Ever since Gerald Ford became the first to turn post-presidency into a cash cow by getting paid seats on corporate boards, the course was set for unlimited corruption and the downfall of this republic.

Do you remember when Ronald Reagan getting $2 million for one speech in Japan as soon as he left office was a scandal and condemned? Just 10 years later, Bill Clinton was able to amass $50 million in speaking fees in the years after he left office, along with at least another $50 million in all kinds of hedgy deals.

And no one with the power to stop it is interested in doing it.

Documents Show How White House and Democrats Worked to Protect the Banks Against Protests

Did the White House Direct the Police Crackdown on Occupy?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/05/14/did-the-white-house-direct-the-police-crackdown-on-occupy/

Documents Show How White House and Democrats Worked to Protect the Banks Against Protests
Did the White House Direct the Police Crackdown on Occupy?

A new trove of heavily redacted documents provided by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) on behalf of filmmaker Michael Moore and the National Lawyers Guild makes it increasingly evident that there was and is a nationally coordinated campaign to disrupt and crush the Occupy Movement.

Democrats and Bain
Executives at Romney’s old private-equity firm have donated more to the Democratic Party than the GOP. Why?

For me it was when as public support for pressuring Congress for a public option was picking up speed and showing results, Maddow no longer challenged Obama and Max Baucus on air about a public option. She was actively tamping down expectations, talking about a public option in the past tense, and pushing for the bill without one.

During the 2010 midterm election coverage, Olbermann let the cat out of the bag about a ‘secret’ meeting she had with Obama at the White House months earlier, wondering what they talked about and why he hadn’t had any invitations to meet with Obama.

Just about all of MSNBC’s on-air talent was under great pressure by the White House to stop holding Obama and Democrats to their pledge of a public option, or any of his other pledges. With the exception of Olbermann (who was gone in the final weeks/months tending to his dying father) everyone except Keith Olbermann caved.

For her cooperation, Maddow seems to have gotten her ‘get’ — An hour-long interview with Tim Geithner, along with a fat contract that enabled her to buy a multi-million dollar NYC condo. Jonathan Alter, under contract with MSNBC and a lobbyist for Obama’s bill early on, got access to insiders in the White House for his book (The Promise). Richard Wolffe, another MSNBC frequenter under contract, got similar but even more and better access for his book – Obama himself suggested Wolffe write a book about him. They say everyone has their price. Olbermann is a convenien­t populist, and had he been on the job and hitting nightly at Obama’s health insurance bill, I’m sure he, too, would have been made an offer he couldn’t refuse.

What can’t be denied is that in the last weeks and months of the healthcare legislatio­n debate, all of MSNBC’s on air personalit­ies dropped their support for a public option at a crucial period where proponents were making inroads and had momentum. MSNBC’s hosts really put a wet blanket on proponents­’ efforts, and a date can be fixed to when it occurred: After liberal journalist­s (Rachel Maddow included) had a secret and off-the-re­cord meeting at the White House. After that, MSNBC personalit­ies had more access to the White House, including on-air interviews with Geithner and Obama himself.

What is with these secret meetings, where the Obama administration is trying to work the media? Something is very wrong when an administration reneges on pledges of transparency, shuts down access to documents and government officials, gets legislation that guts FOIA and then meets in secret with popular media personalities to sell its spin to the public.

How about the administration talking to We The People, directly? How about the transparency we were promised?

Do you recall Jon Stewart’s Rally to Sanity just and his take down of Olbermann and Maddow and MSNBC in the weeks before and after the 2010 midterms? I think that through Jon Stewart, the establishm­ent elites got control again. It’s damned sad what Stewart did, but people tend to be true to their roots (Stewart’s brother is Chief Operating Officer of the NY Stock Exchange. It begs the question: Why did Tim Geithner hold an undisclosed meeting with Jon Stewart in April 2010?.

When Tim Geithner is having secret meetings with you, presumably for the purpose of delivering a message to your brother, the COO of the NYSE, I don’t think you have any business holding political rallies where you scold media under the guise of “We’re comedians putting on a show”.

After that rally and weeks of excoriation by Stewart, Olbermann and Maddow got back onto the reservatio­n. Olbermann dropped ‘Worst’, which by the way was the most watched segment each night of all of the segments. MSNBC viewers love ‘Worst Persons’. If Olbermann’­s numbers worsened, it’s likely because he lost that edge that viewers love. I know I stopped watching him and everyone else on MSNBC following their ‘nice’ makeover in response to Stewart’s attack on them.

It seems to me that MSNBC’s existence is to provide an illusion of leftward media counterpoint to Fox’s right. It is to convince Democratic voters that Obama is a liberal and Independent voters that Obama is a centrist. Only no amount of Chris Matthews saying that Obama is a progressiv­e and “left of center” makes it true. The only viewers who would believe it are those who are to the right of the right-of-center. You have to be pretty far to the right and clueless to believe that Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democrats in Congress are progressiv­es/liberal­s.

