that he is laying the groundwork to capitulate to the Republicans on tax cuts for the wealthy and then claim he had to do it in order to preserve the tax cuts for the middle class.

Its a stupid pet trick and semantic game Obama has played his whole political life and has worked for him in the past with African Americans, knee jerk cocktail party liberals and the press. And once again he hopes that those cocktail party liberals, especially those in the news media will wag their tails once again. While Obama bites the hands that fed him. And calls it a lick.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

They see London they see France, they see bombs in underpants

Only in America could something as serious as pat downs and body scans to keep terrorists off airplanes get reduced to the level of infantilism we've seen about the security procedures now being employed at airports because of the cases of arrested development regarding some people's psyches when it comes to nudity and sex. And leave it to the pandering news media to give it some credence and turn it into an uproard instead of mocking it.

There is actually concern among what seems mostly to be conservatives and some on the religious right, that the TSA security people are somehow getting a thrill patting down travelers or viewing body scans of people most of whom are flattering themselves not to mention reducing a procedure to spot explosive devices carried by terrorists on their bodies to the level of peeping or pole dancing. Far from a thrill, having to look at some of these people with a body scanner could qualify for hazardous duty pay. It's serious business but only in America could there be protests based on puritanical and infantile attitudes.

Pat downs and body scanners have been in place in airports in London and France for more than a year with no complaints .That's because the Europeans don't have these infantile attitudes about nudity and sex that the many in America including members of the press do. If the body scanners in London and France had been in place elsewhere a year ago they would have seen the bomb in the Christmas bombers underpants before he ever got on the plane. And those who said it was just dumb luck that the bomb never went off are right.

Its being reported that there will be even longer than usual delays at airports for the Thanksgiving weekend because of protests against the pat downs and body scanning by these cases of arrested developemnt, procedures that again, have been in use at airports in Europe without a problem.

One man who obviously has some obviously bizarre issues when it comes to sex called the pat down and body scan procedures sexual assault. If he thinks anyone is getting a thrill out of patting him down, one can only wonder what his sex life must be like. He's probably trying to figure out right now how to install a scanner in his bedroom.

Then there are those who are "concerned" that having children going through the scanners would somehow be a boon to pedophiles. Other guardians of morality have said that the body scans might qualify as child pornography.

The body scanners should be here to stay. Not because its going to catch some terrorist trying to get on with a bomb but because we now know for certain that they act as a deterrent. How do we know? We know because the latest attempt at blowing up an airplane had a UPS cargo jet as the target. And the flight emanated from overseas where body scanners have been in wide spread use for more than a year for commercial airliners. The very fact that they targeted a cargo plane instead of a passenger plane is proof enough that body scanners can prevent a terrorist attempt on a passenger plane.

but ironically the body scanners have revealed more than what's under a travelers clothes. Its also revealed just how completely strange many Americans still are, and how medieval their ideas are about sex and nudity. And as in other areas of life, they shouldn't be allowed to lower the bar and cause problems for everyone else.

What conservatives and others who object to the body scans need to do is grow up. So terrorists won't stop others who fly from growing old.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Liberals show not only why they lose but why they don't know how to win.

By re-electing Nancy Pelosi as minority leader, liberals more than anyone have shown they really don't know how to win at anything. And after reading comments by those who opposed her but voted for Pelosi anyway, its clear Democrats still don't get the message of the election.

Pelosi and Obama are the two biggest reasons Democrats took the clobbering they did because neither Pelosi and certainly not Obama, delivered on the promises made and the expectations people had based on the snake oil Obama sold them during nominating process. Instead they blew the biggest congressional majority either party had in 50 years.

Forget the nonsense that the agenda was too liberal and that taking on healthcare was a mistake. The mistake was that Obama was and is an inept unqualified president with no political skills combined with no convictions or inner strength to get anything done.And both Pelosi and Reid has let him get away with it. Healthcare reform with the public option should have been rammed through the senate the day after the CBO said the public option would cut the deficit by $ 160 billion. But Obama, who has no real convictions about anything, floundered for a year, groveled to Republicans, brought the entired process to a slog trying to get one Republican voted, and botched the entire process letting a party that was distinctly in the minority run the show. And when the going got tough, Mr. Going to Change How Washington Works got going by cutting a sleazy back room deal with healthcare industry lobbyists ( as reported by the NY Times and admitted by Tom Daschle) to drop the public option throwing 300 million Americans under the bus because he couldn't stand the Hitler signs. Obama couldn't stand the heat, but stayed in the kitchen and cooked up a royal inedible mess than gave Democrats heartburn. He was the cook but it was Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who served it. Even the Democrats who voted for this mess of a healthcare bill could only call it better than nothing. But it wasnt. Howard Dean was right. If that was the best Obama could manage the congress should have dumped it and started over.

