Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 25, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!








Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

A New Bush Era or a Push Era?

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Oct 11, 2011
David Shankbone (CC-BY)

By Amy Goodman

Back when Barack Obama was still just a U.S. senator running for president, he told a group of donors in a New Jersey suburb, “Make me do it.” He was borrowing from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who used the same phrase (according to Harry Belafonte, who heard the story directly from Eleanor Roosevelt) when responding to legendary union organizer A. Philip Randolph’s demand for civil rights for African-Americans.

While President Obama has made concession after concession to both the corporate-funded tea party and his Wall Street donors, now that he is again in campaign mode, his progressive critics are being warned not to attack him, as that might aid and abet the Republican bid for the White House.

Enter the 99 percenters. The Occupy Wall Street ranks continue to grow, inspiring more than 1,000 solidarity protests around the country and the globe. After weeks, and one of the largest mass arrests in U.S. history, Obama finally commented: “I think people are frustrated, and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.” But neither he nor his advisers—or the Republicans—know what to do with this burgeoning mass movement.

Following the controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which allows unlimited corporate donations to support election advertising, the hunger for campaign cash is insatiable. The Obama re-election campaign aims to raise $1 billion. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the financial industry was Obama’s second-largest source of 2008 campaign contributions, surpassed only by the lawyers/lobbyists industry sector.

The suggestion that a loss for Obama would signal a return to the Bush era has some merit: The Associated Press reported recently that “almost all of [Mitt] Romney’s 22 special advisers held senior Bush administration positions in diplomacy, defense or intelligence. Two former Republican senators are included as well as Bush-era CIA chief Michael Hayden and former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.” But so is the Obama presidency an expansion of the Bush era, unless there is a new “Push era.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The organic strength of Occupy Wall Street defies the standard dismissals from the corporate media’s predictably stale stable of pundits. For them, it is all about the divide between the Republicans and the Democrats, a divide the protesters have a hard time seeing. They see both parties captured by Wall Street. Richard Haass, head of the establishment Council on Foreign Relations, said of the protesters, “They’re not serious.” He asked why they are not talking about entitlements. Perhaps it is because, to the 99 percent, Social Security and Medicare are not the problem, but rather growing inequality, with the 400 richest Americans having more wealth than half of all Americans combined. And then there is the overwhelming cost and toll of war, first and foremost the lives lost, but also the lives destroyed, on all sides.

It’s why, for example, Jose Vasquez, executive director of Iraq Veterans Against the War, was down at Occupy Wall Street on Monday night. He told me: “It’s no secret that a lot of veterans are facing unemployment, homelessness and a lot of other issues that are dealing with the economy. A lot of people get deployed multiple times and are still struggling. … I’ve met a lot of veterans who have come here. I just met a guy who is active duty, took leave just to come to Occupy Wall Street.”

The historic election of Barack Obama was achieved by millions of people across the political spectrum. For years during the Bush administration, people felt they were hitting their heads against a brick wall. With the election, the wall had become a door, but it was only open a crack. The question was, would it be kicked open or slammed shut? It is not up to one person. Obama had moved from community organizer in chief to commander in chief. When forces used to having the ear of the most powerful person on earth whisper their demands in the Oval Office, the president must see a force more powerful outside his window, whether he likes it or not, and say, “If I do that, they will storm the Bastille.” If there’s no one out there, we are all in big trouble.


Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America. She is the author of “Breaking the Sound Barrier,” recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.

© 2011 Amy Goodman

Distributed by King Features Syndicate


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Non-Compassionate Liberal's avatar

By Non-Compassionate Liberal, October 15, 2011 at 11:30 pm Link to this comment

@OzarkMichael:  I don’t know.  Depends on the many (probable) twists and turns ‘til the election.

