jump to navigation

Beating the retreat… 22 January 2010

Posted by marisacat in 2010 Mid Terms, 2012 Re Election, DC Politics, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, Lie Down Fall Down Dems, WAR!.
trackback

New Delhi, India: Border Security Force soldiers ride their camels during a rehearsal for the Beating the Retreat ceremony
Photograph: Adnan Abidi/Reuters

… a lot better looking than the Democrats fall back (fall down) position………… 😉

*****************************************************

Advertisements

Comments»

1. marisacat - 22 January 2010

How long til they are armed?

CCTV in the sky: police plan to use military-style spy drones

Arms manufacturer BAE Systems developing national strategy with consortium of government agencies

Paul Lewis The Guardian, Saturday 23 January 2010

Police in the UK are planning to use unmanned spy drones, controversially deployed in Afghanistan, for the ­”routine” monitoring of antisocial motorists, ­protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance.

The arms manufacturer BAE Systems, which produces a range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for war zones, is adapting the military-style planes for a consortium of government agencies led by Kent police.

Documents from the South Coast Partnership, a Home Office-backed project in which Kent police and others are developing a national drone plan with BAE, have been obtained by the Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act.

They reveal the partnership intends to begin using the drones in time for the 2012 Olympics. They also indicate that police claims that the technology will be used for maritime surveillance fall well short of their intended use – which could span a range of police activity – and that officers have talked about selling the surveillance data to private companies. A prototype drone equipped with high-powered cameras and sensors is set to take to the skies for test flights later this year. ….

Madman in the Marketplace - 22 January 2010

I wouldn’t be surprised if they already were.

marisacat - 22 January 2010

HA! They are worried bout tractor theft. Good one!!

[P]reviously, Kent police has said the drone scheme was intended for use over the English Channel to monitor shipping and detect immigrants crossing from France. However, the documents suggest the maritime focus was, at least in part, a public relations strategy designed to minimise civil liberty concerns.

“There is potential for these [maritime] uses to be projected as a ‘good news’ story to the public rather than more ‘big brother’,” a minute from the one of the earliest meetings, in July 2007, states.

Behind closed doors, the scope for UAVs has expanded significantly. Working with various policing organisations as well as the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, the Maritime and Fisheries Agency, HM Revenue and Customs and the UK Border Agency, BAE and Kent police have drawn up wider lists of potential uses.

One document lists “[detecting] theft from cash machines, preventing theft of tractors and monitoring antisocial driving” as future tasks for police drones, while another states the aircraft could be used for road and railway monitoring, search and rescue, event security and covert urban surveillance. …

Madman in the Marketplace - 22 January 2010

typical

marisacat - 23 January 2010

Endless threat = endless war… carry on! Chin up!

2. Madman in the Marketplace - 22 January 2010

great comment in a thread under a post by Taibbi about the MA election:

The lesson Obama *should* take from this is that people are not fooled by Obama throwing out platitudes like “I didn’t run for President to please fat-cat bankers” and then appointing people like Tim Geithner of Goldman Sachs to Treasury, keeping Ben Bernanke around, and having people who caused the economic pain for so many people like Larry Summers and Robert Rubin as his economic advisors. And are not fooled when he does nothing but mouth platitudes, or makes a scene of phoning a bank to tell them not to buy a plane, as the largest round of banking bonuses is handed out the year after they did the financial equivalent of blowing up the world. And or not fooled when he gives a speech to Wall Street politely requesting them not to be so greedy, and that they don’t need to wait for him to enact legislation to change their behaviour. And are not fooled when all the popular elements of reform like a public insurance option are gutted out of the health care reform bill in order to “pass something” and call it a win, and then lie that you “never campaigned on a public option” (for someone who ran such a new-media campaign, it’s pretty brazen to act like in 2010, people don’t have the YouTubes!). Health care reform with the public insurance option was popular with 60% of people – the health insurance industry giveaway without it is popular with about 30% of people. And people are not fooled when he generally doesn’t enact anything meaningful because he is so comfortable in his bubble and so weak and “above the fray” of the den of rats that is Congress that he bows and scrapes to the 60th corrupt, brainless, and paid-for Senator like Ben Nelson or Joe fucking Lieberman for absolutely anything and everything.

