Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
February 22, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

What We Do Now

Truthdig Bazaar

The Balloonist

By MacDonald Harris and Philip Pullman

more items

Email this item Print this item

Why Barack Is Behind

Posted on Sep 9, 2010
White House / Pete Souza

By Joe Conason

Among the very puzzling aspects of the midterm election—and the Democratic debacle that appears to be looming in November—is why voters would return the opposition to power only two years after the multiple disasters of the Bush administration. They know that the years of Republican dominance in Washington led to an extremely expensive war that was launched on false pretenses; to enormous deficits, skewed tax cuts and unrestrained waste; and, by the end, to a ruined economy.

Most Americans feel no nostalgia for that era or its politicians. A midsummer Newsweek poll showed that the Republican right’s program is still far from popular. Asked whether they care more about reducing the federal budget deficit or increasing federal spending to create jobs, 57 percent said they wanted more spending, not less, and only 37 percent were more concerned about red ink. More than half want to let the George W. Bush tax cuts benefiting the top 2 percent expire, and only 38 percent prefer to extend them. Nearly every poll indicates that even now, as President Obama’s approval ratings sink, those of his predecessor remain considerably lower.

Yet we appear to be heading toward an election that will empower an ideological minority, whose candidates endorse extremist nostrums such as privatizing Social Security and shutting down the Environmental Protection Agency. Why should this be happening now?

There are several plausible explanations, but the most persuasive overall is what political scientists and pollsters describe as the “enthusiasm gap.” The zeal that Democrats felt in 2006 when they ousted the corrupt Tom DeLay machine, and in 2008, when they bade farewell to Bush and Dick Cheney, has dissipated under Barack Obama—who has inspired the same kind of fiery determination among Republicans. In a midterm election, when voter turnout is predictably much lower than in a presidential contest, the fervor of the partisan base can make the difference between a draw and a rout.

Public Policy Polling, a firm whose accuracy was recognized by The Wall Street Journal despite its Democratic affinities, recently tried to measure the enthusiasm gap in several statewide contests. Across the country, its researchers found that that gap has shifted an average of 7 points in each of 10 Senate and gubernatorial races—and in some places, such as the president’s home state of Illinois, that number is even higher. Without the gap, critical Senate races, and presumably many House races as well, would be closer—or the Democrats would be leading.

Although President Obama has passed important reform legislation, saved the auto industry and confirmed two Supreme Court nominees, both women, the Democratic base is obviously dispirited. They hoped he would bring more fundamental change. Instead, his White House staff seizes every opportunity to exacerbate the inevitable letdown by insulting, bullying and mocking the progressive voters who are the most vital and loyal constituents of his coalition.

At this late hour, Obama shows few signs of understanding why he is about to lose the majorities that made his achievements possible. He needs to speak up, fight back and win back the respect of the public. They know that if he won’t fight for his party and his program, he won’t fight for them, either.

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer.

© 2010


Square, Site wide

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.

Join the conversation

Load Comments
3rd party voter's avatar

By 3rd party voter, September 10, 2010 at 10:44 am Link to this comment

everett, September 10 at 1:39 pm

>>“bush did everything to screw us for his corporate masters and we ate it up.”<<

Whoa. Not me. But Obama just praised Little Dubya a few days ago so maybe by “we” you meant you and Zero.

>>“and you continue to listen to the msm and all the rightwing talkshows that tell you what to think.”<<

Some assuming going on with you isn’t there. Bigtime. It might be amusing if it wasn’t so disturbing.

>>“try and find anyone oath the am radio that doesn’t drum harris for anything obama.”<<

The net has a wealth of info. Who has time for silly men on silly talkradio? (whatever you said…)

>>“how can any of you pencilnecks who think a repug would be better not realize how we got in this horrible mess?”<<

Do you think the people that have looted Americans treasure, stolen their jobs and their children’s future, and gorged on military industrial congressional dollars find it easier to do those things when the people they are gang raping and stealing from hate each other so much they’re too busy flinging feces at each other and too stupid to unite and run the real thieves out of town? I’d bet the real thieves love people like you. You and your type are easy.

