Chasing unicorns, reaping ruin

“One year ago, Americans all across this country went to the polls and cast ballots for the future they wanted to see,” Obama said. A future of higher taxes, more government control, and far less personal freedom? I don’t think so.

Maybe I’m naive, but does campaigning for tax cuts equate to creating a mandate for soviet style ‘reinvention’ of the economy? No, I don’t think it does.

Vague promises of, "change," promises of tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, and transparency were carefully calculated to deceive as many voters as possible. It worked to get Obama elected but like all lies meant to make a sale the mark eventually learns the truth once they try to take possession of the goods. What we have purchased in this President and his Congress is not a centrist government but a far far left one.

Just words

Obama's explicit promises to have an open and transparent debate about his healthcare takeover were just words. Or lies, if you prefer.

Obama Reneges on Health Care Transparency

Count ‘Em… Obama Lied 8 Times About Televising Healthcare Debate

When a CNN commentator like Jack Kafferty calls Obama a liar... you know damn well the jig is up.

What a far cry from the election, when then-candidate Obama pledged to- quote, ‘broadcast health care negotiations on C-SPAN, so that the American people can see what the choices are,’ unquote. President Obama hasn’t even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in government. It was all just another lie that was told in order to get elected.

One of Obama's central campaign promises was tax cuts for 95% of Americans. But instead he sees his mandate as higher taxes, record deficit spending, and blaming Bush for the results of these policies as they destroy our economy. A progressive socialist-style depression is what will follow his policies.

There is no mandate for nationalizing healthcare. Which is why Pelosi, Reid, and Obama want this bill rammed through as quickly as possible in order to avoid scrutiny. No debate. No citizen participation, (that's not how ruling works).

Obama tried to make it appear that his platform was lower taxes. His campaign of vague promises of 'change' was carefully calculated to deceive as many voters as possible. America didn't vote to fundamentally transform America into a leftist country. They thought they were voting for a return to fiscal responsibility. They thought they were voting for a centrist democrat.

What we seem to have gotten is an administration willing to resemble a classic cult of personality. Public school children are made to sing songs extolling our great leader and all the wonderful things he will do for his people. Obama accepts undeserved accolades as if they were his due and expects his lapdog press to parrot his party line. These are the tactics of dictatorships, marxists, and totalitarian regimes.

From wikipedia:

Generally, personality cults are most common in regimes with totalitarian systems of government, that seek to radically alter or transform society according to (supposedly) revolutionary new ideas. Often, a single leader becomes associated with this revolutionary transformation, and comes to be treated as a benevolent "guide" for the nation, without whom the transformation to a better future cannot occur. This has been generally the justification for personality cults that arose in totalitarian societies of the 20th century, such as those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. ~wikipedia

Posted by Eric Simonson at January 7, 2010 5:47 PM
Comment #293473

You know, you don’t have to conspiracy theory everything to get agreement. There’s nothing soviet about our government, socialist yes, and it has been and needs to stay that way unless you want to get rid of every highway, social security, the military, etc.

Socialist democracies are bar none the best systems where the people have a true voice unlike the non-representational quasi-republic we have today.

Plus, I like this idea I heard from a liberal tea party guy.

“If you don’t like how our governments run today, don’t pay federal taxes this year.”

Posted by: Jon at January 7, 2010 9:59 PM
Comment #293475


This is Eric. Reasonable argument isn’t in his lexicon.

Liberal Tea Party guy? Is that an oxymoron?


Do you ever watch C-span? You haven’t heard of this thing called health care over the last several months?

Seriously, If you don’t read the paper, at least buy a TV.

Posted by: gergle at January 7, 2010 10:54 PM
Comment #293478

You are kidding are you not? C-SPAN has not carried any debates on health care. They carried speeches by both parties while on their respective chamber floors, but debates, no. Furthermore the controlling party has had numerous closed door sessions where the minority party was locked out. The process has been a one way road to perdition.

