If you have "no place to go," come here!

How To Stab A Citizenry in the Back Obama-Style

So, the chronically conscience-deprived “Obama bubble people” and the new club of morality sell-outs, the “I held my nose but was proud to have voted for Obama” group, have put another nail in the coffin of American democracy by backing the man whom Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report has savvily labeled the “more effective evil”.

This coalition of willfully naive Democrats have secured for Obama four more years of profound executive power -- not only legitimate but the illegitimate power Obama has already begun vastly amassing for himself -- to finish off the democracy he and his corporate overlords have achieved such progress already in destroying.

The obtuse majority of the American people have given further opportunities for the faux-amiable Barack and the corporate-captured Democratic Party to stab us Americans in the collective back, and the next knife-plunge is coming solidly and deeply and soon.

This will be done with a WHAT SHOULD BY NOW BE FAMILIAR BUT IS NOT colossal degree of Obama and Democratic Party “razzle dazzle” a/k/a OFF THE CHARTS HYPOCRITICAL BULLSHIT.

Fool you and me once, don’t blame us. Fool us an infinite number of times?

Don’t blame Glenn Greenwald.

In fact, for anyone left willing to heed Greenwald, he published recently the Obama/Dem “LHHIT” -- “LOOK HOW HARD I AM TRYING!” -- chapter of the “Devastation of the Middle and Working Classes of America Led by Mendacious Dems” playbook.

Glenn Greenwald addresses Obama’s so-called “Grand Bargain” with the GOP. Greenwald’s concise call out of said “bargain”:

“... a deficit- and debt-cutting agreement whereby the GOP agrees to some very modest tax increases on the rich in exchange for substantial cuts to entitlement programs such as social security and Medicare, the crown legislative jewels of American liberalism.”

In fact, Greenwald points out that Obama had intended to desecrate Social Security and Medicare from the get-go but was frustrated, ironically, not by empathetic for the real plight of Americans Dem politicians (are there any left -- seriously?) but by the GOP itself and its, in Greenwald’s words, “recalcitrance to compromise on taxes”.

With Obama’s rancid win, the Repubs are forced to be at least a tad more flexible -- flexible enough to let Obama one more time betray his zombied constitutents -- and those of us trapped within their numbers -- and serve both the Dem and Republican Parties’ mutual corporate overlords. (Who was it who declared, “America doesn’t need a third party. It needs a SECOND party!”?)

Greenwald assures us this will happen SOON, the “grand bargain”. The pre-lim propaganda for it has already been launched by Obama a/k/a the American Judas.

Nobody slides a knife in the back as surgically and critically as the faux-amiable Obama, especially when he has help from his “pragmatic” -- and freshly high on the 2012 election win -- faux-progressive fellow Democratic bullshit artists.

Glenn Greenwald’s summary of how to gut Social Security and Medicare in six easy and what should be transparent by now lessons:

STEP ONE: Liberals will declare that cutting social security and Medicare benefits – including raising the eligibility age or introducing "means-testing" – are absolutely unacceptable, that they will never support any bill that does so no matter what other provisions it contains, that they will wage war on Democrats if they try.

STEP TWO: As the deal gets negotiated and takes shape, progressive pundits in Washington, with Obama officials persuasively whispering in their ear, will begin to argue that the proposed cuts are really not that bad, that they are modest and acceptable, that they are even necessary to save the programs from greater cuts or even dismantlement.

STEP THREE: Many progressives – ones who are not persuaded that these cuts are less than draconian or defensible on the merits – will nonetheless begin to view them with resignation and acquiescence on pragmatic grounds. Obama has no real choice, they will insist, because he must reach a deal with the crazy, evil GOP to save the economy from crippling harm, and the only way he can do so is by agreeing to entitlement cuts. It is a pragmatic necessity, they will insist, and anyone who refuses to support it is being a purist, unreasonably blind to political realities, recklessly willing to blow up Obama's second term before it even begins.

STEP FOUR: The few liberal holdouts, who continue to vehemently oppose any bill that cuts social security and Medicare, will be isolated and marginalized, excluded from the key meetings where these matters are being negotiated, confined to a few MSNBC appearances where they explain their inconsequential opposition.

STEP FIVE: Once a deal is announced, and everyone from Obama to Harry Reid and the DNC are behind it, any progressives still vocally angry about it and insisting on its defeat will be castigated as ideologues and purists, compared to the Tea Party for their refusal to compromise, and scorned (by compliant progressives) as fringe Far Left malcontents.

