The Bipartisan Scam

President Obama's State of the Union speech was about 60% outreach to Republicans. He stated clearly that he was not going to give up on his attempt for bipartisanship in legislation. This is yet another terrible move, from both a political and policy standpoint, from the guy we thought was so smart. Hmmm...

Cenk from the Young Turks clearly articulates why bipartisanship ala Obama doesn't work. He also points to the clear example of successful bipartisanship within recent memory. (Disclosure - I am a TYT member, and their webcasts make up a little more than half of the political news input I get. I am somewhat "in the bag" for Cenk's point of view, and am an unabashed liberal. I don't think I'm at ditto-head level yet, but - grain of salt.)

Bipartisanship doesn't work policy-wise because the fucking Republicans aren't bipartisan. They say "no" to everything. For example: Health care - Dems spent so much time wooing Olympia Snow for one measly vote in the Senate, that they watered down the health care bill to the point that progressives were actively against its passage. And they never even got that bitch's vote! All you hear from Obama is "tort reform" and "tax cuts" and, most recently "spending freeze." What do the Republicans say? "Not enough!" By the time we get to the end of the line, we have legislation that nobody wants, and the base can't voice support for. We get bad policy, and no bipartisan help.

Bipartisanship will also fail politically. I agree with TYT that constantly getting bitch-slapped by Republicans will make Obama look weak and pathetic. Another year of minimal accomplishment because Republicans won't play ball and the liberal base will totally disengage, and the rest of the country will lose respect. No American wants a President who gets his lunch money taken on a daily basis, even if he is smart. Obama has to get tough with this party that polls at under 30% approval, or the American people won't turn out for him or the other Democrats.

Now, getting tough gets you bipartisanship. Cenk clearly points out how a vastly stupider president, George W. Bush, got bipartisanship all the time. He did not hold out an olive branch and beg Democrats to join him. NO! He strolled into their caucus and said "you bitches are going to vote for my war, or I am going to name names and tell America how you love the Islamic terrorists." And the Dems rolled over like prison punks. Democrats voted for the Iraq War. For terrible, uber-conservative supreme court justices, for the destruction of the Constitution...you name it! There was no depth to the pool of bipartisanship that Bush swam in.

And this is where the disequilibrium sets in. How can a smart president like Obama be so thoroughly schooled by a tragically dumb president like Bush? Media pundits on the left, and public figures who support the Democratic party tisk-tisk the Republicans. Robert Redford was interviewed by Democracy Now this week and decried how Obama has had his overtures rebuffed by those surly conservatives. The general message is: Obama is trying, but those darn Republicans just won't let him govern. They block everything he tries to do. What is a smart president who wants real change to do?

And this is where my head explodes. Mother fucker, you have 59 senators! Do you know what George Bush would have done with 59 goddam senators? Well, what he did with a maximum of 54 senators at least. He might even have actually destroyed social security. And Obama IS smart enough to realize this.

No, no no. He is using bipartisanship for COVER! He wants to cover the Democratic party's wholesale sell-out to corporate America. He wants legislation that keeps corporate lobbyists shoveling that cash into Democratic campaign coffers. He wants to fuel the gravy-train to high-speed rail levels of funding. And he wants to blame Republicans when we point out what a bunch of whores the Democrats have become. Every reach to Republicans comes as a boon to the economic elite of America AND foreign capitols. He's selling us down the river while pretending to try to heal the divisive politics of our nation.

Bipartisanship is bullshit when it's Obama-style. This president needs to realize that we are not as stupid as he thinks we are. And we have to teach him. We need to be clear that we don't care if Democrats and Republicans get along. We voted for change from the corporate oligarchy that has been in place since Reagan (at least). The voters of Massachusetts tried, but the lesson was ignored.

The Ad

I have a vision of a great political ad.

Men appointed by G. W. Bush have bestowed Ben Bernanke with the captain's hat, and he is in command of an old-school luxury liner. The comparison to the Titanic cannot be mistaken, only the name on the side of the cruise ship is the "US Economy."

All of a sudden, a panicked look strikes the face of Bernanke. The shot pans back as the ship hits the iceberg. The US Economy is going down in the icy ocean waters. Captain Bernanke orders lifeboats lowered into the water.