How likely is it that post-election 2012, privatizing Social Security, cutting benefits, is embraced no matter who wins?

And what happened at your White House luncheon with Obama a couple of years ago?

Who woulda thunk Harry Reid would raise ending the filibuster as an election issue (says this hardened and cynical liberal Democrat)?

Reid, Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats would love for their supporters to believe it’s all the Republicans’ fault.

Yes, Republicans are scum, but the fact of the matter is that Democrats haven’t needed Republicans and have pulled their punches (hoping ignorant voters wouldn’t know the rules that the Senate and the House operate under) and helped pass corporate-friendly legislation. Like Obama’s healthcare bill, without a public option, that does not provide affordable, quality medical treatment for everyone, and that was passed in the end through reconciliation (50 + 1).

Republicans haven’t filibustered; they’ve threatened to filibuster. And Harry Reid made a deal with Mitch McConnell, to let Republicans do that. Harry Reid has refused to exercise the discretion that Senate Rule 22 allows: Making Republicans actually filibuster, instead of just threatening to do it. Rule 22 gives the Senate Majority Leader the discretion to actually make the call.

Filibustering is hard on those soft, pampered bodies. Harry Reid should have forced them do it, over every issue where Republicans have threatened to do it — Americans love reality TV. ‘Survivor – E Capitol St NE and 1st St NE’. The few times Reid has forced Republicans to actually filibuster, when Democrats have really needed whatever the issue was (like when Jim Bunning threatened to filibuster over extending unemployment benefits), Republicans caved.

But Obama and the DLC-controlled Democratic Party didn’t, won’t, let Reid force Republicans to filibuster. Because it might actually work to get Democratic voters’ legislative agenda made into the law of the land and do good for the People, but at less profit to corporations. And that’s not what Obama and Company are there for. They are there to do the work of the transnational corporations, and preventing that are the liberals, which Obama has excluded from his administration and silenced throughout government.

So that Obama can reach out for Republicans, and water down the legislation, make it Republican-like. Legislation that Republicans won’t vote for anyway, because everything that the parties do, both parties, is for the next election campaign. So Republican-like legislation gets passed, with Democrats signing on, and that makes the corporations happy. And Republicans can count on their ‘dumb as tree stumps’-constituents’ votes, because Republicans in Congress stood firm against Democrats. And all the while Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats work to prevent any more liberals and progressives from getting elected.

We’ve known for years, before Obama got into the White House, that Republicans would obstruct everything that Democrats tried to do. Republicans said they would during the 2008 campaign, which wasn’t any surprise to anybody who had been paying attention to what had been going on in Washington over the past couple of decades, but most particularly the previous 8 years. Whenever Democrats weren’t lining up to sign onto Bush-Cheney-GOP policies and legislation, they were locked out of the congressional committee meetings where they served in minority status.

Once Obama got into the White House and he and Democratic politicians were running out of excuses for playing hardball with Republican’ obstruction, Reid and Democrats said, “Senate rules can’t be changed in the middle of a congressional session”, which isn’t true; Senate rules can be changed at any time, not just at the start of a new Congress (see page 6 – http://fpc­.state.gov­/documents­/organizat­ion/45448.­pdf ). Democrats could even change the supermajority rule by simple majority (50 + 1).

Nor is there just one way (or even two or three or more ways) for Democrats to get bills passed despite Republican­s’ obstructio­nistic tactics. But first they have to want to do it, with the fierce urgency of now (don’t click on that link, don’t watch it, if you aren’t prepared and can’t bear to have any remaining cherished illusions about Obama destroyed).

When I watch mainstream television media (CNN and MSNBC primarily), I do not see my point of view presented. It’s either the far rightwing perspective of Rick Santorum-Gingrich-et al, or the right-of-center pro-corporate, pro-war, pro-unregulated free market philosophy of Obama-Democratic Party-Romney-Republican-establishment.

The media has done a masterful job of restricting the issues in this upcoming election, as usual. Nowhere is this more evident than on shows like Morning Joe.

With this CNN poll along with Jon Walker’s headline here at FDL, the fix is in and complete: “This Election Is a Referendum on Obama”. The tough questions will never get put to Obama so nobody will know just what it is that they’re rubberstamping with their vote for him. Obama will be able to do what Nancy Pelosi did just prior to the 2006 election when she stated quietly a couple of weeks before the election that should Democrats get control of the House, impeachment of Bush-Cheney would be off the table. Once the election was over and Democrats got control of the House, she could say about Democrats failing to hold Bush-Cheney to account, “The election was a referendum on whether to impeach them, and we said before the election we wouldn’t.”

Obama did something similar just before the 2010 midterms. He broadcast that he would be doing more of the same, even if Democrats remained the majority and in control of both Houses of Congress. More caving by Obama and Democrats, to Republican­s:

Aides say that the president’ s been spending “a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0,” brainstorm­ing with administra­tion officials about the best way to revamp the strategies and goals of the White House.

