Obama's Rhetoric VS What Was Said to Our Great-Grandparents to Attract Their Votes.. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 06-14-2008, 09:42 AM

What has changed since Woodrow Wilson said this, just the year before he was elected president as the democratic party candidate?:

Quote:

http://library.louisville.edu/law/brandeis/opm-ch1.html
OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY
By Louis D. Brandeis

CHAPTER I: OUR FINANCIAL OLIGARCHY

President Wilson, when Governor, declared in 1911:

"The great monopoly in this country is the money monopoly. So long as that exists, our old variety and freedom and individual energy of development are out of the question. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men, who, even if their actions be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who, necessarily, by every reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. This is the greatest question of all; and to this, statesmen must address themselves with an earnest determination to serve the long future and the true liberties of men."

The Pujo Committee—appointed in 1912—found:

"Far more dangerous than all that has happened to us in the past in the way of elimination of competition in industry is the control of credit through the domination of these groups over our banks and industries."...

"Whether under a different currency system the resources in our banks would be greater or less is comparatively immaterial if they continue to be controlled by a small group."....

Have we veered away from the sentiments and concerns of our great grandparents, and grand parents....why?

This was the reaction to high oil prices, just a generation ago:

The other day, responding to this:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...02#post2464402

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

....i would like to see the next president and next congress connect the dots--the bush administration as an expression of the logic of adaptation particular to the dying national-security state as bureaucratic apparatus and as patronage network--and move to drastically cut it back--....

(It made me wonder....later...where are Obama's sentiments, and those like the 45 senators who nearly came up with the votes to beat back the corporate/republican alliance, in circumstances so similar to those that exist today?

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...id=chix-sphere
Monday, Jun. 28, 1976
Raising the Chopping Block

Huge, rich and efficient, the U.S. oil industry has long occupied an ambiguous place in American life. Its dazzling feats of technology in supplying the nation's voracious demand for energy have helped the U.S. to become the most advanced country on earth. Yet many Americans have come to view the industry with suspicion, especially since the rapid runup in oil prices that followed the 1973 Arab oil embargo. Critics contend that the major companies' total control of all aspects of their business, from wellhead to gas pump, has given the industry too much power to manipulate supplies and prices and reap excessive profits at the expense of consumers. During the past year or so, the efforts of congressional Democrats to curb the companies' clout and inject more competition into the industry has gained increasing support. Last week, in the most far-reaching move yet, the Senate Judiciary Committee, by a vote of 8 to 7, sent to the full Senate a bill requiring the breakup of the 18 largest oil corporations.*...

..... Though refining firms would be permitted to keep their service stations and other marketing facilities, they could not buy more. Companies that decided to become either producers or refiner-marketers would have to spin off their pipelines. To handle the lawsuits that would arise from the sale of some operations and the establishment of new companies, a Temporary Petroleum Industry Divestiture Court would be established with powers equal to those of a federal district court.

The bill faces formidable legislative hurdles. Indeed, three Senators who voted to send the measure to the floor, Democratic Whip Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Minority Leader Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania and Republican Charles Mathias of Maryland, are avowed opponents of divestiture. They merely wanted to bring the issue up for a full-scale debate in the Senate, which last October rejected a similar proposal by a surprisingly close vote of 54 to 45. The bill's fate is also uncertain in the House, which has not yet even held committee hearings on the matter.

If legislation passes both houses, it faces a veto from President Ford, who opposes the bill. Jimmy Carter, the front-running Democratic presidential candidate, has also come out against a thoroughgoing breakup of major oil firms−though whether as President he would thumb down such a proposal is open to question. On the other hand, Carter would favor getting the oil companies out of other energy fields, such as coal, uranium and solar power.

Supporters of the Bayh bill, which include labor unions and consumer and environmental groups, argue that putting the giant firms on the chopping block would open the market to greater competition, end price discrimination by the majors against independent marketers and ultimately result in cheaper petroleum products. More important, they insist that splitting up the industry would stiffen its approach to oil-producing countries, which have quintupled the price of crude in recent years. A fully integrated company, the critics say, has a vested interest in playing ball with the producers, while a marketing and refining firm without producing interests would haggle more vigorously for lower prices.....

....)

I put the following together, in part of my response to roachboy:

....Wouldn't that require electing candidates who stood for proposals like the following one, 32 years ago, from Birch Byah, instead of the choices we have to vote for now? McCain is same old, same old, and Obama is a "uniter". Don't we really need someone to represent the great numbers of us who are against the hidden concentration of wealth and power that wants to remain hidden, is using Obama as a means to remain unaccountable, uninvestigated?

Quote:

http://www.4president.org/brochures/...76brochure.htm
Birch Bayh for President 1976 Campaign Brochure

...Our economy is at a crucial turning point. The problems of skyrocketing energy and food costs and the inability of the free market to function effectively have led me to conclude that recent policy failures are the result of an outdated view of the American economy. Therefore, I am proposing the establishment of a Temporary National Economic Committee -- similar to the Committee established by President Roosevelt in 1938 -- to publicly investigate the concentration of economic power in America today....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...764913,00.html
Thirteen Families
Monday, Oct. 28, 1940

...He wrote an erudite bombshell of questionable accuracy titled America's 60 Families, watched his subjects squirm while Secretary Ickes and then Assistant Attorney General Jackson quoted it with gusto. Within less than a year the families were sprawled under more powerful microscopes as the Temporary National Economic Committee made a study of corporate practices and controls....

...Last week the Securities and Exchange Commission published its report to null a 121-page study of "The Distribution of Ownership in the 200 Largest Non-Financial* Corporations." Based on 1937 figures, it whittled the Lundberg roster to 13 families, was considerably less personal than his census of Du Pont bathrooms, considerably more dogged in tracking down actual shareholdings (Lundberg had estimated fortunes by 1924 tax returns). It found:

» Of an estimated 8,500,000 U. S. stockholders, less than 75,000 (.06% of the population) own fully one-half of all corporate stock held by individuals. The majority of the voting power in the average large corporation is in the hands of not much over 1% of the shareholders. But some of the biggest and best-known corporations are exceptions (i.e., widely held, without visible centralized control): A. T. & T., Anaconda, Bethlehem Steel, Eastman Kodak, General Electric, Goodyear, R. C. A., U. S. Steel, Pennsylvania Railroad, etc....

....» The 13 most potent family groups' holdings were worth $2,700,000,000, comprised over 8% of the stock of the 200 corporations: Fords, $624,975,000; Du Fonts, $573,690,000; Rockefellers, $396,583,000; Mellons, $390,943,000; McCormicks (International Harvester), $111,102,000; Hartfords (A. & P.), $105,702,000; Harknesses (Standard Oil), $104,891,000; Dukes (tobacco, power), $89,459,000; Pews (Sun Oil), $75,628,000; Pitcairns (Pittsburgh Plate Glass), $65,576,000; Clarks (Singer), $57,215,000; Reynolds (tobacco), $54,766,000; Kresses (S. H. Kress), $50,044,000.

» Three groups—Du Fonts, Mellons, Rockefellers—have shareholdings valued at nearly $1,400,000,000, control, directly or indirectly, 15 of the 200 corporations.

To this day....67 years later....the SEC records are still sealed:

http://www.archives.gov/research/gui...roups/144.html
Records of the Temporary National Economic Committee [TNEC]
Search ARC for Entries from this Record Group

(Record Group 144)
1938-41
645 cu. ft.

Overview of Records Locations
Table of Contents

* 144.1 ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY
* 144.2 RECORDS OF THE COMMITTEE 1938-41 967 lin. ft.

144.1 ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

Established: As a joint Congressional-Executive branch committee, composed of members of both houses of Congress and representatives of several Executive departments and commissions, by joint resolution of Congress, June 16, 1938 (52 Stat. 705). Functions: Studied monopoly and concentration of economic power, and made recommendations for legislation.

Abolished: April 3, 1941, by expiration of extension granted by joint resolution, December 16, 1940 (54 Stat. 1225). Liquidation deadline of December 31, 1941, set by Additional Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1941, May 24, 1941 (55 Stat. 200).

144.2 RECORDS OF THE COMMITTEE
1938-41
967 lin. ft.

Textual Records: General records, 1938-41. Preliminary and final reports, 1938-41. Records relating to committee hearings, 1938- 40. Records relating to special studies and published monographs, 1938-41. Industrial problems information file ("Industry File"), 1938-41. Questionnaires, 1938-39. Personnel and accounting records, 1938-41. Records of investigations and special studies of insurance, investment banking, and corporate practices by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 1938-41. Records of hearings and special studies by the Departments of the Treasury, Justice, and Labor, 1938-41.

Specific Restrictions: As specified by the SEC, no one, except government officials for official purposes, may have access to records created and filed by the SEC on behalf of the TNEC, except for the following: certain records relating to the insurance study, consisting of replies to formal questionnaires (but not including replies to questionnaires sent to state supervisory officials and replies to the questionnaire of February 9, 1940, to life insurance agents); exhibits, including rate books and form insurance policies; and all conventional-form annual statements....

Isn't "#2" in Nader's six years old piece....an indictment of the Bear Stearns bailout?

Quote:

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/arch...Socialism.html
Thursday, July 18. 2002
Posted by Ralph Nader
Corporate Socialism

The relentless expansion of corporate control over our political economy has proven nearly immune to daily reporting by the mainstream media. Corporate crime, fraud and abuse have become like the weather; everyone is talking about the storm but no one seems able to do anything about it. This is largely because expected accountability mechanisms -- including boards of directors, outside accounting and law firms, bankers and brokers, state and federal regulatory agencies and legislatures -- are inert or complicit.

When, year after year, the established corporate watchdogs receive their profits or compensation directly or indirectly from the companies they are supposed to be watching, independent judgment fails, corruption increases and conflicts of interest grow among major CEOs and their cliques. Over time, these institutions, unwilling to reform themselves, strive to transfer the costs of their misdeeds and recklessness onto the larger citizenry. In so doing, big business is in the process of destroying the very capitalism that has provided it with a formidable ideological cover.

Consider the following assumptions of a capitalistic system:

1) Owners are supposed to control what they own. For a century, big business has split ownership (shareholders) from control, which is in the hands of the officers of the corporation and its rubber-stamp board of directors. Investors have been disenfranchised and told to sell their shares if they don't like the way management is running their business. Nowadays, with crooked accounting, inflated profits and self-dealing, it has proven difficult for even large investors to know the truth about their officious managers.

