What happens when a Democrat runs on Change You Can Believe In with the implied message that he will reverse the policies of the previous scandal-ridden incumbent only to continue many of the same policies.

Such as:

• Not reform, or rein in the excesses of the Wall Street neo-robber-barons in any way whatsoever.
• Continue the war in Iraq and escalate the war in Afghanistan even after you made a pledge to bring the troops home
• Break your promise to support a single-payer health care system

Those are just a few of the issues, by turning your back on the people who volunteered and gave their time and money, you turn off your own base in order to try to please that elusive, and/or even better, the illusive, "centrist" voter; by doing so, the base reacts, like ...

Poll: 40% of Dems 'Not Likely' Or 'Will Not Vote' Next Year

Get Ready for the Obama/GOP Alliance

Saturday 28 November 2009
by: Jeff Cohen, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

With Obama pushing a huge troop escalation in Afghanistan, history may well repeat itself with a vengeance. And it's not just the apt comparison to LBJ, who destroyed his presidency on the battlefields of Vietnam with an escalation that delivered power to Nixon and the GOP.

There's another frightening parallel: Obama seems to be following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton, who accomplished perhaps his single biggest legislative "triumph" - NAFTA - thanks to an alliance with Republicans that overcame strong Democratic and grassroots opposition.

It was 16 years ago this month when Clinton assembled his coalition with the GOP to bulldoze public skepticism about the trade treaty and overpower a stop-NAFTA movement led by unions, environmentalists and consumer rights groups. How did Clinton win his majority in Congress? With the votes of almost 80 percent of GOP senators and nearly 70 percent of House Republicans. Democrats in the House voted against NAFTA by more than 3 to 2, with fierce opponents including the Democratic majority leader and majority whip.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine King of Goldman Sach’s Plutocrats – a Plutocratic Virus on the Body Politic -- Through Wall Street Fraud, Privatization, Poor Government, & Corruption, Wages War on New Jersey’s (NJ) Middle Class – A Progressive -- Not On Your Life
Andrew H. Dral

“You may fool all the people some of the time,
you can even fool some of the people all the time;
but you can’t fool all of the people all the time."
Abraham Lincoln

New Jersey’s Auction-Rate Securities Exposure
Goldman, the Standard Oil of Modern Times, the Fifth Column
All Government Agencies are Fair Game for Privatization
Gov. Corzine’s Tin Ear to Environmental Issues
Unequivocal Support of the Jewish Theocracy of Israel
Lack of Transparency In the Governor’s Suite
Continuing a Democratic Regime of Bribery, Influence Peddling, & Corruption
Summary

Upon my return to New Jersey (NJ) from my vacation in December 2008 I was welcomed back with a new toll hike. Directly from the Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s (Goldman) playbook, Governor (Gov.) Jon S. Corzine, a former Co-Chairman at Goldman, implemented another regressive tax, taking another whack at the folks with the least ability to pay. Gov. Corzine spent 24 years at Goldman, before running for the U.S. Senate in 1999. It was a 43% toll hike on the middle class. My weekly trip back and forth to Northern NJ, will cost me an additional $75 annually, not to mention all the other times I traverse NJ’s toll roads.

The Governor never understood the difference between a regressive and progressive tax. In March 2008 the Governor successfully attacked the middle class by instituting parking fees on commuters to New York, costing me an additional $300 per year. The thought of a progressive state income tax, taxing those with the most ability to pay, to shore-up the states budget deficit was a small part of this Governor’s agenda. It was suggested this spring that a 0.75% temporary tax increase in the state income tax on residents making more than $500,000 a year could help close NJ’s $8 billion budget gap, but that was deemed too harsh on those with the most ability to pay. It would hurt the Governor’s plutocratic friends. A much better plan, according to the Governor, was to cut the pay or freeze the wages of state workers, the state’s scapegoats, reduce their pensions, forego their 3.5% annual pay raise, and force them to take unpaid furloughs. Another alternative was to maintain a deaf ear to the plight of homeowner’s suffering from the highest property taxes in the nation. The mantra of Gov. Corzine was to attack, attack, relentlessly attack the middle class.

During the governor’s rein, the state and its citizens have been subjected to Wall Street pay-back by availing NJ to the auction-rate securities market, privatization schemes, poor environmental policies, government corruption, and non-transparent processes. Wall Street windfalls continue, while a small increase in state workers’ pay is deemed excessive. The auction-rate securities market was marketed to governments and public institutions bankrolled by NJ’s taxpayers.

A flash from the recent past that is very relevant today...

Bill Moyers on the health care debate, Democrats, and Afghanistan

"These narrow interests win no matter how many Democrats are elected, no matter who controls the levers of power."