I think Obama and his circle really believed that if he just talked the talk, and acted more empathetic in his photo-ops, no one would notice they were carrying on with the contempt Bush and Republicans had for the general public. But people -did- notice, and people who they counted on before to volunteer and vote for them because “they have no one else to vote for” are sick and tired of playing that game – not seeing a meaningful difference between the parties, they didn’t play the game this time and either sat out or expressed their disgust.

Whether he *will* take that lesson remains to be seen. He seems incredibly tone-deaf to me, and the corporate donors to the Democratic Party have no interest in that message getting through. Whether he’ll even feel the inclination to act on that lesson if it actually -does- sink in is also highly questionable.

I came of voting age just a little before 2000, and could never really understand why people would “waste” a vote on someone like Nader. And although I was a supporter of Kucinich in 2004, once he was out, favoring Kerry made sense to me. But I’d never really had a real opportunity to see the modern Democratic Party running things in my adult lifetime.

Now I understand why people vote third-party. When the country is teetering on the brink and can’t get by on non-solutions anymore, and avoiding failed-state status actually depends on starting to fix the problems rather than just pretending it’s trying, and EVEN THEN the Democratic Party can only respond by offering trillions to Wall Street and legally requiring people who can’t afford health insurance to buy it from private, oligopolistic, profit-maximizing companies, all because of industry’s hold on Congress… then there’s nothing else you can do. In such a sick system, all you have left is your integrity as the country goes to hell, and I understand with crystal clarity why people vote third-party.

They’re learnin’

marisacat - 22 January 2010

I think Obama and his circle really believed that if he just talked the talk, and acted more empathetic in his photo-ops, no one would notice they were carrying on with the contempt Bush and Republicans had for the general public.

YUP… I am sure the white people (it’s nto jsut men, there is that Pritzker Hyatt Hotel chain heiress as well) behind him have thought, watching the slack jawed crowds during the primaries and the GE, that he could just JESUS US ALL TO A STUPOR.

3. Madman in the Marketplace - 22 January 2010

An anonymouse donk staffer writes to Josh Marshall:

A wave election hit us in 2008 where we not only had overwhelming majorities of 59 seats in the Senate (once Republicans finally got around to letting us seat Franken) and 257 seats in the House (returning us to the same power level as when we ruled the House with inpugnity in 1992-3) but, most importantly, a President who was explicitly elected on an agenda of “change.” It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to wrench the wheel away from the abyss and really deliver on our promises. It was disheartening when it seemed that Reid was allowing McConnell’s disingenuous narrative of “it’s always taken 60 votes to get anything done” to take hold, but we were later even saved from that when Specter switched. But it seems we’ve spent the entire year moving our own goalposts farther away. Things have gotten so bad that in roaming the halls today it feels exactly as if we lost the Majority last night.

The worst is that I can’t help but feel like the main emotion people in the caucus are feeling is relief at this turn of events. Now they have a ready excuse for not getting anything done. While I always thought we had the better ideas but the weaker messaging, it feels like somewhere along the line Members internalized a belief that we actually have weaker ideas. They’re afraid to actually implement them and face the judgement of the voters. That’s the scariest dynamic and what makes me think this will all come crashing down around us in November.

I believe President Clinton provided some crucial insight when he said, “people would rather be with someone who is strong and wrong than weak and right.” It’s not that people are uninterested in who’s right or wrong, it’s that people will only follow leaders who seem to actually believe in what they are doing. Democrats have missed this essential fact.

That’s just the meat, but the whole thing is long and confirms much of what many of us hear suspect of those worthless curs in DC.

4. marisacat - 22 January 2010

hmm mmm without skipping a beat, moving right along…….. and since at least some commentary (Feingold, for one) pointed otu that the court clearly ignored stare decisis in the campaign money ruling……… hey, why not? Same five can overturn Roe.

Who knows.

The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday overturning a ban on corporate political spending that had been in place for more than a century has left abortion-rights supporters jittery that the justices could be similarly prepared to upend the landmark Roe v. Wade decision the court handed down 37 years ago this week.

“Yesterday’s Roberts court decision, which exhibited a stunning disregard for settled law of decades’ standing, is terrifying to those of us who care deeply about the Constitutional protections the court put in place for women’s access to abortion,” said Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “We are deeply concerned….Yesterday’s decision shows the court will reach out to take an opportunity to wholesale reverse a precedent the hard right has never liked.” …

Read more: LINK

catnip - 22 January 2010

Feingold voted to confirm Judge Stare Decisis.

marisacat - 22 January 2010

Roberts right?