As women, children and mortgage holders fill the lifeboats, Bernanke appears and begins throwing them out, and putting wall street bankers into the lifeboats instead. He throws more people out to make room for the bankers large, white sacks of money, with dollar signs and the word "bonuses" printed on the side.

As the shot pans back slowly, lifeboats float off as bankers light cigars, illuminating their bags of cash. Women and kids, and working class men holding mortgages sink in the frigid water as you hear soft laughter from the lifeboats. This is the end of the ad.

It is too bad that this is the ad that Republican challengers will run against Democrats this fall, since Bernanke was pushed through the Senate by Obama and his team. Massachusetts lesson lost. They just don't get it, or don't care.

Oh My God, Obama...

Fuck.

Was I not, just the other day, giving props to Obama and the Democrats for "getting" the message of the Massachusetts election? I was. Too soon, too soon.

The State of the Union Speech schooled me, and in no uncertain terms.

Now, to be fair, Obama gives great speech. This speech was engaging, and though about 30 minutes too long, split a path down the middle of the American political pasture. As a politician, it was nicely done. As a leader, it left a lot to be desired. There were some good parts, and some disastrous parts. First the good:

1. He hammered the Bush administration. It sounded a little whiney, but that is good. Every time that CNN, or even Fox brings up his criticism of Bush and the Republican majority, the criticism of Bush and Republicans will be back in public consideration. He should have been doing this for the last year. Even if the question is asked critically, the question will be asked out there: "are you really saying that Bush fucked everything up?" During the speech, he repeatedly came back to hammer on the Republicans. Can't hurt, unless you're a pussy (00ps!).

2. He alluded to taxing the rich. He talked about how revenue was needed. Blah, blah, blah. I need more information on this one, and need to know if he is really going to fight for this in Congress. Still, I like to hear it.

3. Bank fees. No shit, how obvious is this. By the way, Democrats stood up for this applause line, but no Republicans did. This is a great visual, and should be a Democratic ad in the fall election.

4. Talked about ending tax cuts for oil companies, etc. Big talk, I'd like to see it. But still, there is a shadow of a liberal message here, or even a pro-worker/family message here, mind you a shadow.

5. Said he would end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Again, he could have done it by now with the stroke of a pen. Is he really gonna' do it before fall of 2010? I do not suggest holding your breath.

6. Talked about stopping the hemmoraging of jobs to overseas factories. Yeah, good luck without specifics. He also made Republicans stand up and cheer when he said he would strengthen trade deals with Asia, so again, no breath holding.

Now, let's review how this speech was a disaster for any hope of a progressive agenda from the Obama administration.

1. Repeated talk of tax cuts, and tax credits. Jesus man, we need to RAISE TAXES. For fuck's sake, we can't cut enough to fix the deficit, so we gots to raise revenue. By the way, this is a Republican talking point!

2. Repeated talk of bipartisanship, including special monthly meetings with Republicans. This has so far gotten Obama zero legislative accomplishments. It is a huge waste of time, energy and political capital. Again, another Republican talking point.

3. He scolded the Democrats, telling them not to give up on health care reform. That's it, no plan, no promise of help, nothin'.

4. Offshore drilling? Clean coal? Nuclear power? Are you fucking kidding me? Look, if you want Republicans to like you so much, why not just don the knee pads and start blowing them right there in the chamber, and spare the rest of us an evening of listening to this. Oh, the pain.

5. An across the board, three-year freeze on discretionary spending. Yup, you heard correctly, John McCain's campaign solution to the deficit - which was roundly criticized by Obama. Remember, that was using a "hatchet instead of a scalpel" on the budget. Jesus, this is a horrible idea that will hurt programs important to the most vulnerable Americans, while leaving the bloated military budget untouched. This proposal was leaked days early, by the way, just to make sure that progressives hated it. Still, ECONOMISTS HATED IT TOO! I really thought that Obama might bail on this idea after it was so roundly criticized by notable economists. Nope, never let a Republican talking point go by unvalidated by the President!

6. The sneakiest, most insideous turd in this punchbowl was probably Obama's endorsement of the "bipartisan commission" to study social security, led by Kent Conrad and Judd Greg. This sounds fine on the outside, respectable senators from each side of the aisle trying to solve the looming financial crisis that will affect social security. But don't be fooled.

