A Lexicon of Disappointment

[Rajiv]

A Lexicon of Disappointment

All is not well in Obamafanland. It's not clear exactly what accounts for the change of mood. Maybe it was the rancid smell emanating from Treasury's latest bank bailout. Or the news that the president's chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, earned millions from the very Wall Street banks and hedge funds he is protecting from reregulation now. Or perhaps it began earlier, with Obama's silence during Israel's Gaza attack.

Whatever the last straw, a growing number of Obama enthusiasts are starting to entertain the possibility that their man is not, in fact, going to save the world if we all just hope really hard.

This is a good thing. If the superfan culture that brought Obama to power is going to transform itself into an independent political movement, one fierce enough to produce programs capable of meeting the current crises, we are all going to have to stop hoping and start demanding.

The first stage, however, is to understand fully the awkward in-between space in which many US progressive movements find themselves. To do that, we need a new language, one specific to the Obama moment. Here is a start.

Hopeover ...........
.
.
Hoper coaster ..........
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Spartacus]

Re: the lexicon that'A Lexicon of Disappointment

we need a lexion of

"saw through him from the beginning ... instead of looking at the so-so voting record and hoping things would change ..."

and

"told you so ... (but I won't say "I told you so" ...)"

and

"you shoulda worked & voted for the only one whose record showed a real chance for change, RP ..."

A Lexicon of Disappointment

[Rajiv]

Re: the lexicon that'A Lexicon of Disappointment

"you shoulda worked & voted for the only one whose record showed a real chance for change, RP ..."

I worked for and contributed to the DK campaign -- the other side of RP

[D-Mack]

Re: the lexicon that'A Lexicon of Disappointment

I worked for and contributed to the DK campaign -- the other side of RP

DK had Hudson and RP had Schiff as an economic adviser.

Can you imagine Schiff running the Treasury or soemthing like that?



The Obama camp knew what is coming, see Biden's Seattle speech.

[cjppjc]

Re: the lexicon that'A Lexicon of Disappointment

DK had Hudson and RP had Schiff as an economic adviser.

Can you imagine Schiff running the Treasury or soemthing like that?



The Obama camp knew what is coming, see Biden's Seattle speech.

Dr. Paul might have picked Donald Luskin.

[iyamwutiam]

Re: A Lexicon of Disappointment

It wouldn't matter who he picked. Ron Paul broke the internet record for fund collection -for one day. But he , Gravel, Kuchich were sidelined from the first debate and basically removed as soon as possible.

You are given the 'false' choice of 'two' candidates -both of which are screened thoroughly by the elie to ensure their continued hegemony of US citizens secondarily and global objectives primarily.

[rj1]

Re: A Lexicon of Disappointment

It wouldn't matter who he picked. Ron Paul broke the internet record for fund collection -for one day. But he , Gravel, Kuchich were sidelined from the first debate and basically removed as soon as possible.

You are given the 'false' choice of 'two' candidates -both of which are screened thoroughly by the elie to ensure their continued hegemony of US citizens secondarily and global objectives primarily.

I forget where I read this, but pre-election by a couple weeks to a month one person was pointing out the abysmal failure of Bush pretty much guaranteeing a Democratic victory, and that the candidate the Democrats picked was pretty much fronted financially behind the scenes by the party's Eastern Elite, all these people that supposedly their defeat was representing with the defeat in the primary of Hillary Clinton.

I don't see how you can improve the candidate quality or get them outside the purview of an elite subclass. People are not going to entertain third parties at all unless we're talking:

-regionalists (George Wallace in 1968, Strom Thurmond in 1948),
-views that are dying in a party and represent a last gasp of sorts (Ralph Nader in 2000 representing the left that felt ignored by Clinton and Gore, John Anderson in 1980 representing the Rockefeller Republican wing that did not like the party's shift to the right, Henry Wallace in 1948 representing the far left of the Democratic Party, George Wallace again kinda in 1968 representing conservative Democratic interests),
-intra-party civil wars (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, John Breckenridge in 1860),
-or independents that are very well-funded in weak candidate years (Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996).

None of those proceed themselves to producing a likely third-party candidate capable of winning. The best of the bunch is maybe a stronger version of Perot or Wallace in 1968 where Wallace was almost capable of throwing the election to the House by no one getting a majority of the electoral votes. However, we then have the two major parties, and the powerbrokers in both of them are going to make sure the party does not produce a candidate they abhor. This past election saw that with how the Republicans treated Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee.