Report this
sciencehighway's avatar

By sciencehighway, September 10, 2010 at 10:42 am Link to this comment

anaman51, thank you for your insightful, right-on-the-money comment. Would that others could see the big picture so clearly. Keep up the good work, fellow voice in the wilderness.

Report this
anaman51's avatar

By anaman51, September 10, 2010 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

The Republican Machine has successfully spent the last two years blocking every move the Dems tried to make in Congress. They had no other agenda. They were willing to set aside helping this country meet its obligations to its citizens and the world in order to prevent the Obama administration from doing anything successful in Congress. Their whole objective was to demean the man, the office, and the Democratic Party. In this, they have partially succeeded, but only with those people who are most susceptible to their lies.

The same Republican Machine has spent a fortune “targeting” legislative opponents with highly psychologically developed lying attack ads in order to remove them from the scene. Recently formed “private organizations” with bottomless bank accounts have emerged to do what the Machine always does at this time, flood the airwaves with slick commercials that lie, insinuate, slur, attack, demean and generally smear Democratic contenders, all the while keeping a distance from the Machine that founded and secretly funded them. This way the Republican Machine can say it’s not their doing—-their hands are clean!

Finally, the Machine is counting on a consistency of voting habits. It seems that fifty-nine million of you fucking idiots were somehow convinced that George W. Bush needed to be elected to a second term in office. Obviously, these individuals are susceptible to the kinds of lies and underhanded methods subscribed to by the lying right. They are idiots, the worst kind of uninformed fools, the kind that believe any cockamamie crap the Machine churns out at election time as long as it attacks those people they have been repeatedly told are wrecking the country.

Does any of this look and sound familiar? If it does, you’re paying attention. If this election-year travesty is something you recognize, then you’re probably able to make an informed decision in the voting booth. However, if you are so stupid as to be unable to see what’s going on right in front of your face, if you can listen to those lies and nod your head, then you’re one of the idiots I was talking about.

Report this

By bpawk, September 10, 2010 at 10:22 am Link to this comment

This whole mess with volleying back and forth - Reagan-Clinton-Bush-Obama only shows that there is hardly any difference between the two evils (people vote for the lesser of the two evils)- Obama waters down legislation for the conservatives in order to pass it - conservatives throw a few liberal bones to the dems when they’re in power - so they both end up the same - in the so-called ‘middle’. These last few elections have shown that since 1980 there really is only one party vying for the middle - you guys decimated the left years ago and have nowhere else to turn now. You painted yourselves into a corner and now you have to suffer the consequences in terms of working longer (extending from 65 to 67 soon) and getting less benefits from govt. I guess you can taste that can of baked beans over a home-made fire now!

Report this

By drklassen, September 10, 2010 at 9:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

And just to pile on: Obama campaigned strongly on the abuses of power by Bush/Chaney.  The torture, the renditions, the black-site prisons, the lack of habeas corpus, the blank check of declaring someone an “enemy combatant” anywhere in the world because the Global War on Terror has no limited theater of engagement, the use of “state secrets” defense to stop embarrassing lawsuits, warrentless wiretapping. 

All of this was supposed to change—-and NONE of it requires ANY legislation, it’s all executive order.  But none of it has.

Oh, wait, yeah, the CIA can’t torture anymore—-so one down.  BUT, they can now assassinate anyone without any due process.  Joy.

So, yeah, tell me, are we really better off?!

Report this

By Hammond Eggs, September 10, 2010 at 9:28 am Link to this comment

Among the very puzzling aspects of the midterm election—and the Democratic debacle that appears to be looming in November—is why voters would return the opposition to power only two years after the multiple disasters of the Bush administration.

The oppressed love their oppressors.  They certainly do in this country.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 10, 2010 at 8:55 am Link to this comment

balkas—fundamentally you’re right, of course, but every now and then I like to go to the merry-go-round and pretend I’m betting on a horse race.