But to show how easly duped and led around by the nose many are, including those in the media still deluded about Obama, an article in Think Progress by Lee Fang said the following:

"This morning, Bloomberg reporter Drew Armstrong broke an incredible story revealing that health insurance companies, like UnitedHealth and CIGNA, funneled $86.2 million into the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2009 to pay for the Chamber's multifaceted campaign to kill President Obama's health reform legislation"

President Obama didn't have any healthcare legislation based on any convictions. He only took it on because it had been on the Democrats wish list for 60 years. Secondly president Obama gutted health care reform and as Matt Taibi pointed out in Rolling Stone, pulled a bait and switch hoping no one would notice, ditching healthcare reform mid way through the debate for what Obama started calling "health INSURANCE reform". If Fang or Think Progress did any real thinking they'd realize that the health insurance industry wasted their money trying to gut healthcare reform because Obama did it for them.

If you think the bungling of healthcare wasn't noticed by liberals moderates and independents then you don't remember Lincoln's admonition that you cant fool all of the people all of the time. These Democrats, moderates and independents are the people responsible for clobbering Democrats in the last election by staying home, not the people who never would have voted for them in the first place.

And Pelosi and Reid are partly responsible because they never stood up to Obama when he sank healthcare reform and turned into the garbage legislation that both conservatives and liberals detest but for entirely different reasons. Yes Pelosi publicly said " we dont have a public option in the reconciliation bill because the president didnt fight for it or stand up for it". That is only partially true. We also dont have a public option because Pelosi and Reid let Obama get away with the double dealing when they could have defied him and taken matters into their own hands. What would have Obama done with the public option passing? Veto it?

The plain fact is that by not delivering on promises and playing Obama's game of compromise and capitulation, and with Obama showing no leadership skills, Pelosi, Reid and Obama turned the biggest congressional majority since Lyndon Johnson was president into the worst defeat suffered by either party in 80 years. And it took them only two years to do it. The fact that it wasn't at the hands of the people who never voted for them in the first place has totally escaped Democratic politicos. And congressional Democrats are still slow to understand that.

It was rank and file liberals who were the most angry over Obamas first two years, liberals whose ideas on healthcare reform demanded the public option and it was liberals who lost the most because of Obama, Reid and Pelosi. So it was liberals and moderates, the people Gibbs called "the professional left", and fed up with Obama who stayed home and dealt the Democrats the clobbering they saw on election day, yet it was liberals in the House who re-elected Pelosi. As Casey Stengel once said about the 1962 Mets, cant anybody here play this game?

Obama capitulated to Republicans and Pelosi and Reid capitulated to Obama and while Pelosi will no doubt loudly oppose it, if there isn't a credible challenge to Obama in the 2012 primaries by a Democrat who knows what they are doing, someone who actually stands for something and knows how to get it done, and Obama runs for re-election, they will lose the White House too.

A sports psychologist once described it best : losing is a disease. And too many Democrats are infected with it, afraid to lose, and so they do.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

German Chancellor calls Bush what the American press was afraid to: a liar

Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, buttressed by other German officials who were present in an Oval office meeting with George W. Bush has called Bush's account in his new book, of a meeting to discuss the invasion of Iraq a flat out lie.

Bush claims in his memoir that Schroeder promised that Germany would join the U.S. and stand with them in an invasion of Iraq, then complained that Schroeder couldn't be trusted when Germany didn't join the war ( a decision which if nothing else made Schroeder a smarter and better leader than Bush). But Schroeder says that is not exactly what was said. According to Schroeder, he promised Germany's support only if the US could prove that Iraq was "sheltering" those responsible for the 911 attacks.