Report this

By gerard, October 15, 2011 at 8:19 pm Link to this comment

Regarding all this inquiry about the Bastille and voting,here’s my thought for what it’s( not?) worth:
  1. “Storming the Bastille” implies use of violence (due to historical context) but in itself does not mean that the metaphor can’t be used to imply non-violence. I can’t be sure how it is used here.
  2. Threats, if reinforced by numbers, or by the possession of instruments of force, usually inspire fear, primarily, and discourage reasonable thinking.
  3. If fear dominates behavior, violence is an easy reaction.  Mass violence destroys societies. Sometimes what replaces them is better, sometimes worse. There is no guarantee.One thing is sure; the same problems remain afterward as there were before.
  4. There are so many imponderables that it is impossible to guess what effecct what kind of threat, carried out or not, might possibly have on voting.
  5. Democracy depends on a lot more than mere voting. Primarily it depends on the vast majority of citizens being fairly well educated, who think politics is important in their daily lives, and who are willing to partipate in self-government as consistently and in as many ways as they can find. It depends on cooperation, tolerance, and care for the common good of everyone, no matter who. Without it, voting doesn’t make any difference. That’s more or less our present predicament.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 15, 2011 at 9:14 am Link to this comment

First, it is natural that you attach significance only to the outcome you prefer, but that isnt how a thought experiment should be conducted.

I mean to start with the significance of voting itself. Does the Occupy direct action heighten the importance of voting or diminish the importance of voting? Not just for the voters who agree with your agenda, but the ones who care about something else, and even the folks who disagree with you, in short…everyone. Considered as a whole, as a process, the degree to which everyone buys into voting, what effect does the threat of ‘Storming the Bastille’ have on voting?

In other words, does the threat of ‘storming the Bastille’ strengthen democracy or weaken it, as far as voting is concerned?

Report this
Non-Compassionate Liberal's avatar

By Non-Compassionate Liberal, October 14, 2011 at 11:53 pm Link to this comment

@OzarkMichael, you write:
“Will voting be more or less important than it was before? Will voting determine the course of the nation more or less than it used to?”

Only if Obama get’s beat in a primary (by a true liberal), or a third party comes along—in other words: Voting doesn’t seem to matter much—at least in the near term.
If Ron Paul gets in, that MIGHT shake some stuff up (anti-war; anti-War on Drugs—and he seems sincere and consistent).

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 14, 2011 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

Amy Goodman said:

..the President must see a force more powerful outside his window, whether he likes it or not, and say, “If I do that, they will storm the Bastille.” If there’s no one out there, we are all in big trouble.

If the Occupation works and is able to force the President’s action, and force the Congress to pass some legistlation, and force the Supreme Court to allow those laws to take effect, then we must ask ourselves how that will effect future American politics. Does this serve to further Democracy?

I suppose the rationale works this way: Since the Occupation is supported by (let us say) 20% of the nation as it holds the threat of storming the Bastille over Obama’s head, this overcomes the Fat Cats who are only 1% of the population . And thus the math would indicate that democracy is served.

Furthermore, i suppose that the Occupiers are morally committed, while the Fat Cats are not especially moral.  So it seems that the Occupiers restore hope and democracy by forcing the the US Government to do what they want by threatening to storm the Bastille.

This is what Amy Goodman hopes for.

I would like to ask… then what? An election is coming. Is the vote more or less meaningful to the American people than it was before? Or do you suppose it is business as usual?

Report this
skimohawk's avatar

By skimohawk, October 14, 2011 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment

Storm the Bastille? A bunch of college kids?
Are you serious? And what might be gained?

as prisnersdilema said:
“Because no matter who is elected Obama or Newt, they are , still going to take marching orders from the corporations…They are calling the shots.”

First thing that has to happen is: The control of government by monied corporations and banks must stop.
That has to be step one, or there can be no step two.

Looks to me like the best initial target would be the banks: we can choose whether or not we do business with them.

The first step in dealing with the large corporate interests would be demonstrating that the public is serious: do NOT buy ANY Christmas presents OR Christmas decorations. Buy nothing.
Let the WalMarts, Targets, and BestBuys take all that cheesy plastic made-in-China crap home on December 26th and eat it.