Report this

By everett, September 10, 2010 at 8:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

reading all these posts proves one thing only ... you all get your education from the dmsm. bush did everything to screw us for his corporate masters and we ate it up. the repugs have done everything to stop the dens ... and you continue to listen to the msm and all the rightwing talkshows that tell you what to think.  try and find anyone oath the am radio that doesn’t drum harris for anything obama.  how can any of you pencilnecks who think a repug would be better not realize how we got in this horrible mess? you deserve what’s happened to our country ... but it pisses me off for your inability to think for yourself and dragging me with you. and you will do it again every time ... because you let the talking heads do your thinking ... and proudly call yourselves Dittoheads!

Report this

By omygodnotagain, September 10, 2010 at 7:59 am Link to this comment

Its like Bud and Bud Light, Republican and Republican Light when what you really want is a Pilsner Urquell

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, September 10, 2010 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

I don’t think I would have called Bush an “honest crook, but I get your drift.

Each of the parties has sound philosophical underpinnings, which, sadly, have
all but been destroyed by greed and avarice. Any one of the parties could have
succeeded had it not been for avarice sneaking into the picture.

What avarice represents is the failure of people in power to remain identified
with the purposes for which they were elected and the people who elected
them. It’s an integrity issue. No matter what might happen, a politician with
integrity will always work toward the people’s interests. No matter what might
happen, a politician WITHOUT integrity will always work toward his or her own

These people have lost hope in the very system they continue to parasitize. To
them, it is a free lunch program because you and I are forced to buy their
bread and bologna.

ANY system of government COULD work, even communism or a dictatorship
..... as long as avarice was out of the equation and those in charge took the
welfare of their charges to heart. Unfortunately they don’t. These scum don’t
see the spiritual issues at stake here and so they have no direction for their
moral compass.

Instead of adopting suggestions like Ron Paul had made, where all bill
submissions had to be concise and readable, we get these tomes dumped upon
our sometimes duly elected officials who vote for them while they go unread
95% of the time.

Report this

By balkas, September 10, 2010 at 7:27 am Link to this comment

Actually, only uncle sam is running. Only one party is running. It’s the warparty that wins every election. The election being held only because of its hallucinatory qualities and looking at nicelooking men like kennedy, O, clinton, FDR, et al.

So who cares if O is behind or even loses [s]election; especially, if he loses it to even nicer looking angelina.

Remember that Running Sam would never split his warparty into two: warparty and peaceparty or prorich and propoor party. tnx

Report this

By david, September 10, 2010 at 7:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Prevaricator in Chief is due for his comeuppance. Voters can only vote thumbs up or down. The poll is proof that Americans hate lying more than they hate stupidity. The saboteur Emanuel is going off to his reward in Chicago now that he has thoroughly, at least in his mind, discredited progressives.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 10, 2010 at 7:10 am Link to this comment

Mr. O cannot be ‘behind’ in an election in which he is not running.

The tendency among progs to monarchicalize not only the presidency but every aspect of politics in the United States is pretty depressing.  I suppose it goes along with the passivity.

Perhaps FiftyGigs is right and the mainstream media are simply making up the supposed predicament of the Democrats.  After all, this would be a rather dull election if it were not for the circus of crazies provided by the Right.  In 2008 the Democrats managed to elect a Black man and substantial majorities in both the House and Senate.  They then continued Republican wars in the Middle East and Republican policies with regard to the financial industry (bailouts for the rich, nothing for anyone else).  The medical insurance legislation is about the same as that proposed by Republicans back in the 1990s.  Nothing real has been done about the environment, the schools, immigration, the Drug War, the prison-industrial complex, taxes, deindustrialization, blah, blah, blah.  Vote for a Democrat, get inaction; vote for a Republican, get obstruction.  It’s not very exciting.  But one can always stir the pot, and then in 2012 we’ll have Scary Sarah and the end of the Maya Long Count.

