Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
from record corporate welfare to a free pass on illegal wiretaps to confirming the most reactionary, right wing judges....how could there be anymore bipartisanship?
I suppose they could just morph into one party....at least THAT would save us some time and money.
For the sake of my own sanity, I'm going to have to stop reading.
Or maybe I'll just move all the sharp objects out of the house.
The real change I voted for was not bipartisanship, but “accountability”.
We’re told that we cannot prosecute those who tortured, because they were told that it was legal. We cannot prosecute those who opined that it was legal (such as John Yoo), because they were only offering a legal opinion. So, we have a situation where war crimes were committed, but no one is accountable.
We can’t prosecute the telecommunications companies for illegal wiretaps, because they were told that the President declared it legal. We can’t prosecute George W. Bush, because no one ever holds Presidents accountable for their crimes in office (unless it involves lying about sexual activity).
Senator Lieberman didn’t just endorse McCain for President, he actively claimed that Obama wasn’t qualified to be President. He should be held accountable. Will he? Probably not.
The ruling bipartisan elite is more than a bit nervous when the people have just voted for change. Some of the new guys might actually try to do something different. I think most of the talk and action is aimed at them: show them how you get ahead and stay ahead in Washington. Sign up, or wither on the vine.
For the sake of my own sanity, I'm going to have to stop reading.
A lot of this stems from reading all sorts of claims from Obama supporters over the past few weeks about how right Obama is to oppose any punishment for Lieberman because it's so crucial that we have more bipartisanship -- that this was the "change" he promised.
If someone wants to argue that bipartisanship is good, that's fine with me. But it's just intolerable to hear the claim that there's something "new" about being bipartisan -- that it constitutes "change" -- that the problem in Washington has been not enough bipartisanship, too much partisan fighting.
What political system are they watching?
And in reality, they are. Members of the Corporatist oligarchy, above the law in many respects (or at least subject to different enforcement than the likes of us mere taxpayer consumers), and holding an exalted view of their own importance and entitlement to priviledge. They are the show-biz side of the oligarchy; the same priviledges apply in spades to corporate CEO's and their coteries and assorted hangers-on.
They work not for us but for their moneyed masters.
The fake war between the Parties is a device to divide and confuse the people and obscure the real agenda.
FISA was the first clue to "meet the new boss; same as the old boss"; the traitor Lieberman's continued elevation is another. Perhaps there will be some positive change, but I'm having a hard time refuting the working hypothesis that Americans really are too fucking dumb to be other than misled donkeys.
This "bipartisanship" would be more palatable if actions that were being approved were for the good of the country and the world. Instead, we have a coming together to remove all consequences for illegal and immoral activity. I just put up an Oxdown diary on the role Cass Sunstein plays in this world where the average citizen pays dearly for crimes but the political class gets a free pass. Link is at my name.
While I am very happy to be able to say "President Elect Barack Obama" I also voted for him with my feet firmly planted on the earth. There has been nothing in his proposed policies and voting record to indicate that he represents the kind of change that his soaring rhetoric promised. There is a very real disconnect between his words and his actions.
This is not necessarily a bad thing in all issues, but it does portend that there will be some diminishment of the Obama brand as he moves forward with his presidency.
The issues where this is particularly true are in terms of civil liberties (FISA vote for example), health coverage (lack of strong movement toward universal and portable coverage), Israel, and a few other areas.
By contrast, the areas where Obama does seem capable of real change from the past eight years--I am taking pains to not include the B. Clinton years--is in foreign policy in general, which will be more multilateral and in the economy, which will be less neocon/libertarian and more in the vein of realistic and pragmatic regulation.
I except the B. Clinton years because despite running a primary campaign that claimed Clinton to be among the failed legacy of the Washington elite and establishment--Obama's policies in the areas of foreign affairs and the economy, campaign strategy, and actions are almost exactly the same as those of Clinton circa 1992. Yet another example of where his rhetoric does not match his actions.
This raises the question, then? Are we indeed, after analyzing the past 8 years (not just post this election)a Center-Left or Center-Right nation? Legislatively, we seem to lean toward whatever you define the Republican Party, now, almost consistently (as Glenn well-argues) to the right.
The relevancy of the Democratic Party dwindles into oblivion, day by day. Obama's compromises before the election were troubling. Moreover, the "bipartisan" overtures and cabinet prospects he is considering now are even more bleak.
Lieberman is keeping his post as it forces him to vote the way Obama and co. want him to vote. If Joe does something the democratic leadership doesn't like, Lieberman will be taken out and put in charge of trash collection in the parks.
Before when he kept the dems in their slim majority, Lieberman held the dems hostage with "do as I say or I am out." Now Obama can say "Do as I say or you are out."
Kicking Lieberman out may feel good, but keeping him in ensures one more vote on important issues. His humiliation will be private, not public, but he is now in a very different situation than a few months ago.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
