Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did something today that Democrats should have been doing everyday for the last eight years. He called out Congressional Republicans for their unrelenting obstructionism.
History will look back and note that the Republican Congress treated President Obama with unprecedented disrespect.
No one expected them to agree with everything that he did or tried to do. A day or two after president Obama was elected the first time, Republicans met here in Washington. All the Republican big names and they came to two conclusions.
No. 1, Obama will not be re-elected. They failed on that one, quite miserably.
But, No. 2., that they will oppose everything that President Obama tried to do and they have stuck by that without any question. President Obama is the first president to be denied a hearing on his budget; he’s the first president to be denied a hearing on his supreme court nominee. President Obama is the first president to be asked to show his birth certificate. President Obama is the first president to face over 500 filibusters.
The only thing that Republicans have done this year was to prove that they are the party of Trump. They are the party of Trump. They say that they are not the party of Trump but they are.
They would have us believe that Trump just fell out of the sky and somehow mysteriously became the nominee of the party. But, that’s not the way it is.
Everything that he’s said, stood for, done in this bizzarre campaign that he’s run has come, filtered up from what’s gone on with Republicans disagreeing with everything that the president wanted. They filibustered things that they agreed with just to slow things down.
Trump is no anomaly. He’s the monster Republicans built. He’s their Frankenstein monster. They own him.
After Donald Trump’s scary, dark musings last night–laden as it was with lies, threats and his profoundly disturbing vision of what he aims to do as president–a little reflection is in order.
Think about it. Is our common public weal more imperiled today than it was in those dark days of 2008?
Yet, neither of the two major party candidates that year offered as dark a vision of the nation nor offered as harsh a prescription of how to rebuild our nation.
Looking back through the tunnel of time, back to 2008, we found a cratered U.S. economy. Banks deemed too big to fail were nevertheless filing for bankruptcy protection. Despite billions in government assistance to financial firms, a historic economic recession was just around the corner.
With the worst attack on American soil in our history within memory, the U.S. military was enmeshed in two wars, American service personnel dying in pursuit of Osama bin Laden in the mountains and caves of Afghanistan and a self-inflicted misadventure in Iraq as we expended treasury we could not afford.
For the people who believe that, Trump gives them ammunition daily. It’s like Trump calls the HRC campaign headquarters each day to get his talking points about how to further kneecap himself. Or, maybe BC is the ventriloquist that makes the Trump dummy spout nonsense to make himself unpalatable to the general election electorate.
Now, why would a former president whose wife was a certain candidate for POTUS be advising another man to get in the race for the same office? Some conspiracy minded people have gone so far as to say that BC planted Trump in the Republican nomination contest to destabilize the GOP and smooth the way for his wife becoming POTUS.
Republicans may believe in profiling but they don’t believe in stating it so baldly as Trump is prone to do on this and on so many other issues that the GOP prefer to hint at, dog whistle, if you will. Trump, God bless him, just prefers to say what he believes.
Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address
9:15 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, fellow citizens:
Fifty-one years ago, John F. Kennedy declared to this chamber that “the Constitution makes us not rivals for power but partners for progress.” (Applause.) “It is my task,” he said, “to report the State of the Union — to improve it is the task of us all.”
Tonight, thanks to the grit and determination of the American people, there is much progress to report. After a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home. (Applause.) After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over six million new jobs. We buy more American cars than we have in five years, and less foreign oil than we have in 20. (Applause.) Our housing market is healing, our stock market is rebounding, and consumers, patients, and homeowners enjoy stronger protections than ever before. (Applause.)
So, together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis, and we can say with renewed confidence that the State of our Union is stronger. (Applause.)
So many people are talking about Rand Paul’s filibuster of John Brennan’s CIA nomination in the U.S. Senate that I thought I would remind people of Vermont’s Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders made a much loved speech on the senate floor that was turned into a book.
It was in Oct. 2010 and the U.S. Senate was considering a budget deal that President Obama made with Republican that was heavily weighted to what Republicans wanted. Sanders spoke for eight hours, stalling adoption of the agreement.
Here is his speech–which is available on C-Span and at other sites, including the Congressional Record–in its entirety:
THE ECONOMY — (Senate – December 10, 2010)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my friend from Virginia for doing what is very important. I think the essence of what he is saying is that today there are millions of Federal employees, people in the Armed Forces, who are doing the very best they can. In many instances, they are doing a great job to protect our country, to keep it safe. And very often, to be honest with you, these folks get dumped on. So it is important that people such as Senator Warner come here and point out individuals who are doing a great job, people of whom we are very proud. So I thank Senator Warner for that.
Mr. President, as I think everyone knows, President Obama and the Republican leadership have reached an agreement on a very significant tax bill. In my view, the agreement they reached is a bad deal for the American people. I think we can do better.
I am here today to take a strong stand against this bill, and I intend to tell my colleagues and the Nation exactly why I am in opposition to this bill. You can call what I am doing today whatever you want. You can call it a filibuster. You can call it a very long speech. I am not here to set any great records or to make a spectacle; I am simply here today to take as long as I can to explain to the American people the fact that we have to do a lot better than this agreement provides. Continue reading “Sanders’ October 2010 Filibuster Against Corporate Greed”
“We are a good and generous people who are united by so much more than divides us,” Romney said, cribbing a line from Obama.