2) Under capitalism, businesses are supposed to sink or swim, which is still very true for small business. But larger industries and companies often have become "too big to fail" and demand that Uncle Sam serve as their all-purpose protector, providing a variety of public guarantees and emergency bailouts. Yes, some wildly looted companies that are expendable, such as Enron, cannot avail themselves of governmental salvation and do go bankrupt or are bought. By and large, however, in industry after industry where two or three companies dominate or presage a domino effect, Washington becomes their backstop.

3) Capitalism is supposed to exhibit a consensual freedom of contract -- a distinct advance over a feudal society. Yet the great majority of contracts for credit, insurance, software, housing, health, employment, products, repairs and other services are standard-form, printed contracts, presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Going across the proverbial street to a competitor gets you the same contract. Every decade, these "contracts of adhesion," as the lawyers call them, become more intrusive and more insistent on taking away the buyers' constitutional rights to access to courts in favor of binding arbitration or stipulate outright surrender of basic rights and remedies. The courts are of little help in invalidating these impositions by what are essentially private corporate legislatures regulating millions of Americans.

4) Capitalism requires a framework of law and order: The rules of the economic game are to be conceived and enforced on the merits against mayhem, fraud, deception and predatory practices. Easily the most powerful influence over most government departments and agencies are the industries that receive the privileges and immunities, regulatory passes, exemptions, deductions and varied escapes from responsibility that regularly fill the business pages. Only those caught in positions of extreme dereliction ever have reason to expect more than a slap on the wrist for violating legal mandates.

5) Capitalist enterprises are expected to compete on an even playing field. Corporate lobbyists, starting with their abundant cash for political campaigns, have developed a "corporate state" where government lavishes subsidies, inflated contracts, guarantees and research and development and natural resources giveaways on big business -- while denying comparable benefits to individuals and family businesses. We have a government of big business, by big business and for big business, even if more of these businesses are nominally moving their state charters to Bermuda-like tax escapes.

"Corporate socialism" -- the privatization of profit and the socialization of risks and misconduct -- is displacing capitalist canons. This condition prevents an adaptable capitalism, served by equal justice under law, from delivering higher standards of living and enlarging its absorptive capacity for broader community and environmental values. Civic and political movements must call for a decent separation of corporation and state.

In 1938, in the midst of the Great Depression, Congress created the Temporary National Economic Committee to hold hearings around the country, recommend ways to deal with the concentration of economic power and promote a more just economy. World War II stopped this corporate reform momentum. We should not have to wait for a further deterioration from today's gross inequalities of wealth and income to launch a similar commission on the rampant corporatization of our country. At stake is whether civic values of our democratic society will prevail over invasive commercial values.

Originally published in The Washington Post, July 18, 2002.

Are we "sheeple", today? We used to exert our political power to successfully pressure congress to investigate the concentration of wealth and power in this country, at least every 20 years, in the first half of the 20th century. As recently as in 1976...there was still "tough talk", and 45 senate votes to accompany an attempt to take on "big oil".

In 1976, one presidential candidate, Birch Bayh, at least published a pamphlet calling for a renewed "Temporary National Economic Committee" investigation of monopoly and concentration of wealth and corporate control in the US.

By 2002....only Ralph Nader was still talking about....I had never even heard of the "monopoly investigations" of the 1937 "TNEC", until last year. It's records of it's 1937 to 1940 investigations of the wealthy are still sealed today.....why?

Why are we so complacent today....what has changed? Who influenced the change the most, was it the Reagan era? Will the demanding political nature of our recent ancestors, reflected in the actions and positions of those who they voted to send to congress and the white house, resurge as economic conditions worsen?

Has Obama said nearly enough, compared to Wilson and Roosevelt, and if he hasn't.....the comparisons show the economic conditions to justify speaking similar to Wilson and Roosevelt, but Obama has not...... what would influence Obama to suddenly talk openly and aggressively against the concentration of wealth and power that still persists, still divides, still acts as a negative force on "our way of life", and expecially on keeping a lid on actual, "beneficial to the masses", political discourse?

Here is Roosevelt, during his first campaign for the presidency, in 1932:

Quote:

http://www.peterkang.com/about_pk/ac...ar%20paper.pdf
Brandeis and Wall Street:
The Crafting of the Securities Act of 1933

Page 3

During the summer of 1932, Roosevelt made it clear in a campaign speech given
in Columbus, Ohio, that the regulation of securities and the ways in which the investment
banking community conducted business would be central to the Democratic platform. He
proposed that “every effort be made to prevent the issue of manufactured and
unnecessary securities” and also proposed that “with respect to legitimate securities the
sellers shall tell the uses to which the money is to be put.”
This truth telling requires that definite and accurate statements be made to the buyers in
respect to the bonuses and commissions the sellers are to receive; and, furthermore, true
information as to the investment of principal, as to the true earnings, true liabilities and
true assets of the corporation itself.
3
It was clear that financial regulation would become a central part of the New
Deal. The tarnished reputation of investment bankers and growing concerns about the
economy’s inability to recover made it a political necessity to target Wall Street.

Page 4

The publication of Other People’s Money in 1914 came as a result of the findings
of the Pujo committee hearings in 1912. The hearings were called by Congressman
Charles Lindbergh of Minnesota (father of the famed aviator) and named after Arsene
Pujo, a Democratic Congressman from Louisiana. The Pujo committee charged J.P.
Morgan, National City, First National and three smaller banks of using interlocking
directorships to exert control over the supply of money and the way it was used. The
term “money trust” was used to label these powerful banks, and the perception that a
handful of banks controlled over $22 billion of resources (“three times the assessed value
of all the real estate in the City of New York”)
5
made the image of Wall Street bankers all
the more threatening.

For Louis Brandeis, such a “combination – the intertwining of interests” on the
part of the bankers was unacceptable and harmful to both companies and consumers. He
purposed “publicity” as the solution: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants;
electric light the most efficient policeman.”
7
Brandeis advocated the mandatory
disclosure of commissions or profits by bankers when issuing securities. One of the
major reasons for disclosure was for the benefit of the investor, who, judging from the
size of the commission, would know how invested the banker was in the security (“the
higher commission for underwriting weaker security”)
8
and subsequently, have the ability
to judge whether or not an investment was a sound one.
While the sensational effect of the Pujo committee hearings and the Progressive
pitch of Brandeis’s publication aroused public opposition to Wall Street bankers, the
Wilson administration hesitated to take action because of its cooperative relationship with
bankers on ventures that included the domestic economic crisis in the cotton market and
loans to European nations prior to World War I. Several states, meanwhile, enacted
“blue-sky laws” that prohibited the sales of certain securities without a license, but, as
mentioned earlier, the IBA pooled its resources to keep New York free of such laws and
encouraged bankers to evade state regulation by conducting their business through mail
in more lax states. Drastic reform in the Brandeisian spirit would have to wait.

The crash of 1929 and growing concerns about a long-term depression prompted
political action. Hoover, convinced that short-selling on the stock exchange was hurting
the market, expressed a degree of paranoia as he charged Democratic financiers such as

Page 9

Bernard Baruch of conspiring with European bankers to engineer a bear raid to keep the
market from recovering. By late February of 1932, Hoover called on Congress to
investigate the stock exchange. The Senate Banking and Currency Committee, which
probed the practices on the stock exchanges, would oversee two years of intermittent
testimony from Wall Street’s elite. However, it was not until January 1933, when
Ferdinand Pecora, a lawyer who had experience with Wall Street while serving as Chief
Assistant District Attorney in New York City, was appointed that the committee hearings
intensified and rose to the national spotlight.
16
The Pecora hearings, as the Senate investigations would later be called, was, in
many ways, a repeat of the Pujo committee hearings of 1912. The belief that a “money
trust” existed and that it controlled numerous corporations was still intact. However, the
uncovering of irresponsible and reckless abuses by investment banks became the central
role of the Pecora hearings. Among the worst offenders were the commercial banks and
their affiliates.

Page 18

In 1914, Louis Brandeis regarded the House of Morgan as the most dangerous
organization in the United States. By 1933, J.P. Morgan & Co. had opted to leave the
investment banking business. In its place, however, Morgan Stanley & Co. emerged as a
dominant investment bank. In the first six years of its existence, Morgan Stanley
managed almost $3 billion in securities, more than J.P. Morgan’s total between the years
1925-1930.
37
Louis Brandeis was indeed an influential figure in the shaping of securities
legislation. The Securities Act of 1933 bore the Brandeisian imprint of discouraging
“bigness” by negating the advantages of an integrated bank....

....While the three companies that Brandeis had mentioned in 1912 – J.P. Morgan,
National City, and First National – no longer occupied the top three spots of investment
banking, the notion that a “money trust” still existed remained strong in the minds of
antimonopoly advocates in the 1930s. The idea that a handful of banks controlled the
flow of capital in America was still very strong; many felt that the New Deal legislation
had done nothing to curb the growth of investment banks. In 1938, amid a great push by

Page 19

the antimonopoly faction of the New Deal, the Temporary National Economic Committee
(TNEC) was created to investigate monopolistic practices across various industries,
including investment banking.
38
The decision to investigate Wall Street once again
confirmed two things: (1) the New Deal securities legislation had helped to restore the
dominance of a handful of banks that had suffered through competition during the 1920s
and (2) the fear of a “money trust” in the similar vein of the Pujo committee and Pecora
investigations persisted.

38
Geisst, Wall Street: A History, 258.

Where is Obama....where are we?

dc_dux · 06-14-2008, 12:19 PM

host...I really dont know what you are looking for.

I think Obama balances his progressive agenda with the reality of politics today. Its ridiculous to make comparisons to Woodrow Wilson.

he has introduced legislation that provides criminal sanctions for predatory or abusive mortgage lending practices and provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud

he has proposed similar legislation to deal with credit card predatory lending practices

he has co-sponsored contracting reform to end the abuse of most no-bid contracts

he supports letting the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket expire in 2010 and support other corporate tax reform to eliminate many tax shelters in order to provide greater middle class tax relief

he has supported unions by opposing legislation that gives employers more opportunities to prevent works rights to organize.

he supports stronger enforceable labor and environment standards in trade agreements

he supports ending most tax relief for oil companies and promoting alternative energy r&d at an expanded level

he supports health care for all children and recognizes that as the most important first step towards universal health care

he has proposed or co-sponsored expanding the family medical leave act to cover workers caring for a wounded returning vet from Iraq

he supported or co-sponsored the 21st Century GI Bill

he has promoted changing the focus of affirmative action from race based to class or income based

he has supported full or expanded funding for community development programs and enhanced workforce retraining programs.....I could go on

and he also has acknowledged that he will have to deal with a $10 trillion national debt that will require a balancing act of implementing his priorities while attempting to reduce the debt....not an easy task for anyone.

host · 06-14-2008, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

host...I really dont know what you are looking for.