This commission is the brainchild of billionaire Pete Peterson. Pete Peterson's agenda is to kill Social Security, period. He has said so many times, and has funded the Fiscal Times news service, which focuses on budget issues affecting the Federal Government. Many stories are slanted towards this billionaire's viewpoint. This commission will come to the inevitable conclusion that Social Security benefits need to be cut. This will lead to people becoming dissalusioned with SS, and then it can be privatized or just done away with. Great.

What does not get reported is that there is no problem with Social Security. Social Security's funding formula is just fine, and up until a couple of decades ago, all the money necessary for the Baby Boom retirement was there. But then Republicans and Democrats cut taxes on the rich, and did not cut spending to match. They "borrowed" from the SS fund.

Now that the bill is coming due, billionaire's like Pete Peterson know where we will come to get the money - to the rich, who took it earlier in the form of tax cuts. Took that money that people paid over a lifetime of work, so they would not have to eat pet food in their retirement, and Peterson wants to keep that money you paid into the system, and tell you to go fuck yourself. And that is the sole purpose of this bipartisan commission. This is the ultimate Republican talking point.

Destroying Social Security was the one thing that Cheney and Bush failed to push through (back when they had no more than 54 senators and got every fucking thing else they wanted). Now, Democrat Barack Obama is trying to finish the job apparantly. How can this be? The only conclusion is that Obama doesn't give a shit about us, at least not anymore. He now sees the world as populated by bankers, health care execs, lobbyists, conservative Republicans and weak Democrats. He has found the center of that world and is trying to govern 300 million working Americans from that center. When he was campaigning for president, his world was much broader, and its center much more recognizable to us, the average folk. Now, I get so frustrated trying to figure out who this guy is, and I am exhausted from the constant hope/disappointment cycle.

I must abandon hope at this point. It turns out that Obama did not learn the lesson of the Massachusetts special election. He talked tough for a couple of days, but his actions speak volumes: Geithner still has a job, Bernanke is confirmed, and Republican talking points still rule his day. Fall 2010 will be a giant Massachusetts, one that Obama will deserve, but we won't.

Goddamit, I told you so!

I don't hate to tell you so, but I told you so.

Leverage the goddam votes!

The Massachusetts election, which Democrats lost, proved my point - leverage your vote.

For all the whining liberals who cried about giving Republicans a seat? Suck on the new strength.

Granted, it is all just talk. Obama has made some great new speeches, as he did during the campaign, and then fucked us.

But if he has really gotten the message, that we are sick of corporate sell-outs, then just possibly he is really going to get tough. And that is what my last two posts were about. Leveraging the vote, to send a message. Thank you Massachusetts!

Obama, and the DNC bitches have folded to the strength of the leveraged vote, at least in their speeches of the last week. The bankers are going to get a "fight," Bernanke is in trouble, Geithner and Summers have lost power, and Obama is talking like he was the fucking ghost of Theo Roosevelt when he realized that the Republicans were fucking America (hello, that was 100 years ago).

Yes, the Brown victory is a clear message that both independents and liberals are unhappy with the Obama program of selling out to banking, military contracting and health care interests. Selling out like corporate whores with aids and herpes - no rubber for us citizens!

I suggested that we leverage what we got, our votes...and that's what the people of Massachusetts did. They said "fuck you" to the Democratic Party that was hardly different from the Republicans.

Now, in the last few days, listen to Obama: War with the bankers (duh!), fighting for jobs (nice), speeches flavored by David Axelrod instead of Rahm Emanuel (thank Jesus), and a good ol' populist feel.

Now, do we trust Obama? Fuck no. He had great speech during his Presidential campaign too. And he went the corporatist route. Watch or his actions! Obama needs to ACT, or do the same thing in 2010 - leverage that vote.

More importantly, make it clear that liberals intend to do just that before 2010 if Obama strays right again. Progressives should make it clear that we all will do the same thing in the congressional midterms if we don't see the fight that Obama is promising.

We want STRONG health care! WE want STRONG banking regulation. We want a STRONG liberal president. Polling continues to show this...BROWN was a PROTEST VOTE!!!

