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

Maybe the American people are right?

David Dayen at FDL:

I was talking to Jack Conway, the Senate candidate from Kentucky, and he said that the biggest issues from constituents on the campaign trail are spending and jobs. I asked if he explains that the two are contradictory, and he explained that people don’t see it that way, that they’ve concluded that more public spending will not create jobs but just go to the banks on Wall Street. I don’t know if the Administration understands how pernicious this game they’re playing is. It could last for a generation.

Well, that's what happened in my state. The stimulus money is going to a handful of big corporate energy projects that will create a few hundred jobs at incredible costs. But weatherization, which is both green and would protect us from oil speculators in the heating season, would create thousands of jobs. But that's not where the money is going. So why should I hand over my money so these guys can Fuck me with it?

This program is not just a terrible deal for struggles homeowners – it’s a terrible confirmation of government not working. It needs to stop and those responsible need to be fired, before it consumes the entire progressive project in its wake.

Mission accomplished. Don't progressives -- not career "progressives," but the real ones -- understand, that for The Big O, consuming the entire progressive project is full of win?

No votes yet


TaosJohn's picture
Submitted by TaosJohn on

Don't progressives -- not career "progressives," but the real ones -- understand, that for The Big O, consuming the entire progressive project is full of win?

No. :-)

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Obama makes for a nice bogeyman because he's the top dog, but its not just him. Sure his policy loathsomeness seems to spread to anyone it comes into contact with, but there are enough supposedly left/liberal/progressive Dems to be able to provide pushback. Instead, Dennis Kucinich whips for the health whatever bill. Dennis freakin' Kucinich.

After about 2005, the corporate overlords started divesting from the GOP and into the Dems. It looks like their investment paid off. But it certainly isn't solely because of Obama. To push that false meme is to give the Congressional Democrats cover for their role in all this. This is about an irrelevant legacy party (the Dems) more than it is about Obama. Hell, the Dems in Congress helped rigged an election to make Obama president.

tarheel-leftist85's picture
Submitted by tarheel-leftist85 on

Obama was the signal that the Ds would indelibly be the second rentier party in a two-party system. And the thing we have to remember about the D legacy party--especially when they start whining about the filibuster (or turning it into a rent-seeking endeavor)--is that from 2001-2007 they could've filibustered lots of shit. But they didn't. They could've stopped Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999. But they didn't; they voted overwhelmingly for it. Admittedly, lots of us who stuck with Dems until the Big O should've recognized this. Many of us recognized the problem as being a bad-apple problem rather than a rotten barrel. We can't go back, but we can throw out the teebee (at least the rents to cable and at least the "news") and we can stay clear of all Ds--even the "good" ones.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

Why do you think Kucinich did what he did?

I think he did it because we lost. There wasn't any point in him continuing to fight that battle, he took it as far as it could be taken and after that it was time to look at what the terms of the surrender would be.

I'm sorry but I just don't expect people in the real world to fight a losing cause to the death. I expect them to give up on the best terms they can get -- it's just incredibly stupid and wasteful to do anything else.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Between recognizing a loss, and then stumping for the winner, regardless.

Kucinich could have recognized that he lost, and voted against it. Or lost, and still voted for it, but Kucinich threw his support behind it, stumped for it, even though a day earlier he was saying it wouldn't work if passed. If it didn't work before, having Kucinich vote for it sure didn't make it work.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

Dennis Kucinich is not in the "real world;" he is in Congress. He is supposed to represent his constituents, who have elected him because he is on the left fringe of the Dem Party. That's why people love him and that's his raison d'etre. His job is to take left positions against the Dem leadership.

If he doesn't do that, no one else will.

He would have lost nothing, and gained much, by being the voice of the disenfranchised left in Congress. Now, there is no one. Not one single person to speak for us.

If we don't hold him responsible, then what good are we, and what reason does he have to ever listen to us again?

dontpaycreditcardsdotcom's picture
Submitted by dontpaycreditca... on

Obama does nothing that is not pro bank, pro big business. He is a joke as far as small business is concerned. If the crony capitalists had their way, they would control 100 percent of the wealth of the nation. Then the revolution has to come.

So, Mr Obama, a question to you: Why not mitigate this upward flow of funds so as to protect the stability of the nation in the NATIONAL INTEREST?

I also think that any of the 90 who voted for the repeal of Glass-Steagall would be audited and if they profited be thrown in jail.