Report this

By pupmom, October 14, 2011 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear Santa:

I would like for Christmas this year,

1)  More Chemtrails over Washington DC, preferably directly over the White House and constant until the blue can’t been seen in the sky.

2)  More Floride in the water in Washington, read today Floride dumbs down the population so we won’t revolt, it has always been a known carcinogen and causes numerous illness that benefit Big Pharma.

3)  A stack of Pink Slips to fill out at random to be given to ANYONE holding ANY office in Government.

4) No more organic fruits or veggies served on priceless china to rooms full of rich goons killing off middle class Americans.

5)  OWS moves from Wall Street to Government Buildings, facilities, military bases, Federal & State.

6)  All businesses (the back-bones of America) stop all tax payments immediately, State & Federal.

7)  Please provide potty water to fill those lovely crystal goblets at White House Dinners.

8) A refi on the home we occupy.

9)  Forgiveness of an old college loan debt.

10) Peace, all around the world.

That should do it for now.  Thank you.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 14, 2011 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

Rather than have me forecast any outcome, i want to see if anyone else can think ahead and forecast the same situations, then predict outcomes. In other words, this is a thought experiment we do together.

So lets think ahead. An election is coming. Soon it will be time to vote. So, the next question arises: After the presumed success of Occupy Wall Street to pressure the Supreme Court/Congress/President, how important will voting be next year? The aspirations of people to express themselves and influence the system by voting in a new President and other officials. Will voting be more or less important than it was before? Will voting determine the course of the nation more or less than it used to?

Report this
Non-Compassionate Liberal's avatar

By Non-Compassionate Liberal, October 14, 2011 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

@OzarkMichael:  I thought you were forecasting a bad outcome.
But right, every arm of the government needs to feel the pressure (I think a huge consolidated march on and/or occupation of DC would be MORE effective).

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 14, 2011 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

I said: “What else will happen if the occupation is successful at forcing Obama to give in?”


Non-Compassionate Liberal answered: “I can only see good; you spell it out if you see it negatively.”

That was a great answer. Fair enough. Lets imagine the succuss of the Occupation leads to what Amy Goodman describes, that the force of potential Bastille’ is able to overcome whispering fat cats at Obama’s elbow. So Obama does what the Occupation wants.

I just though of something else though: To make that threat of ‘Bastille’ work, the Occupiers will need to apply it not only outside the President’s window, but also apply that same force against the Congress and Senate. Laws must be written up for the occupation to get any change enacted. The President cant do that alone.

Am i right about the Congress? that they too need to feel the same heat that the President gets?

Now another problem. The Fat Cats are everywhere with their whispering, even the Supreme Court. The Justices also need to see a little force outside their window as well.

True?

Report this

By Vickie Patik, October 13, 2011 at 11:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I about gag on that number! $1,000,000,000 for a re-election campaign? Think what could be done with that money that would have so much more tangible value than four more years of “no, we can’t.”

What is so pathetic is that if Obama would have had the courage to give the finger to the people who bought him during the last election (despite any personal consequences), had resigned himself to a 1-term presidency, but had used the ENTIRE 4 years to shake the whole world up… if he had done what we elected him to do… well, he wouldn’t need $1 for a re-election campaign. He’d win a second term by a landslide. Are you kidding me? Against THIS sorry collection of extremists vying for the Republican nomination?

$1,000,000,000. It’s deplorable on every level.

Report this

By Vickie Patik, October 13, 2011 at 11:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

TO: keepyourheaddown, October 13 at 8:46am, who wrote:

“Nuclear war, the only real solution…”

Really? I don’t know if you’re just being facetious or if you are that cynical. If you feel total annihilation is “the only real solution,” then maybe you have some sort of death wish, and suicide is really where you’re coming from. I hope you are not THAT demoralized!

