obama reaches for the right, will democrats bring him back?

throughout obama’s campaign, i stated repeatedly that i thought obama was far too conservative, so it was no great surprise to see him surround himself with “center-right” DLC types.  especially with the amount of press being given to the idea that we are a *center right* nation.  regardless of what polls actually show (that most americans actually support leftist policies).  his eagerness to reach out to conservatives, over the left which help put him where he is, worries me.  don’t get me wrong, i’m not a democrat.  i don’t put party first, but i ~am~ a leftist and i am fully cognizant of the fact that conservatives are 1) unwilling to work with democrats when the situation is reversed, 2) that a progressive agenda will never be supported by them, and 3) that they believe it is in their best interest to fuel anger…

from The Obamathon Has Begun: How Long Will The Honeymoon Last?:

48% of the country did not support Obama. He knows that and hence his symbolic attempts to neutralize his opponents with smiles and civility, a preacher at the ceremony, and a few Cabinet positions. Will that assuage the hard right “movement activists,” the Limbaugh ditto heads or the Hannity hard heads?

I doubt it, but for now, they are on the defensive. Bill Clinton says he thinks the days of ideology are waning, that the polarization of the past will go away because the right has to become more pragmatic to return to power.

I don’t buy his consensus of the center viewpoint for several reasons.

The right radio heads and Foxoids don’t go venomous because they believe their rants. They do it to build audience among disaffected wingers and whiners. It’s a marketing tactic, not necessary an act of conviction. Posturing fuels controversy; controversy builds anger and audience. They need this strategy to stay in business, just as tabloid journalism needs sensation and trivia to sell newspapers or build ratings.

Continue Reading...

Blogged, Politics, Comments (0)
Tagged as: politics,news,obama,economy,conservatives,liberals January 29, 2009 @ 04:08 pm

well, that didn’t take him long, did it?

President orders air strikes on villages in tribal area
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
The Guardian,  Saturday 24 January 2009

Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for his first military action yesterday, missile strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan which killed at least 18 people.

Four days after assuming the presidency, he was consulted by US commanders before they launched the two attacks. Although Obama has abandoned many of the “war on terror” policies of George Bush while he was president, he is not retreating from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.

because what didn’t work in iraq is going to work so well in afghanistan.

The strikes will help Obama portray himself as a leader who, though ready to shift the balance of American power towards diplomacy, is not afraid of military action.

and there we have it.

Blogged, Current Events, Politics, Comments (3)
Tagged as: politics,obama,pakistan January 26, 2009 @ 05:35 pm

us military turns its eyes on mexico

in a report from the us joint forces command, the us military has issued a warning that mexico could face a “sudden collapse” and rates them on the same level as pakistan.

“The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and press by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone.”

i am hopeful (not very) that an obama administration wouldn’t actually send troops into mexico, though i have no clear indication that they would NOT.  he’s certainly for the war in afghanistan, stating that it should be the “central focus” of our “battle against terrorism” and as we all know, he certainly isn’t against going into pakistan, if he deems it necessary.

i am trying to be hopeful enough and optimistic enough that i won’t find us in another conflict under an obama admin, but it rather remains to be seen.

all that ever really seems to change is the justification and locations behind america’s conflicts.

Blogged, Current Events, Comments (2)
Tagged as: news,obama January 14, 2009 @ 03:27 pm

us sides with muslim extremists, obama picks anti-gay bigot for invocation

from Rick Warren? Shame On You, Obama!

Via multiple sources (Greta Christina, Pam Spaulding, Glenn Greenwald, Americans United, as well as others), this unpleasant news: President-elect Barack Obama has apparently chosen megachurch pastor Rick Warren to give a speech at his inauguration day.

If you’re not familiar with Rick Warren, or if you only know him as the author of The Purpose-Driven Life, here’s a few of his greatest hits:

• Warren has been a dedicated enemy of marriage equality, equating gay rights to incest and pedophilia (source), and was a fervent supporter of the pro-bigotry Proposition 8. He is against civil unions for gay couples. He has even, arguably, given his support to African Christians who want homosexuality to be illegal (source).

• He’s also rabidly anti-choice, comparing abortion to the Holocaust (source).

• Just for good measure, he’s said that atheists are not qualified for the presidency:

  “I could not vote for an atheist because an atheist says, ‘I don’t need God,’... They’re saying, ‘I’m totally self-sufficient by [myself].’ And nobody is self-sufficient to be president by themselves. It’s too big a job.”

• And, oh yes, he’s a creationist.