Socialism has failed every place it has been tried and is failing every place is is present today. So why does anybody want a failed system to make decisions that affect themselves and their offspring for decades to come? That just does not make sense and is not rational.

Posted by: tom humes at January 8, 2010 12:46 AM
Comment #293479

Cspan has not carried floor footage of debates, but it is false to say they haven’t carried debates. Numerous senators and reps have made their cases un-endingly over the last several months. What do you hope to see in a televised/staged/playing for the cameras congressional meeting that you haven’t seen already?

It’s just another phony Republican delay/dig.

Posted by: gergle at January 8, 2010 2:45 AM
Comment #293480


sure, next you’ll be expecting them to post the the full text of the final draft 72hrs before either house votes on it. dreamer. LOL!!!

Posted by: dbs at January 8, 2010 5:20 AM
Comment #293485

You know, it’s really tough when you don’t expect the president to do something as dumb as invading Yemen, but rather do something rational.

I guess one has to really search for something to gripe about.

Posted by: gergle at January 8, 2010 9:13 AM
Comment #293486

I would inform Eric here that Obama kept that promise of a middle class tax cut, which was a significant part of the stimulus. And that Cafferty is spelled with a “C”.

You are saying nothing now that you did not say before, and having heard what you said the last time, what you’ve said over the course of the last few years, People still supported many of the provisions you’ve been berating.

The public option is popular, so are the restrictions on kicking people off the rolls. And Medicare, which fits the label socialized healthcare to a “T” was used by Republicans for fearmongering- not to say something like that might be evil, but to threaten that Democrats might cut benefits! Of course, when it came time to consider expanding medicare with a buy-in program, that was too much.

The Republicans, as commentaries like yours demonstrate, don’t want to have to be held to higher standards of performance and good governance in order to return. They want to be able to push people’s buttons, and return to power simply by manipulating people’s emotions, because they believe they are entitled by their “right-thinking” to that power, and that anything they need to do to get that power back is justified by the righteousness of their cause.

Their deeds fall short of their high self-regard. The Republican’s failures cannot simply be overlooked, either in what they mean for alternatives, or in what it means for rewarding them with election or re-election.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 8, 2010 9:47 AM
Comment #293487

there is a great difference between a speech and a debate. What more could I say?

Posted by: tom humes at January 8, 2010 10:27 AM
Comment #293488


I don’t think you understand the difference between social democracy and communism, communism has failed in every place (including China’s watered down communism), but true representational social democracies are stronger for the people who have to keep themselves educated and knowledgeable in order to keep that social democracy.

Otherwise we have a system where politicians who pretend to represent their people get elected and with some religious/social promises appease their largely uninformed constituents while serving only themselves.

Posted by: Jon at January 8, 2010 11:15 AM
Comment #293489

My point being that if you tend to notice the protests of “conservative” tea party members, and say the people outside the G20 in Pittsburgh, one is very stuck on repeating the same slogans they’ve been sold the past 30 years and the other keeps adapting to new attacks on the rights we have to fight to keep.

Posted by: Jon at January 8, 2010 11:19 AM
Comment #293492

tom humes-
That IS the debate. That’s what you get with a Robert’s Rules of Order-dominated system.

What it seems to me is that the Republican are exploiting the system to apply control that the numbers voters allowed them would not give them outright.

The truth of the matter is, it probably doesn’t matter whether we see a public, open debate, because we won’t, really. We will see the speeches and the assertions, the choreographed dance of points that hide the real negotiations behind the scenes

Republicans have more than gotten their chance to speak on the matter of healthcare, but the irony is, by taking a unanimously negative position every time and anytime, they’ve cut themselves out of the process. Nobody needs to please them, to do their constituents a favor, because they’re not going to vote for anything the Democrats put forward anyways!