This ol’ world has seen bad, bad days before. However, it is precisely the presence of nuclear weapons hundreds of times more powerful than the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs that makes our problems today so much more threatening. Time, necessity and changes in the human heart are what advance our species. Violence, war, and the absolute final solution - nuclear holocaust - would put an end not only to all the crap, but to the beauty, joy and grace that coexist with it.

Say keepyourheaddown, why don’t you take it back so I can get a good night’s sleep.

Thanks!

Report this
Non-Compassionate Liberal's avatar

By Non-Compassionate Liberal, October 13, 2011 at 9:35 pm Link to this comment

@OzarkMichael:  You write:  “What else will happen if the occupation is successful at forcing Obama to give in?”
I can only see good; you spell it out if you see it negatively.

Report this

By MorgaineB, October 13, 2011 at 7:43 pm Link to this comment

This is not about liberals and conservatives or Dems and Repubs.  It’s about having a democracy or not having a democracy.  It’s about the fact that corporations now run our government and our news media to suit their own interests.  It’s about the fact that the Supreme Court stated this year that there are TWO US Constitutions:  the one the people are obliged to abide by; and the corporate constitution which is ABOVE THE LAWS established by the founders’ constitution.  Yes, that’s right.  TWO constitutions with TWO sets of rules:  one for the big corporations; and one for the little people.  In case you were unsure, that’s all of us.  And we’re getting littler every day.

What the occupiers are doing is asserting their right to demonstrate and protest against wrongs being committed against them by their own government.  Maybe you will like the new corporate feudalism.  But most of us—99% of us—DON’T.  It is not making us more healthy, more wealthy or more wise.  In fact, it pretty much guarantees we can’t be.  That transcends the petty confines of “party allegiance”—unless of course your party is more important to you than your freedom or your country.

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 13, 2011 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

I have waited a few days to respond to Amy Goodman’s article, “A New Bush Era or a Push Era” since I wanted to give the Leftists a chance to notice and comment on her most agregious remarks. Since they have not done so, I reckon they must agree with her remarks and their horrible consequences. I shall begin to write my criticism now.

Amy Goodman said:

When forces used to having the ear of the most powerful person on earth whisper their demands in the Oval Office, the President must see a force more powerful outside his window, whether he likes it or not, and say, “If I do that, they will storm the Bastille.” If there’s no one out there, we are all in big trouble.

This ‘force more powerful outside his window’ is of course the Occupiers at Wall Street . The ‘Bastille’ is the spontaneous revolt and capture of an institution by the Left, and in this context it is understood as a counter threat large enough to outweigh the whispering fat cats at Obama’s elbow.

Before i go further, does anyone else want to critique this scenario that the Occupation hopes to set up for themselves, and which Amy Goodman rather openly admitted to?
 
Does Amy or anyone ever think these things through? What else will happen if the occupation is successful at forcing Obama to give in? Does anyone else imagine the consequences, or am I the only one on Truthdig who can do that?

Report this
OzarkMichael's avatar

By OzarkMichael, October 13, 2011 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment

I have waited a few days to respond to Amy Goodman’s article, “A New Bush Era or a Push Era” since I wanted to give the Leftists a chance to notice and comment on her most agregious remarks. Since they have not done so, I reckon they must agree with her remarks and their horrible consequences. I shall begin to write my criticism now.

Amy Goodman said:

When forces used to having the ear of the most powerful person on earth whisper their demands in the Oval Office, the President must see a force more powerful outside his window, whether he likes it or not, and say, “If I do that, they will storm the Bastille.” If there’s no one out there, we are all in big trouble.

This ‘force more powerful outside his window’ is of course the Occupiers at Wall Street . The ‘Bastille’ is the spontaneous revolt and capture of an institution by the Left, and in this context it is understood as a counter threat large enough to outweigh the whispering fat cats at Obama’s elbow.

Before i go further, does anyone else want to critique this scenario that the Occupation hopes to set up for themselves, and which Amy Goodman rather openly admitted to?
 
