The Big “O” Speaks

I was recently chastised by an acquaintance about why I am not more vocal on Obama and his presidency……and it is true….I was very vocal in the past about his candidacy but have not been so since…..first, I think the whole system is sick!  Second,  Obama has been a disappointment to me for he has changed NOTHING in the way DC does business….but with that said I will now commence my broadcast day with a review of his most recent speech, economic speech, delivered in Kansas…..what can I say about Kansas?  Thinking……thinking……NOTHING good….but this is not about the state but rather a speech……

Let me begin, most of these types speeches are mind numbing…..and choked full of one liners that can be used for the 20 second sound bite on cable news shows….

Let me begin with the fact that he threw in some historical events is to my liking…..but I think that Obama should have mentioned the Teddy was running on the Progressive Party platform and NOT as a Repub……and that none of the major ideas were Teddy’s or even Republican…………..second almost everything that was on the platform were issues championed by socialists…..but that would not have been a good idea……Rush and that form of bottom feeder would have had a field day…….God forbid give due where due is warranted….

Now on to his speech…..I was impressed, not because it was a good speech but rather that it took forever to get to the point….he did say a few things that were to the point and spot on….like…..

(Applause.)  I’m here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we’re greater together than we are on our own.  I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules.  (Applause.)  These aren’t Democratic values or Republican values.  These aren’t 1 percent values or 99 percent values.  They’re American values.  And we have to reclaim them.  (Applause.)

Obama has seem to acknowledge the OWS Movement with his reference of the 99% thing…..could this be the voice of a candidate realizing that the movement is not going away and trying to co-opt it into the Dems running strategy?

And then there were parts that I do NOT agree with……like this point…..

In today’s innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science and research, the next generation of high-tech manufacturing.  Our factories and our workers shouldn’t be idle.  We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges so they can learn how to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries.  And by the way, if we don’t have an economy that’s built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won’t all gravitate towards careers in banking and finance.  (Applause.)   Because if we want an economy that’s built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering.  (Applause.)  This country should not be known for bad debt and phony profits. We should be known for creating and selling products all around the world that are stamped with three proud words:  Made in America.  (Applause.)

The part I disagree with is the innovation part…..why?  Well, let’s look at Steve Jobs……a great innovator but almost all the jobs he created were in China….I agree with the parts about speculation and especially the “Made In America”….but innovation is not enough!

And there are the cutesy bumper sticker moments……

This isn’t about class warfare.  This is about the nation’s welfare.  It’s about making choices that benefit not just the people who’ve done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole.

He is WRONG!  It is ALL about class warfare….when one class does everything to keep another class immobile….then it is class warfare.  Period!

All in all, as usual, he gave a good speech even if the crowd glazed over at minute number 10….but that is all it was….A SPEECH!  If nothing changes or there is NO advancement toward the future it will have been a waste of a perfectly good afternoon.

It’s A Family Thing

The mid-term campaigns are in full bloom…idiocy…silliness…..are the rule of the day.  Voters are inundated with what Spaniards called “Mierda”…..from all directions….phone calls….door greets….Mall appearances…the fools are everywhere….and all want your vote  so they can go to Washington and get their piece of the pie…..whoever named it the “silly season” was a very wise person….

All the pomp and ceremony of the elections has become boring…even for a politics junkie like me…..there is only so much BS that one can stand…especially if you have an IQ above “tickle me Elmo”……but just when I thought I was about over the stuff……I was mistaken!

Bloomberg has a report that just tickles the crap out of me….Thanx to Traci McMillan for the article……

President Barack Obama is distantly related to two of his most outspoken critics — Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin and talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh — as well as to former President George W. Bush, according to a genealogy website.

Family trees revealed Obama and Palin, the former Alaska Governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, are 10th cousins through common ancestor John Smith, according to Ancestry.com Inc. Smith was Obama’s and Palin’s 12th-great- grandfather. Smith, a Protestant pastor, was an early settler in Massachusetts and was criticized by the ecclesiastical community for supporting Quakers, said Anastasia Tyler, a genealogist for the website.

Obama and Limbaugh are 10th cousins once removed through shared connections to Richmond Terrell, a Virginia settler who came to America in the mid-1600s, Tyler said.

The family-tree website also found that Palin is related to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, and author and commentator Ann Coulter. The three are tied to John Lathrop, an Englishman who was banished to Boston after he served as minister of an illegal church independent of the Church of England, Tyler said.

Just I have thought for decades….and now there is PROOF……Politics is ALL one big, power hungry family……

Oh, The Hypocrisy

Do any of you remember when Obama was not doing enough to come up with ideas to save the economy?  And now he is doing too much?

The best part though is that most of the media pundits keep being  opposed to the Obama approach to the economy by looking to the future, say 10-20-30 years down the road and what it will mean to our country.

What crap!  And I seriously mean CRAP!

Where were these hair brained, thick lipped dick brains decades ago when tax cuts and de-regulation was putting out country into the situation it is in now?  Just where were these forward looking a/holes then?