The Republicans, for all they talk about decentralizing government and authority, practice a very centralized, very authoritarian brand of politics, even in the Congress, where the voting has been lockstep. The unfortunate part about this is that they are no longer the majority, so the best their politics can do is be a roadblock.

They have given up on any kind of compromise, and as time goes on, they stand to see their influence bleed out of legislation. In the legislature, compromise and dealmaking is the name of the game, and there you win best by making the deals that shape policy more in your direction. The Democrats hold Congress- that is undeniable. So they will set the agenda. The Republicans can’t keep up a blockade forever, and eventually Democrats will learn to live without a thought to pleasing Republican imperatives, and that will be a bad day for Republican’s constituents.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 8, 2010 1:42 PM
Comment #293495

“Obama’s explicit promises to have an open and transparent debate about his healthcare takeover were just words. Or lies, if you prefer.”

It seems that CSPAN has covered many hours of debate on the health care bills according to CSPAN.

From Brian Lamb-
“Since the initial introduction of the America’s Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 in the House and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the Senate C-SPAN has televised literally hundreds of hours of committee hearings, mark ups and floor debate on these bills for the public to see. And importantly, we have archived all of this video for future generations to study in the C-SPAN Video Archives.”

Why all of a sudden are conservatives up in arms on this issue as if it is not SOP in the Congress and where have y’all been the past decade?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 8, 2010 2:43 PM
Comment #293497


The Republicans, as commentaries like yours demonstrate, don’t want to have to be held to higher standards of performance and good governance in order to return. They want to be able to push people’s buttons, and return to power simply by manipulating people’s emotions, because they believe they are entitled by their “right-thinking” to that power, and that anything they need to do to get that power back is justified by the righteousness of their cause.

Actually, what characterizes most conservatives is that they don’t want to exercise that power and in most cases don’t. The reason conservatives lost power is that they failed to roll back much of the leviathan liberal state and thus lost support of their base. Obama ran as a centrist. This is a center-right country.

No, Stephen. My desire is not to rule at all. I want a state that maintains law and order and does not seek to control every aspect of our lives. Which is where we are headed. Admittedly, republicans have aided and abetted the growth of the state. But the direction the left wants to go is for far more state control. I would become a democrat today if they reversed course.

Hell, if Obama had been the centrist he tried to portray himself as to get elected he’d have at least some of my support. But it was all a lie.

Posted by: Eric Simonson at January 8, 2010 3:03 PM
Comment #293501

Roberts Rules of Order are not applied in the US Congress. Any resemblance to RRO is simply by chance. There is no order nor rules they consistently obey. They twist and spin and turn anything they want to achieve their own agendas. That applies to both parties. My assessment of Congress is that the membership is so corrupt they ran out of freezers to store their ill gotten gains or run out of optiona for business upstarts to funnel the cash. That is done 24/7/365 and nobody bats an eye.

Posted by: tom humes at January 8, 2010 5:35 PM
Comment #293504


I want to be clear on this, I don’t know the average age here, but for people 25 and below, the thought that anyone could control anyone else beyond physical threats is absurd.

The government can’t control medicine, it could set prices, which is fine but if you wind up with hundreds of people in line for a broken ankle then you’d have protests. Oh wait we already have hundreds of people in line in private hospitals anyway.

Gov’t can’t control the internet, simply put, if someone is spying on you, you can hack into his network. Blocking sites has proved all but useless, China blocked online games for a year now and there’s still cafes that play them out in the open.

The assumption that people in power can now do anything they want without being found out eventually is wrong, the only problem is the electorate is largely ignorant of these facts and can’t remember what happened a year ago.

Posted by: Jon at January 8, 2010 8:12 PM
Comment #293505


In a practical sense every law is backed up by the threat of physical force.

A small example… last year we planned a non-summer vacation to Disneyland. Made the mistake of asking for homework for my daughters. Only problem is that the state (CA) has decided that vacation is not an excused absense. We were literally called daily(!) by the school along with written notices sent home about the repercussions of our poor choices.