I think Obama balances his progressive agenda with the reality of politics today. Its ridiculous to make comparisons to Woodrow Wilson.

_dux, take away effortless home price appreciation, cheap gasoline, and the ability to zip over, in a new SUV, to the suburban shopping mall to charge that gasoline and those shopping trip purchases on a plastic card with a credit balance, along with the loan payments on that SUV, rolled over to zero, time after time with "cash out refis".....then take away that "cashed out" home in a foreclosure, and it won't be long until many identify with this description:

Quote:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5107
“Huey Long Is a Superman”: Gerald L. K. Smith Defends the Kingfish

Nine years ago, Louisiana was a feudal state. Until that time it was ruled by the feudal lords in New Orleans and on the big plantations: the cotton kings, lumber kings, rice kings, oil kings, sugar kings, molasses kings banana kings, etc. The state was just a “mainland” of the territory. The common people in New Orleans were ruled, domineered over and bulldozed by a political organization known as the Old Regulars. The great mass of people in the city and the country worked like slaves or else lived in an isolation that excluded opportunity. Labor unions were very weak and the assembly or workers was prohibited in most industrial center. It was not uncommon for labor organizers to be beaten or assassinated.

The great corporations ruled the state and pushed the tax burden onto the poor. The Chambers of Commerce spent money in the North urging industry to come South for cheap labor. Illiteracy was as common as peonage. The commissary plan was in force in mills and on plantations; it kept the workers from receiving cash and left them always in debt to the employer. The highway system was a series of muddy lanes with antique ferries and narrow bridges with high toll charges. Great forests sold for a dollar an acre, to be “slaughtered” and removed with nothing left to enrich the lives of stranded cut-over population. Families north of New Orleans were forced to pay an $8 toll to cross Lake Pontchartrain into New Orleans and return.

Of course, we had our grand and glorious aristocracy, plantation mansions, the annual Mardi Gras festival, horse races, and those staunch defenders of the old South, the newspapers. Of course, the old Louisiana aristocracy, with its lords, dukes and duchesses, had to be preserved, regardless of what happened to the people. State institutions constituted a disgrace. The insane were strapped, put into stocks and beaten. The penitentiary was an abyss of misery, hunger and graft. The State University had 1,500 students with a "C" rating. Most of the young people were too poor to attend Tulane, the only big university in the state. Ten thousand aristocrats ruled the state while 2,000,000 common people wallowed in slavery with no representation in the affairs of the state. Half of the children were not in school. Great sections of the adult population could not read or write. Little consideration was given to Negro education. Professional training was available only to the sons of the privileged.

Huey Long grew up in the pine woods of Winn Parish. He had witnessed the sale of trees worth $10 each for $1 an acre. He was sensitive to injustice. He knew the difficulty of receiving a higher education. He seemed to have an intuitive appreciation of ideal social conditions. At the age of twenty, his Share the Wealth ideal was fixed in his mind. Shortly after, he announced his ambition to become Governor. He was ridiculed, patronized and pitied. True enough he was a mustang—rough, wild, vigorous, and at the same time mysteriously intelligent. At thirty, he was the best lawyer in Louisiana. He had the surface manners of a demagogue, but the depth of a statesman. This dual nature accounts for many of his victories. He wins like a demagogue and delivers like a statesman. His capacity for work was unlimited. He waded through mud, drove along dusty highways and soon became the poor man’s best friend. After fifteen hours of hard work, he could recover completely with three hours of sleep. He recognized the value of entertainment in leading these sad, enslaved people out of bondage. He is Louisiana’s greatest humorist. It was his wedge, but behind that wedge was a deep sympathy and a tender understanding of the needs of his people.

In 1928 he was elected Governor. He had promised many things that even his staunchest admirers questioned his ability to deliver. He moved to Baton Rouge, tore down the old Governor’s mansion, built a new one, built a new capitol, built new university buildings, refused to entertain socially, attended no banquets, snubbed the elite and opened the mansion to the muddy feet of his comrades. He offended the sensibilities of the tender sons and daughters of privilege. He whipped bankers into line, he struck blow after blow at peonage, he gave orders to the Standard Oil Company, the bank trust and the feudal lords. Society matrons, lottery kings, gamblers, exclusive clubs and—not to be forgotten—leading clergymen with sensitive flocks joined hands to impeach this “wild,” "horrible,“ "terrible,” "bad" man. The war was on. Impeachment proceedings failed. State senators, representatives and appointees began to obey like humble servants—not in fear but quite as anxious parents obey a great physician who prescribes for a sick child. He was recognized by friend and foe as the smartest man in Louisiana.

Severance taxes were levied on oil, gas, lumber and other natural resources, which made possible free schoolbooks for all children, black and white, rich and poor, in public and private schools. Telephone rates were cut, gas rates were cut, electric rates were cut; night schools were opened up and 149,000 adults were taught to read and write. Then came free ferries, new free bridges, 5,000 miles of paved and improved roads (six years ago, we had only seventeen miles of pavement in Louisiana); a free medical school was built, as fine as any in the country. Free school buses were introduced the assembly of workers for organization was guaranteed, new advantages were created for the deaf, the blind, the widows, the orphans and the insane, the penitentiary was modernized, traveling libraries were introduced and improved highways were forced through impassable swamps. Recently poll taxes were abolished, giving the franchise to 300,000 who had never voted. Legislation has been passed, removing all small homes and farms from the tax roll. This means that 95 percent of the Negro population will be tax free. This transfers the tax burden from the worker to those who profit by his labor.

This was not easy to accomplish. Numerous attempts have been made to assassinate Huey Long, vigorous plots have been made to assassinate his character. These plotters have at all times enjoyed the cooperation of the Louisiana newspapers. We who hold mass meetings in the interest of our movement are threatened, guns are drawn on us and every conceivable hazard is put in our way by hirelings. Prior to the last legislature, when word was received that the tax burden was to be completely shifted from the little man to the big man, the newspapers actually appealed to and encouraged violence. They prompted mass meetings in the state capital and encouraged armed men to come to Baton Rouge, and expressed the implied hope that Huey Long would be killed. Although these meetings had the support of the combined press of the state, they fell flat in the presence of the sincerity of Governor [Oscar K.] Allen and Senator Long. The moratorium bill protected homes and farms and personal property against sheriff sales.

In the midst of all this, Huey Long was elected to the United States Senate, and began to preach in Washington what he had been practicing in Louisiana. He made the first real speech and introduced the first real bill for the actual redistribution of wealth.....

Huey Long was an SOB. and he did the things described above, during the economic status quo that fostered the economic and power distribution described above.

The people trying to maintain and defend the status quo are big SOBs, too, and there are lots of them, with lots of lawyers, compared to a Huey Long. They also have the option of killing the political irritant.

"Nice", pragmatic, and "compromising", get you crumbs, dc_dux, because it's all about giving away only the appearance of compromise, not the substance. Obama is the appearance....Nader gave a "people's" answer to the Bear Stearns bailout question, Obama gave the status quo, at the expense of the people, answer.

Maybe if you could comprehend how bad it's going to get for lots and lots of formerly middle class Americans, and how quickly it will happen, you could better see what I want. Most have the bulk of their non-liquid assets in their home values, and in retirement funds. The wealthiest have only a small percentage trapped in those holdings.....the inequity in wealth distribution is going to get much worse.....and there is no left of center political element to counter the Obama "center" window dressing.....none!

There was in the 1930's....yet even then, those at the top were able to stuff the investigative revelations of the Temporary Committee, back in the box, information sealed for the rest of the century......

They concede crumbs, _dux, but you see it as "progress".

Quote:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,7769096.story
From the Chicago Tribune
Bailout of Wall Street firm shocks markets
Federal Reserve forced to save company squeezed by mortgage securities

By William Sluis, Tribune reporter Tribune reporters David Greising and Becky Yerak contributed to this report
March 15, 2008

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune's editorial board Friday, Sen. Barack Obama said he was generally wary of government intervention to bail out struggling institutions, such as the Fed's move, but said exceptions can be made in an effort to prevent "a cascading decline in credit markets."

Quote:

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader04052008.html
How Taxpayers Can Fight Back
Runaway Bailouts
Weekend Edition
Apri1 5 / 6, 2008

By RALPH NADER

Is there a larger, more exploited, defenseless group of undifferentiated Americans than the 133 million individual federal income taxpayers? Their dollars are used to subsidize organized corporate interests, giveaway taxpayer assets like minerals under the public lands, and bail out speculative, self-enriching corporations and their crooked bosses.

As large corporations, and their trade associations, complete their takeover of the federal government-a process that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called fascism in 1938-the corporations become the government.

Just look at the recent headlines in the business press. Article after article features abuses and over-runs by companies contracting with the Department of Defense and other agencies. The enormous volumes of waste, fraud and poor delivery affecting the Iraq war-occupation now only produces ho hum newspaper and television stories.

Recently, the student loan scandals, exorbitant burdens on students graduating from college imposed on them by companies with influence in Washington, like Sallie Mae, whose government guarantees make a mockery of capitalism, have riled members of Congress to some modest action.

Once again this year, the big boys on Wall Street stretched the envelope of risk and greed and ran down to Washington, D.C. to be bailed out by the accommodating Federal Reserve. Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before the Senate that he had no choice but to take on about $30 billion of Bear Stearns obligations or there could be a run on other big banks. Where was the Federal Reserve when this credit, debt and risk spree was building during the past five years?

There is no penalty for failure-whether on Wall Street or in Washington, D.C. for misusing or wasting the taxpayers' monies.

When the heads of Citigroup and Merrill Lynch were asked to leave their positions recently as CEOs after tanking their companies' shares, they could barely avoid tripping over the many millions of dollars they were taking with them through the exit door. Among many perverse incentives operating within these Wall Street firms, there are rewards for failure-big bucks rubber-stamped by the look-the-other-way, well paid Boards of Directors.