Does Amy or anyone ever think these things through? What else will happen if the occupation is successful at forcing Obama to give in? Does anyone else imagine the consequences, or am I the only one on Truthdig who can do that?

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, October 13, 2011 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

RE: By MK Ultra, October 13 at 10:39 am Link to this comment
Is there anything that Obama the candidate said that hasn’t turned up to be a lie?

yes, e.g. http://tinyurl.com/3dx87gb

By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON | Wed Aug 1, 2007 7:26pm EDT
(Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.

Obama’s stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States.

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

_____________________

Left/Lib/Progs accepted that as ‘campaign rhetoric’ to appeal to the ‘right’ - anyone who knows, knows that al Qaeda is the CIA’s Arab Foreign Legion and they’ve proved it in spades of late by filling the ranks of the so-called ‘Libyan Rebels’ with al-Queda fighters

al CIA-duh is are ‘terrorists’ when the situation calls for a bogyman (i.e. to bomb Pakistan) and a ‘freedom fighters’  when those are needed (i.e. to bomb Libya)  -  but,  Left/Lib/Progs now have a dead anti-war movement and are still duped - I dare anyone to find a serious challenge to NATO war propaganda on Democracy Now

btw, Nov. 2007 we heard this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPsTxobqs30 - roughly 4 years later (again with a campaign looming) Obomber raises him from the dead and snuffs him ‘on stage’  - evidence yet to be seen - and still no challenge on Democracy Now… or, someone please find it challenged in The Nation - and, where the hell is Michael Moore when some serious de-duping is needed? Oh right, publishing his memoirs.

Report this
MK Ultra's avatar

By MK Ultra, October 13, 2011 at 10:39 am Link to this comment

Is there anything that Obama the candidate said that hasn’t turned up to be a lie?

Report this

By Rixar13, October 13, 2011 at 10:10 am Link to this comment

“After weeks, and one of the largest mass arrests in U.S. history, Obama finally commented: “I think people are frustrated, and the protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.”

We need help, again - Help us…. sigh

Report this
redteddy's avatar

By redteddy, October 13, 2011 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

If the majority doesn’t interfere with the system, if they don’t threaten to shut it
down and interfere with business as usual then nothing will come of standing in
the streets.  How many stood in the streets all over the world against the war in
Iraq?  Did it stop the elites from implementing their plans? NO.  So this idea that
the masses can make anyone in power do anything as long as they arrive at the
table as a supplicant is ridiculous. The masses have to take back power and show
that the country is there, the White House is theirs and the economic direction is
theirs and they have to prove it by shutting down the system.

Report this
redteddy's avatar

By redteddy, October 13, 2011 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

@Gerard who wrote “I have come to see that what is needed here and now is a
leader with empathy for the majority who will do the right thing for the majority
(since this is supposed to be a democracy) and do it of his own accord, without
any factions “making him do” anything.  A reliable leader in a democracy leads
for the benefit of the people, his constituency; he doesn’t wait for any special
interest or faction to “make him do” anything.  The trouble with Obama is that
he did not—probably does not—realize this.”


This is exactly what people thought they were getting when they voted for
Obama.  The truth is you cannot always readily tell who is empathetic towards
the majority or who is paying lip service for a popular vote.  The majority has to
realize that you cannot really make them do anything since the White House is
overrun with candidates who are co-opted by the elites.  Obama nor the elites
are afraid of the public ‘storming the bastille’, they are not. They are
patronizing towards the crowds outside their window because they know those
crowds are not going to storm the bastille with guns in tow like the Tea Party,
they know the crowds will moan and sing, demand and beg but never really
threaten the system where it hurts which is in the wallet.  I am not suggesting
that the masses resort to second amendment rights, I’m suggesting strategies
that hurt the system financially, a financial assault and revolt.  And politically
the masses should ignore both parties in acknowledgement of their fake
grandstanding and obvious ineffectiveness.

