In the Land of White Ribbons

Posted: December 12, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, corruption, Democratic Politics, Elections, Populism, Russia, The Russian Winter | Tags: , , | 6 Comments

First we had the Arab Spring then the European Summer.  The American Autumn manifested itself in the Occupy Wall St. Movement.

Welcome the Russian Winter.

Saturday nearly 35,000 young, mostly university-educated protesters, the new Russian middle class, gathered in Moscow in peaceful demonstration.  Reportedly, a police presence on the order of 50,000 greeted them.  But still they came and marched to voice opposition to Russia’s recent election results.  Vladimir Putin’s party won the parliamentary election after multiple reports of election fraud and ballot box stuffing.  For instance, in Chechnya [hardly a place of Putin-love] the party pulled 94% of the vote.  Putin has announced his plans to run in Russia’s March presidential elections to the dismay of many citizens, who charge that fraud and corruption run rampant throughout the country’s political system.

Demonstrators, donning white ribbons, marched in various cities around the country to say: Enough is enough.

Dismissed by the official Russian press, the white ribbon demonstrators were ignored by state television, which focused on small, flag-waving pro-Putin groups. How did the word get out?  Social media—Facebook and twitter.

In an attempt to disrupt the protests, Russian authorities circulated rumors that young men present at the rallies could be stopped by police and conscripted into the army.  Health officials reportedly warned citizens to stay home for fear of contracting a virulent flu or Sars.  Twitter feeds were jammed and robo-calls flooded phone lines with messages of state propaganda.

Sound vaguely familiar?

How much press is OWS getting today with its West coast port demonstrations?  How many words have been spent denigrating protesters as un-American losers, slackers, even dangerous criminals?  Let’s not forget the MSM’s reluctance to cover OWS, the strange lack of network film footage during police actions, particularly as the encampments were dismantled.  Twitter feeds jammed, cameras turned off.

Still, the world is watching.  The world is pushing back.  Everywhere.

A Tale of Two Speeches, A Tale of Two Men

Posted: December 7, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Banksters, Barack Obama, commercial banking, Corporate Crime, corruption, Democratic Politics, income inequality, Injustice system, investment banking, Teddy Roosevelt | Tags: , , | 13 Comments

On Tuesday, Barack Obama delivered a speech in Kansas.  Osawatomie, Kansas to be exact.  With little subtlety, this was an attempt to conjure up the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt, the TRex of the early 20th Century, the scrappy yet privileged pugilist, who pitted himself against monopolies, rabid financiers and proudly defended the American ‘square deal.’  In truth, TR was no saint.  But he was a man of conviction.  And action.

Barack Obama has proven himself a weak sister by any comparison.  Yet, he and his handlers, his ever-present speechwriters saw fit to mirror Roosevelt’s words.  We’re to believe that Obama is a populist at heart, a Roosevelt clone, calling on the Nation to embrace progress over privilege.  The square deal becomes the fair chance.  The review of abuses and lawlessness that TR was not afraid to call destructive become a wrong.  Legislative solutions and regulatory oversight that TR specifically cites are mentioned in passing or given more credit than they’re actually due, eg., the stripped down Dodd-Frank bill.  Notice there was no mention of reinstating Glass-Steagall, something that wouldn’t solve the entire mess we find ourselves in but would be an important first step in the reform process.

Let’s get real.  Barack Obama has no intention of reforming anything.  Unlike TR who said:

“Words count for nothing except in so far as they represent acts.”

And Barack Obama?   He’s countered with words leading nowhere.

He was against the Iraq War, only there’s no record of his opposition.  His ‘just words’ speech—a steal from an earlier Deval Patrick oratory—said everything the man has proven himself to be, an empty talker.  Where is the evidence that Barack Obama is or ever was a defender of the ‘ordinary man and woman?”  Oh yes, he was a community organizer.  And what exactly were his accomplishments?  He was a State Senator.  Accomplishments, please [beyond representing the interests of slum landlords].  And as a US senator?  Accomplishments?

Nada.