Glenn Greenwald

Aug. 29, 2009 |

Bill Moyers was on Bill Maher's show last night and spoke about the core failures of Democratic Party in the context of both the health care debate and the ongoing escalation in Afghanistan.  The whole discussion is really worth watching (at least until HBO intervenes, the entire 30-minute interview can be seen in 3 parts:  here, here and here; HBO is re-running the show throughout the weekend on this schedule), but I want to excerpt several key parts, including his very complimentary featuring of this post I wrote on Thursday regarding Democrats:

On what's really happening in the health care fight:

MOYERS:  I don’t think the problem is the Republicans . . . .The problem is the Democratic Party.  This is a party that has told its progressives -- who are the most outspoken champions of health care reform -- to sit down and shut up.  That’s what Rahm Emanuel, the Chief of Staff at the White House, in effect told progressives who stood up as a unit in Congress and said: "no public insurance option, no health care reform."

And I think the reason for that is -- in the time since I was there, 40 years ago, the Democratic Part has become like the Republican Party, deeply influenced by corporate money.  I think Rahm Emanuel, who is a clever politician, understands that the money for Obama’s re-election will come from the health care industry, from the drug industry, from Wall Street.  And so he’s a corporate Democrat who is determined that there won’t be something in this legislation that will turn off these interests. . . .

Glenn Greenwald: Lieberman and Bayh Enriching Themselves and Their Spouses with Opposition to Health Reform
By Heather Thursday Oct 29, 2009 1:30pm

Rachel Maddow talks to Glenn Greenwald about Joe Lieberman's threat to filibuster the health care bill if it contains a public option, Evan Bayh quickly following suit and the financial gain being made by both men and their spouses for doing so.

Centrist Democrats = Corporate Sellouts
posted by Ari Berman on 10/28/2009 @ 09:45am

 

Every time I hear about Joe Lieberman's latest apostasy, I think, Oy vey! There he goes again. More Joementum.

Remind me why we still call this guy a Democrat? Sure, Lieberman caucuses with Democrats in the Senate--Joe is nothing if not opportunistic and who wants to be part of a lowly Republican minority?--but I think he forfeited his right to call himself one when he almost became John McCain's VP and campaigned stridently against an Obama presidency. Yet somehow he managed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Gotta love those Senate Democrats--they always find a way to reward someone for stabbing them in the back. See Baucus, Max.

"Don't know much about history"

~ Sam Cooke

Mr. Panetta Needs a History Lesson

CIA director Leon Panetta implied Sunday that the "reality of 9/11" excused the unconstitutional and criminal acts of the Bush administration:

The country was frightened, and political leaders were trying to respond as best they could. Judgments were made. Some of them were wrong.

Panetta makes it sound like all of the illegal decisions were made after 9/11, in response to that horrific event.

But as I've previously pointed out:

* The government's spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here)

* The Patriot Act was written before 9/11 [*note below*]

* The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11

* The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11

* The decision to launch a war against Iran was made before 9/11

* Cheney advocated strengthening the powers of the White House to the point of monarchy before 9/11

In addition, while the decision to torture appears to have been made after 9/11, it appears to have been made for the purpose of creating a false linkage between Iraq and 9/11 in order to justify the Iraq war. In other words, the post-9/11 decision to torture appears to have been made to rationalize the pre-9/11 decision to invade Iraq.

Moreover, it was known long before 9/11 that torture doesn't work to produce accurate intelligence.

Click the header to read the links

---

[**] The link for the article on the Patriot Act being written prior to 9/11 is dead, but I found a reprint and will reprint it in it's entirety below

The USA PATRIOT Act Was Planned Before 9/11

Obama: 'If you're driving toward a cliff, you have to change direction'

"I welcome this debate, but, come on, we are not going to get relief by turning back to the same policies that, for the last eight years, doubled our national debt, and threw our economy into a tail spin '' Obama said, with a passion unseen in public since the campaign trail. "We can't embrace the same old formula that says only tax cuts will address the problems we face.''

Opponents say the plan is not a stimulus bill, it's a spending bill, he said. "What do you think stimulus is?'' Obama said, with visible frustration. "That's the point.''

The president's appeal marks a sharply accelerated drive for an economic stimulus that Republicans are criticizing and some members of his own party are starting to question as the Senate debates a plan that cleared the House with unanimous opposition from the GOP. Obama plans a prime-time news conference Monday night to take the same case to the American public, but they are unlikely to see the campaign-styled passion that Obama rolled out for his party at its retreat tonight

"I don't care if you're driving a hybrid or SUV. If you're driving toward a cliff, you have to change direction,'' Obama told his party, applauding the words of their new president at the start of a weekend retreat. "That's what the American people called for."

youtube

Longer version

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the proposed reductions "do violence to what we are trying to do for the future," especially on alternative energy and education, two areas Democrats believe were long neglected under President George W. Bush. "The cuts are very damaging," she told reporters at a House Democratic retreat in Williamsburg.

It's the same old story over and over and ...