Report this

By keepyourheaddown, October 13, 2011 at 8:46 am Link to this comment

Nuclear war, the only real solution…

Report this

By Bluesnow, October 13, 2011 at 8:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’d like to blame the tea part for moving the
political spectrum so for right that democratic
centrists like Obama are no more centrist republican
than anything else, but Obama started out this way
really.

No one wants to vote for republicans because they’ve
more or less given the unemployed and minimal wage
earners the middle finger. Obama tells us to suck it
up and stop complaining. At this rate I almost don’t
want to vote this year when my choices are the find
which is the least disastrous of two evils.

This would be a good year for a third party… and I
don’t mean the libertarians… although Ron Paul is
starting to look more favorable than some of the
other republicans.

As we’ve seen though it will take more than just a
president. Congress needs to have a majority of sane
people to get anything accomplished.

Report this

By Don Schneider, October 13, 2011 at 4:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Our only hope is a the fairy tale that Dennis Kucinich will stand up at the
democratic convention and challenge the bushocrats with a candidacy that will see
the “great betrayer"s base jump at the chance to support the only FDR democrat
on the horizon !  Instead we will be asking for “Mo Tea Sir” ?

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, October 13, 2011 at 4:10 am Link to this comment

” It is IMPOSSIBLE to get anywhere with the Republican antics we’ve seen since they took control of the House.!” = Outraged

Perhaps, a more precise description would be somewhat broader and begin a few years earlier.  If “house” is meant to be the United States of America, it is more accurate.  Begin with GHWBushSr as senator from Texas, when he ordered a halt to the Texas authority investigation of George Bush Jr.  A member of a druggy, cult-family in the Brownsville, TX area, George Bush Jr. disappeared over a 3-day period, 1984, during which all other members of the cult-family (17) were ritualistically murdered and skinned.  Upon un-disappearing, he did not remember anything about the 3 days.  http://www.rense.com/general54/mass.htm  Among numerous other falsifications, the current practice of “I do not remember” seems to have been established by George Jr. in 1984-1985, supported by GHWBushSr. 

Each voter decides which name one marks on the voting ballot.  However, punching a 2-digit code into the central tallying computer, which controls the outcome of the tally, pre-empts all marked ballots. http://www.votinglies.com/ 

There is as much diversity among the membership of what is alluded to as the Democrat party, as is found among the Republican party.  For example, tax your imagination, by comparing Dr. Ron Paul with George Bush Jr., both Republicans.  Candidates for the office of President of the United States of America must meet the requirements of the U. S. Constitution. “Barack Hussein Obama,” is reported to have spent two million dollars, defrauding Americans of his true identity.  Basically, it seems wise to me to be aware of historical information that preceded, and led to the election of an occupant of the U.S. presidential “slot”.  Some of which history is found at: http://www.nogw.com/dark_history.html 
Insiders have reported that “Obama” accelerated the Bush pattern of dissolving the U.S.of A.

Dr. Werner von Braun, former chief scientist for NASA (a WWII NAZI rocket scientist) knew the NAZI secret plan for the USA & the earth.  Over the years he came to love the USA so much that he shared the NAZI secret with his cohort, Dr. Carol Rosin, in the hope of salvaging the U.S.A.  Dying of cancer, he charged her to inform Americans of the NAZI/Zionist secret plan.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ALLUuvsVkM

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, October 13, 2011 at 1:44 am Link to this comment

Right… Obomber is not what the sign says - he’s essentially a Wall Street puppet;
but in the ultimate irony, he’s the first African American President with command
responsibility, who has extended that power to articulate the murder of tens of
thousands of Black Africans, Libyans… Mussolini would have loved him.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, October 13, 2011 at 12:06 am Link to this comment

I’m voting for Pres. Obama.  You’re off your rocker if you think that having a Republican in office is the same as having a Democrat there.

It’s not that there aren’t Democrats that need to be put out to pasture, specifically Ben Nelson rep. from Nebraska and Jon Tester rep. from Montana.  They both voted to kill the jobs bill along with 100% of Republicans.

