Included below are the first three paragraphs of Stanley Heller's excellent Counterpunch article pointing out or reminding us that the Left seems to be bereft of any mechanism or ability to lobby Obama, no matter the issue or the maelstrom that he's pouring us into.
One of my mantras has been that Obama has long ago shown his true colors as a Bush-Cheney manqué (unsuccessful stand-in) and so if the Republicans don't take at least one House of Congress, he'll be very disappointed, perhaps devastated. It's called "pulling a Clinton." Clinton left the presidency with a high degree of popularity as a direct result of Republican control of Congress midway in his first term. That way he was able to pose as a leader by vetoing a portion of the worst they had to offer.
Since Obama has gone over to the dark side he'll only be comfortable when his real allies are in control.
(An interesting question is to what extent Obama intends to change course now that he's gotten rid of--if that's what happened--some of the most right-wing people in his administration: Emanuel, Jones, Summers.
One of the issues some have been following is the rate at which Obama has fallen behind his predecessor in filling judicial appointments. Could it be a result of his unwillingness to appoint those who would be acceptable to his base? Until recently I found it hard to believe that he would delay and delay until the Republicans controlled the Senate. Well such has turned out to be the case. Now what's going to happen if it turns out that the Tea Party has thrown a spanner into the works by denying Republican control of the upper House? Once again, who's going to be the most disappointed person in D.C.?
***
Timidity on the Mall
October 7, 2010
By STANLEY HELLER
The “One Nation Working Together” rally was billed as a chance to “demand the changes we voted for”. That slogan was just for the suckers. There was barely any criticism of the Administration from the main stage, just bleats for jobs and justice.
You would think that up on the main stage there would be giant banners with progressive slogans, “Obama, Hire Millions Now” “Defend Public Education from the Privatizers”, “Why are a Million Blacks in Prison?”, “Cut the Pentagon Budget in Half”. But there were no banners at all. Instead there were flags, lots of American flags.
None of the rally speakers were announced beforehand. That's always a big draw. Was it stupidity or just an effort to avoid showing that “peace” would not be part of the demonstration. Bless his heart, rally speaker Harry Belafonte did vigorously denounce our wars and he actually condemned the Afpak surge saying, “The President's decision to escalate the war in that region alone costs the nation $33 billion”. He didn't challenge the President to bring the troops home, but no one else on the main stage criticized Obama on anything.
Read more:
3 comments:
Gordon wrote:
Obama was an idea in the minds of white liberals mostly. His only real "job" was in the civil rights industry as a lawyer for shakedown outfits like ACORN. He did however pick up a lot of ideas from his guru Rev White over twenty years (ideas that he abandoned immediately he was elected). So he gets elected, really as what might be called a false terminal, that is, someone who accepts a post/job that they know they are unqualified for (Bush was another). This puts them in a spot, as they are then unable to perform the tasks/duties of the post or position, and thus they go into a position of treason to the post, and the folk who believed in them and their pitch for the post, and who supported them. This guy was given the orientation prior to election by his jewish handlers that things work a certain way in DC- you do the bidding of the APAIC people, or you
are not allowed into office. So the false terminal Obama masquerading as the President, of course lets all of his dopey supporters down, caus' they don't know about this and how the system works (poor dears). Obama was never ever going to be calling the shots, he is like the CEO of a hotel in Vegas in the 50s, nothing but a front man for the mob, but given nice perks and rewards for his service (the prestige, importance of being "The President"). He got elected on a ticket, a promise to get us out of Iraq in four months, close Gitmo and show the world we are not all Bush supporters, he even got the Nobel for his phony sales pitch. But ultimately he became just another WH shabbos goy for the Israelis. Sorry it's a bit long. Gordon.
Peter wrote:
I'm wondering why you've never given me any points for totally predicting Obama at least a year before the "election"? It just ain't fair!
Here's another prediction: Whatever the extent of course change might be after the parting of the right-wingers, it'll be so much pabulum for the Drama analysts to chew on, in order to further the illusion of progress and of a two-party system, where, according to the corresponding Drama analysts, our side is good, the other, evil (Dramatic tension). Though the tack may appear to change, the ship of state will still be heading for the same port of call, since neither party has the autonomy nor will to change it fundamentally.
Obama did not "go over" to the dark side. He came from there, (depending, of course, on one's definition of "dark side"), or he wouldn't be Pres. I know you find 'my' defintion "hard to believe," but hey, you had an epiphany on the judicial appointments, so there might still hope for ya
Great word, manqué!
Once again, who's really in control?
Best,
Peter
Thanks Peter. Always good to hear from you.
Yes, I believe I have to credit you with a deeper understanding of who Obama was at a date earlier than mine.
I recall my concern once it became clear that he would win the nomination that he should be informed of Cheney’s secret terror teams (JSOC?)
and how the U.S. has inspired the insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
My idea was that once he was informed he'd roll back some of these horrors.
Similarly, I wanted to inform him of issues involving electronic voting and election fraud generally.
It took me awhile, was it a year? was it six months? after he took office that I realized that he was maybe the last person to look to for reform
–-with some of what that entailed.
Ronald
Post a Comment