Oh yeah I recall. Biiiig mistake on Feingold’s part.

They all lvoe to vote for them then later, usually shortly beofre another SC vote, declare regret. Leahy was all over the cables declaring he regretted his vote for Scalia shortly before the Roberts vote.

pinwheels made from the sausage and blood and guts of the “laws”…

😆

Madman in the Marketplace - 22 January 2010

shhhhhhhhh

marisacat - 22 January 2010

More from the article (page 2):

Abortion opponents were heartened by the boldness of the court’s ruling Thursday.

“Where they disagree with the precedent and they think it’s wrong constitutionally, they’re not afraid to say it,” said the American Center for Law and Justice’s Jay Sekulow, an attorney who has argued church-state and campaign finance issues before the justices. “Where they think the court got it wrong, they’re trying to correct that and from my perspective that’s a good thing.” An unthinking embrace of precedent would have protracted the effect of widely-reviled rulings like the Dred Scott decision on slavery and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision upholding separate-but-equal treatment of the races, Sekulow said.

Despite the signals that may have been sent Thursday, analysts on both sides of the issue said they still think an explicit repudiation of Roe v. Wade isn’t in the cards anytime soon. However, they said the tone and circumstances of the election law decision suggest the court won’t be skittish about cutting Roe back even further.

“It’s just being held up by a little camel stick,” said Janet Benshoof, a longtime abortion-rights lawyer. “You’re talking to someone who considers Roe v. Wade to have been overturned already,” she said, referring to a series of rulings in recent years upholding restrictions on abortion. “It’s no longer a fundamental right. We have 300 to 400 criminal laws on abortion that wouldn’t be legal under the [original] version of Roe v. Wade.”

The majority opinion Thursday was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has expressed support the central holding of Roe v. Wade but has also endorsed state efforts to regulate abortion.

Northup said she thinks laws limiting abortion will multiply further as activists learn of Thursday’s decision. …

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31880_Page2.html#ixzz0dPCzTtC1

5. Madman in the Marketplace - 22 January 2010

Madmen on the Hill

I love the understatement of medical terms—someone who’s shown up in the Emergency Department raving about messages they’re getting via their fillings has “decompensated”. True, but there’s so much more.

Like the person sitting in the corner of a padded cell picking at imaginary insects on their body, the Democratic caucus has decompensated. The notion that they’ll be able to regroup and do something is about as reasonable as the view that someone in a rubber room will walk out tomorrow and go back to their old job as if nothing happened. And a stern talk from Daddy Obama isn’t going to fix shit.

They don’t even have the excuse that their brain chemistry is broken. They are just feckless cowards, and they deserve everything they’re going to get.

marisacat - 22 January 2010

I actualy got a huge kick out of the Politico article quoting Dodd and others, that the Dems need a month or six weeks off “reform”………….. and then they would rethink everything (think I linked to it in the previous thread).

It was HIALRIOUS

catnip - 22 January 2010

It reminded me of our Con prime minister shutting down parliament here until March so he and his little minions can work on their budget. Useless buggers can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. There are anti-prorogation protests not only in Canada this weekend but also in London, NYC, San Francisco, Dallas, and The Hague.

Ummm…Can you hear me now??

marisacat - 22 January 2010

They wanted to get out of view, pretty clearly………….

catnip - 22 January 2010

That’s funny. Some of the frustrated Obamalama worshippers at dkos were actually suggesting Balloon Juice as a safe and sane place to hang out and get away from the frenzied dirty fucking hippies at dkos. lol

Madman in the Marketplace - 22 January 2010

well, the ex-Republicans there are pushing the “settle for the Senate bill” ‘compromise’.

catnip - 22 January 2010

That explains it then.

6. Madman in the Marketplace - 22 January 2010
7. catnip - 22 January 2010

From Moyers’ show tonite: 4 out of 10 Americans can’t name a fossil fuel.

WTF??

ts - 22 January 2010

Umm, Bob Dole?

catnip - 22 January 2010

🙂 Powered by Viagra.

8. marisacat - 23 January 2010

😆

Imperialer than thou…………………. or something to that effect. They throw won ton we throw hamburgers.

This should be a fun food fight….

9. marisacat - 23 January 2010

Sunday Soaps………………….

NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’: White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), roundtable with Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne, BBC’s Katty Kay, WSJ’s Peggy Noonan and NBC’s Chuck Todd

ABC’s ‘This Week’: White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), roundtable with ABC’s George Will, ABC’s Cokie Roberts, ABC’s Sam Donaldson and Republican strategist Matthew Dowd

CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY)

‘Fox News Sunday’: White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), roundtable with Fox News’s Brit Hume, NPR’s Mara Liasson, The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol and NPR’s Juan Williams

CNN’s ‘State of Union’: White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and Republican pollster Neil Newhouse

C-SPAN: ‘The Communicators’ (6:30pm ET Saturday): National Association of Broadcasters President Gordon Smith, questioned by Broadcasting and Cable’s John Eggerton … ‘Newsmakers’ (10am ET /6pm ET Sunday): NRSC Chairman Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) … ‘Q&A’ (8pm ET & 11pm ET Sunday): Students from the Washington Center discuss politics and government, representing one group of the 600-800 college students who come to Washington each year

10. marisacat - 23 January 2010

… and I am sure we all believe it……………. Marines leaving Iraq.

catnip - 23 January 2010

The Marines formally handed over control of Sunni-dominated Anbar, Iraq’s largest province, to the Army during a ceremony at a base in Ramadi – where some of the fiercest fighting of the war took place.

How about handing over the place to the Iraqis?

11. marisacat - 23 January 2010

oh PUH-leeeeze.

[W]hen I went and took this trip to China, and took this trip to Asia, a lot of people said, “Well, why is he going to Asia? He’s traveling overseas too much. He needs to be coming back home and talking about jobs.” I’m there because that’s where we’re going to find those jobs, is by increasing our exports to those countries, the same way they’ve been doing in our country. If we increased our exports — our share of exports by just 1 percent, that would mean hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the United States. Five percent — maybe a million jobs, well-paying jobs. So we’re going to have to pry those markets open. Intellectual property is part of that process. …

From his gambol into Ohio yesterday.

12. catnip - 23 January 2010

Obama vows “forceful, bipartisan response” to campaign finance decision

by SusanG

Which part of The Republicans are just not that into you doesn’t he get?

marisacat - 23 January 2010

Well… Olympia Snowe has told them ”no go”. And she is the only one they ever had, out of the 5 or so who “played along”.

The cupboard is BARE.

13. catnip - 23 January 2010

I heard that he used the word “fight” in one form or the other 14 times in a speech he gave on Friday. Maybe he can borrow Harry’s boxing gloves for his next photo op.

marisacat - 23 January 2010

ms xeno wrote me that an item they sell and ship at her temp job is……………. wait for it! ……….

.
.
.
pink satin boxer shorts.

boxers or briefs etc. He can drape them across the displayed pecs.

catnip - 23 January 2010

in front of this backdrop.

14. catnip - 23 January 2010

Executives Urge Public Financing for Campaigns

WASHINGTON (AP) — About 40 current and former corporate executives have a message for Congress: Quit hitting us up for campaign cash.

You won’t hear that from the “netroots”.

In a letter to Congressional leaders on Friday, the executives urged Congress to approve public financing for House and Senate campaigns. They sent the letter a day after the Supreme Court struck down limits on corporate spending in elections.

“Members of Congress already spend too much time raising money from large contributors,” the letter said. “And often, many of us individually are on the receiving end of solicitation phone calls from members of Congress. With additional money flowing into the system due to the court’s decision, the fund-raising pressure on members of Congress will only increase.”

The companies represented by the executives who signed the letter include Playboy Enterprises, the ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s, the Seagram’s liquor company, the toymaker Hasbro, Delta Airlines, Men’s Wearhouse, the Quaker Chemical Corporation, the Brita Products Company, San Diego National Bank, MetLife and Crate and Barrel.

They sent the letter through Fair Elections Now, a coalition of good-government groups that has long lobbied Congress to pass legislation establishing public campaign financing.

marisacat - 23 January 2010

i hope they stick to it………………… i read some feel pressured to give — for fear of legislative retaliation.

ah, mother’s milk: PUNISHMENT

15. Madman in the Marketplace - 23 January 2010
16. catnip - 23 January 2010

For God’s sake, blog!, pope tells priests

Bloggers for Jeebus! Send money now!!