I don’t understand. Why would Romney tell this lie?
I know it has been a particularly mendacious week at the Republican National Convention, that Romney is a lie machine and that his running mate, one Paul Ryan, gave an acceptance speech of his own in which he tried to see how many lies he could fit into a speech. But . . .
Did we have to listen to Republicans peddle this particular lie, that they rallied behind Obama on his election?
I know tradition dictates that we put our differences aside after an election ends and work for the good of the people, do the business of state, govern. That was exactly what the Republicans would not do.
On January 20, 2009, on a day when most Americans were celebrating the inauguration of Barack Obama as president of the United States, a cabal of Republican leaders and strategists met for four hours to plot how to derail the nascent administration. The American people had spoken by overwhelmingly electing Obama but that wasn’t good for Republicans.
In the prologue to his book “Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives,” Robert Draper described the unprecedented meeting. Masterminding this putsch were Representatives Eric Cantor (Va.), Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Pete Sessions (Texas), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) and Dan Lungren (Calif.), and Senators Jim DeMint (S.C.), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Ensign (Nev.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.).
Also invited were Newt Gingrich, strategist Frank Luntz.
If there was any doubt it was a coup d’etat, they spoke for several hours specifically how to drown every legislative initiative the incoming administration may attempt. Their opposition was tinged by a particular rancor, a nastiness that led them to not only disrespect the man in the office, but disrespect the office itself.
A few months into the administration, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., shouted “You lie” from his seat on the Republican side of the chamber as President Obama was addressing a joint session of Congress about his health care legislation. Not long after that, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky declared that the goal of Republicans was to make sure Obama was a one-term president.
When the 2010 midterm elections ushered the so-called Tea Party Republicans, things go only worse, culminating in the budget debacle that led to the downgrading of the U.S. credit rating.
Things haven’t go much better. Republicans insist on fighting Obama even if it hurts the nation. They crippled the nation’s economy because they felt it was their best chance to regain power. It was plain for all eyes to see.
Romney could have said anything last night. He told many lies in his speech. He could have left that one about them rallying behind a new president. Why didn’t he? Is he just pathological?
I keep hearing how the Congressional race in New York is, somehow, a referendum on the presidency of Barack Obama. Usually, I would scoff at such fatuous prognosticating. But then, it’s been a strange political season.
So, why not?
This one will end when Obama leaves office. Things will return back to normal.
The only comparable periods I could remember were when Harold Washington became mayor of Chicago in the early 80’s and when David Dinkins became mayor of New York City in the early 90’s.
Both times, the Democratic Party establishments in those cities willfully elected to sit on their hands and give up considerable political power and patronage just so the incumbent Democrat would lose.
In his first race for mayor of Chicago, Republican Bernie Epton actually had a fighting chance to win because the Democrats preferred him over the Democrat in the race, Harold Washington. Like the late Chicago Sun Times Columnist Mike Royko famously wrote, “Chicago doesn’t have enough Republican voters to win a Moose lodge election.”
When Washington won, the party establishment organized a coup d’etat in the City Council and resolved to run the city themselves. Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Washington) was a Congressman before running for mayor. He was a tough political battler who was willing to fight for his political life.
“Washington’s first term in office was characterized by ugly, racially polarized battles dubbed “Council Wars”, referring to the then-recent Star Wars films. A 29–21 City Council majority refused to enact Washington’s reform legislation and prevented him from appointing reform nominees to boards and commissions. Other first-term items include overall city population loss, increased crime, and a massive decrease in ridership on the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA). This helped earn the city the nickname “Beirut on the Lake”, and many people wondered if Chicago would ever recover or face the more permanent declines of other cities in the U.S. Midwest.
The twenty-nine, also known as the Vrdolyak Twenty-nine, was led by “the Eddies”: Alderman Ed Vrdolyak, Finance Chair Edward Burke and Parks Commissioner Edmund Kelly. The Eddies were supported by the younger Daley (now State’s Attorney), U.S. Congressmen Dan Rostenkowski and William Lipinski, and other powerful white Democrats.
During one of the first Council meetings, Harold Washington was
unable to get his appointments approved.
Harold Washington and the twenty-one ward representatives that supported him, walked out of the meeting after a quorum had been established. Vrdolyak and the other twenty-eight were able to appoint all of the boards and chairs. Later lawsuits submitted by Harold Washington and others were dismissed because it was determined that the appointments were legally made.
Washington ruled by veto. The twenty-nine could not get the thirtieth vote they needed to override Washington’s veto; African American, Latino and white liberal aldermen supported Washington despite pressure from the Eddies.”
So, in the Senate, after Obama came into office, despite having 59 United States Senators to the Republicans 41, Republicans somehow set the terms of the debate on legislation. Then, in the midterm elections, Republicans strengthened their hands by regaining the House of Representatives and gaining a couple of U.S. Senate seats.