Back in 1971 and 1980 respectively, the White House proposed a $250 million loan guarantee for Lockheed corp., and a $1.5 billion loan guarantee for Chrysler with the government taking back warrants that it later sold for a profit. There was intense debate and discussion at public hearings in the House and the Senate before they authorized the guarantees.

Now federal agency bailouts of big business, even Mexican oligarchs, rarely seek Congressional approval. Just have the Executive Branch do what it wants. No public hearings. Midnight bailouts without transcripts.

I asked a powerful Senator: "What are the discernable legal limits on the Federal Reserve's bailout authority and how much total risk can the Federal Reserve heap on the taxpayers?" "Can they go to a trillion dollars?" He did not know.

Willravel · 06-14-2008, 01:23 PM

The unfortunate reality with presidents is that you have to wait and see. When I even made the suggestion that a candidate be under oath about their intended policies, I was nearly laughed out of the forum.

I'm concerned about a lot of what Obama may or amy not do. Obama has yet to say he opposes invading Iran. He voted to continue funding the Iraq War. He has yet to talk about the IRS or Fed. He has mentioned legalizing pot, but what about retroactively so we can get some room in prisons? What about the entire prison system?

We'll have to wait and see.

host · 06-14-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

The unfortunate reality with presidents is that you have to wait and see. When I even made the suggestion that a candidate be under oath about their intended policies, I was nearly laughed out of the forum.

I'm concerned about a lot of what Obama may or amy not do. Obama has yet to say he opposes invading Iran. He voted to continue funding the Iraq War. He has yet to talk about the IRS or Fed. He has mentioned legalizing pot, but what about retroactively so we can get some room in prisons? What about the entire prison system?

We'll have to wait and see.

Great points....about forcing campaign promises to be sworn on an oath....and force is the right word, and about the prison system....I overlooked it, I am ashamed to say...

That's just it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

We'll have to wait and see.

That is only true if we settle for that. We need to make demands on both candidates....force them out, on the record.

If the press was not dysfunctional....attending BBQ weekends at McCain's "cabin", providing "the best venue" for a despised, war criminal vice-president, as Russert was believed by Cheney's former press secretary, to provide for Cheney.....we might have already pinned Obama down on many issues:

Again, I come back to the eulogizing of Mr. Russert. It's bullshit:

Quote:

http://www.portlandtribune.com/sport...61319350520000
Pixels or paper, truth doesn’t care
On Sports

By dwight jaynes

The Portland Tribune, Jun 5, 2008, Updated Jun 5, 2008

...My guideline for years was that, as a beat reporter or a columnist, I would get to know my sources as best I could. I would be there constantly, in their face. I always felt I was impartial enough to write the truth no matter what. And my core values included being there the day after I wrote something negative about someone I covered -- so they'd have their shot at me, their fair chance to confront me.

But along the way, at some point, the whole thing kind of went south. The problem with all that, I've come to realize, is that I got too close to the people I covered.

In the case of a beat reporter, you almost have to have a degree of that in order to come up with the constant flood of stories you need if you’re covering a beat like the Trail Blazers.

Over time, you realize that in spite of all your attempts to know athletes and public figures, what you usually end up writing about them is the cover story -- the half-true piece of semifiction that those people want the public to see. You begin to realize you're usually getting played. And you sold your soul to get it.

Oh, when you get close to sources, you get access. You get inside information. At least you think you do. You get close enough to players and coaches that it's a fan's dream. Sources become something very close to friends, and, I confess, I've been down that road.

But I also know that when that happens, you're probably not going to do your job as well as you should. Yes, I'm old school, and I think it's the job of a columnist or a beat reporter to always tell the truth and be critical when merited, even about the revered home team.

But if you're critical, you risk your access. Forget about the friendships -- you often lose your sources if you offend them.....

....Lately, I don't have time to schmooz them at shootarounds and after practice. I can't get on the phone and shoot the breeze with them.

Once in a while, it costs me a story. But you know what? As a columnist, I don't feel I need their information or their admiration. And I certainly don’t need to worry about making them happy. . . .

The point to all this is simple. What I've done, I think, is become a blogger in columnist's clothing. The secret to the blogosphere is that bloggers usually don’t have that proximity to coaches and athletes. They aren’t hindered by a need to get along or kiss up to the people they write about.

...And this is "mainstream"....coming from the adopted son of a former president.....but discussing the need for radical confrontation, ala Huey Long, with the controlling corporate interests in this country, is verboten!

Quote:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...5/234519.shtml
Monday, Dec. 5, 2005 11:43 p.m. EST

Michael Reagan: Dean 'Should Be Hung'

Michael Reagan, son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is blasting Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean for declaring that the U.S. won't be able to win the war in Iraq, saying Dean ought to be "hung for treason."

"Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!" Reagan told his Radio America audience on Monday....

http://digg.com/politics/Michael_Rea..._9_11_truthers
Michael Reagan threatened life of Mark Dice & 9/11 truthers

the-peoples-forum.com — HOW TO PROPERLY FILE AN OFFICIAL FCC COMPLAINT AGAINST MICHAEL REAGAN FOR THE DEATH THREATS OF MARK DICE AND 9/11 TRUTHERS

Willravel · 06-14-2008, 02:03 PM

I'm glad you agree about requiring candidates to lay down their policy under oath. I can only imagine how simple it would have been to impeach Bush, who promised not to engage in nation building.

But I digress, demanding anything of Obama right now will at best secure a campaign promise, which still leaves us in the "wait and see" boat. Obama would probably not be interested in presenting campaign promises under oath unless there was a huge part of his constituency demanding it. Which there isn't.

The rhetoric I am listening to would be coming from Dennis Kucinich, who presented a mere 35 of the total of what Bush has done and is managing to garner attention, finally. While it's a futile move, you can tell he is a man of his words. I only wish that level of certainty could come with Obama.

dc_dux · 06-14-2008, 02:15 PM

will...a man of his words like Kucinich is great to have as a voice in the House of Representatives.

But, reallistically, do you honestly think he could get many of his progressive programs through Congress if he were president?

I take Obama at his word that he will balance his priorities with the realities of the budget and the support of the Congress.

Willravel · 06-14-2008, 02:18 PM

I never had any illusions about Kucnich's odds of being president. I am simply saying it's nice to see a progressive actually stick to his guns. It's a shame that such behavior is so rare.

dc_dux · 06-14-2008, 02:19 PM

I dont think you will see it anytime soon in a president..the country and the Congress are too divided.

I think the best that progressives can hope for is a president who shares their ideals but accepts the fact that it is better to get half of loaf (not just crumbs) than be so rigid in his ideology and fight to the end for "all or nothing" and get nothing from a divided Congress.

Charlatan · 06-14-2008, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think the best that progressives can hope for is a president who shares their ideals but accepts the fact that it is better to get half of loaf (not just crumbs) than be so rigid in his ideology and fight to the end for "all or nothing" and get nothing from a divided Congress.

I agree with this.

The neo-cons have controlled the framing of the discussion for so long that the public at large is not yet ready to accept the sorts of things that someone like host might push for, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.

Progressives, first need to get power. Then they need to do well in power. To follow DC's analogy they need to start baking their own loaves and those loaves need to be damn tasty.

Once the public starts to get turned onto the progressive bakery's output, they can start offering things like Clafoutis and Croissants.

Those who try to jump to esoteric too soon, before building trust, do so at their peril.

This is called being responsible and pragmatic.

host · 06-14-2008, 08:26 PM

The problem is, you don't have the luxury of the interminable amount of time, dc_dux and Charlatan, doing it "your way"....will take. Events will overtake the country, and Obama, unless he starts addressing what he will do to "shake things up", and "the man", Obama's elite sponsors, won't like that....won't like it at all.

I don't think Obama has it in him....and I'm not alone.....

Quote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhil..._b_106926.html

Jason Furman And Barack Obama

Posted June 13, 2008 | 09:08 AM (EST)

Last night at a political meeting in my neighborhood, progressive writer and occasional Huff Post blogger David Sirota used the addition of centrist economist Jason Furman to the Obama team as an object lesson in placing too much faith in politicians. "Barack Obama is an empty vessel," Sirota said, and then mixing his metaphors he added that Democrats have been projecting onto Obama's character what they want to see. Sirota's tone was utterly dispassionate; he said he didn't begrudge Obama doing what it takes to win the election. For Sirota, the rise of Furman proves a central argument of his new book The Uprising--that real political and social change begins on the city and state level. Here Sirota and his activist audience were in perfect agreement, and it was the current local issues like the impact of the doubling in size of the Safeway that people were talking about. Even in this politically-engaged group, few people had heard of Jason Furman, and that fact should be another object lesson--this one for the media and pundits.

2008-06-03-otb_onthetrail_v2.jpgThe urge to shake the Furman cup and read the tea leaves is irresistible, nevertheless. In the few days since the announcement of Furman as Obama's chief economic adviser, political and economic observers have suggested two different explanations. The first is a familiar narrative: in predictable Democratic mode, Barack Obama is tacking toward the political center so that he can win in November. I reject this thinking, because such a self-confident man as Obama would disdain such maneuvering -- at least for now. Sirota's observation is subtler reasoning, with which I partially agree. Yes indeed many Democrats have been projecting onto Obama what they want to see. But the ascendancy of an economist who has praised Wal-Mart and who finds merit in lowering the corporate tax rate does not necessarily mean that Obama is selling out the liberal progressive platforms he ran on during the race for the Democratic nomination.

Observers need to look not at the tea leaves but at the cup. Jason Furman's economic views tell us little about a theoretical Obama presidency's economic tilt because, for one thing, Obamanomics are still a work in progress. With the sometimes artless confidence of his generation, Furman admitted as much at least twice in his debut on the press conference call circuit Tuesday. In answer to a question from Slate's John Dickerson about "pay as you go," Furman said, "Over the course of the campaign these things do tend to get fleshed out -- further." Later he said, "In terms of tax credits, you'll hear more over time. . . He [Obama] will tell you at the same time how that proposal will be paid for." .....

"The answer" to solving this crisis won't be to move in the direction of the "Harvard men", or the men from Goldman Sachs, who helped cause it !

Quote:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=520516

....In addition to his positions with Citigroup and Harvard, Rubin is a co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and a founding member of the Brookings Institute’s Hamilton Project. ....
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=520516

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/bu...ef=todayspaper
By LOUIS UCHITELLE
Published: June 12, 2008

Acting quickly after securing his party’s presidential nomination, Barack Obama picked a well-known representative of Bill Clinton’s economic policies as his economic policy director and signaled this week that the major players from the Clinton economics team were now in his camp — starting with Robert E. Rubin.