The sad thing is that once they pass these laws it is the unforgiving and unreasoning machinery of government that will drag you through the ‘process’ of enforcement without a thought as to how reasonable it is.

And it seems as though all of our full time politicians think that the more laws they pass the better.

Posted by: eric at January 8, 2010 9:39 PM
Comment #293509

Eric Simonson-
I don’t call this country center right, or center left. I call it, mostly, pragmatic, willing to try people out. We wore out our welcome over time, so we were given the heave-ho. We adapted, fixed ourselves up. We took the hint.

Republicans have not. Republicans want to deny that conservatism might be unpopular. That America lost faith with Republican policies. That they’ve had enough of Republican leadership, for the time being.

I just watch what you folks do, and just wonder when you’re going to have that Fat Bastard Satori moment, where you just realize that your politics scares people, and that the problems folks have with Sarah Palin aren’t that she’s so gee golly swell that we can’t stand it.

tom humes-
Yes, they are applied. There’s no need to go into a rant on the general unworthiness of Washington to avoid admitting there’s a structure behind the way the debates are carried out, with the minutes and “the floor recognizes”, etc.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 8, 2010 10:05 PM
Comment #293511

House and Senate rules are violated all the time; daily. That is not a consistent use of any standard sets of rules whether they are RRO or Congressional rules. It is just short of anarchy. I was not on a rant, just stating what I have observed and believe

Posted by: tom humes at January 8, 2010 10:41 PM
Comment #293512

I lol-ed at the Fat Bastard Sartori moment reference, having no clue what it referred to.

Mike Meyers? I lolled again.

Posted by: gergle at January 8, 2010 11:26 PM
Comment #293513

Today is a weird day, or Mike Meyers has suddenly taken charge of the universe:

Posted by: gergle at January 8, 2010 11:37 PM
Comment #293523

There was no detailed debate about healthcare made available to the American people. Example, no detailed analysis of our healthcare system vs healthcare systems in more progressive countries. The left basically ignored that side of the issue while the right told outrageous lies.

Obama got the healthcare bill he wanted. The corpocracy is pleased with him and the Democrats.

Posted by: jlw at January 9, 2010 4:54 PM
Comment #293526

The moments I refer to are the ones where he goes into long monologues about what a painfully bad, messed up fellow he is. Usually followed by a fart joke.

Go to Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos, and practically every damn liberal site you can find and look through their archives for the entire year and beyond before you make such sweeping, overgeneralized claims.

Trust me, I’ve kept up with the debate. The worst part about these claims of “both parties are the same” and corpocracy claims is that it makes it so easy to ignore the differences, however small, that can lead us to chose the better parties and the better platforms. Folks tried to prove that equivalency ten years ago, and ended up giving this country one of its worst Presidents ever.

tom humes-
If you’re so observant, please move past generalities into specific examples, so we can test your conclusions against the facts.

Take jlw’s response. I’ve seen comparisons of American healthcare and that of other country’s hundreds of times on progressive-associated sites. It’s a point made hundreds of times in a hundred different ways. There have been charts comparing both life expectancy and cost of healthcare on Daily Kos’s front page several times, among other things.

Trust me, if that point was a dead horse, we’d have been that thing within an inch of it’s life by the liberals.

But since jlw assumes what he assumes, he doesn’t frequent the sites I do, and so he doesn’t know what Democrats actually think.

I don’t think you understand what Roberts Rules of Order really is. You’re simply making a blanket statement about rulebreaking. The fingerprint of that particular parliamentary paradigm is ingrained in the language we take as typical of proceedings in Congress.

Roberts Rules of Order is what you might call a deliberative handbook, a guide for organizations meant to give people the chance to speak up in meetings, and in general get in their word edgewise.

As for whether rules were broken, we’d have to see. I think you should have to prove what rules were broken, and that you have a sound idea of what the situation is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 9, 2010 6:26 PM
Post a comment