[These people are nucking futs! I've got a blog coming up (when I can find the time) that'll blow the doors off all this Ronald Reagan / Milton Friedman supply side tax cuts for the wealthy BS that's supposedly great for the economy

In the meantime contact your Congresspeople and tell them NO! on this Centrist / Republican BS if it comes up for a vote]

‘Centrist’ Economic Recovery Package Disproportionately Cuts Programs For Women And Children

Blacklisting Progressives: The Untold Story Beneath the Daschle Headlines
by: David Sirota - Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 16:46

Amid the swirling headlines about Tom Daschle withdrawing his nomination for Health and Human Service Secretary is a very dark, very foreboding story that tells us a lot more about what to expect from the Obama administration than a single nomination fight. It is a story that every single voter who supported Barack Obama because of his progressive economic platform should know about - and worry about.

As every newspaper in America has been happy to report, Daschle worked with venture capitalist Leo Hindery after he left the Senate. Hindery was a top economic adviser to John Edwards and later to Barack Obama, and many had floated his name for U.S. Trade Representative or Commerce Secretary. Now, though, that won't be happening, as anyone mentioned near the Daschle flap is being shunned by the Obama administration.

But is that really why someone as accomplished as Hindery was never seriously considered for a top economic post in the administration? The media and the Obama administration would like us to believe yes - but the answer is no. It has far less to do with the Daschle situation and far more to do with Hindery's progressive economic ideology.

The Return of Triangulation
by Norman Solomon - Published on Monday, January 19, 2009 by CommonDreams.org

The mosaic of Barack Obama's cabinet picks and top White House staff gives us an overview of what the new president sees as political symmetry for his administration. While it's too early to gauge specific policies of the Obama presidency, it's not too soon to understand that "triangulation" is back.

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton was adept at placing himself midway between the base of his own party and Republican leaders. As he triangulated from the Oval Office -- often polarizing with liberal Democrats on such issues as "free trade," deregulation, "welfare reform" and military spending -- Clinton did well for himself. But not for his party.

I don't find him at fault for his choice of Hillary, but ... Debra Saunders and Rich Lowry are very happy with our President-Elect's choices and I have to say this is not The Change I can Believe In ™

The first article is from Hugh who I totally agree with, and the second is from David Sirota. And I would like to ask a question up front: Where are the progressives in policy-maker positions, Obama???

The Triumphant Return of the Establishment

By: Hugh Monday December 1, 2008 12:09 pm

Whatever else can be said about the Administration that Obama is putting together, it represents the return of the Establishment with a vengeance. Gone are the inner core of Bush ideologues and true believers like Cheney and Addington. Gone are the defenders and apologists like Mukasey. Gone too are the bunglers and fools like Rice and Chertoff. Washington, the old Washington is back and, since it has been away for a while, it gets to call itself the new Washington. Change has indeed come, but it has arrived looking very much like something we have seen before.

A Media Parable for "the Center"
Thursday 20 November 2008 - by: Norman Solomon, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Barack Obama and Bill Clinton exit Clinton's office in Harlem after a lunch meeting. The myth of the former president's "lurch to the left" may tinge the media's view of the president-elect's early days in office. (Photo: Mario Tama / Getty Images)

It's been 16 years since a Democrat moved into the White House. Now, the fog of memory and the spin of media are teaming up to explain that Barack Obama must hew to "the center" if he knows what's good for his presidency.

The Top Five Reasons The Bailout Interventions Are Making Things Worse

2008-10-01 — ml-implode.com

by Aaron Krowne for The Implode-o-Meter.

The bailout bill currently under debate isn't the first attempt to "just do something" to "fix the crisis". Many interventions have been concocted over the past year, with each seeming to trump the previous in heft, but pitched as the "bailout to end all bailouts" and finally fix the economy.

Yet, these interventions have all failed -- all the underlying metrics of the market (spreads, share prices, bank lending) have continued to deteriorate. In this piece we examine why. The implication is: this latest "bailout to end all bailouts" will be, well, anything but, and should be vigorously opposed.

[Click the header to read the links in the story]

Ten Reasons Not To Bail Out Wall Street

by Catherine Austin Fitts and Carolyn Betts, Esq.

(1) Crime that pays is crime that stays.

There is reason to believe that Wall Street and those they represent are holding loans without collateral, multiple loans secured by the same properties, and other fraudulent instruments among the “troubled assets.” Based on the secret “Treasury Conference Call” with 800 Wall Street insiders, we know the deal proposed to be passed by Congress isn’t the real deal promised to Wall Street.

(2) This smells like obstruction of justice.

Bail-out without due diligence of so called “troubled assets” is a perfect way to hide documentation of financial crimes. It is also a perfect means to launder both the past ill-gotten gains and new federal money spent recklessly and without necessary safeguards and oversight mechanisms. Be very suspicious when they tell you “we just can’t tell what’s in these troubled assets.” We can assure you that the federal government has field offices all across the country that deal with significant amounts of real estate and mortgage assets on a dailyl basis. If Treasury refuses for more than a decade to comply with the laws, with approximately $4 trillion missing (and counting), it is not competent to manage $700 billion of taxpayer money while its arm is twisted by Wall Street.