You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August 2009.

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

Not the Joker, but maybe the Riddler?

In one of his rare candid moments in one of his books, Obama called himself “a blank slate”.

Incredulous followers refuse to believe. The latest serious effort to define Obama came from Anglachael who came with a clever name

The Un-Reagan

That’s because she was arguing with Paul Krugman who reminded us how Obama claimed the Reagan mantle during the election and was now implementing some of his agenda.

To this, Anglachael correctly observes Reagan was advancing  the political agenda of the Cnservatives while Obama

Simply put, it is a lack of a political purpose for wanting to be president. He doesn’t have any specific use for power so he doesn’t value it.

And I think that’s where the “postpartisanship” comes in. Obama may at times speak like a Democrat while, pretty much continuing the Bush agenda.

Un fact, Anglachael’s title reminds me of something Bill Schneider said on CNN at the beginning of the elections:

Clinton is running as the anti-Bush, while Obama is running as the un-Bush. Which will primary voters prefer?

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

Considering his much Clinton got attacked to install Obama, this is a satisfying read:

His approach is like a weak version of the most unkind caricature of Big Dog, too afraid of offending the Serious People, too much wanting love and approval to be decisive, to make hard choices,to draw lines in the sand, etc.

But in the end, I disagree that Obama is aimless, much as politically it may appear to.

From the bailouts to the healthcare reform, from the wars to the decisions on interrogations and torture, a clear pattern emerges. Bush called it “compassionate conservatism”. Jr.jr might as well call it “Compassionate Bushism”

The political confusion reminds me of the time Bush tried to appoint Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. She too was politically “a blank slate” and you’d think this would have been a plus for a judge. But it’s what she lacked (conservative views) and what she actually was (a corporate tool) that made her the target of – everyone.

Obama is the natural continuation of Bush – in the Harriet Myers direction – less party, more corporations.

His handout to the Wall Street without regulation is keeping the country poised for a double dip – while the more regulation happy Germany and France are out of the recession.

The Healthcare bill that is in the works will do for insurers what W’s social security privatization was to do for investors:

provide them a captive new market to the tune of millions . Because the new bill may lack any mandate for insurers but it will still have the mandate for people to purchase it. And that’s why no matter how confusing Obama’s moves seem to be – he does want a bill passed – and he’ll get it too.

Because the answer of the question in the headline is easy: follow the money. Almost one billion dollars went into his election (a jump from W’s 200,000 in his last). And the pretense of the “little donors” is the answer and the confusion.

We know donations under $200 were never disclosed to the FEC and B0bots can only take credit for a fraction of it.

The rest of them are emerging as the pay-offs are being doled out – Goldman Sachs and partners, insurers, pharma and others to come. The politics of it are simple. In Chicago they called them “pay as you go”. I see this so far as “payback”

As for the political agenda – there’s only one: “Love me! Re-elect me” oh, and accumulation of power in the executive.

For the sake of self-perpetuation.


Some of these thoughts about Chicago politics reinforce my conclusions

Chicago politics is not about ideology.  It is about, “Who Gets What, When, and How,” to quote the inimitable Harold D. Laswell, one of the outstanding political theorists of the last century.
The sine qua non of Chicago politics is power, getting it and keeping it.  Everything else is incidental.  Even corruption is a byproduct of power and is functional only if it enables you to stay in power.


Click here to add text
Click here to add text

As of today, this blog is fiercely independent, no longer part of any netweork.

After attending a gathering wjere I was asked “and what they are teaching your kid in that public school”? I decided I did not belong there. I changed the tagline of my blog – I now use Pete Seger’s quote:

“If you can’t change the world, don’t let the world change you”

For more explaining the changes, this entry from the Widdershins ought to clear it up

How can Hillary supporters be comfortable with Clinton impeachers – beats me.

and this reminder

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

After comiserating with the bonus recipients (from taxpayers money), and  having told us Obama lives on a budget, this time, Bloomberg cried in his teacup for Pharma . For the billionaire who bought NYC – twice – they make peanuts

“You know, last time I checked, pharmaceutical companies don’t make a lot of money, their executives don’t make a lot of money – not that they couldn’t do better,” the mayor told WOR host John Gambling as the duo discussed health care from during their weekly radio show.