Report this

By Carl, September 10, 2010 at 6:59 am Link to this comment

Obama is Republican with better polish. At least Bush was an honest crook.
Obama knows the “professional left” is too spineless to vote for anyone else. It doesn’t matter what he does, killing talk of single-payer, continuing warrantless wiretapping, torturing at Gitmo, assassinations of U.S. citizens, increasing the military budget, doubling troops in Afghanistan, keeping 50,000 combat troops in Iraq, and now maybe extending Bush tax cuts for the rich (yes, I know he just said he opposed that, but that is classic Obama. I had no choice!)

I don’t know who I will support, but I will not vote for Obama again! If more Dems said that, he would pay attention to all you liberal cranks. Put out the word, if Obama is on the ticket, you will vote Green or Nadar or something else. An official Republican would be a better choice for President than Obama, who is destroying the Democratic party.

Report this

By Jim Yell, September 10, 2010 at 6:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, it all traces to the fact that our political system has crowded out choice. We have two parties with a choke hold on the elections. If third parties could catch large blocks of votes, but not as many as a Democrat or Republican could achieve than Democratic or Republican candidates would be elected even though they were in extreme minority opinion.

So it is the same old question every season Democratic Candidate or Republican Candidate and they are both bought and paid for by International Corporations, involved in treason by their actions and words.

Perhaps it is time to throw a Monkey Wrench into the workings and everyone go out and vote for a third party candidate or a write in. Perhaps the inability of either of our entreanched parties to get anything close to a real majority would lead to some kind of reform.

I would call the project the Liberman Effect. When elected officials believe they are not beholding to the electors it is way past time for them to retire.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, September 10, 2010 at 6:21 am Link to this comment

Both the Republican and Democrat Parties are going to do their absolute best to make sure that YOU, the voter, have no one else to vote for except one of them. What kind of message would it sent if EVERY independent candidate that ran for office won by a significant margin?  Just think about it. There might not be enough alternate choices to effect any meaningful change just yet, but the fact that each and every opportunity for a change AWAY from the monopoly was a shift; THAT sends a message in itself.

As long as we continue to cave into voting for the lesser of two evils, we are just as guilty as the slugs that have slithered into office. I don’t care if we have to vote Libertarian, Socialist, Green, or for Alfred E. Newman, but we have to get those damn interlopers out of their cushy overstuffed seats. They are no longer serving the interests of the people.

Even if there were a number of other choices within any voting district and the people couldn’t get enough of their collective act together to focus on one alternative candidate, if all those opposed to the current bipartisan monopoly were to vote their conscience, one of the Rep/Dem monopoly candidates might still win. BUT what if that Rep/Dem candidate only won with 20% of the vote while there was a 90% voter turnout? Think of what that says about the populace being fed up, even if a Dem or a Rep got back in. Then there’s 2012, right around the corner.

We can’t give up. Our kids lives are at stake here.

Report this
sciencehighway's avatar

By sciencehighway, September 10, 2010 at 5:53 am Link to this comment

It would seem that the real answer to Conason’s thoughtful query can be found in the universally-negative (as of this posting) comments on his piece.

One of the more intriguing questions surrounding the 2004 election (coming as it did after four years that saw the Bush administration further the destruction of the middle class, wage two endless, highly-questionable wars, and bring the U.S. to perhaps its lowest point among civilized nations) concerned the methods by which Rove and company were once again able to manipulate enough angry people to vote against their own interests. (Fear of gay marriage seemed to be the turning point in that squeaker.)

The posts here and elsewhere clearly suggest that it’s not just morons who can be persuaded to turn their country back into the maelstrom they only just escaped, the effects of which are still being felt. What a sad, sad time for America.

Report this

By ElkoJohn, September 10, 2010 at 5:50 am Link to this comment

We don’t have a functioning democratic republic.
The Centers of Power fund our political system—therefore they expect, and get,
a handsome return on their investment.