Patrick Andrade for The New York Times

Jason Furman is Barack Obama’s economic policy director.
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

Senator Obama, Democrat of Illinois, hired Jason Furman, a Harvard-trained economist closely associated with Mr. Rubin, a Wall Street insider who served as President Clinton’s Treasury secretary. Labor union leaders criticized the move, and said that “Rubinomics” focused too much on corporate America and not enough on workers.

“For years we’ve expressed strong concerns about corporate influence on the Democratic Party,” John J. Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, said Wednesday in a statement implicitly critical of the symbolism of the appointment, no matter Mr. Furman’s economic skills.

The Obama camp has cast Mr. Furman, 37, as an experienced operator in Democratic election campaigns, whose task is to tap the expertise of economists representing a broad spectrum of views. “My own views, such as they are, are irrelevant,” Mr. Furman said.

The Democratic Party often struggles to balance the conflicting demands of corporations and labor, and Mr. Furman’s appointment rang some alarm bells that Mr. Obama might be tilting toward the corporate side — a tilt that Mr. Rubin says does not exist. He argued in an interview on Wednesday that his views were essentially in line with Mr. Obama’s already stated policies.

“I totally support Obama,” Mr. Rubin said, acknowledging his long allegiance to Hillary Rodham Clinton. “I was not going to leave Hillary until she pulled out,” he said, adding: “I think Barack Obama is very well equipped to provide the presidential leadership that the country very badly needs in a rapidly changing world.”....

Quote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics
The populist uprising

David Sirota, Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Monday, June 9, 2008

American history is the history of populist uprisings. From the Revolutionary War to the coalfield wars, from labor organizers to anti-tax crusaders, from the New Deal to the current conservative era, backlashes to the status quo have defined every major political era. These uprisings have given us candidates from Barry Goldwater to Howard Dean, and presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan - and the populist uprising that delivered Barack Obama the Democratic presidential nomination means history could be forged once again.

What are populist uprisings? Loosely defined, they are a welling up of anger toward the established order - revolts that are often the precursor to a full-fledged social movement. The uprising against inequality during the Great Depression fueled the labor movement and the New Deal, which raised wages and created the middle class. The uprising against Jim Crow laws in the 1960s became the civil rights movement, which made America more equal. The uprising against liberalism during the late 1970s became the conservative movement of the 1980s, which deregulated the economy and fed the military-industrial complex.

It is that rebellion three decades ago that tells us we are indeed experiencing another uprising.

Just like the late 1970s, America currently faces the telltale signs of all insurrections: an economic emergency, a financial meltdown, an energy crisis and a national security quagmire.

Political analysts say this is bad news for the Right because George W. Bush sits atop today's mess, and conservatives have responded by running away from the president and by attempting to channel the outrage into their old anti-tax, anti-immigrant, anti-government agenda. But that misunderstands what has changed.

According to Gallup's survey data, the public has not only lost confidence in the political system as it did in the late 1970s, but also in corporations. In 1979, 1 in 3 Americans told Gallup's pollsters they had confidence in big business. By 2007, less than 1 in 5 expressed the same confidence. In 1979, almost 2 out of 3 citizens said they had faith in banks. Today, only 2 out of 5 say the same thing.

This is the real problem for a conservative movement that has become a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America. Unlike 1980, when Ronald Reagan rode the conservative uprising to a landslide victory, the country is not looking for a movement that gets the government to back off big business, nor are we looking for politicians who pretend the Enrons and Bear Stearnses are victims. This uprising is searching for a movement that gets big business back under control and leaders who are serious about aiming "law and order" rhetoric not at dark-skinned people, but at the royalists whose greed is driving the economy into the ground.

As I found in reporting my new book, "The Uprising," some already recognize this new political topography. For instance, New York's Working Families Party has become a powerful grassroots force for economic justice in Wall Street's backyard. Unions have boosted their membership by the largest margin in a quarter-century. Shareholder activists are finding more support for initiatives that challenge corporate misbehavior. Even some Republicans, such as Mike Huckabee, have bashed CEOs and berated lobbyist-written trade policies.

Whether this ferment becomes a transpartisan social movement will depend on a number of questions. Will the Democratic Party stop demoralizing its grassroots base and break free of its moneyed faction that gave us travesties like NAFTA? Will mavericks like Huckabee reshape the GOP? And most important, is the presidential election hype going to trick Americans into believing candidates are social movements, rather than one of many vehicles for them?

The answers will determine whether this is a fleeting uprising of ineffective protest or a movement about wielding power - yet another forgotten moment or, finally, an historic one.

I think you are going to be surprised about how bad it gets. It would be nice to have a president who is on "our side", when the shit storm lets loose and the soup and unemployment insurance office lines extend for blocks.....

Charlatan · 06-15-2008, 12:38 AM

I think you are clueless as to how power is attained in the US. Attaining the role of President in this day and age would be an impossibility if someone were to try and implement all the programs (pogroms?) that you would like to see, host.

I stand by the fact that it is fine to rail against the wind if that's all you want to achieve. If you actually *want* to make change, you have to work within the system. Change does not happen overnight.

guyy · 06-15-2008, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I agree with this.

The neo-cons have controlled the framing of the discussion for so long that the public at large is not yet ready to accept the sorts of things that someone like host might push for, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.

Progressives, first need to get power. Then they need to do well in power. To follow DC's analogy they need to start baking their own loaves and those loaves need to be damn tasty.

Once the public starts to get turned onto the progressive bakery's output, they can start offering things like Clafoutis and Croissants.

Those who try to jump to esoteric too soon, before building trust, do so at their peril.

This is called being responsible and pragmatic.

Yes, it's callled "responsible" and "pragmatic", but does it really work? Take Bob Rae. (...Please!) He was so pragmatic and responsible that he's now a Liberal. This is what the Confucians call "rectification of names." And how much progressiveness did Tony Blair's "pragmatism" and "responsibility" win him? He ended up as Bush's justly-despised lap dog. "Responsible" Democrat William J. Clinton was an ineffective president, whose lasting mark on the US was a semen stain.

Bob La Follette, the very archetype of the progressive politician, built his power and reputation by stubbornly sticking to a progressive agenda. FDR didn't sit around trying to prove himself in his first term. The New Deal came almost immediately. And what Tommy Douglas established in the beginning was that he could get his agenda through -- not someone else's.

dc_dux · 06-15-2008, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

Yes, it's callled "responsible" and "pragmatic", but does it really work? Take Bob Rae. (...Please!) He was so pragmatic and responsible that he's now a Liberal. This is what the Confucians call "rectification of names." And how much progressiveness did Tony Blair's "pragmatism" and "responsibility" win him? He ended up as Bush's justly-despised lap dog. "Responsible" Democrat William J. Clinton was an ineffective president, whose lasting mark on the US was a semen stain.

Bob La Follette, the very archetype of the progressive politician, built his power and reputation by stubbornly sticking to a progressive agenda. FDR didn't sit around trying to prove himself in his first term. The New Deal came almost immediately. And what Tommy Douglas established in the beginning was that he could get his agenda through -- not someone else's.

La Follette was a great Senator, but he was a failed presidential candidate.

FDR's New Deal programs rightly benefited from the Great Depression. While many now are worried about the economy, the country is in a far different place and far more divided about the solutions than it was in 1932.

The Democrats will pick up seats in both houses of Congress...but it is the Senate that matters most.... where the Dems need to pick up at least nine seats to gain a true working majority (60+ to prevent filibuster by Repubs). Few predict that is likely. If it does happen, I would expect Obama to be more aggressive in pursuing his progressive agenda while still balancing budgetary contraints abd demonstrating a respect for the minority..something sorely missing for the last eight years..

I love and support how host focuses on what we should do. That voice needs to be heard...both in Congress with guys like Kucinich and Feingold and among the citizenry like host. I think the country would suffer if we lose those voices in either forum. They remind us of where we should be heading.

I prefer to focus on what we can do, giving the political climate of 2008.

roachboy · 06-15-2008, 05:07 AM

well, it's pretty clear at the semantic level that the term "responsible" compresses the structure of a tautology into a little form when it's used to gloss the inside/outside the "system"---but let's assume that the united states does, despite all evidence, resemble a democratic regime in some way--where does "the system" start and stop in a context of popular sovereignty?

it also seems pretty clear--to me anyway--that in the larger scheme of things, we collectively are heading into one of those ideological problematiques in the course of which the underlying statements that shape other statements start to wobble--so if in the us we operate in a neoliberal context--which still has no name--and if one way of thinking about the present situation is as a crisis of neoliberalism itself--and if neoliberal assumptions function (because of repetition, say, unmarked repetition, say) are the kinds of statements that enable other statements (about tactics, say) to be enunciated---and if neoliberal assumptions are themselves increasingly THE problem (to the extent that most of the institutional and economic "issues" we collective are or are not facing)---it would follow (wouldn't it?) that we are surfing a kind of cognitive problem in addition to an ideological problem (there's really no difference between the two, cognitive and ideological)

let's say that the dominant discourse of american political life is itself entirely neoliberal--when you get down to it, most statements about, say, economic activity are passed through the metaphyics of markets and their glorious self- correcting capacities, their ultimate rationality the greatest good for the greatest number yes yes depending of course on who is doing the counting on what counts and what does not yes yes---let's say that it is that discourse itself which is in trouble. let's say that as the americans have functioned beneath the warm and fuzzy blanket of market ideology for the last 28 years or so, that among the outcomes of the institutional correlates of this ideology has been the development of patterns of capital flows that cannot be coherently regulated at the nation-state level.

let's say that we, collectively, are beginning to see the consequences of this.

let's say that we, collectively, have no way of talking about either cause or effect or remedy--not really.

let's say that the dominant political discourse in the united states is shaped almost entirely by neoliberal premises and that these premises are going to begin shaking. they already shake in other places, some of which are characterized by a plurality of dominant discourses. this would enable the naming of neoliberalism.

i am not sure that american political life at this particular juncture would allow for a coherent approach to these basic problems. if you behave "responsibly" at the talk talk talk level, you exclude yourself from being able to raise, much less address, fundamental problems. if you do not behave "responsibly" at the talk talk talk level, you erase yourself as a speaker.

what to do?
what to do?
crash and burn maybe?

it's a curious situation.

guyy · 06-15-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

La Follette was a great Senator, but he was a failed presidential candidate.

La Follette made his reputation as governor of Wisconsin where he was effective. What's is "failure" anyway?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I prefer to focus on what we can do, giving the political climate of 2008.

That's not really true. You're telling me and host what can't be done. By your calculations, the progressive movement of the '20s or the New Deal would never have occurred because thinking outside the dominant political ideology leads to defeat. So what happened to FDR in '36?

The New Deal and FDR are interesting in that FDR was more or less like Obama ideologically, at least during the '32 campaign. Quite mainstream.

I agree with rb that we are now in a crisis of neo-liberalism. I don't know how he and his neo-liberal advisers will react to deepening of the crisis. We shall see.

dc_dux · 06-15-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

La Follette made his reputation as governor of Wisconsin where he was effective. What's is "failure" anyway?

Failure is getting 10-15% (?) of the vote for President....in large part because the population of Wisc did not reflect the more diverse population of the US. He couldnt sell the populist programs that worked in Wisc to the rest of the country.

The same holds true today. I dont think you will find a majority of Americans supporting the populist agenda that host proposes by any measure.

The key to winning a presidential election today is attracting the growing number of Independents who do not support either extreme. The key to governing effectively is maintaining that popular support.

Quote:

That's not really true. You're telling me and host what can't be done. By your calculations, the progressive movement of the '20s or the New Deal would never have occurred because thinking outside the dominant political ideology leads to defeat. So what happened to FDR in '36?

Nope..I am just offering my opinion as a Congress watcher on what I think is achievable in an Obama first term, particularly with a fillbuster happy republican minority....again based on the facts that those populist positions do not have wide spread support among the electorate.

aceventura3 · 06-16-2008, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Where is Obama....where are we?

Time will tell if Obama is a man of his word, but we already know that generally speaking Democrats talk a good game while their actions are different.

Obama says this:

Quote:

Obama and Countrywide

``These are the folks who are responsible for infecting the economy and helping to create a home-foreclosure crisis -- 2 million people may end up losing their homes,'' Obama said of Countrywide at a March 31 campaign appearance in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Jnk&refer=home

Now another Democrat comes out of the closet regarding getting favorable treatment from Countrywide. Democrats talk about wanting to look out for people facing foreclosure today, but "yesterday" they were in bed with the very people they now say are responsible.

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Kent Conrad said Saturday that after reviewing e-mails from Countrywide Financial Corp., he had learned that company officials had provided him with preferential treatment: a discount on one loan and a waiver of a company lending rule for another.

Although the favors were unsolicited, the North Dakota Democrat said he would donate $10,500 to charity to compensate for the unsolicited benefits he received.

Conde Nast's Portfolio Magazine reported last week that Conrad and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) were part of a special VIP program at Countrywide that provided special terms and discounts to Hollywood luminaries, national politicians and friends of Countrywide executives.

Dodd chairs the Senate Banking Committee and Conrad sits on the Senate Finance Committee. Both panels consider matters of concern to Countrywide.

Both senators said Friday that they were not aware that they received special favors or that they were part of the "Friends of Angelo" program at Countrywide. The name refers to Angelo Mozilo, the company's chief executive.

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-country...,2854727.story

And we are supposed to believe these men did not know about the benefit they got...wow!

Are these matters worthy of further investigation to determine the extent of Contrywide's influence in Washington? As long as Democrats control the agenda, it won't happen in my opinion. Will Obama stand up against his own party for his stated principles? I think the answer to that question will tell us where we are. "Money" in the context of Wison's quote is not the problem in my view, it is the pretense that some have that your "money" is corrupt but my "money is o.k. - "money" is "money", people can be honest or corrupt.

dc_dux · 06-16-2008, 08:44 AM

Ace...I really dont understand how Countrywide really has anything to do with Obama.

If Countrywide engaged in fraudlent practices that violated federal law, the DoJ should have been investigating it for the last few years. Several states have done so for violating state laws.

If any Senators recieved any special benefits from Countrywide, the Senate Ethics Comittee can examine that...and the current Republicans on that committee can initiate it now if they believe it merits investigation....it doesnt require approval from the Democrats on the Committee.

aceventura3 · 06-16-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace...I really dont understand how Countrywide really has anything to do with Obama.

Here is what Obama said about Contrywide. He also said somethings about CEO compensation that is indirectly related.

Quote:

Obama and Countrywide

``These are the folks who are responsible for infecting the economy and helping to create a home-foreclosure crisis -- 2 million people may end up losing their homes,'' Obama said of Countrywide at a March 31 campaign appearance in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Obama as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party as now assumed a leadership role. He spoke out against Countrywide before these revelations, now he is dismissive of what could be very unethical or illegal behavior.

I don't know how to spell this out more simply. If you don't see what it has to do with Obama, there is nothing more I can do to help you at this point.

Willravel · 06-16-2008, 10:17 AM

Obama said that Countrywide is responsible for a crisis in foreclosures. You post that Countrywide is behaving unethically and illegally.

dc_dux · 06-16-2008, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Obama as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party as now assumed a leadership role. He spoke out against Countrywide before these revelations, now he is dismissive of what could be very unethical or illegal behavior.

I don't know how to spell this out more simply. If you don't see what it has to do with Obama, there is nothing more I can do to help you at this point.

If Countrywide acted in a potentially illegal manner, the Dept of Justice, not Congress, should investigate.

Even before his remarks on Countrywide, Obama introduced legislation last year in response to predatory lending practices in the housing finance market (STOP FRAUD act).

On the issue of CEO compensation, he is also preparing to sponsor legislation in the Senate (that passed in the House last year) that would give company shareholders a say in how much executives get paid by requiring corporations to have a nonbinding vote by shareholders on executive compensation packages.

I dont know what more you would expect him to do as one member of Congress.

And I dont know how to spell it our more simply than that.

aceventura3 · 06-16-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Obama said that Countrywide is responsible for a crisis in foreclosures. You post that Countrywide is behaving unethically and illegally.

I started a new thread on this topic. I expect corporations to try and have influence over lawmakers. Lawmakers will either be unethical or not. If a corporation or law maker violates the law, they have Constitutional rights and should be presumed innocent, however I favor investigation in this situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If Countrywide acted in a potentially illegal manner, the Dept of Justice, not Congress, should investigate.

Who investigates the potentially unethical behavior of Congress? Please educate me.

dc_dux · 06-16-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Who investigates the potentially unethical behavior of Congress? Please educate me.

Senate (or House) Ethics Committee....see my post in your other thread

(repeating myself here):
Do you want Democratics in the Senate to demand ethics investigations on the basis of every claim of Republican unethical behavior in liberal editorials....or would you prefer that such claims has some substance first?

And feel fee to ignore my post about Obama's bills to address predatory or fraudulent lending in the housing market and CEO compensation generally.

aceventura3 · 06-16-2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

and feel free to ignore my post about Obama's bills to address predatory or fraudulent lending in the housing market and CEO compensation generally.

If you really want a response, here it is. The legislation in my view further shows that Obama does not get "it". In this case the legislation is on the fringe of what was really at the root cause of the housing crisis. I guess it sounds good to the people who will vote for him, but the legislation, if passed, will actually hurt the people he wants to help, further indicating that he does not get "it".

dc_dux · 06-16-2008, 10:53 AM

LOL....ok!

I guess your preference is to let abusive, misleading, and confusing lending practices continue with no criminal sanctions.

I agree it does not offer a comprehensive solution, but it does more than any Republican response to the housing financing crisis...and it certainly sends the right message.

What has McCain and his chief economic adviser, (Phill Gramm, former Senator and banking lobbyist) offered in the way of any proposals?

aceventura3 · 06-16-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

LOL....ok!

I guess your preference is to let abusive, misleading, and confusing lending practices continue with no criminal sanctions.

We already have laws in place protecting people against fraud and criminal behaviors in the mortgage and real estate industry.

dc_dux · 06-16-2008, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

We already have laws in place protecting people against fraud and criminal behaviors in the mortgage and real estate industry.

What federal law currently defines mortgage fraud?

Can you please post the definition.

aceventura3 · 06-16-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

What federal law currently defines mortgage fraud?

Can you please post the definition.

I am not going to go through a step by step explanation of the protections afforded mortgagees and purchasers of real estate against fraud. If you are interested you can start with a basic contracts course at a local junior college.

dc_dux · 06-16-2008, 11:33 AM

Basic contract law has nothing to do with federal criminal sanctions for mortgage fraud.

And as far as I know, that is because there is no federal definition of mortgage fraud in the US Code.

roachboy · 06-16-2008, 11:38 AM

so let's see if we might go back to the op for a minute.
what it seems to me to be about, really, is more the shift in political discourse away from a posture of anything remotely like critique of the dominant capitalist order to one of repetition of its ideological underpinnings. host connects this to a new form of concentration of wealth, but doesn't make the next move and link that to, say, transformations in the ownership of the major media in the united states or the shift from print to radio to television as primary infotainment source--though in general the connections are easy enough to make.

seems to me that obama's campaign is already operating de facto at two levels: at the level of what obama actually says, which is interesting if dis-spiritingly tepid given the magnitude of the fiasco that he would be facing once he got into office---and at a sound-byte register, in the context of which politics is basically a matter of dueling memes.

it's hard to say if this large-scale shift in the posture of the press, which is linked to the nature of political discourse, is a function of the shift in dominant media first and then of a trend toward concentration of ownership, or if it's more complicated than that.

what seems pretty clear, though, is that you have the rise of neoliberal ideology...within that, the rise of the conservative media apparatus, unfolding since the middle 1970s. the rationale for deregulation and concentration of ownership begins to emerge in earnest under reagan. the conservative media apparatus is a product of its period of opposition under clinton. the bush period has in part been characterized by a convergence of the two. while the past 3 years have seen a moderate separation between the explicitly reactionary press (fox, for example) and the more "moderate" fellow-travellers of the post-2001 period, fact is that political debate remains dominated by neo-liberal characterizations of the economic sphere with a slight shift to the center in terms of "security" and its correlates and social questions (obviously this is too broad, but hey, what to do?)

obama's campaign at the meme-level operates within this space.
i think what he actually says is more interesting than the meme-space version would have you believe.

maybe this is why folk like ace prefer to see if, by throwing shit his way, whether something will stick.

i gave linking this back to the op a shot.
your turn.

dc_dux · 06-16-2008, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

maybe this is why folk like ace prefer to see if, by throwing shit his way, whether something will stick.

i gave linking this back to the op a shot.
your turn.

*ducking out of the way of the flying shit!

carry on.

aceventura3 · 06-16-2008, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so let's see if we might go back to the op for a minute.
what it seems to me to be about, really, is more the shift in political discourse away from a posture of anything remotely like critique of the dominant capitalist order to one of repetition of its ideological underpinnings. host connects this to a new form of concentration of wealth, but doesn't make the next move and link that to, say, transformations in the ownership of the major media in the united states or the shift from print to radio to television as primary infotainment source--though in general the connections are easy enough to make.

seems to me that obama's campaign is already operating de facto at two levels: at the level of what obama actually says, which is interesting if dis-spiritingly tepid given the magnitude of the fiasco that he would be facing once he got into office---and at a sound-byte register, in the context of which politics is basically a matter of dueling memes.

it's hard to say if this large-scale shift in the posture of the press, which is linked to the nature of political discourse, is a function of the shift in dominant media first and then of a trend toward concentration of ownership, or if it's more complicated than that.

what seems pretty clear, though, is that you have the rise of neoliberal ideology...within that, the rise of the conservative media apparatus, unfolding since the middle 1970s. the rationale for deregulation and concentration of ownership begins to emerge in earnest under reagan. the conservative media apparatus is a product of its period of opposition under clinton. the bush period has in part been characterized by a convergence of the two. while the past 3 years have seen a moderate separation between the explicitly reactionary press (fox, for example) and the more "moderate" fellow-travellers of the post-2001 period, fact is that political debate remains dominated by neo-liberal characterizations of the economic sphere with a slight shift to the center in terms of "security" and its correlates and social questions (obviously this is too broad, but hey, what to do?)

obama's campaign at the meme-level operates within this space.
i think what he actually says is more interesting than the meme-space version would have you believe.

maybe this is why folk like ace prefer to see if, by throwing shit his way, whether something will stick.

i gave linking this back to the op a shot.
your turn.

I graduated from a state school - All I want is to know if his word means anything. I have already made conclusions regarding main stream Democrats who have a track record.

host · 06-16-2008, 01:12 PM

roachboy, simply and briefly, while as recently as in the 1976 presidential campaigj, a democratic candidate, a senator, proposed in a campaign brochure, a new congressional investigation concerning concentration of corporate control, and private wealth, and relationships of these holders of wealth and control, as the TNEC did in 1938. By 2002, only third party politician Nader was still proposing this. Now we have Obama as the probable democratic nominee. Even though wealth and power are even more concentrated today than 32 years ago, with a trend towards increasing inequity as foreclosures rise and property values fall and unemployment rises, Obama is not going to mention TNEC or propose any investigation. We are left with two major party candidates...McCain, a right leaning militarist, and Obama, a center right militarist...and we'll get posts to read here that Obama is not a center right militarist....not a 'status qyo, window dressing offering from the PTB'....those posts will confirm for me that the PTB's consolidation of the media and 50 years of the republican mighty wurlitzer have succeeded in making a center right militarist seem like a left of center 'change agent'...nice work...and if you buy into 'Obama as change', I hope you're correct....

roachboy · 06-16-2008, 01:24 PM

for what it's worth, i don't particularly think obama to be terribly promising as an Answer to much of anything--an alternative to another period of disastrous republican control--perhaps more curious and flexible than mc-cain would be in addressing what i take to be quite deep structural problems that will play out over the next few years. some of the initiatives he has outlined seem to me little more than necessary--doing something to make the american health care system less barbaric---but mostly, he offers a relatively bland variant on the same.

i don't know if i am right in my understanding of the shoals toward which the boat we float in is heading--i think i can see some aspects of the problems, but am sure i don't see others. i try to remain a bit optimistic, which is why i point to moves like beginning to dismantle the national security state as a way to counter at least the administrative and politial center of the soft authoritarian system into which we have drifted or been pushed, depending on your view of the history of the last 30 years. (personally, i think it's been a combination of the two.)

obama isn't even a social democrat. the issues you raise are mainstream social-democratic questions and your approach to them is as well--if the states was a pluralist context, this would be part of the actual debate rather than a position advanced in messageboards. because of the tightly controlled debate, because of its narrowness, because of the poverty of information that circulates within the mainstream infotainment empire, because soft authoritarian rule relies upon opinion management that uses the trappings of exchange to consolidate and extend its narrowly pitched worldview, it seems that we approach structural problems from a crippled position. the "choices" between candidates reflects this.

but i nonetheless would maintain the obvious: obama is infinitely preferable to another period of republican domination.

dc_dux · 06-16-2008, 01:47 PM

host.....do you think Obama's 6 point plan to "establish a 21st century regulatory system" is a step in the right direction to address part of the problem?

Quote:

From a recent speech in NYC

* First, if you can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision. (So, if the Fed steps in and gives a loan to an institution, a la JP Morgan-Bear Stearns, then the Fed should be make liquidity and capital requirements.)
* Second, there needs to be general reform of the requirements to which all regulated financial institutions are subjected.
* Third, we need to streamline a framework of overlapping and competing regulatory agencies. (There are some cases where institutions don't fit into the existing framework, and therefore, aren't regulated.)
* Fourth, we need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are.
* Fifth, we must remain vigilant and crack down on trading activity that crosses the line to market manipulation. (A reference to traders who spread rumors about Bear Stearns to hedge bets against them.)
* Sixth, we need a process that identifies systemic risks to the financial system. (Obama suggests creating a "financial market oversight commission" that would meet with the President, Congress, and regulators regularly.)

Details in the plan for transparency and oversight of the financial system - Modernizing the Financial Regulatory System (pdf)

Granted, more details are needed...but that could come with input from a broader group of experts (as he proposed in the speech) than those within his inner circle who crafted this general proposal.

I dont know how you get comprehensive reform more quickly than that. You cant just impose it from above and expect to have wide spread support.

host · 06-16-2008, 02:14 PM

dc dux, I posted the reports that Obama had appointed Furman and thus rhe influence of Rubin as his economic advisor. I want a candidate who is not to the right of Eisenhower, in military policy, and I dont want a candidate who seems like crumbs offered by the PTB to the rest of us. I want a candidate who is the PTB's opposition, who wants to investigate their wealth concentrations and interconnected business and political relationships. What has changed since Bayh's 1976 TNEC campaign brochure is that those who were 10 years old or older in 1930 were only 56 years old or older and now the youngest are 88. The loss of a mass memory of the will, the way, and the results of investigating the PTB has died with those who lived through the depression years. Combined with 32 more years of subjection to the brainwashing of the PTB's mighty wurlitzer, the recognition that the PTB must be confronted and exposed by our elected officials has been wiped away. Obama is acceptable to the PTB....he talks like he is, and so does the PTB owned media.

host · 06-20-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoi...nt_know_hi.php
Obama Spokesman: I Don't Know His Stance On FISA
By Eric Kleefeld - June 20, 2008, 1:50PM

Barack Obama is keeping his position on the new FISA bill close to the vest -- so close, in fact, that even his aides don't know what it is!

During a conference call this afternoon with reporters, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs was first asked whether the Obama campaign would schedule time for the candidate to vote in the Senate next week, and how Obama would actually vote on the policy. Gibbs initially said he didn't know about the scheduling, without addressing the main subject.

Later on, another reporter asked specifically about Obama's position. "I better check on that, too," Gibbs said. "I honestly -- that's what I need to work on, as well."

It certainly is striking that Obama is now the leader of the Democratic Party, but he has yet to say anything on such a crucial public issue. Obama has in the past opposed lawsuit immunity for the telecom companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping, but neither he nor his campaign have commented on his position for the latest bill.

Late Update: Here's the audio from the call:

Obama is a very busy man....carrying water for the PTB is a fulltime job. Now, today, as he failed this test of leadership...(last night, his aids said they had to study the FISA "reform" bill)....we have the real measure of the man. Another flash in the pan, an empty suit. The silence from his supporters on this forum is noted.

loquitur · 06-20-2008, 10:38 AM

PTB? What's PTB?

Willravel · 06-20-2008, 10:41 AM

Powers That Be.

06-14-2008, 12:19 PM	#2 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	host...I really dont know what you are looking for. I think Obama balances his progressive agenda with the reality of politics today. Its ridiculous to make comparisons to Woodrow Wilson. he has introduced legislation that provides criminal sanctions for predatory or abusive mortgage lending practices and provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud he has proposed similar legislation to deal with credit card predatory lending practices he has co-sponsored contracting reform to end the abuse of most no-bid contracts he supports letting the Bush tax cuts for the top bracket expire in 2010 and support other corporate tax reform to eliminate many tax shelters in order to provide greater middle class tax relief he has supported unions by opposing legislation that gives employers more opportunities to prevent works rights to organize. he supports stronger enforceable labor and environment standards in trade agreements he supports ending most tax relief for oil companies and promoting alternative energy r&d at an expanded level he supports health care for all children and recognizes that as the most important first step towards universal health care he has proposed or co-sponsored expanding the family medical leave act to cover workers caring for a wounded returning vet from Iraq he supported or co-sponsored the 21st Century GI Bill he has promoted changing the focus of affirmative action from race based to class or income based he has supported full or expanded funding for community development programs and enhanced workforce retraining programs.....I could go on and he also has acknowledged that he will have to deal with a $10 trillion national debt that will require a balancing act of implementing his priorities while attempting to reduce the debt....not an easy task for anyone. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-14-2008 at 12:34 PM..

06-14-2008, 02:15 PM	#7 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	will...a man of his words like Kucinich is great to have as a voice in the House of Representatives. But, reallistically, do you honestly think he could get many of his progressive programs through Congress if he were president? I take Obama at his word that he will balance his priorities with the realities of the budget and the support of the Congress. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-14-2008, 02:19 PM	#9 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I dont think you will see it anytime soon in a president..the country and the Congress are too divided. I think the best that progressives can hope for is a president who shares their ideals but accepts the fact that it is better to get half of loaf (not just crumbs) than be so rigid in his ideology and fight to the end for "all or nothing" and get nothing from a divided Congress. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-14-2008 at 02:52 PM..