That's right Dems, get the message, or get fucked. There will be nothing but more electoral drama in 2010 unless Obama gets the message to get tough, and kick ass on health care and banking. If he does get tough, he will relegate the Republicans to the electoral minority that they are democraphically doomed to become in the next decade or so. If he doesn't, if he instead gravitates towards their cash-fisted grip, we will see, and fail to support him - as we should.

Obama, see the leverage of Massachusetts. See the Democratic Glory that awaits for so little a price. Or, suck the dick of corporate America, and get treated like a whore by the voters in 2010.

Labor Supporting Democrats: The Definition of Insanity

President Obama and the Democratic Party have made it clear that they agree with Republicans on at least one important issue: Organized labor must be destroyed.

Obama has been working on this since he was elected. He has been after the teachers union since the beginning, insinuating that they are responsible for failing schools. His four billion dollar grant program for school improvement in part demands curbing teacher unions in order to participate.

His takeover of the auto companies, unlike his bailout of Wall Street - had pain for auto workers, as opposed to the bonuses for Wall Street execs.

He has not moved on "card check," and was apparently holding it hostage for cooperation on health care. Well, the Senate made that too hard for the Union leaders, by imposing an excise tax on health care plans - the "Cadillac" plans - like the ones some union members have. The head of the AFL CIO said that the health care bill would never make it out of the House with an excise tax.

Then, this week, a deal was struck with an excise tax. Proof positive that the Unions have no sway with the Democratic leadership at all.

Yes, I know that it was a compromise, and that the price of the plan before tax was raised by less than 5%. Also, vision and dental were excluded. Wow. Oh, and union members (and as a member of the NEA, I wonder which unions) will be exempt for eight years. Great, now how little are we saving compared to a public option? And, how fucked is the average non-union worker with benefits?

But this compromise was face-saving bullshit. The union leadership, and a few progressive House members who still rely on labor support needed something to show for supporting this disaster of a bill. Well, they got something, but it wasn't much. Not enough to take to dues-payers and claim victory. And certainly they are too weak to now ask for card check.

After rolling over like punks, do you really think Obama and the DLC will pass any pro-labor legislation? Hell no! They are going to say "yeah, thanks for our health industry bail-out, now fuck off! Don't call until our next election."

And that's the problem that unions have now. Who do they support? If they are being realistic, they must realize that the Democratic party has taken them totally for granted. Unions aren't even in the back of the Obama bus, they are under it. To keep giving money, endorsements, member hours and labor's legitimacy to the Democrats is masochistic. The Democratic party has abused us terribly, they don't deserve a nickel, or a minute of time from labor. Maybe a few primary candidates do, or some representative that actually fight (if you can find one), but not the party or this president.

And the obvious alternative is horrible. If Democrats are sticking the knife in the back, Republicans want to gut unions with a chainsaw from the front. Supporting Republicans because you can't trust Democrats is not even an option. Fuck! The choices are bleak. But they are choices, and we do have them:

1. Stay home - Unions sit an election out. They keep building their lobby and PAC money, and sit on it. They smile and wave at the Democrats and then shut the door. This largely happened in 1994 when unions were pissed at Clinton, and Newt Gingrich swept into power with the Republican Revolution. And it would mean more Republican seats this time. But if enough members held strong, they could bully in certain districts anyway. The real hope is, that unions' willingness to hold strong breaks through some of the Democratic Party's corporate fortress, and the Dems deliver on what we want before a lost election. I think it's too late for that, though.

2. Vote for "Mr. Burns" - I am obsessed with this. It reminds me of the '92 election when people wanted "none of the above" on the ballot. The recent New York mayoral election found thousands of ballots with the Simpsons tycoon as a write-in candidate. If unions could organize this, so that Spongebob received hundreds of thousands of votes nation-wide, it would be a show of force. The Democratic Party would have to look at losing races while a potential source of support shows how many votes they can move for an invertebrate animated non-candidate. This way union membership stays engaged and mobilized while delivering a kick in the ass to the party that has turned its back on them.