And despite the prediction­s that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislatin­g power, including perhaps control of the House and even Senate, Obama isn’t thinking of the next two years as a period that’ll be marked with the same obstructiv­e nature from the GOP.

“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republica­ns] feel more responsibl­e, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipate­d, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them,” Obama says. “Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”

Dick Durbin says Obama’s post-elect­ion agenda “will have to be limited and focused on the things that are achievable and high priorities for the American people.” Tom Daschle says Obama has to reach out more: “The keyword is inclusion. He’s got to find ways to be inclusive. “

This after Republican­s couldn’t have been clearer, from even before Obama got into the White House, that they had no intention of working with him or Democrats.

The reason to do that is to be able to spin after the election, “We told you what we were going to do before the election, so our success in retaining our seats means you were voting for what we broadcast.­” It also has the curious effect of discouraging your base from showing up to vote.

The poll responses that respondents can choose:

1.) Vote +++ If you think Obama deserves all the credit his loyal backers give him.

2.) Vote ++ If you like Obama and will continue to support him, but have problems with some of his policies and political actions.

3.) Vote + If you will continue to support Obama because you do not see a better alternative.

4.) Vote – If you you would be politically include to support Obama because you are a progressive or liberal, but have been repelled by his compromises to ideals.

5.) Vote – - If you believe that having Obama in office is directly damaging the nation.

6.) Vote – - – (most negative) if you are ideologically opposed to what Obama stands for. Or if you are a Birther.

How is it that the only possible choice for a liberal/progressive ideologically opposed to what Obama stands for (Reagan republicanism) either makes no sense (#3) or suggests you’re a Birther opposed because you think Obama is a liberal?

And ACLU.

The 2010 elections brought in an unusual number of ultra-right takeovers at the state level because many Dems were “punishing” the not-so-liberal party and simply not voting or voting for third-party candidates with zero chances of winning.

I recall that not so long ago, one national election cycle ago, a black man had zero chances of winning the presidency.

The rightward moving of this government has been going on for decades, and instead of fighting it head on, Democrats have been playing defense for decades, losing more and more ground each election.

New and returning voters showed up to put Obama, a black man in good old racist America, into power. More people voted for Obama than have ever voted in any previous presidential election. Ten million more voters turned out for Obama than the other guy, and it wasn’t because they believed he would continue the Bush-Cheney-Republican policies.

Obama supports voting independents into office, even when it risks Democratic turnout.

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind Blue Dogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats. Some, but not all, examples:

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter.

Republican-turned-Independent Arlen Specter over progressive Democrat Joe Sestak.

Republican-turned-Independent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, was an effective endorsement of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressional seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island).

Republican-turned-Independent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek.

Republicans, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who’ve had the greatest majority in decades. You would think that with Republicans controlling the House, Democrats would’ve turned the tables and thwarted Republicans’ continuing legislation like Bush’s tax cuts for the rich? Are Democrats just stupld?
Obama never pressured Ben Nelson (or Blanche Lincoln, or any Blue Dog). The Democratic leadership could’ve taken away committee chairs (Blanche Lincoln’s, too) of members in their caucus that filibustered a public option for healthcare. They didn’t.

The DNC could’ve taken away reelection funds. They didn’t.

Reid could’ve actually forced Republicans and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster. He didn’t (and doesn’t).

The Progressive Caucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn’t include a robust public option. They didn’t.

Obama did unleash the attack dogs to go after Howard Dean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the Progressive Caucus, for threatening to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended.

There is nothing that Lieberman (or Nelson or Lincoln) is doing that Obama hasn’t ordered. Obama and the DLC-Democrats want Lieberman there, doing what he’s doing, which is to take the heat off of Democrats.
And the proof of this is that when Obama needed Nelson (re: StupakAmendment), he ‘bought’ his support. That’s what Obama could’ve done for Nelson’s or Lincoln’s vote at any time, on any legislation.

There could be 100 “progressives” in the Senate and 435 in the House, and they and Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporations instead of the People and blame it on Republicans. Because they’re DLC, aka Republicans-in-Democrats’-clothing.

The “ultra conservative long-term strategy” has worked because you keep voting for the DLC-controlled Democratic Party. It may take a few election cycles, it may never happen, but the ‘buddy system’ (the Democratic and Republican parties) has to be broken up.

Like Patrick Fitzgerald, and Joe Wilson (whom I don’t know how the ‘professional left’ failed to pick up the underlying contempt he had for them, for all of us little dees), these are politicians.

They’re ambitious, whether for fame, fortune or glory, and have chosen a path upon which to attain recognition and success that had them running a gauntlet, being tested at every step along the way, hazing if you will, requiring acquiescence to authority, obedience within a hierarchical structure.

And Elizabeth ‘AIPAC is my friend’ Warren isn’t any different.

There aren’t any grown-ups to save us; we’re ‘it’.