Obama is not the candidate of the people — he’s the candidate of his funders.

The 2-Party Political System and their Funders are an oligarchy.
The voters are always angry with their government, and their only option is to flip
the Congress every few years, but the oligarchy never changes.

Report this
Allan Krueger's avatar

By Allan Krueger, September 10, 2010 at 5:48 am Link to this comment

Does the term SOLD OUT mean anything to you? Obama had the vast majority of Americans behind him when he took office, yet, he catered to the ones who hated him and then, climbed into bed with banks and insurance thugs…

And now, the populous is about to return the Republicans to power - if you think things are bad under Obama, hold on to your shorts! President Palin, VP Beck - FUCK!

Report this

By Wikileaks for Nobel, September 10, 2010 at 5:46 am Link to this comment

This article is horseshit.  The Repubs will gain not because of any nostalgia for the GOP, but simply because voters are turned off and turned away by the comprehensive failures of Obama and the Dems to deliver anything other than endless war, more government illegality, and welfare for Wall Street.  It really is as simple as that.

Report this

By Big B, September 10, 2010 at 5:42 am Link to this comment

President Barry glanced into the mirror a few months ago and saw the spectre of a white southern gentleman staring back at him.

That spectre was Jimmy Carter.

Poor Barry was now being blamed for the transgressions of his predasessor, just like poor Jimmy. But unlike Jimmy, Barry is first and formost, a pragmatist. He began looking for a knife so that he might cut the crust off his shit sandwich, so he could tell the american people that it was some sort of patte’.

Barry is in the process of selling you and I out.

He realized that this shit storm is not going to blow over anytime soon, and that the only way ha can possibly save himself for 2012 is to give congress back to the offending party, and hope that, by 2102, the american voter will once again blame the repugs for the downward spiral of the nation. The problems that this presents are simple and forboding. It means that we are in a shit storm that cannot be fixed anytime in the near future. He realized that the mess is too big, and that the only way he can survive politically is to shift the blame back to the repugs (and corporatist dimmos, but that’s a whole other problem) and hope that by 2012 we will still be up to our ass in alligators and we will turn back to Barry as the “great white hope” (I realize the irony, don’t point it out) This may prove to work, but he will in 2013, still be saddled with a nation on the demise, and his only answers will be to cut taxes and de-regulate. By 2016 it won’t matter who the president is, for it will be too late.

Report this

By moineau, September 10, 2010 at 4:56 am Link to this comment

i think the reason obama is behind is because 98% of us have received nothing at all from all the supposed victories “won” by the democrats: health care? (the insurance companies won… where’s the reduction in my policy rate?) bank regulation? (the banks won. where’s a reduction in my credit card rate? i’m still hearing about the banks refusing to renegotiate any home loans…) war? (the pentagon and contractors won. how come we’re still in afghanistan? and why is the defense budget still on the rise, and why are we still not including the war budget?) close guantanamo? (um….)

all i’ve gotten is a lousy $250 check… and NO cost of living increase in my social security. how come the poor and disabled, the middle class are always last to feel the amazing “change”?

there is no evidence of any victory or change for the common man or woman. all the talk about the great things being done for us? you want to stay in office? let us feel some of that change you touted and continue to tout. i’ve yet to be touched in any way, shape or form. in my eyes, you’ve turned into a great champion of corporate america while telling us it’s all for us…

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, September 10, 2010 at 4:44 am Link to this comment

The two-party system is just plain bad and wrong, no matter how deeply entrenched it is; too bad for our people they can’t see this.