In contrast 96% of Democrats in the house voted FOR it.  It is IMPOSSIBLE to get anywhere with the Republican antics we’ve seen since they took control of the House.

I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protesters but I also stand with Obama.  I disagree that Obama is worse than Reagan, Bush or any other Republican president.  Or that somehow having Bachmann, Cain, Perry or Romney in the White House would be the same as Obama. IMO you’ve gone off the deep end if you believe that.  I’m sure the crazy ass Republicans are overjoyed to have your support.

Report this

By Obama's Dilemma, October 12, 2011 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

With Bush, everyone knew what he was getting. No mystery there, no doubt. President Obama pledged to his broad base he will end the many Bush excesses and lead the world by example.

Obama may now outrank Reagan and Bush as the worst President in US history.

Report this

By Vic Livingston, October 12, 2011 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The FDR analogy, sadly, does not apply. Obama’s human and civil rights record is worse than Bush’s. His approval of the extrajudicial killing of a U.S. citizen, even after certain DOJ attorneys expressed reservations and imposed restrictions that were not heeded, was the last straw for many. Wait until it becomes widely known that the Obama administration has allowed silent extrajudicial electromagnetic attacks on THOUSANDS of Americans, not just those who espouse terrorist rhetoric, as did al-Awalki. A veteran journalist reports here:
http://nowpublic.com/world?/u-s-silently-tortures-ame?ricans-cell-tower-microwav?e-weapon
http://nowpublic.com/world?/thugocracy-u-s-fed-police?-vigilantes-persecute-citi?zen-targets

Report this

By CenterOfMass, October 12, 2011 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

@gerard: “...he doesn’t wait for any special interest or faction to “make him do” anything.  The trouble with Obama is that he did not—probably does not—realize this.”

I think he knows full well what he is doing, and that is serving Wall Street.  Always has been.  The evidence?  He appointed Geithner and Summers to the top money posts from early in his administration.  For me, that was an “oh sh^t” moment.  It’s basically been down hill from there.

The only way to “make him” do anything is to be an investment bank.

Report this

By glider, October 12, 2011 at 8:33 am Link to this comment

I am disappointed with this article of Amy Goodman’s.

Those that tried to make Obama do it were taunted as “fucking retards” by his administration.  I doubt FDR resisted his base so strongly.  I think that says it all.

Report this

By GerOge, October 12, 2011 at 8:30 am Link to this comment

Gerard,

There is a fallacy working in your thinking as well.  You believe we could have the Philosopher King, if only we could choose the right one.  Problem is, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The juggernauts of the 21st century are even bigger than the ones that rolled over ambitious folks who wanted to buck the status quo and make some moves benefitting the little guy.  This means that it is much more difficult (unlikely) for an individual to prevail at this stage.

I have been coming to see that we need to collectively reformulate our power structure so we never again make the fatal mistake of placing so much hope and responsibility on the shoulders of one human.  We need (and coincidentally now have the technological basis for) a power structure that is distributed and diffused; closer to a direct democracy.  This is the only way to turn this Titanic around in time.

But I have to also respectfully disagree with folks who want to see the Democrats (and Obama) get in bed with the Movement.  The danger of those long-time player/operators to this process is greater than the potential support they could bring.  Accept one and all as individuals (provided they play by the rules), but leave the organizations in the dustbin with the corrupt and broken model of governance they serve.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, October 12, 2011 at 4:44 am Link to this comment

The Patriot Act, established by Bush Jr., was vastly amplified and passed by the Obama
entourage.  The POTUS slot occupant, Mr. Obama, has established a secret committee that
decides which Americans are “homeland terrorists,” and are to be murdered without due process.  Using of course, the drones with a 1-million-dollar price-tag, and whenever possible, outside of CONUS.  When considering the “theme” of the company, “Once C.I.A. always C.I.A.”, and Mr. Obama´s historical affiliation,
http://wn.com/JOHN_AND_THE_CIA  (click on item 5)
one tends to conclude that his assignment was/is to assist with the dissolution of the U.S.A.  His recent Hollywod-type productions, abusing the USNAVY SEAL,  suggests he has had the
assistance of the same group that made Arnold Schwarzeneger, the Austrian immigrant with the NAZI family background, and his destructive movies, popular. 