Let’s line this up against a few of Teddy Roosevelt words made flesh:

  • Successfully prosecuted the Northern Securities Co. for the merger of the Northern Pacific, The Great Northern and the Chicago, Burlington and Quincey railroads under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
  • Restored public confidence in the government’s ability to hold the country’s most powerful men accountable to the law.
  • Frequently warned conservative critics that revolutionary upheaval was likely to be inspired by an ‘attitude of arrogance on the part of property owners and their unwillingness to recognize their duty to the public.’
  • Pushed through Congress legislation establishing the Department of Commerce and Labor and within that Department the Bureau of Corporations, authorized to investigate and publicize suspect corporate activities.
  • Challenged the corporate view that business records be kept in secrecy and that employers had a right to deal with employees as they saw fit [one need only review the deplorable working conditions and wages of the era to understand the need for reform] with no interference from the Government.
  • Brokered a peace between Russia and Japan, for which he earned the Nobel Peace Prize.

There’s more, of course—the good, the bad and the ugly.  TR was not perfect but unlike the present occupant of the White House, he had a vision that was his and his alone.  He was the public face and voice of the American Progressive Movement that would eventually lead to improved working conditions, a woman’s right to vote, union legitimacy and new attitudes regarding our environment–conserving our national, natural treasures for the future–among other things.

Teddy Roosevelt was a man of the moment and a man with a legacy.

Now think of Barack Obama, the lack of vision, the broken promises, the man in search of an identity:  JFK, FDR, Abraham Lincoln.  And now Teddy Roosevelt.  This is the blank slate upon whom everything has been written but nothing has stuck.  Oh yes, we have the healthcare reform bill, a legislative mystery written behind closed doors then sealed with secret insurance industry deals and wet kisses to Big Pharma.  We also have wars continued and financed, record unemployment [jobs which will not be replaced by pretty words],  nearly 46 million Americans receiving food stamps [1 in 7], houses still underwater with few promised modifications and/or relief and 20+% of our children classified as ‘food insecure.’

This is not a vision.  It’s a disaster.  I’ll leave you with Teddy Roosevelt’s words, from his own Kansas speech:

I stand for the square deal. But when I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the games, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service.

And,

The object of government is the welfare of the people. The material progress and prosperity of a nation are desirable chiefly so far as they lead to the moral and material welfare of all good citizens.

And,

One of the fundamental necessities in a representative government such as ours is to make certain that the men to whom the people delegate their power shall serve the people by whom they are elected, and not the special interests. I believe that every national officer, elected or appointed, should be forbidden to perform any service or receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, from interstate corporations; and a similar provision could not fail to be useful within the States.

These are words most of us can believe in, spoken August 31, 1910.  I’d encourage readers to take a few moments and read TR’s words in their entirety.

Then read Obama’s speech.

Two speeches.  Two men.

If President Obama wants to slip on the mantle of Teddy Roosevelt, become a born-again populist in 2012, he’ll need action to prove his words.

Why?

Because the days of blind faith are over.

Let’s Hear It For the Girl

Posted: November 15, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Banksters, Democratic Politics, Economy, Elizabeth Warren Campaign, Feminists, income inequality, investment banking, Media | Tags: , , , | 10 Comments

Elizabeth Warren, the Woman Who Would Throw Stones, The Matriarch of Mayhem, the Socialist Whore [according to an irate party crasher] dedicated to turn your first born into a Marxist revolutionary and the woman who dares to run for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachussets has produced her first political ad.  Ooooo, scary!

Now think about the ads Karl Rove’s outfit, Crossroads GPS, has run against Elizabeth Warren–the attacks, the baseless accusations.  This straightforward introduction is a breath of fresh air.  And that is why Elizabeth Warren is so very dangerous.

Let’s hear it for the girl!

Oh, How the Mighty Have Fallen!

Posted: November 14, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Democratic Politics, Team Obama, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | 21 Comments

Remember back in 2008 when the Obama campaign accused Bill Clinton of making racist comments? Remember when all the prog bloggers wrote that Obama didn’t want Bill Clinton hanging around the White House giving unwanted advice? My, how things have changed!

According to Joe Conason, Obama’s “campaign chiefs” secretly sneaked into Harlem last Wednesday to ask for the former President’s advice on how to get Obama re-elected.

President Obama’s top political operatives — including campaign chief adviser David Axelrod — traveled from Chicago and Washington to the headquarters of the William Jefferson Clinton foundation in Harlem last Wednesday afternoon for a meeting with the former president and two of his top aides. The topic? How to re-elect the current president — including some very specific advice from Clinton, according to sources present.

The Nov. 9 meeting, which went on for more than two hours, also included Clinton counselor Douglas Band and Justin Cooper, a senior adviser whose multiple responsibilities have included work on the former president’s memoir and last two books. Their guests were former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, who is serving as Obama’s 2012 campaign manager; Patrick Gaspard, executive director of the Democratic National Committee who until recently oversaw political affairs in the White House; and Obama’s lead pollster Joel Benenson, who played the same role in the 2008 campaign.

According to Conason, the meeting was requested by Obama advisers. Much of the discussion centered on how to win in southern and southwestern battleground states “such as North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada, and Arizona” that Obama won last time, but is now struggling.

Economic conditions and how to address them dominated the discussion. What most interested the Obama team were Clinton’s insights on heartland voting blocs that remain in the political middle: not the Republican-leaning independents who always end up voting for the GOP nominee, but the truly uncommitted who largely ended up supporting Obama in 2008.

Apparently Bill was told in no uncertain terms that his help is very much needed and wanted during the upcoming campaign.

Meanwhile, at the Financial Times, Edward Luce is echoing James Carville’s recent advice to Obama: Mr President, it’s time to panic. In discussing the failure and recent demotion of Obama’s latest chief of staff Bill Daley, Luce argues that Obama hasn’t learned the lesson that his campaign staff are not the best advisers on governing and policy.

On his way out, Rahm Emanuel warned Mr Daley that he would be just one among four de facto chiefs of staff, each with independent access to Mr Obama. That has proved accurate. Effective presidents rely on powerful managers, who are not obliged to compete with election consultants for the president’s ear. At a time when there is “low visibility” in the US economy, and when volatility holds the whip hand over American politics, there is greater need than ever for a leader who can focus on the bigger horizon.

It has been almost three years, and frustrated allies say that Mr Obama shows few signs of finding a learning curve. He still fails to consult widely and dislikes “reaching out” when he has to. Many Democrats have given up trying. “He doesn’t want to listen,” said one senator. “I don’t think the leopard is going to change his spots.” The plain fact is that Mr Obama prefers to campaign than govern. With the entrenched inner circle that he has, no one should be surprised by this. Whether or not Mr Obama can eke out a victory next year, it would be optimistic to expect things to change radically in a second term.

Will Obama be able to learn from Bill Clinton’s advice? My guess is the focus will be on taking advantage of Clinton’s skills as a campaigner rather than listening to the wisdom he gained during eight years in the White House and as a world leader.\

Looking for President Goodbar

Posted: November 8, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Barack Obama, Democratic Politics, Republican politics, Republican presidential politics | Tags: , | 21 Comments

It’s hard not to be depressed these days when a manic Texas Governor can still get applause for giving a speech while sounding like he’s on something and an entire group of voters puts a serial sexual harasser that has no idea that China has had nukes for decades as the leader of a pack of serious bunch of no nothings. An NBC poll shows exactly how out of alignment the political class is with the American people.   The current political races shows how unable our current two party system is when it comes to actually delivering worthwhile candidates.  While the country needs jobs and economic growth, a committee of congressional power brokers looks to be as connected to both political donors and ideological fundamentalists as any of its predecessors.  What this country needs is a leader.  There appears to be none in sight.  Do we really have to embrace more of the same?