STEP SIX: Once the deal is enacted with bipartisan support and Obama signs it in a ceremony, standing in front of his new Treasury Secretary, the supreme corporatist Erskine Bowles, where he touts the virtues of bipartisanship and making "tough choices", any progressives still complaining will be told that it is time to move on. Any who do not will be constantly reminded that there is an Extremely Important Election coming – the 2014 midterm – where it will be Absolutely Vital that Democrats hold onto the Senate and that they take over the House. Any progressive, still infuriated by cuts to social security and Medicare, who still refuses to get meekly in line behind the Party will be told that they are jeopardizing the Party's chances for winning that Vital Election and – as a result of their opposition - are helping Mitch McConnell take over control of the Senate and John Boehner retain control of the House.

And so it goes.

AND SO IT GOES! “It” being our democracy -- “goes” meaning GONE!

Hello, FASCISM! But with Obama as leader how could it seriously hurt?

Let’s lift our glasses of kool-aid and drink to the catalysts of our, our foreign brothers’ and sisters’ and the planet’s demise, EACH OTHER!

No votes yet


Submitted by lambert on

That's awesome and so true.

I have to say, though, that I'm more optimistic. As I keep saying, never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined such a thing as Occupy....

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

I'm intensely interested in your description of how 62 million voters put a stake in the heart of democracy, and your viewpoint on my/their morality.

For me, the final 20 pieces of silver I sold my morality for, was my calculation that the Obama adminstration, as bad as it would be on domestic policy (Romney would have been better, that's for sure!), was determined to avoid military invasion and war with Iran, potentially killing millions, and Romney convinced me he was absolutly determined to pursue that war.

I know, I know, that's nowhere near as important as not voting for a Democrat, but what can I say? I'm a morally compromised sellout.

quixote's picture
Submitted by quixote on

but in the past, a vote for Obama has not been a real good way of avoiding continuing or new wars.

As for domestic policy, Obama is the one who went to Stupakistan, made sure single payer was off the table, said women were too infantile to handle Plan B, and knew enough constitutional law to put the wishes of bishops above the civil rights of women, foamed the runway for the banks while homeowners are still flaming out in foreclosures, etc., etc., etc.

Romney talks way worse, but he would have got pushback. Obama may not want to do as many hideous things, but every single hideous thing that he does want gets handed to him on a plate, accompanied by hymns of praise. More effective evil, indeed.

tl;dr: libbyliberal makes many good points. That you're offended about them doesn't change that.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

I didn't vote for Obama (or McCain) in 2008, so I don't take responsibility for that. My calculation was different this time, given the known fact we would get Romney otherwise.

I think there is plenty enough bile to throw around, and if someone would like to engage people, a more effective way is not immediately denounce them, assuming their motives are morally corrupt.

Many people here seem to feel otherwise, and enjoy waving around their moral purity and superiority. I'm sure it feels very good, but I doubt it is very successful in gathering others to their viewpoint.

But I could be wrong.

I'm not necessarily putting you in this group quixote, just responding to your comment.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

That is too ludicrous to even let slide. Talk about facts in fucking non-evidence.

Fucking "pushback"? From WHOM exactly? The Democrats? Don't make me laugh! From the morally corrupt sell-outs who voted for loser Obama? Again, don't make me fucking laugh.

Does Libby make good points? Certainly on most things she definitely does. How does it help to characterize the people you would like to persuade with those excellent points by insulting their integrity?

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

As soon as they would be out of power in the WH, Democrats would have started bitching about everything Romney would do - including shit that Obama is doing now which they find endless excuses for. Evidence? Holy crap we had 8 years of it under Bush. Dems were clutching pearls and sighing all over the place while acting as powerless as possible.

Note that I am not suggesting Democrats would be any more effective this time around, but for all that might be holy, at least there would be some voice given to those who oppose our endless wars and bemoan our loss of civil rights. As it is now and will continue to be for the next 4 years, ain't nobody going to pay attention to any of that shit. And if you tell them how f'ing awful Obama is on that stuff, they will just tell you you're crazy, which is how it happened while talking with people before the election. They just couldn't wrap their heads around the idea that saint O wasn't saintly - so anyone who says he isn't must be crazy.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Let's applaud electing Republicans so Democrats will clutch their pearls and retire to the fainting couch as they always do.

That sounds like a winning strategery!

jinb's picture
Submitted by jinb on

...will you spend the next four years giving Obama the "pushback" necessary? Or will your energies be spent during that time telling us all how Romney would have been worse.