The Vatican got egg on its face last year when the pope admitted that, if the Church had surfed the web more, it might have known that a traditionalist bishop whose excommunication was lifted had for years been a Holocaust denier.

marisacat - 23 January 2010

oh………… except I think Ratzy and Gansie knew. I mean the web is very very handy but … there are other ways too.

yeah they just want priests online snagging cash (and the underage!) and they wove a fake apology into it.

Sneaky those Catholics.

😉 (there should be an emoticon for “snake in the tall and holy, blessed grass”)

catnip - 23 January 2010

= = = = :}

marisacat - 23 January 2010

that willw ork!

17. Madman in the Marketplace - 23 January 2010

Watching as the Supreme Court turns a corporation into a real live boy.

As Stevens says in reading his dissent, none of that has anything to do with the court’s decision to topple decades’ worth of legal architecture that had never been questioned in the courts. And Kennedy’s visceral terror of speech bans (the word “ban” appears 29 times in his 57-page opinion) and “censorship” seems to override any sort of temperate assessment of either the facts of the case before him, the lack of substantial record in the lower courts, the significance of the cases he is overruling, or the consequences of today’s opinion. Perhaps because this is the same Anthony Kennedy who was so exquisitely sensitive to the corrupting influence of money on public confidence in judicial elections in the Caperton case about judicial corruption, it’s hard to comprehend what it is about unlimited corporate contributions that so moves him.

If Kennedy is tentative this morning and Stevens is horrified, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas say nothing at all. They don’t have to: They’re the architects of the edifice Kennedy has erected. Reading from his dissent, Stevens describes their “sweeping” attacks on Michigan’s campaign finance law in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (one of the cases overruled today) as “having planted the seed that flowered” into today’s majority opinion.

While Stevens is reading the portion of his concurrence about the “cautious view of corporate power” held by the framers, I see Justice Thomas chuckle softly. (Scalia takes on this argument in his concurrence.) Stevens hammers, more than once this morning from the bench on the principle that corporations “are not human beings” and “corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.” He insists that “they are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”

But you can plainly see the weariness in Stevens eyes and hear it in his voice today as he is forced to contend with a legal fiction that has come to life today, a sort of constitutional Frankenstein moment when corporate speech becomes even more compelling than the “voices of the real people” who will be drowned out. Even former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist once warned that treating corporate spending as the First Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is “to confuse metaphor with reality.” Today that metaphor won a very real victory at the Supreme Court. And as a consequence some very real corporations are feeling very, very good.

I imagine that it will be very tempting for Stevens to retire at the end of this term. Might as well … I can’t imagine spending the last years of his life putting up with that bunch sitting next to him.

marisacat - 23 January 2010

Something happened to him … just these past few days, I have caught references TO it, but not the whole story. I see “stumble” used, but not sure what they mean, physical or mental…………….

Tho apparently he as strong on the bench in ths case and read from his dissent for 20 mins…

Madman in the Marketplace - 23 January 2010

it’s got to be disheartening to end a career in this environment.

marisacat - 23 January 2010

yes and he knows what boils on humanity shits like Clarence, Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy are. they are nto conservatives, they are CRAZY PEOPLE

BooHooHooMan - 23 January 2010

Well..
Good thing the Dems didn’t vote to Confirm any of those guys. 😆

Allow me to recite the The Kaddish , or,
The Confession of Faith, take your pick..or…. not.

courtesy of Jerome Pennystock Pumpendumper’s joint:
Democrats voting Yes for Roberts…

Max Baucus of Montana
Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico
Robert Byrd of West Virginia
Kent Conrad of North Dakota
Russ Feingold of Wisconsin
Tim Johnson of South Dakota
Herb Kohl of Wisconsin
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana
Patrick Leahy of Vermont
Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Bill Nelson of Florida
Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Ken Salazar of Colorado
Christopher Dodd of Connecticut
Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota
Carl Levin of Michigan
Ron Wyden of Oregon
Tom Carper of Delaware
Patty Murray of Washington
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas
James Jeffords (I) of Vermont
Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia
::
And 11 Dems for Thomas, crikey, the Dixiecrats sure gave the wimmin’s Brokers cover on that one, Whew! 52- 49!
::
And then, of course , SCALIA. Chortle Chortle Back Slappy.
Why, Come Right IN!