If we go into 2012 in worse shape though, I don't know what this country does. I'm kinda young but the opinion of the Republican Party in this country is as low as I can ever remember, and if Obama and the Democrats can't improve things, what options are left at that point? I think it could produce a sort of Huey Long-style candidate to challenge.

[Raz]

Re: A Lexicon of Disappointment

I forget where I read this, but pre-election by a couple weeks to a month one person was pointing out the abysmal failure of Bush pretty much guaranteeing a Democratic victory, and that the candidate the Democrats picked was pretty much fronted financially behind the scenes by the party's Eastern Elite, all these people that supposedly their defeat was representing with the defeat in the primary of Hillary Clinton.

I don't see how you can improve the candidate quality or get them outside the purview of an elite subclass. People are not going to entertain third parties at all unless we're talking:

-regionalists (George Wallace in 1968, Strom Thurmond in 1948),
-views that are dying in a party and represent a last gasp of sorts (Ralph Nader in 2000 representing the left that felt ignored by Clinton and Gore, John Anderson in 1980 representing the Rockefeller Republican wing that did not like the party's shift to the right, Henry Wallace in 1948 representing the far left of the Democratic Party, George Wallace again kinda in 1968 representing conservative Democratic interests),
-intra-party civil wars (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, John Breckenridge in 1860),
-or independents that are very well-funded in weak candidate years (Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996).

None of those proceed themselves to producing a likely third-party candidate capable of winning. The best of the bunch is maybe a stronger version of Perot or Wallace in 1968 where Wallace was almost capable of throwing the election to the House by no one getting a majority of the electoral votes. However, we then have the two major parties, and the powerbrokers in both of them are going to make sure the party does not produce a candidate they abhor. This past election saw that with how the Republicans treated Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee.

If we go into 2012 in worse shape though, I don't know what this country does. I'm kinda young but the opinion of the Republican Party in this country is as low as I can ever remember, and if Obama and the Democrats can't improve things, what options are left at that point? I think it could produce a sort of Huey Long-style candidate to challenge.

Unfortunately, I think you're correct. Obama has sold out to the bankers and the unions. We just might get a Huey Long type in 2012.

It helps to remember that the Republican Party was a Third (or Fourth) political party in 1860. Lincoln was elected and the Republicans dominated American politics for the next 72 years!

Unless we get a viable candidate representing the great majority of Ron Paul's political views I don't see much hope.

[cjppjc]

Re: A Lexicon of Disappointment

Unless we get a viable candidate representing the great majority of Ron Paul's political views I don't see much hope.

How about the real thing. It is alot to ask. He may say he did his part already.

[nitroglycol]

Re: A Lexicon of Disappointment

Just came across the Obameter. It tracks Obama's promises, and rates the progress (or lack thereof) of each:

PolitiFact has compiled about 500 promises that Barack Obama made during the campaign and is tracking their progress on our Obameter. We rate their status as No Action, In the Works or Stalled. Once we find action is completed, we rate them Promise Kept, Compromise or Promise Broken.

Of course, it merely attempts to track them, not assess whether keeping a given promise is in the long term interests of the country or the world.

[D-Mack]

Re: A Lexicon of Disappointment

Just came across the Obameter. It tracks Obama's promises, and rates the progress (or lack thereof) of each:

Of course, it merely attempts to track them, not assess whether keeping a given promise is in the long term interests of the country or the world.

Oh boy....

No. 502: Get his daughters a puppy
"The pledge is (Sasha and Malia) will get their dog, win or lose.">>More


Promise kept

[iyamwutiam]

Re: A Lexicon of Disappointment

Its all a puppet show-and the only way you will see the puppeteers is if the 'stage' is exposed as such and not if one sees the stage as the setting for a 'story'.

[Rajiv]

Re: A Lexicon of Disappointment

A great rant by David Michael Greene - How to Wreck a Presidency

There’s only one political party in the entire world that is so inept, cowardly and bungling that it could manage to simultaneously lick the boots of Wall Street bankers and then get blamed by the voters for being flaming revolutionary socialists.

It’s the same party that has allowed the opposition to go on a thirty year scorched earth campaign, stealing everything in sight from middle and working class voters, and yet successfully claim to be protecting ‘real Americans’ from out-of-touch elites.

It’s the same party that could run a decorated combat hero against a war evader in 1972, only to be successfully labeled as national security wimps.