Obama won. Can we move on from blaming Bush (um, Romney) at some point?

Or is the appearance of opposing parties the main point?

"Obama's only TWEAKING Social Security, Romney would have killed it!"

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on


We can and should just move the fuck on to harrassing Obama, the Democrats, the Republicans, and everyone of the MOTU on every issue, as well as continue to work on dismantling the two party system.

I'm in. Doing it already. Have been for years. Have been since I Debbie Downered on all my giddy, Obama-loving friends last week. He is still president drone-murdering asshole, hate to break it to all my facebook pals.

I get that.

Blizzard's picture
Submitted by Blizzard on

Geez, again with this weird defensive tone. I mean, sorry to pile on, but I really don't understand what point you're trying to make. You accuse people here of all thinking alike, yet you're the one flinging lame-brained, recycled Democrat campaign talking points (really, you actually wrote the word "purity"? really?).

No one here is denying that Obamney and the 'rats will materially benefit some people (relative to Robama / 'thugs, as you insist upon with such fervor); if you count yourself among those beneficiaries, then knock yourself out supporting them. While you're at it, though, why don't you sack up and take ownership of the rest of it -- Wall Street cronyism, the murder program, the anti-labor pro 1% policies. It's all part of the package, and you voted for it. Own it.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

To defend your integrity?

Did you vote? If so, you do know that you lent your assent to a system that murders innocent human beings as a matter of policy.

To return to what may now seem comparatively mundane, the question of voting for national office, even if only for a third-party candidate: It is not simply that one grants legitimacy to the overall system by doing so, although that is true and horrifyingly bad in itself. Perhaps more important is this: all advocates of third-party voting acknowledge its futility. Their candidate is not going to win. They know that.

But let's identify the further meaning of such a vote. They also know that either Obama or Romney will win. That is: a man who enthusiastically embraces the State's murder program -- a program that systematically, regularly, routinely murders innocent human beings, anywhere in the world, for any reason the State chooses -- and who similarly embraces the surveillance and police State, together with endless death campaigns abroad as well as a growing system of oppression and brutalization at home -- will win the presidency. By participating in the election at all, you grant legitimacy to the process that will make one of these two men president. You thereby grant legitimacy to the system itself, to the State, and to all those actions you know with absolute certainty the State will take in the future.

Own that.

Or, we could move on and agree to fight for what we believe in and to dismantle that system, not questioning each other's morals.

Submitted by Lex on

First, just because Romney talked it up doesn't mean it would have happened. The stark reality is that the US military is not currently capable of successfully pursuing a ground invasion of Iran, much less an occupation of it. The generals know this, and unlike Iraq, they wouldn't be in the position of saying, "We can do it but it isn't a good idea," it would be, "We are not capable at this time." Do you really think Obama would be squeamish about it if he thought he could win?

Second, immediately after securing re-election, the Obama administration announced yet more economic sanctions against Iran. Economic sanctions of the type being used against Iran are technically an act of war. Obama is currently prosecuting a war against Iran that is likely to kill millions (but not degrade Iran's military capability at all). They will mostly be women, children, the elderly, and those outside the Iranian power structure.

These sanctions are unlikely to have the intended effect so long as any countries are willing to ignore them out of self-interest. China's ignoring them. I believe India is too. And i might be wrong, but i think that S. Korea is going to go ahead and ignore them for Iran's petroleum. Those ignoring the sanctions are likely to strike deals not denominated in US dollars, which means that those countries ignoring the sanctions won't have to lend money to the US to get the dollars to buy the gas and oil, thereby actually weakening the US's global position.

That's what you voted for. Congratulations and do not pretend that you weren't voting for the death of hundreds of thousands of Iranians (perhaps millions).

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Yes, Romney was talking it up. So now you are putting your faith in the US military industrial complex to stop a war? What a laugh. The issue was Romney would greenlight and support Israel's military strikes, which would certainly trigger a wider hot war that could have killed millions, not just hundreds of thousands. And though a single life is a sacred thing, I couldn't morally question Sophie for choosing to save one child, implying that her participating in the choice meant supporting the concentration camp system and "owning" the murder of her other child.

Sanctions. Yes, I'm responsible for those. They never would have continued under Romney. You do know one of these assholes was going to be president regardless, right?

Maybe my judgment was wrong. But believing what I did, I had no choice but not want Romney elected. Therefore Obama had to be elected.

Hugh coped my "choose your destroyer" line. Which is exactly what it was.