Scalia, who attended the hearing with his wife and nine children seated behind him, found time for a humorous exchange with Democratic Ohio Senator Howard Metzenbaum, whom Scalia had defeated in a tennis match, in, as the nominee put it, “a case of my integrity overcoming my judgment”. Scalia met no opposition in the committee, or in the full Senate, where he was confirmed, 98-0. One committee member, Democratic Delaware Senator (and future Vice President) Joe Biden later stated that he regretted not opposing Scalia “because he was so effective”. [23]

marisacat - 23 January 2010

Over the years I have posted over and over the list for Clarence. Enogh so that the cheap minions began to post the push back:

Few of them were in congress anymore.

Geesh get real. More like them WENT IN.

AND I have posted legal writing that the Dems have confimred, over and over, for more than 20 years, PRO LIFE JUDGES at EVERY LEVEL.

There is little else coming up thru the judicial ranks by now.

18. Madman in the Marketplace - 23 January 2010

Activist MIT cartographers aid Peruvian squatters

Who knew there was such a thing as “activist cartographers”?

marisacat - 23 January 2010

TE Lawrence was a cartographer! (among other things)

Madman in the Marketplace - 23 January 2010

I didn’t know that!

19. BooHooHooMan - 23 January 2010

They are trotting out David Fluff
with more bumper stickers to tape on the Kleenex over the gaping head wound I suppose.

He and Axelrod must have loved Being There , no? Or might as well have Jerzy Kosinski’s classic as their playbook as their whole tight lipped management of the Chancey Gardner You Can Believe In campaign HAD to be of few revealing words…

Apropos of the repo zit…Specifically on Ob and the new Populist shtick being prepared for him…
the righty Bevan at RCP is, well, righty here.. except for his take on the “partisan” nature of the HC Bill ( They ALL wanted that giveaway, the posturing aside)

Obama’s Cross of Arugula

So today we got a glimpse of the new, populist Obama. He feels our pain. He will fight for us until his very last breath (even if he’s fighting to pass policies the public doesn’t like, apparently). He is going to get every dime of our money back from those evil banks on Wall Street (even though most have already paid back what they owe.)

The White House seems to think a pivot to populism will help the President politically. But it probably won’t. Here’s why: Obama isn’t a “man of the people.” Never has been. That isn’t the image he ran on during the campaign, and it isn’t why people voted for him. Even more to the point, it certainly wasn’t how he governed during his first year in office.

Obama ran as a thoughtful, cool-headed, competent intellectual who was going to bring both parties together to develop and implement solutions to America’s most serious problems.

But – and here’s the rub – after a year of bailing out Wall Street and car makers, passing a stimulus that didn’t produce any tangible results for Main Street (i.e. jobs), and focusing most of his energy in pushing a partisan health care bill through Congress using backroom deals with industries and individual Democratic Senators, huge swaths of the country have lost confidence in Obama.

They’ve lost confidence in his agenda, and they are no longer sold on the idea that he can deliver on his promise to produce bipartisan solutions to America’s problems.

So a change in Obama’s style is unlikely to suddenly alter public perceptions about the President or his agenda. Nor is new rhetoric likely to put him back “in touch” with the public after a year of becoming detached from them – something he admitted in his interview with George Stephanopoulos earlier this week.

One of the things that was most likable about Barack Obama during the campaign was that he seemed exceedingly comfortable in his own skin. He was the smooth Constitutional Law professor from an elite university who projected a sense of knowledge, competence, and analytic pragmatism married to the lofty, eloquent rhetoric of hope. Put differently, candidate Obama was above running a populist campaign – which is why he struggled so mightily against Hillary Clinton with blue collar folks who cling to their God and guns.

Politicians try to reinvent themselves all the time, and some find success. But it only works if there’s some credibility behind the shift – some truth in advertising, if you will. That’s why its’ hard to see the public buying into Obama’s impersonation of William Jennings Bryan. It’s simply not who he is.

Bevans is right, but it’s such a bogus Around We Go cycle: the whole Limo Lib Redux followed by Quail Hunters.
They’re all lying sacks of shit.

20. marisacat - 23 January 2010

nuuuuuu….

LINK

…………. 😯

(BHHM: I will move your commetn forward in a couple of mins, pie about to come out of the oven!!)

BooHooHooMan - 23 January 2010

Tho it’s prolly the drugs and too much television as kid,
but between last night’s sweet and sour prawns, the Retro SCOTUS,
and the pie in the oven, I think you may have inadvertently
just triggered a flashback to my mythical American childhood. 😆

{Easy, now. Gotta get my head together. LOL.}


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: