You are currently browsing the daily archive for November 20, 2008.
After their success in protesting the retention of Robert Gates and Lieberman, anti-war groups are squirming under the bus. Finally an idea that’s surely to make their views adopted by the media: protest Hillary (you know, the one with the plan to end the war). They somehow prefered these IWR voters
Aside from Clinton and Gates, the roster of possible Cabinet secretaries has included Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who both voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq, though Lugar has since said he regretted it.
So did Hillary in a debate, but since she’s a Clinton and has no penis it doesn’t count:
Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution, and despite pressure, she never said during the primary campaign that she regretted that vote.
And look who else suddenly is discovered
Activists note that Vice President-elect Joe Biden, also expected to be a leading voice in the new administration’s foreign policy, voted for the 2002 war resolution.
Astonishing! Next they’ll find out Obama himself didn’t vote against the war! And does anyone remember Biden regretting HIS IWR vote?
And the fun is just beginning:
Martin said that his group was concerned about Gates and Clinton as well as Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s choice for White House chief of staff. He also said his group was trying to mobilize its grass-roots supporters with e-mail alerts, but recognized that it must approach the subject delicately because of public euphoria over Obama’s historic victory.
Wow! And these people are his base! As I said – it’s fun under the bus! What to ditch? Principles or worship?
Despite concerns, some groups are trying to remain conciliatory.
Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War, said that although he finds Sen. Clinton’s views “very troubling,” Obama should be given the benefit of the doubt.
For decades Republicans worked hard to kill FDR’s New Deal. It’s been one of their chief goals.
And in the process, their control of the government they hate so much, created conditions almost similar to those that made the New Deal necessary in the first place.
Still, Obama, who raised more money from Wall Street than incumbent W in 2004 declared he won’t go with what worked before, the raison d’etre of the Democratic party as we used to know it
….rejected the idea of a so-called “new New Deal” for America.
Mr. Obama acknowledged the parallels between the current economic crisis and the problems of the Great Depression, but said that he supported solutions that are “true to our times.”
Instead we get the lame GOP blathering that got us where we are:
I think our basic principle that this is a free market system and that that has worked for us, that it creates innovation and risk taking, I think that’s a principle that we’ve got to hold to as well.”
So, now Wall Street Journal wnts to make sure it gets what it paid for – and they pretty much declare: “It’s not like he even has a choice”. or, in their snappy title
His legacy is spent before he gets his hands on it.
(let no one deny Ross Perot’s lasting contribution)
They want FDR’s plan dismantled faster!
His friends advise Barack Obama to launch a “New” New Deal. Maybe that’s because the old New Deal is sinking fast.
Mr. Obama’s one deeply false note during the campaign was his harping on “deregulation” as if that were the source of current troubles. His real problem is the crack-up of the world FDR built.
Wall Street is hungry – and that Social Security moneys W promissed them didn’t come soon enough
The reason is those giant legacies of existing New Dealism known as Social Security and Medicare, about which he was careful to say nothing intelligible during the campaign. These programs worked for a while too, but now their expected revenues are (in present value) about $99.2 trillion short of the expected outlays required to assure present and future workers their promised comfort in retirement.
It’s not like Obama didn’t beat the GOP drum that Social Security was “broken” even during the campaign! So, it woud be consistent to go with Wall Street – after all, how much did Paul Krugman contribute? Not nearly enough. So, how optimistic is Wall Street? Check out the happy ending of this article:
Then again, Mr. Obama did say something in his campaign about tax rebates for all these payroll taxpayers. He also said something about government matching contributions to incentivize today’s low- and middle-income workers to save for their own retirement.
Voilà, personal accounts funded by payroll-tax givebacks — strangely similar to the solution our current president promoted to help workers escape the impending insolvency of the government retirement programs. Mr. Obama envisioned himself extending FDR’s work. He may end up finishing George Bush’s.
Obviously the writers pretend to have missed the friendly cues some of us picked throughout, which explain the funding and the friendly press. And I say they pretend, because back in July they did write an article
in which they were noting that
We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of “George Bush’s third term.” Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it.
Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn’t merely “running to the center.” He’s fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he’s embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush’s policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?
So, let’s face it, the “Street” when shoveling those huge contributions at a time most people didn’t even know who Obama was and that he was running for anything, they knew he wasn’t
“envisioning himself extending FDR’s work”
the one finishing George Bush’s agenda.
To quote Bill Scheider again, cca january 2008:
Hillary is the anti-Bush, Obama is the a-Bush.