The information revealed Dr. Carol Rosin, former cohort of Dr. Werner von Braun,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkIYpWtpLs8&feature=related
reveals one specific theme that appears to have controlled the development of the USA, since just prior to the end of WWII.  One tends to conclude that Hitler devotees transferred the NAZI HQ, with major staff, to D.C., Huntsville and points west.  The documented history of Bush family support for the Hitler-NAZI initiative, is conclusive.  The Obama entourage has not only continued the Junior Bush, Patriot Act suppression and the artificial War on Terror, he has amplified it. 

Certainly, the super-rich that own him want him to be re-elected.  Using your dollars.

Report this
Non-Compassionate Liberal's avatar

By Non-Compassionate Liberal, October 12, 2011 at 1:40 am Link to this comment

“While President Obama has made concession after concession to both the corporate-funded tea party and his Wall Street donors, . . ..”
Obama isn’t making concessions, nor is he a “weak negotiator” (as many have said)—he’s doing exactly what Wall Street wants him to do (he’s winking at Wall Street the whole time, because getting reelected is his only concern, and that takes cash).

Report this

By Morri Creech, October 11, 2011 at 10:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“On Corporate Money as Political Speech”

To those broken men who barter every good
Not to be heard is to be understood.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, October 11, 2011 at 9:59 pm Link to this comment

Except we never left the Bush era…

...Obama’s administration has an excuse for everything…. The only difference is that it’s
much harder to hope when you’ve been B’FD…by an expert…

And to believe that there would be any difference between an Obama second term and
a Michelle Bachman, or Rick Parry, or Mitt Romeny first term is to swallow the big
lie….like a fish taking a hook in it’s mouth…

Because no matter who is elected Obama or Newt, they are , still going to take marching
orders from the corporations…They are calling the shots…

Whoever is selected to be prez…is going to yank that hook, and rip out your guts, one
more time…

There are alternatives….it doesn’t have to be that way….

Report this

By TomA, October 11, 2011 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Agreed Gerard. If only Bernie was up to the
task.

Report this

By gerard, October 11, 2011 at 7:21 pm Link to this comment

There is a huge fallacy lurking behind that “Make me Do It” statement.  At the time I was hoping the vast majority of young activists who worked to elect Obama would keep on working—hopefully, under the leadership of the Democratic Party.  But the Party did nothing; consequentliy the enthusiasic campaigners, lacking leadership and direction, lost interest.  At the time I considered it a telling error in political strategy.

Since then, I have begun to wonder.  To whom did Obama turn for support.  To the corporate/banker monied interests.  (And the party let him do it.) The “elites” were all too happy to “make him do it”, which quickly and completely corrupted democratic goals and processes.

I have come to see that what is needed here and now is a leader with empathy for the majority who will do the right thing for the majority (since this is supposed to be a democracy) and do it of his own accord, without any factions “making him do” anything.  A reliable leader in a democracy leads for the benefit of the people, his constituency; he doesn’t wait for any special interest or faction to “make him do” anything.  The trouble with Obama is that he did not—probably does not—realize this.

Report this

By disillusionedoldtimer, October 11, 2011 at 7:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hell, I don’t understand what the problem is!  Some of us have been screaming to the top of our lungs about this for the past 35 years and the only attention we received was psychiatric visits, being labeled mentally ill, Seroquel and Cymbalta.  My suggestion is to reopen the state-run mental health facilities that Ronald Reagan shut down and give the 99%‘s, Seroquel and Cymbalta, for at least 20 years or until their organs become so toxic from these drugs that they begin to fail, one at a time!  If they don’t have health insurance, “Let them die!”  Isn’t that the new american battle cry!  HA!

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook