Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a recent interview on Bill Moyers Journal, he had Matt Tabbi and Robert Kuttner in a round table of various Liberal takes on the Obama administration.
Its a very interesting talk and I would recommend it to both right and left leaning folks, as I often find criticisms from those who normally agree to be a bit more salient than the usual oppositional talking points.
While I have said in the past that I admire Obama's intelligent and nuanced approach to subjects as well as his seeming desire for things to be better in balance. Still I could not vote for Obama because of a few important issues to me, namely our wars and occupations in the Middle East in which I believe he knowingly lied about leaving Iraq, his overall inexperience in dealing with the establishment political body, and his saturation from special interests that are diametrically different than the desires and even needs of the people. Many of my concerns seem to be coming to fruition and at a speed I find rather chilling and the hopes I had that some good would come of this Presidency are fading fast.
I am reminded by a quote I once heard but don't recall where so I'll have to paraphrase, "Why do we act surprise by those people who would do anything to achieve power, would also do anything with it once they have it". I can't help but think how clear this is becoming today.
In the interview it is clear that many on the left are struggling with the growing bad taste in their mouth. The difference between Tabbi and Kuttner offer an excellent example of the left overall as Tabbi is frustrated to the point of anger, while Kuttner seems to be holding out hope that Obama will somehow make good in the end.
If anything I believe this past election has set in stone just how entrenched various interests other than that of the citizenry are in play. McCain the maverick was selling his soul and it was obvious, but it also seems Obama sold his to a nation blindfolded by hope of better times. We ended up exactly with the product the establishment wished us to have and I hope we remember this.
Two fellow posters posted an article by Matt Taibbi as of recently. It didn't get as much response as i'd personally like. It's one of those issues that share a broad commonality across the political spectrum.
I agree with you this presidency should highlight the fact "just how entrenched various interests other than that of the citizenry are in play" as quote by you, TNHilltopper.
The constant omnipresence of "special interest" and "industry interest" groups is a very thorny problem.
As much as people rail against corporate influence in government - or the special legislative treatment that money and lobbyists can purchase - voters strongly prefer to elect candidates with strong corporate backing. Corporate opposition is a very effective death sentence for either a candidacy or a political career. That can't be done without the consent of voters, of course.
That raises the question of whether or not these things have become integral, fundamental components of the political process. Do we simply have to accept that noncitizen corporate interests and industries will have a "right of first refusal" when it comes to American legislation?
That's a very offensive idea, but in practice, it seems absolutely true, and voters wouldn't have it any other way.
Many of my concerns seem to be coming to fruition and at a speed I find rather chilling and the hopes I had that some good would come of this Presidency are fading fast.
I am reminded by a quote I once heard but don't recall where so I'll have to paraphrase, "Why do we act surprise by those people who would do anything to achieve power, would also do anything with it once they have it". I can't help but think how clear this is becoming today.
Some people are more adept at "reading" the character and substance of an individual. There were many, many people who realized obama was NOT the man he was claiming to be, that his campaign was filled with nothing but slogans, catchy phrases and cliches meant to mesmerize the populace into believing he was a "new" kind of politician that would rise above the politics of "old".
Many people inherently knew he was full of so much BS, based on his voting record, his associations and his past statements.
Some have an inherent talent at taking the measure of an individual, looking past the smoke and mirrors and realizing the truth.
Two fellow posters posted an article by Matt Taibbi as of recently. It didn't get as much response as i'd personally like. It's one of those issues that share a broad commonality across the political spectrum.
I agree with you this presidency should highlight the fact "just how entrenched various interests other than that of the citizenry are in play" as quote by you, TNHilltopper.
I noticed during the interview with Moyers that this specific article was mentioned and seems to be Tabbi's bent and one I tend to agree with.
While this administration is making these ties to various other interests, like banking, insurance, health care, etc... more crystalline, I assert that this is merely a continuation of contemporary politics in America. This has been an issue that most certainly effects both political parties and regardless of ones particular political lean should be something most average folks could agree on.