Linda J's picture
Submitted by Linda J on

Sorry, you said it. We didn't.

It looks like your signature will have to be changed.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Oh! Oh no! The tribe has spoken! I believe I may need to weep in shame and regret.

Anyway, looks like someone needs to read the blog moderation rules

Scroll down to "Update 7".

You are welcome.

Oh, and no need to change my signature. It's as true now as ever, in fact I fucking hate Obama. But thanks for the personal advice.

gizzardboy's picture
Submitted by gizzardboy on

"Those of my readers who are Republicans, and downcast by Obama’s victory last night, should take heart; the policies we’ll see for the next four years will be exactly the same as the ones that we would have had if your candidate had won, and now you have the freedom to criticize them, while the Democrats have to put up with another four years of pretending that the man they helped put into office isn’t betraying every principle they claim their party stands for. The blustering and violent pursuit of the same failed foreign policy, the eager pursuit of national bankruptcy in the name of global security, the tacit refusal to prosecute even the most egregious financial crimes, the whittling away of civil liberties, the gargantuan giveaways to corrupt but influential industries, and the rest of it: the whole package that’s been welded in place since the days of George W. Bush was guaranteed to continue whoever won."

Obviously, not just Republicans will be downcast.

Submitted by lambert on

... along with the imperial decline. One way or another.

Submitted by libbyliberal on

... we on the left recognizing the extreme toxicity of Obama's leadership need to do some kind of collective intervention on the Obama bubble segment of the population. It is absolutely gobsmacking. And now we have 4 more years of it. People following Obama to fascism. It is like Invasion of the Body Snatchers or The Stepford Wives.

We also need to gird ourselves against the desperate need to have the old mythology of the Dems and the media branding so intense of Obama be true to some small even molecular degree because that pulls us down the slippery slope too of lesser evilism.

People who voted for Obama this round are in very "impressive" company pissed off as they may be at my indictment above: Daniel Ellsberg, Robert Parry, Springsteen, Cenk U., Chomsky (?) I think Chomsky, right?, etc. Many people in my real world network voted lesser evil or voted in denial of who and what Obama really is.

To me you don't endorse an assassin, mass murderer and a colossal fraudster. You don' t re-elect someone who has earned impeachment many times over. If the "pragmatics" had let their outrage carry them to voting for a third party it would have had voice and impact. Many didn't even do it in those so-called non-swing states, giving support to Stein or the other third party candidates so Stein, for one, fell short of getting that 5% funding for the Green Party. Dang.

90 million people did not vote. What a tragedy that was since those millions could have gone to third party candidates challenging the system. BUT how many of those 90 million didn't even know what their options were since corporate media SILENCED in the most fascistic manner ANY MENTION OF THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES or maybe an eleventh hour glimpse of them with a mention of what Ralph Nader did to give the election to Bush. I remember the NewsHour gave a minute to mentioning the alternate debate but then Naider yadda yadda yadda negativity. And then there is CORPORATE MSNBC passing out Obama kool-aid like crazy. That was the ONLY time I heard mention of Stein or for that matter other third party candidates prior to election on NewsHour. Talk about a conspiracy. Once I caught Stein on MSNBC which really exposes how blindered and cronied up MSNBC is.

And how many of us seriously hit the streets for Stein, say, to pass along her name and make her a household name? I didn't do enough myself. Wearing her button or lip service at times with people or some flyers. But serious turn out on the streets this past year on a regular pre-election basis to show there were people willing to be high profile enough to make a statement to the herds of humanity moving to wherever the oligarch led status quo wanted them to be. Obama won so apparently it was to there?

There are so many fronts to be fighting at. The blogging is important and the consciousness raising we all do. That is vital. But clearly we have got to organize more tightly and raise consciousnesses even more on Obama as what glen ford calls the "more effective evil"!

It is so heartbreaking that we did not break the hold Obama has on such a serious number. And with his re-endorsement supposed mandate he has four more years of cover to further dismantle democracy and commit genocide and privatize and ruin education system and incarcerate more and more people who shouldn't be and deport more and more callously and play the Trojan Horse saboteur. To sabotage the planet, we mustn't forget that one, either. The American Judas!

The game of good cop/bad cop. The faux good cop Obama won but the agenda is the same, or again even more insidious and destructive under Obama since he has this grand cover from his gaga ones and the corporate media.

Who was it who said that foreigners think Americans are either deranged or hypnotized because of US war criminality and police-statism and rampant white collar criminality at home and abroad?

best, libby