Schroeder didn't mince words in a statement released the other day in response to Bush's memoir, that Bush's invasion of Iraq and reasons given for the invasion were "based on lies". He called Bush's rationale for going to war, "false and contrived", something that was apparent even before the war but a fact that the U.S. press,including the soon to be proved incompetent New York Times and cable networks like CNN and MSNBC were too cowed and journalistically lacking to report ( I don't include Fox since hell hadnt frozen over which is what it would take for them to criticize a Republican politician). The lone exception were two reporters for Knight Ridder who wrote articles, mostly ignored by the mainstream press, claiming there was ample evidence that Sadaam didn't have WMD.

Joining the list of those caving in on the Bush Administration lies about Iraq was Mr. Integrity himself, Barrack Obama.

When it became clear that the Iraq invasion was in fact based on a premise of lies,while still running for the Democratic nomination with hopes of getting Republican votes if he were the nominee, Obama emphasized that if he became president he wouldn't want to see an investigation of the Bush Administration's lies that took the country to war. His exact words were " I do not think it useful to litigate how we got into this war".

That proved from the beginning that not only didn't Obama have the judgment to be president he didn't have the political courage to be president. Because investigating how we got into that war was probably the single most important thing the congress could have done with regards to our standing in the world and for our own sake, not only to air out the truth but to hold those accountable because it was rank dishonesty from the beginning (something Obama obviously could relate to) that took the country to war.

Nothing would have restored US standing in the world more than an open investigation into how we did get into that war and to expose Bush and Cheney's lies for what they were. That more than anything would have proved the kind of democracy the U.S. is supposed to be. But not with a gutless press and certainly not with a politics first, truth second garden variety politician as president like Obama.

Schroeder's blunt truth, that Bush was lying isn't just an indictment of Bush. It is more than anything an indictment of the press, how far they have fallen and how useless they are and have been in serving democracy.

There are no tears shed for the demise of Saddam. But it was Bush and Cheney lies, and their desire to use 911 as an excuse to get him, that threw foreign policy into chaos, needlessly cost the lives of American soldiers, allowed Bin Laden to escape, and didn't accomplish what was needed in Afghanistan which we are still paying for today.

Had Bush been honest and gone after the Taliban after 911, sent the same number of troops he sent to Iraq to destroy the Taliban, kill or capture Bin Laden at Tora Bora and destroy what was left of the Al-Qaeda fighters, he would have proved to Saddam that we meant business. He could have given Sadaam and his henchmen 48 hours to get out of Iraq and with 200,000 troops already in Afghanistan Sadaam would have known we weren't bluffing. And he and his henchmen would have grabbed as much loot as they could put into Swiss banks and would have gotten out of Dodge. Then it would have been up to Interpol to track them down for war crimes. In the meantime Sadaam would have been gone without firing a shot.

That's what happens when your honest about what you're doing. And Iraq, Afghanistan, Obama's first two years in office and the drubbing the Democrats took in the last election is what happens when your not. Someday maybe these politicians will learn.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Keith Olbermann's back? So what?

Much has been made, essentially by groups that consider themselves "progressive" about Keith Olbermann's suspension and now return. They circulated petitions "demanding" Olbermann be put back on the air. But Olbermann is not the panacea or powerful liberal voice people make him out to be. He is one of many in the media who turned a blind eye to Obama's serial lying, serial reneging, and proving he is the most untrustowrthy, underhanded duplicitous politician since Richard Nixon and Olbermann still refuses to hold Obama accountable for his convictionless mess of a presidency. It's not enough to just hate conservatives and Republicans. To have credibility you have to hold everyone accountable and Olbermann never has. He is not a beacon for what matters most in the media -- which is the truth.

Like most of the commentators on MSNBC he does attack the relentless Republican lies and misinformation put out there every day but in a way that is mostly verbose and not very effective. This is not Mort Sahl or Lenny Bruce though he does try hard to be funny. He just isnt. But his biggest failure which undermines most of his credibility has been his failure to acknowledge the many failures, lies and deceit of Barack Obama. Lies, failure and deceit which literally brought down the House for Democrats. So while Republicans are easy targets and deserving of attack and ridicule, what Olbermann does is not much different from Fox News who will never admit the failures and lies of Republicans and conservatives.