On a side note, I was pretty much laughed at during the Bush years when I often referred to Dick Cheney's political career being summed up by an almost singular goal to increase and consolidate power into the Executive Branch. At the time, those on the right saw nothing wrong with it despite my warnings that one day the opposition would have all these powers gained. Today this trend is obviously realized by the Obama administration and I suspect may even move further authority into this office. Congress has not only acquiesced but almost thrust its authority upon the Executive office and we are getting closer to what some have called the Imperial Presidency. Each day it is less fantasy and I hope folks realize this only makes it more cost effective for special interests to purchase the will of a single man than a broad spectrum of Congress.
-We live in a Corporatocracy...I wish people would wake up. It's been this way for about 100-140 years.
-The people that can help solve the problem also happen to be the same people who caused it....its a very complex issue and do you really want to turn the american financial collapse over to newbies or people who have never dealt with this problem?
-I'lll cut Obama some slack becuz its a little unrealistic to expect him to overhaul Wall St in the first 8 months...Study the problem, get input from the intellectuals and then make the tough decisions.
-One of Obama's problems is that he's too smart for this country. He thinks in detail-strategically long term..most of the american public does not have the intelligence, patience, or tools to understand this....
Something's not right here. One year after the great collapse of our financial system, Wall Street is back on top while our politicians dither. As for health care reform, you're about to be forced to buy insurance from companies whose stock is soaring, and that's just dandy with the White House.
Truth is, our capitol's being looted, republicans are acting like the town rowdies, the sheriff is firing blanks, and powerful Democrats in Congress are in cahoots with the gang that's pulling the heist. This is not capitalism at work. It's capital. Raw money, mounds of it, buying politicians and policy as if they were futures on the hog market.
[Mod edited for copyright]
Last edited by TnHilltopper; 12-19-2009 at 11:43 AM..
Something's not right here. One year after the great collapse of our financial system, Wall Street is back on top while our politicians dither. As for health care reform, you're about to be forced to buy insurance from companies whose stock is soaring, and that's just dandy with the White House.
Truth is, our capitol's being looted, republicans are acting like the town rowdies, the sheriff is firing blanks, and powerful Democrats in Congress are in cahoots with the gang that's pulling the heist. This is not capitalism at work. It's capital. Raw money, mounds of it, buying politicians and policy as if they were futures on the hog market.
[Mod edited for copyright]
There were several portions of this transcript that jumped out at me but one of the most notable was the following exchange.
Taibbi- "This is what the Democratic Party has done since the mid-'80s. They've relied heavily on the financial services industry to fund their campaigns. And it's the quid pro quo. They gave a lot of money to help these guys run, and in return, they get the big jobs, you know, in the White House. "
followed by Moyers - "But here's how they repay him. This is on "The Huffington Post:" "Bank lobbyists launch call to action to crush financial reform. The American Bankers Association issued a call to action on Wednesday urging its lobbyist and member banks to make an all-out effort to crush regulatory reform in the Senate." This is how they reward his own tolerance towards them, right? "
At this point, Obama could go after Wallstreet cronyism and come out smelling like a rose, but like most of his efforts I suspect will attempt to pacify both Wallstreet and the American people and will likely fail miserably.
All of this is just in the financial sector, and I'm curious to what the sentiment will be on the left this time next year when the continued news out of the Middle East will resemble something more like early February 1968, when the national will to engage in Vietnam simply evaporated overnight.
I often viewed George Bush as the Mad comics character sitting behind the desk on day two saying, "This Presidentin is haaaard", and now I get this same feeling from Obama except with, "Were not in kansas, errr Chicago anymore"
What it comes down to is voters vote for the most popular person (seen and talked about on MSM) who promises the most for the least.
Obama was the one..he promised everything to everybody and was all over the MSM.
Did anyone dig into his past and promote on MSM ? No..he came out of nowhere and won the majority of votes..why is that ? Do people not do their civic duty and research their candidates ? (I don't think so).
What it comes down to is voters vote for the most popular person (seen and talked about on MSM) who promises the most for the least.
Who and what has the most influence over the determination of popularity?
I recall after the 2004 Presidential election that Chris Matthews and a guest dedicated a portion of his show to talking about the then little known Barack Obama as being the mostly likely candidate in 08. I thought to myself at the time, how the heck would they know... yet here we are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