If Warren seems more approachable or more reasonable than the hate-spewing religious right leaders we all know, it’s only because he presents his bigotry in a kinder, gentler facade. His church does occasionally discuss other issues, such as AIDS in Africa or global warming, but it takes more than that to earn my respect when he still spends so much time and energy pounding the religious right’s standard causes.

to top it all off, US balks at backing condemnation of anti-gay laws

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

In all, 66 of the U.N.‘s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.
...
According to some of the declaration’s backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

and there you have it… signing the declaration would make our own position on homosexuality questionable.  and we wouldn’t want that.  better to side with extremist muslim nations, because democracy?  it spells “totalitarian religious fascism”  :O

Blogged, Politics, Comments (0)
Tagged as: politics,bigotry,obama,lgbt December 19, 2008 @ 04:01 pm

texans, keep your political support in state where it belongs.

from Texas Hispanic Dems blast national party for non-support:

Two prominent Hispanic Democratic officials from Texas harshly criticized an arm of their national party today for skipping over the state when it provided funding muscle for U.S. Senate candidates across the country.

State Sens. Mario Gallegos of Houston and Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio objected to the fact that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee collected contributions from Texans — $1.1 million at an event in San Antonio, for instance — without sending any to the campaign of outgoing state legislator Rick Noriega of Houston.

Noriega lost the Senate race in November to Republican incumbent John Cornyn, who raised $10 million during the campaign to $4 million for Noriega, according to federal records.

The Democratic committee’s decision to spend the money outside Texas “is shameful and disgraceful, and we will do everything we can to prevent this disrespect from happening again,” the two state senators wrote.

“For the face of the U.S. Senate to represent the true face of America, we must all work together to invest in quality candidates such as Rick Noriega, not take a walk when our candidate is not a member of the millionaires’ club,” they added.

Noriega, too, is Hispanic, and Gallegos and Van de Putte implied in their letter that ethnicity figured into the national Democratic strategy.

“Rick Noriega has an impeccable pedigree to run in Texas. He is an old-fashioned Democrat — a family man, a man of faith, a combat-decorated veteran, a legislator, with an Ivy-league education and time spent defending the border,” they wrote. “He has a heart for the people, impeccable Democratic credentials and is an awesome retail campaigner. To some who chose to sit on the sidelines in this election, those characteristics were apparently not enough — he is not wealthy or white. We have always believed Democrats are better than that.”

The pair also wrote, “The heat of election night had not cooled before the speculation began about DSCC support for several Anglo candidates in future races. This is not only disrespectful; it’s shameful.”

Matthew Miller, spokesman for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, said the organization does not comment on its funding decisions.

The DSCC encouraged Noriega to run and considered him a good candidate.

“We supported him to the end,” Miller said.

Noriega said he was unaware of plans by Gallegos and Van de Putte to write the letter.

After being shown a copy, he said, “I am honored by their support and believe that their comments speak to a larger issue than a single election, or one individual, but rather an issue that affects all of Texas.”

The letter was addressed to Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who recently was replaced as chairman of the DSCC by Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey.

The letter recalled that at a Texas fundraising event last year, Schumer said, “The eyes of Texas are upon us, but the eyes of the DSCC are upon Texas,” and that the national party considered the race against Cornyn a potential win.

Gallegos and Van de Putte also wrote that Latino leaders in Texas did their part to help Noriega and that the growing ranks of Texas Latino voters are key to the outcome of statewide races.

With Texas remaining in the Republican column for decades in presidential races and for about the past 14 years in statewide races, Texas Democrats have complained repeatedly that their contributions to the national party have not flowed back to state candidates in sufficient amounts.

But the complaint by Gallegos and Van de Putte is a rare, sharp public airing of those feelings.

The DSCC gave Noriega’s campaign $20,000 in late 2007 and made no such contributions this year, according to federal records.

While responding to such complaints, national Democratic Party officials repeatedly have said they must distribute the funds across the nation to where they would create the biggest advantage.

“For what it would cost for the DSCC to make a difference in Texas, they could fund three other states,” Jennifer E. Duffy, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, told the Houston Chronicle this year.

During the campaign, Noriega discussed his campaign funding in person with Schumer and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

“We just have to wake people up to this race,” Noriega said after one such meeting. “They (Schumer and Reid) recognize that the incumbent (Cornyn) is vulnerable and this race is winnable.”

i’ve been saying this over and over and over again, until i just don’t care any more, but…  if the democrat national party and it’s committees can’t see fit to invest in and support texas democrats, then why on earth should texas democrats support the national party?  keep your money in state.  keep your volunteering in state.  after all, per obama’s texas campaign chairman, there’s enough enthusiasm in texas, they didn’t need help here… and we see how much that helped noriega… and by extension, the obama administration who has one less democrat in the senate.

Blogged, Politics, Comments (0)
Tagged as: politics,elections2008,obama December 19, 2008 @ 04:57 am