Ever since Obama began his run for the presidency and all through the first two years of his administration, Olbermann has and still does proudly display the certificate showing the piece of the Brooklyn Bridge Obama sold him. And his frequent guests are people like Richard Wolfe and Jonathan Alter, fellow Brooklyn Bridge owners each of whom has written the most laughably preposterous books about Obama one can imagine.

Olbermann's reluctance to admit Obama's failures of character and policy ( as does almost everyone else in the press) essentially reduces Olbermanns credibility and effectiveness to someone who has nothing much more to say than to bash conservatives, Republicans and Fox News. The problem is none of those people care what Olbermann says or thinks. And liberals, Democrats and people with IQ's in 3 digits already know all this. If Olbermann or any other truly liberal journalist told the truth about Obama, it would make their truth telling about conservatives and Republicans mean something. But they don't.

Olbermann's relentless defense of Obama's indefensible waste of the biggest Democratic majority in 50 years and all that could have been accomplished but wasn't, has earned him both something of an audience on MSNBC and an audience with Obama. And Olbermann has shown that, like most journalists, he is seduced by power and proximity to power.They call it access.

Michael Moore was a guest on Olbermann the night after his return and the two made an interesting pair. Moore is a good guy. His heart is in the right place, he cares about the right things and he tries to do something about it. But he as well as Olbermann, Arriana Huffington, the NY Times editorial editors, the Nation, and all the journalists in the news media that corrupted themselves in order to elect a president based on his skin color despite how clearly Obama was shown to be underhanded, deceitful and untustworthy, not to mention grossly unqualifed and unprepared to be president, share responsibility in the fiasco that has been Obama's presidency and the fiasco the Democrats suffered in the last election because of it.

Moore should have asked himself in 2008, "is it worth shredding my credibility corrupting the things I believe in, selling out my principles and my friends and neighbors and turning a blind eye to rank injustice, dishonesty and deceit to support Barrack Obama? Can anything good come of this dishonesty"? Because that is exactly what he did, throwing 600,000 of his friends and neighbors in his beloved Michigan under Obama's bus and selling out and their right to vote to support Obama. He did this when he publicly supported taking theirs, and 1 million votes of Florida Democrats and depositing them in a DNC dumpster in order to suppress Hillary Clinton's delegate count and her run for the presidency.And it became even more important because Clinton crushed Obama in landslide numbers in both Michigan and Florida. Moore joined and supported the hierarchy of the DNC who was also aided and abetted by the mainstream press, who decided to punish 1 600,000 voters because five Democratic party big wigs in those states( including the governor of Michigan) moved the dates of the primaries up. It's ironic that Moore, Olbermann, the DNC and the press in general felt they needed to use voter suppression in order to try and elect a black candidate

But that's exactly what happened. And Olbermann and Moore were part of supporting that corrupt process, as opposed to being what they should have been -- horrified at the corruption of the democratic process that supressed the votes of over 1,600,000. And that's why to be a true liberal, it's not enough to proclaim you hate conservatives and Republicans. Or their lies and deceit. You have to be willing to stand up for the truth and the right thing no matter what. And to attack lies and deceit even when it comes from Obama. Or especially when it comes from Obama. And Olbermann didn't. And hasn't. And that's why having Olbermann back on the air really means nothing. At least until he is finally willing to admit he was conned.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Democrats get wake up call and immediately hit the snooze button

Harry Reid says he gets it. Barrack Obama says he gets it. None of them get it. If they had gotten it they wouldn't have presided over the worst most devastating loss of seats in the House by either party since 1934 and wouldn't be clinging by a thread to a senate majority that just two years ago was 60-40 Democrat.

Obama, as always leads the way backwards. He said he wants to compromise. As the most compromised president in history that's no surprise.He's compromised the truth, compromised healthcare reform, compromised financial reform so why not continue to compromise with Republicans who made him look like a court jester the last two years anyway?

Reid said he gets the meaning of the election, that the American people want the Democrats and Republicans to work together. Obama says he wants to work with Republicans. Which shows Obama and Reid are still snoozing because if that's what the American people wanted the Democrats and Obama wouldn't have had the biggest congressional majority of any party in 50 years the last two years.

What they don't want to open their eyes to is that the clobbering they received wasn't at the hands of Republicans and Tea Partiers who never voted for them in the first place. This wake up call was delivered by Democrats, moderates, liberals, and independents, fed up with Obama's duplicity and flagrant lying and reneging and how he and the Democratic leadership sold out what the majority of Americans and especially Democrats wanted.

And what they wanted was all the things that Obama and the Democrats didn't deliver. That's why they got clobbered The American people wanted real health care reform. They wanted overwhelmingly to have the public option and the votes had always been there to pass it using reconciliation. Obama sold it out,making a sleazy back room deal with health industry lobbyists because the town hall crazies made his knees buckle,then publicly spoke out of both sides of his mouth pretending to support it, and Reid went along with it instead of yanking the reins from Obama and passing the public option anyway.

The difference in the election was the difference between what the American people wanted(,which had nothing to do with working and playing well others), what was promised, and what was finally delivered, a tepid mess of a health care bill that Howard Dean correctly said should have been junked and a bill that even the Democrats who finally voted for it could only call "better than nothing". This is why the Democrats got clobbered. Forget the nonsense you hear from people like Lawrence O'Donnell who is still self deluded about Obama, that it was spending time on healthcare and not the economy that was the problem.

Based on all the polls more people wanted the public option than wanted Obama as president According to a CBS News poll in June 2009, 72% said they wanted the public option and 66% said they were willing to pay higher taxes to get it. But Obama, who has a 13 year political history of doing nothing and getting nothing done, sold it out, screwed his constituency and blew it for personal political reasons because he couldnt stand the heat and the Democratic congressional leadership went along. Democrats got their political payback from their constituents not their enemies. Health care was in fact Obama's and the Democrats Waterloo, but not for the reasons Jim DeMint thought. It was because they didn't deliver what was important on healthcare and obstructing that was probably the Republican plan all along. And Obama fell for it.

Obama also blew financial reform, went with a stimulus that economists told him was too small from the beginning, did more for the banks than he did average people and a week before the election, screwed the Democrats in congress who voted for his stimulus by saying that he made a mistake about "shovel ready" projects, proving again that the only thing that is really shovel ready is what comes out of Obama's mouth.

As I predicted in July of 2009 and all through the healthcare debate,into February of 2010, Democrats finally paid the price that was clear would be coming if the public option wasn't passed. I wrote a year ago, and just about every month since that the only way the Democratic congress could save itself was to wrest control of the healthcare debate away from Obama and pass the public option and that if they didn't, they'd be finished. Yes unemployment is the big issue now but had the public option been passed in June of 2009 using reconciliation instead of the useless political game Obama played, all the attention could have then been focused on the economy from that time on and the Democrats would have passed landmark legislation that would have lifted the burden of health care costs off the shoulders of tens, if not hundreds of millions. Not to mention that with a public option, those 10 million ( and probably more ) who are unemployed, many of whom probably lost their work related health insurance would have had one less thing to worry about, one less burden to carry not having to worry about what would happen if they or someone in their family got sick. The handwriting should have been clear that if the congress didn't pass the public option they'd be finished.

They didn't and they are.

If they are looking for a way forward its not to do what Reid and Obama have pledged to do -- compromise with the Republicans. This devastating wake up call wasn't made by people who are sympathetic to Republican ideology. If that were the case the Democrats never would have won in the first place. This wake up call was made by Democrats, liberals, moderates and independents, the people who voted for them in 2008, not the people who voted against them. The Democratic leadership and Obama betrayed their own constituencies and they wont get them back till they acknowledge it, and the Democratic leadership publicly acknowledges Obama's failures with the public option, the failure not to pass it, Obama's catering to banks and corporations and not average people, his two year capitulation to Republicans, and that Obama has been a major disappointment to those who were naive enough to be taken in by his snake oil in the first place. Just admit you were conned and move on. Then completely change leadership to people willing to play as tough as the Republicans and then lay the ground work for a credible primary challenge to Obama in 2012. Or simply convince him not to run.

If they don't do any of those things and Obama is the nominee, they will lose the White House in 2012 without a doubt, make no inroads in the House and lose the senate. Then they can snooze for as long as they want.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Pelosi and the DNC got what they deserved, the country didn't

In 2008 Nancy Pelosi helped to corrupt the Democratic primary process along with other higher ups in the DNC by forcing Barrack Obama down the throats of the majority of Democrats who voted against him as the Democratic presidential candidate.

What her motives were no one but Pelosi and those around her really knows, but speculation is that she wanted to be the Democratic party's Queen Bee, something that would have never been possible had Hillary Clinton been elected.

Her other motivation might have been the same malady that infects and has infected so many Democrats for at least the last 15 years -- they are afraid of Republicans and they are afraid to lose and they act accordingly. But there is no doubt about one thing. The majority the Democrats won back in 2006 and increased in 2008 was lost for only one reason -- Barrack Obama and his inept, duplicitous and deceitful presidency that reneged on most things that was promised. And it can all be traced back to the deceitful way Obama's nomination was engineered.

Pelosi and Howard Dean for that matter were so needlessly and foolishly afraid that a contentious but honest and open Democratic national convention to choose a presidential nominee would somehow weaken the Democrats chances of winning the White House that for a period of time, they tried, hoped and applied pressure to get Hillary Clinton to take her name off the ballot at the convention, in spite of the fact that neither Clinton nor Obama had won the pre-requisite 2/3 majority of delegates needed to win the nomination. And in spite of the fact that Clinton had won the popular vote and had landslided Obama in 13 of the 15 biggest states in the country.

Their disdain for the democratic process and the majority of Democratic voters, more than 18 million, has now, thanks to Obama's predictably dismal performance, come back to haunt them and has cost them the House of Representatives and given them only the slimmest of margins in the senate.

In trying to force Obama;s nomination, they had in their arsenal a bevy of politically corrupt journalists, not the least of which was Jonathan Alter of Newsweek who tried in his articles, to elbow Clinton out of the race, writing pieces saying Clinton should quit, that the math was against her in spite of the fact that Clinton hadn't just won, but landslided Obama in every big state in the country except for Illinois and Texas which she still won. And showing that math isn't Alter's game either, in the end the math showed that far from Obama being a certain winner, neither candidate had won the prerequisite number of delegates during the primaries with Clinton finishing only 63 delegates behind Obama. It should be noted that it was only the Democratic party's apportionment system that even made it that close. Had the Democrats chosen a nominee the same way the country elects a president, Clinton would have beaten Obama by more than 1,000 delegates. And Obama's 63 delegate margin could be directly traced to the Democrats arcane caucus system.

But even before then the DNC corrupted the system with its shameful and blatantly corrupt handling of the Florida and Michigan fiasco. In both states, Clinton didn't just win but landslided Obama in the primaries. The idea that Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan was as false a contention as there was. Michigan was another example of Obama's double dealing and anyone who wants to look into what really happened in Michigan and how Obama insured that anyone in Michigan who wanted to vote for him knew what button to push can easily look it up and find out for themselves.

But the bigger point is how the DNC and Obama himself while preaching that "every voice must be heard" did all he could to silence the voices of the voters of Florida and Michigan because he didn't like what they had to say. And neither did Pelosi or the DNC. The elections were fair and the results valid. That the DNC was willing to punish 1,600,000 Democratic voters who did nothing wrong ( except vote against the DNC's preferred candidate) instead of punishing the 4 or 5 people including the governor of Michigan who were responsible for changing the date of their primaries, is perhaps one of the darkest chapters and one of the greatest stains the Democratic party will ever carry. And with the press happily corrupt and in Obama's pocket, they were all too glad to publicly dismiss the results of those primaries and not count the delegates Clinton won fairly and squarely in burying Obama in both elections. This added to and created a bogus lead in Obama's delegate count further fueling the expectation game that Obama would be the nominee. But it didn't work out that way. And neither candidate finished with enough delegates to secure the nomination.

The process, according to Democratic party rules, was then supposed to be turned over to super delegates who would be charged with casting votes to give the nomination to one candidate or the other. Pelosi tried to corrupt that process too, by making public statements to the affect that super delegates were bound to cast their votes according to which candidate won the most delegates during the primary.

That obviously was preposterous and absurd since if that was the case there would be no need to have any super delegates at all since the Democratic party could simply have changed their rules making the nominee whoever won the most delegates period. Either Pelosi was incredibly ignorant of the Democratic Party's own rules or she was sending a public message to super delegates to vote for Obama. But what made it even more insidious and corrupt was that by making that statement publicly, a statement no one in the DNC had the integrity to step forward and say was incorrect, Pelosi was adding more public expectation that Obama would be the nominee since most people had no idea what the Democratic Party's nomination rules were.

Creating the expectation that Obama would win created another problem : had Obama not won the nomination, the threats circulating on the convention floor, spread by Obama supporters was that it would inflame the majority of African American voters, creating the false belief that racism and Clintonian double dealing played a part when, ironically, it was double dealing on the part of Obama and the DNC that in fact gave Obama the nomination. Nevertheless by creating these expectations based on a dishonest presentation of the role of super delegates, the DNC ran the risk of alienating African Americans in the general election if Obama was not the nominee.

But even this wasn't enough for Pelosi and the upper echelons of the DNC. In a poll taken by Politico,com two days before the first roll call vote, more than 200 of the 400+ super delegates who had publicly declared for Obama in June after Pelosi had horse whipped them into making a public commitment ( which wasn't even binding) two months before they had to, were now deserting Obama and telling Politico they were "undecided".

With those already committed to Clinton if the 200 former Obama super delegates now claiming to be undecided cast their votes with Clinton she would have been the nominee. If half switched to Clinton it would have gone to a second ballot where the momentum would have been on Clinton's side.

So Pelosi and the DNC took the next step of trying to head off a super delegate vote which would have made Clinton the nominee, by breaking the Democratic party's own rules, and pressuring Clinton delegates to switch their votes to Obama on the first ballot.

Democratic Party rules as stated in the 2008 Call to the Convention clearly states that delegates elected as per the results of primary voting, are required to vote for the candidate they were elected to vote for. Only if there was no nominee after a first ballot could the horse trading begin and delegates were free to switch their votes. In 1932 it took four ballots to nominate FDR.

But Pelosi and the DNC would have none of an open convention. Clinton delegates were not only being pressured,there were stories of Clinton delegates threatened with being stripped of their credentials if they didn't switch their votes to Obama.

So, doing what Democrats seem to do best politically, act like they are afraid to lose, and with Pelosi being motivated by wanting to be the Democratic Party diva, they rigged the roll call vote, forcing many Clinton delegates to change their votes to Obama and virtually forced Clinton to go along with it. The California delegation, it should be noted, refused to go along with the charade and word was relayed to me at the time by someone who claimed to have first hand knowledge, that Gloria Allred who was either leading the California delegates or was simply a delegate herself, got into a shouting match with a representative from the DNC who was trying to pressure the California delegation, a state where Clinton had beaten Obama in a landslide, into going along with the program.They refused. So when the roll was called California was skipped.

Now two years later, the Democrats have lost control of the House mostly because of Obama, his ineffective and dishonest presidency, and largely because Obama sold out the public option on health care.

Whether Democrats will understand that message or not remains to be seen but there is a good bet they wont. The public option was the single most important piece of legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in a June 2009 poll 72% said they wanted it. As recently as February 2010, 58% said they wanted the public option. But Obama didn't have the backbone,courage or conviction to see it through even though the votes were there in the House and Senate to pass it. Obama was pathetic in challenging Republican lies about it and proved that in terms of the powers of persuasion, he couldn't sell a hand warmer to an Eskimo and the country is worse off for his having sold the public option, and with it, his Democratic base down the river.

Beyond that Obama had proved in over 13 years in the Illinois State senate and the US senate that he was a do nothing par excellence. He accomplished nothing in those years - zero - and set a record by voting "present" more than 100 times so he didn't have to vote for or against anything. He continued his non accomplishment in his first two years in office, highlighted by his selling out on the public option and a stimulus that was far too small to do anything about unemployment and a financial reform bill that was tepid. He also showed, as did other Democrats that they are anemic when it comes to articulating a cogent message. But having to articulate a message wouldn't have been necessary had Obama not betrayed the people who voted for him and actually accomplished something. He didnt.

On Tuesday, they paid Obama and Nancy Pelosi back. And now the House of Representatives is back in the hands of the people who caused all the problems in the first place. And the DNC has no one to blame but themselves.
In 2008 an offshoot of the Denver Group created commercials warning Democrats of the danger of an Obama presidency. Now two years later the commercials seem prophetic.
They can be seen here