The SOTU is over, the pundits have weighed in and Obama has ,once again, enthralled his supporters, talked tough, and laid out vagaries for us to consume.
Well, AFAICT, it STILL is all about the money.
Bernake has been re-appointed and one has to ask why, given "A coalition of rank-and-file senators from both parties made the case against Bernanke, arguing that he failed to see a housing bubble that blew up and brought down the economy, chose not to enforce consumer protection laws, blocked congressional attempts to obtain documents that would shed light on his actions before, during and after the financial collapse, testified on behalf of cuts in Medicare and Social Security, and failed to regulate the derivatives market, which nearly took down the global economic system."
Well, here’s the main reason: "In this particular fight we were taking on the powers of Wall Street — those guys don’t lose very often — and in fact the White House pulled out all the stops on this one," Senator Sanders said.
Accountability,transparency? Weren’t those the words used in campaigning?
And while the Hill reporting has been besmirched and shown to be not accurate, these quotes from it I suspect to be true because it is the Dems modus operandi when it comes to populist/progressive Dems and independents: "Some lobbyists say they are extremely frustrated with the White House for criticizing them and then seeking their feedback. Others note that Democrats on Capitol Hill constantly urge them to make political donations.
One lobbyist said, “Bash lobbyists, then reach out to us. Bash lobbyists [while] I have received four Democratic invitations for fundraisers.”
And while Obama is Still Loved By The Over-Educated, what do those who have received post graduate degrees have in common? They are the well off money wise. What gets to me is this:
"For instance, black voters, regardless of their educational achievements, back Obama at roughly a 90 percent clip".
And why might that be given the unemployment rate for blacks? I think it has to do with money and who is receiving it.
James Rucker has a diary about net neutrality where he provides information that civil rights groups are opposing net neutrality but he’s uncertain about the why. I know the ‘why’ as I have received information that it ,also, is about the money. Whether it is to CBC campaign coffers or church leaders collection plates, the telecoms are spending to defeat such an idea.
What they don’t realize is the difficulty ObamaRahma is making for any other black person to become President without being a well known cookie.
And Obama’s "And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town — a supermajority — then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. is just another example of "the confusion that covers the truth up with fast talk and promises." Like Congress doesn’t have the responsibility of governance. We’re supposedly a ‘representative democracy’ but the type of capitalism we have is anathema to democracy and he doesn’t say shit about that.
Where’s the commentary about how he has not renounced the executive privileges granted Bush? Where is his ‘governance’ when he provides the order to kill a U.S. citizen abroad against whom no charges or convictions have been lodged?
I’m deadset against an ‘imperial presidency’ but Obama’s willingness to blame Congress -in particular the Senate-, while trying to elevate himself as "above the fray" is just a different tune for the ‘imperial presidency’ mantra.
And while he castigates the Supreme Court for it’s ridiculous ruling, why doesn’t he mention that the House of Reps can change-in fact it is their duty and responsibility- the United States Statutes. A ConsTitutional amendment isn’t necessary, all that is needed is legislation changing Title 1,Chapter 1 "Words denoting number, gender, and so forth" to read: the words “person” and “whoever” DOES NOT include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies EXCEPT INASMUCH AS SUCH A USAGE PERTAINS TO THE ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT USED FOR LEGAL PURPOSES OTHER THAN THE PROCESSES AND ASSOCIATIVE MATERIALS INVOLVED IN ANY ELECTION.
(TITLE 1 > CHAPTER 1 > § 8 covers the legal definition of a living,breathing person)
Obama said "As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people."; yeah, right, just ask the Iraqis about that. I guess Obama forgets the slick ploy the Bush Admin did with the U.N. to get the U.S. out of it’s responsibilities as an occupying power.
Nor does he talk of the ‘permanent state of war’ he is perpetuating because it leads to money in the campaign coffers.
"But remember this –- I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That’s just how it is." reminds me of the Head and Shoulders shampoo ad with Troy Polamalu (Pittsburgh Steelers safety) where the interviewer is chastised by saying ‘you asked with your eyes, didn’t you?"