« 2006.01.10


2006.02.10 »


Yesterday, Firedoglake finally caught up with us, pronoincing – 2 years too late that

.It’s a nicely argued and written piece

Shortly after Obama took office, the White House tried to cut Social Security benefits, but they had to back off, fearful that they would lose the support of liberal interest groups who joined together en masse behind the scenes to oppose it. The administration subsequently herded them all into a room, threatened their funding, and captivated them in an effort to pass a health care bill written by the Heritage Foundation and the insurance industry. And the progressive groups went along with it, proving that there is absolutely no limit to what they’ll accept.

promising new lows to come

Of course, the White House is going to go after Social Security again. It’s the pot of gold at the end of Wall Street’s rainbow, and they desperately want that injection of cash which could keep their giant ponzi scheme from exploding. . . for a little while.

Lucky for them, Obama has successfully dismantled the opposition that kept George Bush from privatizing Social Security at Wall Street’s behest only a few years ago. Did anybody fail to get that message when majority whip Dick Durbin yesterday told “bleeding heart liberals” that they need to be willing to accept cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits for the economic well-being of the nation?

It’s a quite comprehensive list of trespasses with the one glaring omission I came to expect from ex-B0bots – even the more lucid ones: no mention is made of the Jane Crow EO or many other slights to women. Women are written off as Democratic base, we only parade them when we want to “newspeak” about how happy they should be about all this. But who knows? In a year or two, Firedoglake and Greenwald will catch on to this too.

And on this note, I really wish Krugman would  change the name of his blog. The Conscience of a liberal is about as fitting for what he is writing lately as make-up for a leper. Today’s little reductio ad absurdum

The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault

fails to impress because of its intent. Sure it’s ridiculous to say Obama caused the explosion and Limbaugh et al were predictable in that sense.

But when Obama just announced a coastal drilling policy, then took 10 days to respond to the disaster and when he did, he basically assured the oil industry everything will stay the same, is “Leave Obama Alone” the thing a conscience of a liberal should worry about?

In B0botland cheerleaders bring this up

but there are a few lucid comments

24. What is responsible is a policy of offshore drilling – with the drilling you get the spilling

One spill a year I hear in a good time.

There will be more of these as long as offshore drilling remains the policy.
I believe that those that enact these policies are culpable as well, someone should be responsible for policies that cause harm, why not the author of such policies?

Is Obama blame free and free also of the responsibility of the consequences of his policies both seen and unforeseen? If so, how so is he blameless?

20. Didn’t he say ‘drill, baby, drill’ in so many words?

A stupid and reckless energy policy that also included more Chernobyls!


30. Yes he did say that
and that may be why he hasn’t gone to the Gulf yet — because what is happening in the Gulf really brings into question his recent decision to open up more offshore drilling.

And Rush Limbaugh aside, one notices that Krugman is creating a straw man

29. That’s not what they’re saying

The right is saying he should have made a trip there. They’re faulting him just like Bush was faulted for flying over the Katrina and not paying a visit. Obama is letting his underlings handle it, just like Bush did. As President, he has the ultimate responsibility for the government’s response. It’s up to him to see to it that the response is adequate. Frequently, as happened with Katrina, underlings don’t do the right thing. It’s up to the CEO to make sure everything is being that can be done. So yes he does have an executive responsibility to visit the scene to see what’s going on and provide leadership. It’s like the expectation that a police chief will visit a major crime scene. And he will be faulted if he doesn’t get down there soon.