Report this

By RBShea, September 10, 2010 at 4:40 am Link to this comment

A registered independent for 45 years, my wife and I worked at street level and
donated money to the Obama campaign: a first ever in my life. I didn’t expect
miracles from a “messiah”, especially given the swamp created by the decades
of Reagan/Bushes/Clinton corporate fealty. However, I did anticipate at least
some integrity from Obama, given his life story, stand against the Iraq War, etc.
The first red flag went up when he began surrounding himself with the likes of
Emanuel, Summers, Geithner, Orzag while giving lip service to voices and views
that were truly progressive. Since then, his team’s attacks on his core
progressive base and backroom deals undermining anything resembling real
change have cemented the perception that Obama is simply the
establishment’s version of Reagan: a stylish spokesmodel for the status quo.
Final note: for all the political savvy of his campaign, Obama’s team has allowed
the Rethugnicans, following their Atwater/Rove playbook, to preemptively
define Obama’s performance and frame the issues in a way that meshes
beautifully with the results of Obama’s abandoning of the mandate he was
given in favor of appeasement or sucking up to corporate interests.

Report this

By FiftyGigs, September 10, 2010 at 3:48 am Link to this comment

“Yet we appear to be heading toward an election that will empower an ideological minority…”

We do, huh. And you know this how? The “enthusiasm gap”?

That’s the one that suggests Democratic constituents are so terribly distraught over a party didn’t taken extreme action that it will opt to elect a party that took no action at all, right?

Admit it, Joe. You’re just making up stuff.

Has it registered with you all how we’ve not heard a peep about the demographics are “moving our way”, about the powerful Latino vote, nothing about the black vote, that the Republicans are a regional party? Consider how little you hear about how split apart the Republican base is? How fleeting is news about how an overwhelming majority of people agree with our positions?

Folks, we are being fed a fantasy story by a media that exists to feed off fake stories (and pass them around to one another) so as not to inconveniently require “reporters” to actually go outside in the course of their busy, reflective workday.

There is another storyline.

It begins with the FACT that Republicans are struggling to maintain a hair-thin grasp on any semblance of power, hoping against hope that John Boehner will remain sober enough to get through the election cycle, terrified that with a mere flick of a finger the voting public (not very many people, by the way) could toss the so-called conservative movement into complete impotence and irrelevancy for generations.

For a minority, isn’t it interesting how much we’re hearing about them? Especially about how powerful they are? When they aren’t?

Two plus two is four. Glenn Beck said so.

Report this
Mark E. Smith's avatar

By Mark E. Smith, September 10, 2010 at 3:30 am Link to this comment

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I hated the
Bush/Cheney administration. I wanted change. Obama
didn’t give this country any change in policies—his
policies are the same old policies only worse.

Since we seem to be stuck with Republican policies,
we might as well have Republicans in office—at least
people can freely criticize Republicans without being
attacked by Democratic hacks the way we are when we
criticize Democrats. As disgusting as they are, the
Republicans turned out to be less disgusting than the

You can’t abuse people and expect them to vote for

I stopped voting in 2006, but I should have stopped
voting in 2000 when the Supreme Court announced that
our votes would not be counted and that they would
decide the election instead. I don’t know why I kept
voting for another six years—probably just out of

But I can empathize with those who still vote, and if
I was still a Democratic, I’d probably vote
Republican this year, something I never thought I’d
even consider. Fortunately, as a non-voter, I don’t
have to. But when your own party is more abusive that
the other party, it makes sense to want to teach them
a lesson they won’t forget.

If the votes are actually counted, the Republicans
deserve to be returned to power—they turned out to
be the lesser evil after all. A war of aggression
based on lies is evil, but it is a lesser evil than
an expanded war of aggression based on lies. Bailouts
for the rich are evil, they are less evil than bigger
bailouts for the rich. Faced with a choice between
two evils, people who vote for the lesser evil can’t
be blamed for being able to recognize which party is
less evil than the other party.

Democrats have had abused spouse syndrome for years.
Leaving an abusive spouse for another, slightly less
abusive spouse is the first sign of progress I’ve
seen from Democratic voters. Perhaps they’ll
eventually realize that they don’t have to be abused
at all, and stop voting as I have.

In the meantime, there’s no mystery about why voters
are likely to return the Republicans to power. Voters
were so disgusted with the Republicans that they gave
the White House and both houses of Congress to the
Democrats and got nothing but a kick in the teeth for
their efforts. Unable to break the voting habit,
they’re finally fighting back in the only way they

Report this

By FRTothus, September 10, 2010 at 2:08 am Link to this comment

I don’t know why Joe is so puzzled.  He seems to
acknowledge the very reason why this corporate shill
has lost support: Both he and “...his White House
staff seize[s] every opportunity to exacerbate the
inevitable letdown by insulting, bullying and mocking
the progressive voters who are the most vital and
loyal constituents of his coalition.”  And why are we
“let down”?  Maybe it’s the further insults and
betrayals, such as:
Failure to hold the previous Administration
accountable for war crimes.
Capitulation to the Insurance industry at the expense
of everyone else.
Capitulation to Wall Street while ignoring Main
Blind support for and increasing the power of the
private bankers of the Fed.
Endless and expanded wars, continued and expanded
torture, imprisonment and murder of civilians.
The further erosion of the Bill of Rights, increased
funding and support for the Police State.
Climbing in bed with BP.
And this list is far from exhausted.
This hollow man is Bush with a better script, but the
venal policies are the same or worse.
We voted for an FDR, but got another chicken-shit
Tell me again, Joe, why you are puzzled, when a good
many of us see this empty suit for what he is, for
who he has appointed and chosen to surround himself,
and the policies he has embraced and expanded and the
actions (or more often, inaction) he has (and has
not) taken.  Maybe you need to pay a bit more
attention to what is going on.

Report this
BarbieQue's avatar

By BarbieQue, September 10, 2010 at 1:15 am Link to this comment

JC: “...Although President Obama has passed important reform legislation…”

That’s as close as Joey gets in this entire piece to the 2010 Health Insurance Ripoff and Enslavement (HIRE) act. Imagine that.

His article is entitled “Why Barack is Behind”.

And the word Health does not show in the article.

People like Joey can’t seem to understand that people like me will not be ordered to buy health insurance from a private for profit company. Period. Nor will we allow our medical records (the most private thing we have, at least some would argue) to be kept in federal government data centers. Not. Gonna. Happen.

The HIRE act was when the Real Barack started emerging, the one that turned his back on many or now most of the things he campaigned on. And he did it in an arrogant, scummy way. His position against mandated health insurance was one of the few differences with Hillary, after all. And he turned on a dime. Some of us intend to make our displeasure with this horse-sh!T very very clear.

I hope people like Joey will continue to ignore the Elephant in the Democratic Dining room.

By the way, I kind of feel sorry for those that bought into the whole Health Insurance Ripoff thing, it was a (R)epublican bill from the early 90’s ( so these poor folks demonstrate that literally all you have to do to get approval from some is change the letter after the bill.

Disgraceful, but sad too.

If McCain had won, and told his senate to come up with Health Insurance Reform, and his senate leader had single payer advocates *arrested* ( and his final bill excluded single payer *and* mandated every citizen to purchase overpriced coverage from for profit companies and you had to mail in your proof of insurance with your tax return…

Democrats would be fine with that? Seriously?

Oh I don’t think so. I think there would be marches and outrage and screaming and yelling. And, like there will be with Obama’s HIRE, civil disobedience. Especially if the Supes believe that the Feds can order purchases under the Commerce Clause. And if that happens, someone tell Katie to get near the door.

Report this

By mikey, September 9, 2010 at 9:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m with G. Anderson.

Report this

By Miko, September 9, 2010 at 9:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Since the Democrats do exactly the same things as the
Republicans, saying the Republicans are bad is not
giving us a reason to vote for the Democrats. 
Personally, I couldn’t stomach voting for a Republican,
so I’ll be voting third-party, but I can understand why
people would want to vote for Republicans in hope of
stymieing everything up so badly that nothing gets

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, September 9, 2010 at 8:48 pm Link to this comment

Maybe it’s because their pissed….your fill in the blanks…

Report this

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right 3, Site wide - Exposure Dynamics
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook