To hell in a hand basket

[theatokos]

What the hell is going on the US? Wasn't the Obama administration supposed to usher in a new era of political engagement, responsibility, transparency and hope? I expected nothing under Bush and was deeply dissatisfied by his policies. I didn't expect Obama to be the second (or even third, fourth or fifth) coming of the Messiah, but, frankly, it's like a gigantic clusterfuck over there. The Brown election in Massachusetts is a great example - two bland candidates. The Democrat self-satisfied and wussy, the Republican too glossy for his own good, auctioning off his daughters in public. Gah. I need some mouthwash to get the nasty taste out of my mouth.

Health care is a disaster, pleasing no one. Obama is trying to be all things to all people. The Democrats remain spineless, the Republicans remain way off course (moral ills ARE NOT America's biggest problems). And now the US Supreme Court just granted individual rights to corporations. WHAT THE FUCK?! I look forward to posts from several of you who are more savvy in this arena than I am. But, really, what little I've read doesn't bode well. It's a huge set back for campaign finance reform and for the public's best interests in general.

I'm thoroughly dismayed this morning. I don't know if I'm happy or troubled to be living abroad at this time and out of the loop.

Comments

[readthisandweep.livejournal.com]

I hear you. I'm just an outsider; an observer, but I'm old enough to have become something of a realist & not a little cynical where politics & politicians are concerned. Not least the seemingly bright & shiny ones. This is what I wrote a year ago.

http://readthisandweep.livejournal.com/2009/01/20/

[(Anonymous)]

The ruling was a good one. It wasn't a step back in campaign finance reform, it was a step forward (or at least back to where we were) for Free Speech.

The ruling only applied to the ability of corporations, non-profits, etc to be able to publically state their support of a specific candidate. Before they could only address issues, not candidates. So now they can place an ad in the New York times or put and ad on tv talking about a candidate, instead of an issue.

They stil can't exceed $ limints in direct giving to a candidate - that was not changed by the ruling.

As for Obama ushering in a new era of political engagement, responsibility, transparency and hope? Can someone give me one example of him doing that? Because I sure as shit haven't seen it. Pretty much everything Liberals and Obama blasted Bush for doing, Obama is doing too. All the while Obama is doing it (rendition, secret jails in foreign lands - Obama opened a new one in Afganistan btw, etc) and talking about how evil it is. At least Bush was open about what he did and did it because he believed it was a good thing to do.

We all knew Conservatives wouyldn't like Obama. My question is...looking at what he is doing and how he is doing it and all the bullshit he he said on the campaign trail...why would any Liberal still like him?

[snowcalla.livejournal.com]

That was me, btw - not sure what happened.

[so-sporktastic.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you. If anything, Obama has been a huge step BACK - again, what I said during the '08 campaign (and I have been a vocal Obama critic from the beginning). His promises? Empty. Call them naive if you want, but I find it hard to believe that he didn't know precisely what he was doing, or that he was dumb enough to follow EVERYTHING somebody said to him, assuming that it would be true.

The C-SPAN thing? He's the President. I find it hard to believe that he can't say PUT THE HEALTH CARE STUFF, ALL OF IT, ON C-SPAN and somebody would say, "Uh, no, STFU." I think he'd gain massive points with the people of America for a step toward transparency and the fulfillment of a repeated campaign promise. The fact that the health care reform has been continuously pushed quickly, polls ignored, and transparency denied, not to mention the bonuses for wavering Democrats (Landrieu and Nelson specifically) to support the reform... that screams FISHY to me. Even if I agreed with the reform as stated, the procedure has been a disaster. There was an opinion letter in today's paper that the 60-vote majority should be ignored in the case of passing health care reform (I live in MA) - WHAT?! ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!?!?

My question is...looking at what he is doing and how he is doing it and all the bullshit he he said on the campaign trail...why would any Liberal still like him?

Pretty much this. One bad policy decision after another, support for one failed Democratic candidate after another. He's like the Midas touch, only he turns things to shit instead of gold. HOPENCHANGE couldn't save Deeds, Corzine, or Coakley. Let's hope he "helps" Reid and Pelosi in their re-election bids...

We actually have our governor (Deval Patrick, who campaigned in 2006 on the idea of ZOMG CHANGE and all that fun stuff - he's Obama Lite) saying that the people of MA want change, and he hasn't had the opportunity to really make change happen in the, oh, almost 4 years he's been governor, and that we should REALLY REALLY REALLY RE-ELECT HIM.