No one gave two shakes in hell about the children and grand children of the future then.  It was always about the instant gratification of the minute, never what it would mean to the future.  Something the American stupidity has always strived for, instant gratification and then blame whoever was handy when it went to hell.

In 2006, David Walker of the Bush Admin said, “The ship of state is on a disastrous course, and will founder on the reefs of economic disaster if nothing is done to correct it.”  And his words went mostly ignored.

The media instead of helping the viewer understand what all these policies and programs will do to effect him, they are focusing on whether the president smiles too much, frowns too much, is too pessimistic, or too optimistic or where he spends his time or what sport he likes, none of which has anything to do with the economy.

Maybe the public would be best served if the media would report the news and stop trying to invent the news….at least the interest of the people would be better erved, but I guess that is not in the corporation that owns the news best interests.  So as usual the facts are pushed to the back of the bus for some sensationalism.

What crap!  And these people accuse bloggers of being unprofessional…..

Drama At The CIA

President-elect Barack Obama phoned key lawmakers to defend the selection of Leon Panetta to head the Central Intelligence Agency and quell concerns over Mr. Panetta’s lack of first-hand intelligence experience.

In his first public comments on intelligence matters since the election, Mr. Obama also promised that his intelligence team would break from Bush administration practices that he said had “tarnished” the government’s image.

A formal announcement of Mr. Panetta’s nomination is expected later this week.

The two senators, the top Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, chastised Mr. Obama on Monday for not choosing an intelligence professional for the job and not telling them of his plans to nominate Mr. Panetta. The intelligence committee will hold confirmation hearings for Mr. Panetta and the expected nominee for director of national

Only two CIA directors in the past three decades — Robert Gates in the administration of George H.W. Bush and current CIA Director Michael Hayden — have held senior intelligence posts prior to appointment. Outsiders are frequently selected to be CIA director, with mixed results.

The senators that are the most vocal in opposition were Bush collaborators.  They white washed the intelligence to allow the invasion of Iraq.  Their lax oversight has given the country more grief than they have given good news.  Especially Feinstein who championed such stuff as the Iraq War, FISA and the Patriot Act.

The truth is that their feelings were hurt because they were not consulted in the pick.  But why would Obama , who wants change, seek counsel from the very people that are the problem in the intel community?

Same Sh!t, Different Day

This is just tit for tat….after all the Dems used corruption against the Repubs in ’06.  They, Repubs, say they are not on a witch hunt while conducting a witch hunt.  That is pathetic.  They keep saying that Obama needs to come clean on what is what with Blago–somehow they are trying to infer that it is Obama’s fault that Blago is a criminal.  But they are not on a witch hunt.  Do they really think we are that stupid?  The answer is yes they do and in most cases they are right.

The Repubs keep trying this lame attempt to link Obama to something not so forthright.  Rezko did not do it.  Ayers did not do it.  Wright did not do it.  But yet they keep going with a loser track.  Repubs please stop pouting and whining and get on to the work at hand–you know the stuff that you were sent to Washington to handle–the people’s business.

Using their logic, does this mean that we can blame Bush for the corruption of Stevens and Cunningham and that idiot in Idaho?  Repubs need to get over the fact that they lost the election in November and get on with the repairs to a party that has no direction and definitely has no real leader.

Actually, the Repubs are doing an excellent job at diverting attention from the fact that they are about to crap all over the American worker in the Auto bailout thing.  The more they keep the media focused on Blago the easier it is to slide their anti-worker agenda through the Senate.

Mr. “O” and Blago

How many morons does it take to become a party?

Repubs are scrambling around trying to connect Obama with Blagojevich.  But they are suspiciously silent on the possiblity that he could be violating the Constitution.  Why is that?

Apparently the Constitution only means something if it can generate votes for them.  You know the crap about guns and marriage?

Looks like the end of partisanship that all say that want to end, is not gonna end anytime soon.  It is just the desparate grasping at straws by a Party with no course and no plan.

Kinda does my old radical heart good to see the conservs flounder around looking so dazed and confused.

But Is It A “Team Of Rivals”?

From an article written by Tom Eley.  I had tried to write a response to the idea of a “team of rivals”, but I could never find the right words to what I was seeing in Obama’s picks for his cabinet.  Now thanks to Eley I do not need to give myself a headache.

In recent weeks, numerous media accounts have referred to President-elect Barack Obama’s cabinet selections as a “team of rivals.” The reference is to a book of the same name by the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin on Abraham Lincoln’s choices for key cabinet posts after his victory in the 1860 election, when he confronted the secession crisis and then the Civil War.

The media comparisons between Lincoln’s and Obama’s cabinets are specious, betraying a combination of historical ignorance and political shallowness. The false analogy serves two political functions. First, it implicitly imparts to Obama a progressive and democratic aura which is, in fact, belied by his cabinet selections, all of whom are advocates of militarism abroad and austerity at home. Second, the analogy distorts and demeans the historically progressive character of Lincoln and his government, which embodied a profoundly democratic and ultimately revolutionary agenda, centered on the struggle against slavery and the preservation of the union.