Just to be sure, it then did the exact same thing again in 2004.

It’s the same party that stood by silently while two presidential elections in a row were stolen away from them.

How ‘bout dem Dems, eh?

One year ago today, there was real question as to what could possibly be the future of the Republican Party in America. That’s changed a bit now.

And, speaking of ‘change’, the one kind that Barack Obama did actually deliver this year was not that which most voters had in mind after listening to him use the word incessantly, all throughout 2008. Obama and his colleagues have now managed to bring the future of the Democratic Party into question, just a year after it won two smashing victories in a row.

Personally, I’m not real bothered by that. Today’s Democrats are, almost without exception, embarrassing hacks who deserved to get stomped a long time ago.

What really upsets me, however, is what these fools have allowed to be done to the name of progressivism, and to the country.

Barack Obama has now, in just a year’s time, become the single most inept president perhaps in all of American history, and certainly in my lifetime. Never has so much political advantage been pissed away so rapidly, and what’s more in the context of so much national urgency and crisis. It’s astonishing, really, to contemplate how much has been lost in a single year.

It was hilarious, of course, when Michelle Bachmann invoked the Charge of the Light Brigade at a rally against “Obama’s” (has he ever really owned it?) health care “initiative” (isn’t that too strong a word to use?), quite oblivious to the fact that the actual historical event was one of history’s greatest debacles. Obama, on the other hand, seems to be actually reliving the famous ****-up in the flesh. Except, of course, that he doesn’t really “charge” at anything. He just talks about things, thinks about things a real long time, defers to others on things, and waits around for things to maybe happen.

This week, though, something actually did happen. Alas, not precisely what the president had in mind, however.

But the election in Massachusetts was only slightly less inevitable than the sun rising in the east each morning. It was the product of an amazing collection of abysmal choices and practices over the last year that has produced a meltdown of equally amazing proportions for this president and his party. It is fitting that it comes on the anniversary of the president’s inauguration, a moment filled with so much hope for so many just a year ago.

What has Obama – this Conan O’Brien of presidents – done wrong in order to produce this devastating outcome? The short answer is: Just about everything imaginable.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[ThePythonicCow]

A great rant by David Michael Greene - How to Wreck a Presidency

Good one. I take it Mr. Greene is not enamored of the present President .

[D-Mack]

Re: A Lexicon of Disappointment

Remarks by the President on Financial Reform

...

It's for these reasons that I'm proposing a simple and common-sense reform, which we're calling the "Volcker Rule" -- after this tall guy behind me. Banks will no longer be allowed to own, invest, or sponsor hedge funds, private equity funds, or proprietary trading operations for their own profit, unrelated to serving their customers. If financial firms want to trade for profit, that's something they're free to do. Indeed, doing so –- responsibly –- is a good thing for the markets and the economy. But these firms should not be allowed to run these hedge funds and private equities funds while running a bank backed by the American people.
In addition, as part of our efforts to protect against future crises, I'm also proposing that we prevent the further consolidation of our financial system. There has long been a deposit cap in place to guard against too much risk being concentrated in a single bank. The same principle should apply to wider forms of funding employed by large financial institutions in today's economy. The American people will not be served by a financial system that comprises just a few massive firms. That's not good for consumers; it's not good for the economy. And through this policy, that is an outcome we will avoid.
My message to members of Congress of both parties is that we have to get this done. And my message to leaders of the financial industry is to work with us, and not against us, on needed reforms. I welcome constructive input from folks in the financial sector. But what we've seen so far, in recent weeks, is an army of industry lobbyists from Wall Street descending on Capitol Hill to try and block basic and common-sense rules of the road that would protect our economy and the American people.
So if these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have. And my resolve is only strengthened when I see a return to old practices at some of the very firms fighting reform; and when I see soaring profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms claiming that they can't lend more to small business, they can't keep credit card rates low, they can't pay a fee to refund taxpayers for the bailout without passing on the cost to shareholders or customers -- that's the claims they're making. It's exactly this kind of irresponsibility that makes clear reform is necessary.
We've come through a terrible crisis. The American people have paid a very high price. We simply cannot return to business as usual. That's why we're going to ensure that Wall Street pays back the American people for the bailout. That's why we're going to rein in the excess and abuse that nearly brought down our financial system. That's why we're going to pass these reforms into law.
Thank you very much, everybody.




http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...nancial-reform

Is he getting cold feet?