3. Third party candidates - They exists, and could be an excellent alternative. That war chest that unions won't give to the Dems could now fund third party candidates in select districts. You could find independents to challenge corpratist Dems, and Greens or other very left candidates to challenge liberal Dems. Doing both is important. Take down a few corpratists because they are assholes who are destroying the country, and they hate labor. Take down a few members of the Progressive Caucus too! Yes they say the right things, but they won't fight. Make them fear us more than conservative talking points.

Is this risky? Even foolhardy? Absolutely. Conventional wisdom in Washington and the media is that this is the circular firing squad. And I am no political genius. I'm just a cranky liberal with a day job - but I can't stand it any more.

And for those who insist that Obama has only had a year, and we have to give him a chance...well, a year was plenty of time to give a trillion bucks to Wall Street, expand the war in Afghanistan and do a preemptive bail-out for the health care industrial complex. His actions have shown that he runs a DLC corpratist agenda. I can only think of the popular definition of insanity: doing the same thing, and expecting different results.

Supporting the same Democrats and expecting different results is insane. It won't happen. We will continue to get screwed - not as bad as from Republicans - but screwed bad none the less.

Compromise is an essential part of our political process, but if Dems can't deliver for labor, or for choice (both which have been savaged of late), then what good are they? The answer is no good at all.

So, we must use the leverage that we have. We can't match Wall Street or Big Pharma in cash, so we must leverage our votes. We do still live in a country where votes matter. The cash of corporations helps buy votes. By leveraging the votes on the left, we exercise power, power to change the course.

It is insane to do anything else.

Can 2010 Please be a Year of Science?

Watching Republican senators and representatives publicly praying for divine intervention on legislation over the past couple of weeks has raised my hackles again. Their cupboard is truly that empty, and they are that bankrupt in the marketplace of ideas, that they are publicly asking for the invisible force that they worship to use magic to intervene in the health care legislative process. To quote the great fictional American, Kelly Bundy: "the mind wobbles."

And yet, these people are still taken seriously by CNN, MSNBC and the broadcast news networks. Again, it wobbles.

I'm done screaming at Republicans because I can't take them seriously anymore. I don't really believe that they take themselves all that seriously. But they are taken, by the media, as a serious side of the political spectrum in America. And, they have resorted to using magic spells (prayers to achieve a particular purpose) in the public arena that shapes our legislative outcomes. I worry that we will get a lot more of this in 2010, and that it will be framed by CNN as being just as useful as actual participation in governance. We can't have that.

Full disclosure: I am agnostic. I used to call myself an athiest, but then I realized that I cannot prove the non-existence of God. And I also don't want to get in people's faces who believe in things spiritual. I consider what Thomas Jefferson called "freedom of conscience" to be one of the great traits of Americans, and one of the sacred parts of the First Amendment. I really believe that it is okay for Michelle Bachman to believe any crazy shit she wants to.

I just need CNN to make it clear how crazy it is if applied to legislation. The magic brought to bear by sky wizards or earth demons or whatever, CANNOT continue to be part of law that rules every American.

You don't think it is? How's about the health care debate in the House, when the Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbied the Speaker of the House on the abortion amendment. From the news coverage their supplications on behalf of Jesus carried more weight than the lobbying by doctors, nurses and family planning agencies. You know, the people who engage in the actual science of health care!

C'mon, just a little science in the 21st century. That's all I ask. Remember in 2008, during the Republican primary when during a debate several candidates said they did not believe in evolution. Huckabee was asked later about this response and he smoothly said "hey, there's a lot we don't know and I don't want to be arrogant" or something like that. He was then politely let of the hook by the interviewer.

I think I was screaming at the TV after that. "It is not fucking arrogant to observe nature and draw a conclusion from those observations!" Look, we all know that evolution is a theory - it is not 1000% proven. But guess what, neither are the electromagnetic theories that make cars start, that make computers function, oh, and make the TV work! Can someone please ask a follow-up question, like: "Do you believe the equipment in this studio, built based only on theories, is actually working by magic?"

This new decade will require governance with heavy science council. Please, CNN et al, hold our representatives accountable to at least a minimum of scientific consultation. Don't take belief in magic as an equal argument from any politician, left or right. Let people express their faith, but don't let them use it as an excuse for ignorance, or a cudgel to beat down things they don't like.

Shall we pray on it?