06-15-2008, 12:38 AM	#12 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I think you are clueless as to how power is attained in the US. Attaining the role of President in this day and age would be an impossibility if someone were to try and implement all the programs (pogroms?) that you would like to see, host. I stand by the fact that it is fine to rail against the wind if that's all you want to achieve. If you actually want to make change, you have to work within the system. Change does not happen overnight. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-15-2008, 05:07 AM	#15 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, it's pretty clear at the semantic level that the term "responsible" compresses the structure of a tautology into a little form when it's used to gloss the inside/outside the "system"---but let's assume that the united states does, despite all evidence, resemble a democratic regime in some way--where does "the system" start and stop in a context of popular sovereignty? it also seems pretty clear--to me anyway--that in the larger scheme of things, we collectively are heading into one of those ideological problematiques in the course of which the underlying statements that shape other statements start to wobble--so if in the us we operate in a neoliberal context--which still has no name--and if one way of thinking about the present situation is as a crisis of neoliberalism itself--and if neoliberal assumptions function (because of repetition, say, unmarked repetition, say) are the kinds of statements that enable other statements (about tactics, say) to be enunciated---and if neoliberal assumptions are themselves increasingly THE problem (to the extent that most of the institutional and economic "issues" we collective are or are not facing)---it would follow (wouldn't it?) that we are surfing a kind of cognitive problem in addition to an ideological problem (there's really no difference between the two, cognitive and ideological) let's say that the dominant discourse of american political life is itself entirely neoliberal--when you get down to it, most statements about, say, economic activity are passed through the metaphyics of markets and their glorious self- correcting capacities, their ultimate rationality the greatest good for the greatest number yes yes depending of course on who is doing the counting on what counts and what does not yes yes---let's say that it is that discourse itself which is in trouble. let's say that as the americans have functioned beneath the warm and fuzzy blanket of market ideology for the last 28 years or so, that among the outcomes of the institutional correlates of this ideology has been the development of patterns of capital flows that cannot be coherently regulated at the nation-state level. let's say that we, collectively, are beginning to see the consequences of this. let's say that we, collectively, have no way of talking about either cause or effect or remedy--not really. let's say that the dominant political discourse in the united states is shaped almost entirely by neoliberal premises and that these premises are going to begin shaking. they already shake in other places, some of which are characterized by a plurality of dominant discourses. this would enable the naming of neoliberalism. i am not sure that american political life at this particular juncture would allow for a coherent approach to these basic problems. if you behave "responsibly" at the talk talk talk level, you exclude yourself from being able to raise, much less address, fundamental problems. if you do not behave "responsibly" at the talk talk talk level, you erase yourself as a speaker. what to do? what to do? crash and burn maybe? it's a curious situation. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-14-2008, 01:23 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The unfortunate reality with presidents is that you have to wait and see. When I even made the suggestion that a candidate be under oath about their intended policies, I was nearly laughed out of the forum. I'm concerned about a lot of what Obama may or amy not do. Obama has yet to say he opposes invading Iran. He voted to continue funding the Iraq War. He has yet to talk about the IRS or Fed. He has mentioned legalizing pot, but what about retroactively so we can get some room in prisons? What about the entire prison system? We'll have to wait and see.

06-14-2008, 02:03 PM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm glad you agree about requiring candidates to lay down their policy under oath. I can only imagine how simple it would have been to impeach Bush, who promised not to engage in nation building. But I digress, demanding anything of Obama right now will at best secure a campaign promise, which still leaves us in the "wait and see" boat. Obama would probably not be interested in presenting campaign promises under oath unless there was a huge part of his constituency demanding it. Which there isn't. The rhetoric I am listening to would be coming from Dennis Kucinich, who presented a mere 35 of the total of what Bush has done and is managing to garner attention, finally. While it's a futile move, you can tell he is a man of his words. I only wish that level of certainty could come with Obama.

06-14-2008, 02:18 PM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I never had any illusions about Kucnich's odds of being president. I am simply saying it's nice to see a progressive actually stick to his guns. It's a shame that such behavior is so rare.

06-16-2008, 08:44 AM	#19 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Ace...I really dont understand how Countrywide really has anything to do with Obama. If Countrywide engaged in fraudlent practices that violated federal law, the DoJ should have been investigating it for the last few years. Several states have done so for violating state laws. If any Senators recieved any special benefits from Countrywide, the Senate Ethics Comittee can examine that...and the current Republicans on that committee can initiate it now if they believe it merits investigation....it doesnt require approval from the Democrats on the Committee. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-16-2008, 10:17 AM	#21 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Obama said that Countrywide is responsible for a crisis in foreclosures. You post that Countrywide is behaving unethically and illegally.

06-16-2008, 10:53 AM	#26 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	LOL....ok! I guess your preference is to let abusive, misleading, and confusing lending practices continue with no criminal sanctions. I agree it does not offer a comprehensive solution, but it does more than any Republican response to the housing financing crisis...and it certainly sends the right message. What has McCain and his chief economic adviser, (Phill Gramm, former Senator and banking lobbyist) offered in the way of any proposals? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-16-2008 at 11:02 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

06-16-2008, 11:33 AM	#30 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Basic contract law has nothing to do with federal criminal sanctions for mortgage fraud. And as far as I know, that is because there is no federal definition of mortgage fraud in the US Code. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-16-2008 at 11:37 AM..

06-16-2008, 11:38 AM	#31 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so let's see if we might go back to the op for a minute. what it seems to me to be about, really, is more the shift in political discourse away from a posture of anything remotely like critique of the dominant capitalist order to one of repetition of its ideological underpinnings. host connects this to a new form of concentration of wealth, but doesn't make the next move and link that to, say, transformations in the ownership of the major media in the united states or the shift from print to radio to television as primary infotainment source--though in general the connections are easy enough to make. seems to me that obama's campaign is already operating de facto at two levels: at the level of what obama actually says, which is interesting if dis-spiritingly tepid given the magnitude of the fiasco that he would be facing once he got into office---and at a sound-byte register, in the context of which politics is basically a matter of dueling memes. it's hard to say if this large-scale shift in the posture of the press, which is linked to the nature of political discourse, is a function of the shift in dominant media first and then of a trend toward concentration of ownership, or if it's more complicated than that. what seems pretty clear, though, is that you have the rise of neoliberal ideology...within that, the rise of the conservative media apparatus, unfolding since the middle 1970s. the rationale for deregulation and concentration of ownership begins to emerge in earnest under reagan. the conservative media apparatus is a product of its period of opposition under clinton. the bush period has in part been characterized by a convergence of the two. while the past 3 years have seen a moderate separation between the explicitly reactionary press (fox, for example) and the more "moderate" fellow-travellers of the post-2001 period, fact is that political debate remains dominated by neo-liberal characterizations of the economic sphere with a slight shift to the center in terms of "security" and its correlates and social questions (obviously this is too broad, but hey, what to do?) obama's campaign at the meme-level operates within this space. i think what he actually says is more interesting than the meme-space version would have you believe. maybe this is why folk like ace prefer to see if, by throwing shit his way, whether something will stick. i gave linking this back to the op a shot. your turn. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-16-2008, 01:12 PM	#34 (permalink)
host Banned	roachboy, simply and briefly, while as recently as in the 1976 presidential campaigj, a democratic candidate, a senator, proposed in a campaign brochure, a new congressional investigation concerning concentration of corporate control, and private wealth, and relationships of these holders of wealth and control, as the TNEC did in 1938. By 2002, only third party politician Nader was still proposing this. Now we have Obama as the probable democratic nominee. Even though wealth and power are even more concentrated today than 32 years ago, with a trend towards increasing inequity as foreclosures rise and property values fall and unemployment rises, Obama is not going to mention TNEC or propose any investigation. We are left with two major party candidates...McCain, a right leaning militarist, and Obama, a center right militarist...and we'll get posts to read here that Obama is not a center right militarist....not a 'status qyo, window dressing offering from the PTB'....those posts will confirm for me that the PTB's consolidation of the media and 50 years of the republican mighty wurlitzer have succeeded in making a center right militarist seem like a left of center 'change agent'...nice work...and if you buy into 'Obama as change', I hope you're correct....

06-16-2008, 01:24 PM	#35 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	for what it's worth, i don't particularly think obama to be terribly promising as an Answer to much of anything--an alternative to another period of disastrous republican control--perhaps more curious and flexible than mc-cain would be in addressing what i take to be quite deep structural problems that will play out over the next few years. some of the initiatives he has outlined seem to me little more than necessary--doing something to make the american health care system less barbaric---but mostly, he offers a relatively bland variant on the same. i don't know if i am right in my understanding of the shoals toward which the boat we float in is heading--i think i can see some aspects of the problems, but am sure i don't see others. i try to remain a bit optimistic, which is why i point to moves like beginning to dismantle the national security state as a way to counter at least the administrative and politial center of the soft authoritarian system into which we have drifted or been pushed, depending on your view of the history of the last 30 years. (personally, i think it's been a combination of the two.) obama isn't even a social democrat. the issues you raise are mainstream social-democratic questions and your approach to them is as well--if the states was a pluralist context, this would be part of the actual debate rather than a position advanced in messageboards. because of the tightly controlled debate, because of its narrowness, because of the poverty of information that circulates within the mainstream infotainment empire, because soft authoritarian rule relies upon opinion management that uses the trappings of exchange to consolidate and extend its narrowly pitched worldview, it seems that we approach structural problems from a crippled position. the "choices" between candidates reflects this. but i nonetheless would maintain the obvious: obama is infinitely preferable to another period of republican domination. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-16-2008, 02:14 PM	#37 (permalink)
host Banned	dc dux, I posted the reports that Obama had appointed Furman and thus rhe influence of Rubin as his economic advisor. I want a candidate who is not to the right of Eisenhower, in military policy, and I dont want a candidate who seems like crumbs offered by the PTB to the rest of us. I want a candidate who is the PTB's opposition, who wants to investigate their wealth concentrations and interconnected business and political relationships. What has changed since Bayh's 1976 TNEC campaign brochure is that those who were 10 years old or older in 1930 were only 56 years old or older and now the youngest are 88. The loss of a mass memory of the will, the way, and the results of investigating the PTB has died with those who lived through the depression years. Combined with 32 more years of subjection to the brainwashing of the PTB's mighty wurlitzer, the recognition that the PTB must be confronted and exposed by our elected officials has been wiped away. Obama is acceptable to the PTB....he talks like he is, and so does the PTB owned media.

06-20-2008, 10:38 AM	#39 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	PTB? What's PTB?

06-20-2008, 10:41 AM	#40 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Powers That Be.