The use of the term “team of rivals” in relation to the Obama cabinet rests on the president-elect’s selection for secretary of state of his chief opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, and his retention from the Bush administration of Robert Gates for defense secretary. Obama won the nomination over Clinton, who was the early favorite, by appealing to broad opposition to the war in Iraq among Democratic voters and the population at large, incessantly reminding voters that “she got it wrong” in her support for the invasion and presenting himself as the candidate who would bring a rapid end to the war. He then won the general election based on a powerful voter repudiation of the Bush administration’s militaristic foreign policy and its pro-corporate and anti-democratic domestic agenda.

This is not only not analogous to Lincoln’s approach, it is the opposite. Lincoln’s key cabinet picks, while they had been rivals for the Republican Party nomination of 1860, in no way represented a retreat from the central principals of his campaign and the aspirations of his voters: preserving the union and preventing the expansion of slavery. These appointments included William Seward as secretary of state, Salmon Chase as treasury secretary, and Edward Bates as attorney general.

Lincoln rose to prominence in the young Republican Party by giving political voice to mass popular sentiment against the expansion of slavery to the new states and territories of the West. Largely because of his genius for clearly presenting the critical political issues related to slavery, he bested more prominent politicians such as Seward (senator from New York) and Chase (governor of Ohio) in the contest for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination. But despite numerous political and personal differences, Seward, Chase and all of Lincoln’s other cabinet selections shared the central aim of the Republican Party—preserving the union and defeating the rebellion of the Southern slave owners.

In securing the 1860 Republican nomination, Lincoln beat out his main rivals, Seward, Chase and Bates. Then, after winning the general election, he invited them to assume key cabinet posts. He did so not simply because he was a shrewd politician, but because he wished to unite the various sections of the Republican Party behind the aspirations of genuinely democratic forces in the country and create the best possible conditions for crushing the Southern planters’ rebellion.

Please stop using the analogy…it simply is not true.

Obama’s Make Work

In his address, Obama offered the first outline of how he wants to direct the public works spending.

The largest share would go to roads and bridges and could be used to accelerate long-delayed repairs and expansions. Responding to concerns that new transportation money might be caught up in red tape at the state level, Obama said states must quickly invest in road and bridge construction and repair or lose the federal dollars.

Obama would also direct a “massive effort” to make federal buildings energy-efficient by replacing aging heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. Obama said the effort to “green” the government would save taxpayers billions.

Much of the public works program would be aimed at improving technology. The government would pay for new computers in schools, new medical technology in hospitals, and a nationwide push to bring broadband to parts of the country that cannot yet access the Internet at high speeds.

Calling it “unacceptable” that the United States ranks 15th globally in broadband adoption, Obama said in his address that “every child should have the chance to get online.”

How will this play in the new Congress?  Me thinks that the few remaining Repubs are not gonna play ball.

Will Obama Violate The Constitution?

This post will give all the mental midgets something to bitch about for years to come.  As soon as the Repubs realize this they will be on every talk show in a partisan way.  So much for the much coveted bi-partisanship.  I offer this political fodder for those scratching their heads.

According to the Constitution Section 6:

[2] No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

So since the pay of the Secretary of State was increased last year and Sen. Clinton was a member of Congress at the time, then she should be unavailable to be offered or to accept the position of Secretary of State.

Question?  Was not Obama a professor of Constitutional law?  Should he know better?

Thoughts?

Why Is The Anti-War Left Silent?

That is the question I keep asking and so far do not have an acceptable answer.  So I was not going to go there, but since few others are maybe I can help start the conversation.

Barack Obama’s vague campaign promises of “change” are rapidly evaporating as the key positions in the next administration are filled with veterans of the US political establishment. Far from ending war abroad and social reaction at home, Obama’s choices underline the essential continuity with the policies of the Bush administration.

Nothing expresses the right-wing orientation of Obama’s foreign policy more than the confirmation Tuesday that he will retain Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, in his post when the new foreign policy team is formally announced after the Thanksgiving holiday. Gates, who took over from Donald Rumsfeld in late 2006, has been responsible for the continued bloody prosecution of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Gates will stay on in a line-up that is stacked with proponents of US militarism. Hilary Clinton, who supported the criminal invasion of Iraq from the outset and notoriously declared that the United States should “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel, is to become the secretary of state.

Retired Marine General James Jones, a former NATO commander and current executive at the US Chamber of Commerce, is to be installed as national security adviser. After a 40-year military career, he served last year as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s special envoy on Middle East Security and conducted a congressional investigation into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His view that the war in Iraq caused the US to “take its eye off the ball” in Afghanistan is in line with Obama’s insistence that US military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan must be intensified.

Far from bringing an end to US militarism as tens of millions of American voters hoped for, the Obama administration is preparing to consolidate a US presence in Iraq and escalate the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The prospect of a dangerous new war looms as Obama’s advisers lay out their plans for confronting Iran.

The foreign policy heavyweights who supported Obama for president clearly hope to extend this “brilliance” in duping people onto the world stage as the US continues to aggressively pursue its economic and strategic interests.

Someone needs to step forward and bring this to the attention of the people who, in good faith, voted for Obama and his anti-war agenda.