Bloomberg who championed Obama to the point of threatening to run as 3rd party if the Dems nominated Hillary also ranted against the evil Canadians who would love to compete for prices with our poor little pharma

it’s “wrong” for companies to be selling drugs at a lower price in Canada than here in the US, adding: “We should stop that.”

Hmmm- maybe he should buy them out.

The funny thing was that during the commercial on the radio show he stated those things his handlers might have alerted him that he let the billionaire out again so he retracted. Sorta:

he had done a quick Google search and discovered that some big drug company execs are actually “making a decent amount and more than a decent amount.”

The Daily News , to their credit noted that

Big Pharma has not taken the beating during the health care debate that the insurance companies have weathered.

That’s in part because the Obama administration struck a deal with the nation’s drug makers earlier this month, with the powerful Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America reportedly willing to spend as much as $200 million to help the president overhaul the health care system.

He joked about the reason his view on salaries is skewed

Bloomberg joked that he’s only getting paid $1 a year (which he doesn’t even keep) to be mayor, which makes everyone else’s salaries look big – no matter how much they make

Which would be funny had he not just said Pharma execs’ pay (up to 25-29 million a year) don’t make all that much.

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

It finally dawned on him: GOP is not his friend – the postpartisan era is not here just yet – just because you said it would be.

On the conservative talk show he whined about what GOP does

‘Look let’s not give him a victory. Maybe we can have a replay of 1993-94 when Clinton came in, he failed on health care and then we won in the midterm elections and we got the majority.’ And I think there are some folks that are taking a page out of that playbook.”

Noooo! Opposition opposes? But, I am not Clinton, I am Teh One!

Maybe if he gave them more concessions they wouldn’t?

Here’s a clue: we just found out the Bush administration used terror alerts politically. Well, most of us hippies knew it, but it got now confirmed.

Everything is political – especially when POTUS is in a permanent campaign mode and stamps his logo on everything,

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

And where is this conclusion being aired again? On a conservative talk show!

Which conforms Krugman’s latest

It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can’t be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled.

Yup. Bipartisanship used to mean “let’s surrender to GOP” Postpartisanship, OTOH means…let’s surrender to the GOP”


From Consider this News

Glad we amuse you!

Some gift he has – in one sentence both public option and “the left” get trashed.

Makes me think of that Glen Greenwald article today

As always:  even when the dirty leftist hippies are proven right, they’re still Shrill, unSerious Losers who every decent person and “journalist” scorns.

However considering that Greenwald was wrong when supporting Obama I’ll go with Riverdaughter’s

The White House has probably never seen the likes of us.  We’re both ignorant bigots and anarchic, civil rights types with a penchant for healthy living.  One thing is for sure: Obama wants nothing to do with us and he’s making a point of telling the whole world how utterly repellent we are.


Here’s another excitable leftie – Paul Krugman, whom they managed to bring back on the plantation lately

the Obama administration — which seemed, over the weekend, to be backing away from the “public option” for health insurance — is shocked and surprised at the furious reaction from progressives.

Well, I’m shocked and surprised at their shock and surprise.

And he has arguments too

And let’s be clear: the supposed alternative, nonprofit co-ops, is a sham. That’s not just my opinion; it’s what the market says: stocks of health insurance companies soared on news that the Gang of Six senators trying to negotiate a bipartisan approach to health reform were dropping the public plan. Clearly, investors believe that co-ops would offer little real competition to private insurers.

But that’s OK, because the GOP opposes that too.


We now know that the Senate bill never included a public option

Do you see any way that the gang of six will come out of the Finance Committee with a public option? Snowe: No, I don’t. We have not had the public option on the table. It’s been co ops…”

Not Your Sweetie

August 2009
« Jul   Sep »