No, jackass. We don't NEED to reelect you for even more HOPENCHANGE. Personal social policy views and politics aside, we NEED a governor like Palin of Alaska or Perry of Texas. We NEED someone who, again - politics and social views aside - will take the shithole of Taxachusetts and make it ECONOMICALLY healthy. THAT is what we need - someone who isn't afraid to take the big ol' veto pen and trim the fat from the budget. We need someone to take the mess and, from the very beginning, show their ability to change the economy, starting at the top.

When WE lose our jobs, or money becomes tight, WE have to limit our spending and focus on the necessities. I'm sick of the pork projects, I'm sick of Porkulus, I'm sick of NYC Date Nights with Air Force One and ego-boosting trips to plead for the Olympics to be held in Chicago when unemployment is so high. Coakley said that she was "in touch" with the MA people - she called Schilling a Yankee player and made fun of Brown for standing outside Fenway shaking hands, while she was going to some big to-do union event in Washington and connecting with the bigwigs. Yes, Martha, I agree with you on one thing - the people of Massachusetts want change. Only, you're not it, as I hope we pointed out on Tuesday.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a fiscal conservative and, since becoming a mother, I'm pretty much a social conservative - although I think that the government should stay the eff out of a lot of the social conservative issues. I'm very much an Antonin Scalia-style social conservative.

/rant done

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

Aaahhhhh...... see? I admit to being ignorant, so I'm glad to get some clarification. I've been studying all afternoon, so I'm sure there's more info on the 'net now.

As for Obama, so far some of his policies, efforts and statements are inline with my preferences - and of course he and I have far more in common taste wise than I ever did with Bush. But Obama's campaign was built on engagement, responsibility, transparency and hope and I haven't seen much of it either.

[snowcalla.livejournal.com]

I can, and have, supported candidates that I don't agree with their platform because they demonstrated engagement, responsibility, and transparency. I would much rather a decent person hold the office, trying to do their best - than a snake that votes the way I want.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

YES. Yesyesyesyesyes.

[chiv.livejournal.com]

The big problem was that too many people did see Obama as the x^th coming and as soon as the roadblocks to his policies started appearing they were the first to loose faith.
They wanted drastic change instantly, but you cannot do that and retain democracy.
What I don't understand (and probably more to do with how congress is organised) is with a majority as large as the one Obama had, how he wasn't able just to steamroller these sweeping changes through? What about these famous vetos a president hs? Or are they just to stop motions passing?

[snowcalla.livejournal.com]

A veto can only stop a Bill, which has been passed in the House and Senate, from becoming law. Of course, Congress can then over-ride the veto by re-voting on the Bill with a super-majority.

[msmidge.livejournal.com]

Vetos are the president's final say against bills that the representative bodies have voted in and agreed on. The president can do a few things by executive order, but not things like transforming health care. The problems with the sweeping changes have been more in the determination of a few senators and representatives to get their way, and with the Senate Democrats' apparent phobia of Republican filibusters.

[so-sporktastic.livejournal.com]

The problems with the sweeping changes have been more in the determination of a few senators and representatives to get their way, and with the Senate Democrats' apparent phobia of Republican filibusters.

I'm pretty sure there's been audio and video around about the poor widdle Democrats in Congress, when they were the minority party, whining about the importance of a filibuster and how it was so so so useful. I think I remember something about MA Rep Niki Tsongas coming in to stop a Bush veto...

And then, jeez, I'm just reminded of what happened in MA (my state) in 2004, when Kerry was the Dem candidate for president. Romney (R) was then governor, and Kerry and Kennedy lobbied for a rule-change so that, in the event that Kerry was elected, Romney COULD NOT appoint a senator to fill his seat, because he'd likely appoint a Republican. They changed that in 2004, and then Kennedy's "deathbed wish" apart from HCR was that the rule could, um, get changed BACK so that Gov. Deval Patrick (a Dem who's pretty much known as "Obama Lite" within MA) COULD appoint an interim senator (Kirk) until a special election (that they assumed Coakley would win).

Rules/laws are only nice when they favor you. When the established rules give somebody else the power, or take the power away from you or the people you like, then they're unfair and just plain meeeeeeean.

[snowcalla.livejournal.com]

The Republicans could not filibuster unless a Democrat or two would cross Party lines to join it. As of when Brown is seated, the GOP has the ability to filibuster, but only if NONE of the crosses Party line - which is unlikely since there are 3 to 5 GOP Senators who regularly cross Party lines. i don't mind when Senators cross Party lines, though. I hate blind obiedence to Partys.

too many people did see Obama as the xth coming

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah. I lived in the liberal capital of the US and there was one guy in Oakland that drove around with a 5x3 foot Obama poster tied to the top of his truck. The rest of his truck was painted with Obama and MLK.

[msmidge.livejournal.com]

I have Republican PTSD from living in Georgia for 6.5 years, so I can't even think about the direction the U.S. is headed anymore. Maybe I will have recovered by the presidential primaries, because I do want to get in on the Iowa caucuses.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

It's been REALLY nice taking a break from the news and US politics, let me tell you. I don't even mind being an ignorant ass about it all - as this post probably reveals.

[snowcalla.livejournal.com]

Heh. You probably won't find this as funny as I do - but the ultimate irony is that the people who are blocking all the Bills in Congress and threatening to derail all of it are fellow Democrats. Not one single Republican vote has been needed at any time this year for passage of any Bill, or for adding any amdendment.

But I enjoy it mostly because I hate when either Party is in power and they do a bunch of stuff.

Active Congress = Citizens getting buttfucked without lube.

Because either Party, pffft, they sure aren't there looking out for you and me.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

"Because either Party, pffft, they sure aren't there looking out for you and me."

WORD

[msmidge.livejournal.com]

That much we definitely agree on. But I am sad for all the people who really need things to change that aren't going to change on their own.

[eelsalad.livejournal.com]

Given the way the law is constructed, the Sups had little choice. The concept that corporations and large organizations are legally the same as people has always been pointing toward this decision. I actually see it as a good thing -- people are pissed off enough now to DO SOMETHING and fix the underlying issue (corporations = people) rather than slap bandaids on the resulting problems (like campaign finance implications).

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

I hope you're right about this causing change to the underlying problems. But, I'm not all that hopeful, since I thought the health care agenda would help us solve the underlying problems and that sure doesn't look like it's happening.

Not in rebuttal but apropos:

[hrafntinna.livejournal.com]

Well, the Supes are the same Supes and not Obama's doing. I'm not following any of this as closely as I might, due to overwhelming fatigue following both American politics and the ongoing Icelandic disaster, but I remember reading something in a comment thread during the Nobel flap.

A bunch of Europeans and American ex-pats wrote to express astonishment at all the Americans -- especially Dems and Libs -- being horrified at Obama being given the award. What they said was that since the election, the place of the US in the mind of the rest of the world was TOTALLY CHANGED. It was/is as if we'd been admitted again into international society. We at home can think it's a change not based in Obama's actions all we like: it's still a significant change for the better.

Let me know what your sense is from the UK. It's dead on for Iceland and Norway as far as I can tell.

Totally different note: Just read a fascinating book called the Family. It's all religion and politics. You might be interested.

Re: Not in rebuttal but apropos:

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

I've heard of that book!

Well, I don't talk much politics over here, but the general sense I get is 'yay Obama.'

Tell me more about this dog of yours.

[erinya.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think clusterfuck is the right term. I have been paying less attention to politics recently because it's just too depressing.

The Supreme Court decision was terrible. It makes me kind of sick to think about it.

[lopezuna.livejournal.com]

I dunno, it just seems like politics as usual. In some ways, a Republican who relies on a Democratic electorate for survival may be more amenable to reason than a Democrat in a "safe seat" who is afraid of a primary challenge from the loony wing of her own party. As for the Supreme Court decision, I think the lobby industry is an obscene waste of resources - everyone spending money to cancel the other guy out. But the world didn't come to an end before McCain-Feingold, and it won't come to an end now. Health care, now that's a depressing story. But that's what redistricting gives you - a disfunctional Congress stuffed full of extremists afraid of an even more extreme extremist from their own party stealing their seat.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

Yep. If we didn't implode under Bush, we're not going to under Obama. I don't have any interest in conspiracy theories or 'end of the world' nonsense. But it is frustrating.

[jesamin.livejournal.com]

I have my head in the sand. I like it that way.

[ewigweibliche.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I don't know why I poke around in the newsblogs... Mostly it's Facebook's fault. If so many of my friends weren't so damn into politics, I could completely ignore it all.