Republicans became strictly obstructionists, not only unwilling to reasonably discuss any national issue, but actually working to harm the nation because it served their political purposes. They paid no political price for that. In fact, they gained more power.
But I am getting too far ahead of myself.
To get back to back to Harold Washington, he won reelection but had a massive heart attack at his desk in City Hall in early in his second term.
Dinkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dinkins), like Obama now, was seen as weak. In New York City, people did not come out to vote. Think about it. Democrats outnumber Republicans by 5-1 in New York City. Winning the office meant not only that lots of people kept their jobs but that they got more jobs and patronage for four more years.
And they gave all that up.
So, yes, Obama—perhaps one of the smartest person to ever hold the presidency of the United r-bStates—will lose reelection in 2012. Maybe the people of our fair nation will start acting normal after that.
UPDATE: Just to prove Democrats are their own worst enemies, if not worse, some lame-brain Democrats now say they oppose the president’s job bill. The same bill that has put Republicans in a “damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t” quandry! How could make political hay against recalcitrant Republicans when Democrats are adding fuel to the Republican fire?
The BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe is a perfect Republican Party trap: Watch as a Democratic administration and Congress drown in the oil disaster while they clean up at the polls. Then Republicans return to office and begin the cycle by laying the bombs that’ll detonate under the next Democratic administration.
Does anyone remember Dick Cheney’s behind-the-door meetings with energy executives in W.’s maladministration? Or the two wars they bequeathed Americans?
Sure, President Barack Obama has been feckless in dealing with a disaster-not-of-his-making.
How difficult can it be to say that British Petroleum, besides paying for every penny that it costs to clean up the Gulf and other regions affected by this disaster, should have all of its officers brought to account for this disaster.
Yet, the president has not been able to summon the passion to condemn this crime. Fine, set up a commission, if you must. But, first, BP executives should be wearing prison jumpsuits.
Cheney has some explaining to do. Before Congress.
A final question: Why is it that Halliburton (Dick Cheney’s employer) is always around looking guilty whenever something is hurting our nation?
Martin Schilde, my friend in the Northwest, sent the following passage in an e-mail. I guess it’s making the round but I don’t know what to make of it, other than it is charming:
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her
altitude and spotted a man in a boat below on a lake. She shouted to
him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him
an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air
balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 1,346 feet
above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and
100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.
She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be an Obama Democrat.”
“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”
“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically
correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m
still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”
The man smiled and responded, “You must be a Republican.”
“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”
“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where you are or where you’re
going. You’ve risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air.
You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to
solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in
before we met, but somehow, now it’s my fault.”
Why haven’t America’s old-school news organizations blown the whistle on Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, for using the network to conduct a propaganda campaign against the Obama administration — a campaign without precedent in our modern political history?
It is not enough to ignore Fox News anymore because, clearly some people are watching and they are forming their opinions of what is happening in the world based on what that outlet tells them. The question that Raines asks is this: In the face of silence from all known authorities, when every credible voice is silent, who will tell the people the truth?
Of course, much of Raines’ cherished media is either in dire straits and/or too compromised to do much of anything about any issue of importance facing the nation. A case in point being Raines’ old shop, the New York Times.
Why has our profession, through its general silence — or only spasmodic protest — helped Fox legitimize a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in its conclusions and biased in its gestalt? The standard answer is economics, as represented by the collapse of print newspapers and of audience share at CBS, NBC and ABC. Some prominent print journalists are now cheering Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp. (which owns the Fox network) for his alleged commitment to print, as evidenced by his willingness to lose money on the New York Post and gamble the overall profitability of his company on the survival of the Wall Street Journal. This is like congratulating museums for preserving antique masterpieces while ignoring their predatory methods of collecting.
Why can’t American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that Murdoch does not belong to our team? His importation of the loose rules of British tabloid journalism, including blatant political alliances, started our slide to quasi-news. His British papers famously promoted Margaret Thatcher’s political career, with the expectation that she would open the nation’s airwaves to Murdoch’s cable channels. Ed Koch once told me he could not have been elected mayor of New York without the boosterism of the New York Post.
This is an illustration for an article in this month’s Progressive, Conservatives in Crisis by Ruth Conniff, about how conservatives are facing an ideological crisis after eight years of Bush and their trouncing in the election.
From the article:
“While Obama is declaring the argument between big-government liberals and free-market-fundamentalist conservatives over, Rush Limbaugh is keeping up the fight: ‘The battle’s never going to be over, the war is never going to be over because battles are going to be fought continually over and over again, because this is who these people are,’ he says. And then he recites the rightwing bromide that FDR ‘prolonged’ the Great Depression with his New Deal programs.”
After reading the article, I knew right off the bat that I wanted to picture Limbaugh as a human cannonball: a sham display of Big Top bravado.
Here’s an illustration in this month’s issue of Mother Jones, to accompany a story on Newt Gingrich written by their DC bureau chief. The article is about how Newt is the only Republican to come out of 2008 looking good, and that the face he’s presenting is a kinder, gentler Newt, all “tri-partisan” and Kumbaya. Here’s the online article, Dawn of a Newt Age.