Heading into 2012, America is looking for a populist. According to the poll, a whopping 76% agree with the statement that the current economic structure of the country is out of balance and favors a small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country. However, another 53% of respondents agree with the statement that the national debt must be cut significantly by reducing spending and the size of government. By the way, nearly 40% of all those surveyed agree with BOTH statements about the unfairness of the economic system and the size of government issue. Also, half of all respondents in the poll identify with either the Occupy Wall Street movement or the Tea Party (and 4% of all respondents identify with both). There’s an angry electorate out there, ideologically spread across the political spectrum. If the major party nominees are Obama and Romney, can either be seen as a convincing populist that will fill this void? Or are we headed for a multi-candidate field with 3rd and 4th party candidates for the general?

My guess is that both parties feel they can continue to eek out elections by positioning their people to independents as the lesser of evils or as change from the current evil.  Is that a real choice?  How about these confusing results from the party faithful that provide idiots to general elections including their last one that is arguably one of the worst presidents ever.

Beyond the big headlines from our new NBC/WSJ poll (the public’s pessimism, President Obama’s upside-down approval rating, Romney and Cain leading the GOP race and the president’s surprising leads over his potential GOP foes given the pessimistic views of his presidency), there are three important storylines you shouldn’t miss. The first: Rick Perry’s candidacy is in serious trouble and he might not be able to recover. In our first survey after the sexual-harassment allegations against Herman Cain surfaced, it’s Perry that actually lost ground in the Republican horserace (from 16% in October to 10% now) — while Mitt Romney (from 23% to 28%) and Newt Gingrich (from 8% to 13%) gained ground, and Cain actually stayed steady (from 27% to 27%). In addition, in a hypothetical two-way GOP race, Romney leads Perry by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, 62%-33%. (By comparison, Romney runs neck-and-neck against Cain in a similar two-way race, 49%-48%.) And Perry’s fav/unfav among REPUBLICAN primary voters is a pedestrian 33%-23%, versus Cain’s 52%-19% and Romney’s 46%-17%. Re-read those last set of numbers: Perry has HIGHER negative ratings than either Cain or Romney (at least before yesterday’s new Cain allegation).

It’s hard to feel sorry for Republicans whose southern strategy brought racists, religious whackos, and old style plantation economics supporters into their fold.  I’m just waiting for a pro-slavery plank to come out of their next platform at the convention.  But, it’s hard to see a good side of this craziness in a democracy that relies on two parties.   The policy of divide and conquer must be working for the parties some how; even if it’s not working for the American people.  Identity politics still can move an election and we won’t change anything until that changes.

While some Beltway chatter and commentary has suggested that the president is losing support with these voters, our NBC/WSJ poll — which included an oversample of 400 black respondents — paints a very different picture. According to the survey, 91% of them approve of Obama’s job (versus 44% among all poll respondents); 49% of them believe the country is headed in the right direction (versus 19% of all respondents); 92% would vote for Obama over Romney (versus 49%); 93% would vote for Obama over Cain (versus 53%); and 59% of them say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting in 2012. If Obama wins re-election next year, he can thank this support from African Americans and (to a lesser extent) Latino voters. By the way, the president doesn’t lose any African-American support even in the hypothetical three-way matchups with Ron Paul or Michael Bloomberg. The president does NOT have a problem with African-Americans; folks should stop wasting news ink and bandwidth on that topic. Beyond one or two grumpy members of the Congressional Black Caucus, there’s no ACTUAL evidence in the community at-large.

It seems that Rick Perry’s God really didn’t send his wife that message after all and the black community is going to stand by their man despite record unemployment, foreclosure rates, and numerous state-based voter suppression activities.   So, it’s looking more and more like will have a yawn inducing presidential race between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama.  These are two men that couldn’t find a side of an issue they couldn’t support at one time or another if it helped them with the right demographic.  Both are clearly not the populists the American populace seeks.

Frankly, I’ll stay home and miss my first presidential election ever over that choice.  I will however, go out and vote for Obama if the Republicans do manage to send their whackiest of the whackies to the big show.  Isn’t this just ducky?  The economy is still waffling, the Iranians are working on weaponized nukes and the Israelis have a trigger finger itchy PM, the Eurozone is in crisis, and the best we can come up with is Obama and Perry?  Well, at least I’ll get my nap on,  come the debate season.  It’s at least a change from the evil clown horror show that’s been the Republican Presidential Primary.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →