Obama's bottomless pit of capitulation (via) just doesn't end, does it?
(Slaps head)
Oh yeah, 'cause it's bottomless!
Well, my pit of capitulation has its limits. I'll vote for Obama when he asks for my vote. Me, a baby boomer atheist who wants a presidency that repudiates the greed-is-good Reagan-Bush-Bush Revolution.
I'm not holding my breath.
He keeps asking for me not to vote for him, and it's high time I obliged.
David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.
Will somebody wake me when a part of his campaign isn't a Sister Souljah moment?
Oh, and for the record, my attempts at outreach to the Obama camp were a bust of Anna Nicole Smith proportions. Hardly anyone I spoke with could bear to even hear what Hillary voters' concerns were, let alone consider addressing them.
To paraphrase Gerald Bostock, age 8:
Really don't mind if I sit this one out.
My words but a whisper — your deafness a SHOUT.
Now, me voting for McCain? Not very likely.
Me voting for Obama? You tell me. What are the odds that he'll actually ask for my vote with something better than "I might nominate Supreme Court justices who are 2% less evil than McCain will"?
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Welcome VL
To the true PUMA party :D
I'm sure this only helps assure you that you have made the correct decision, but Rep. John Lewis is now facing primary challenges, even though he did switch his support to Obama. One challenger has even moved into Obama's old HQ.
Feel the Unity
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
took you long enough--
this is just another abhorrent move by him--absolutely disgusting.
he's Dubya 2.0--seriously.
Welcome back to the reality-based community.
Easy, PUMAs, it hurts enough already today
And I've always considered VL "reality-based."
brace yourself--i bet there's much more
rightwing Republican shit to come from him--tons more.
Hold on for dear Life -- Much more has arrived
I feel sick.
PS: Welcome back, VL. My misery loves company.
this part is rich--
"... A release by the Obama campaign on Tuesday said that most Americans favor allowing faith-based groups to seek government funding for social services. It did not note that its source for that statement, a 2005 poll by the Pew Forum, also found that many Americans “find the practical implications of this idea troubling. In particular, the public expresses strong concerns about both the influence of government on particular religious organizations and the impact of religious groups on the people they are trying to help.” ..."
We're jumping the gun, maybe?
BTD at TalkLeft this a.m. has a post similar to this 'un from VastLeft, but someone pointed him to an update indicating the AP story got it wrong.
The Obama campaign's statement, reported by Ben Smith at Politico, sez groups receiving fed funds "will be required to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws in their hiring practices—including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
http://tinyurl.com/3pysfq
AP says the bit about "letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities" came from an anonymous "senior adviser to the campaign," but that does seem to be contradicted by the statement Smith quotes, so either the senior adviser misspoke, or the AP misunderstood.
Either way...
Obama is set to full-pander mode:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25468930/
Just like he was at the outset:
http://www.correntewire.com/illinoise
Until I see a legitimate break in the predictable yet hard to stomach swing further and further to the right (or, more accurately, the further cementing of what we already knew), I see no reason to hop back on the Obamawagon, even on the tepid edge.
OK, but according to Smith
this isn't part of Obama's swing to the right: it "isn't really a move at all, just an emphasis on a stance he's always held that got less attention in the primary."
Nevertheless, glad to see you join those of us who were never on the Obamawagon!
Like I said...
his serial capitulations aren't really a swing to the right, he's just cementing what we already knew. Doesn't mean the stench of it doesn't still pack a wallop when he uncorks it.
but if no one checks up--and no one does--and
Obama didn't say how he would ensure that the money wasn't used for conversion and preaching and to pay for religious things (which it is, as has been proven over and over)--where are the millions for a nationwide staff of religious police checking up on all these places? where's the oversight mechanism? where's the practical methods to provide oversight at all?
or is it based on "trust", since Christians are assumed to be good and honest? bs.
& it's not thru Congress, like all of Bush's horrors,
what happens budgetwise? Congress told Bush they wouldn't pass faith-based funding, which is why he did it without them to begin with--they were right.
Why are we being told to pay our money for social services our government is supposed to provide? Why do religious orgs need our money if they're supposed to do good because of their faith anyway?
Why is Obama further reinforcing the GOP idea that government is not the ones to turn to in times of trouble?
It's obscene.
In Danger of Becoming A VL-Bot
But yes, I'm with you. And I refuse to call PUMA "People United..."
. My. Ass.
It will always be Party. Unity
Re: MSNBC story--Is he now going to play fundamentalist?
I strongly believe personal morality informs political thinking and, often, actions. I know it informed mine.
Even tho' I am not "churched" at this time, I believe strongly in the universal moral thinking of, say, The Golden Rule. which is hardly restricted to one theology.
But, Obama is playing at getting into the "whited sepulchre" groups, beating his breast in public and praying ostentatiously (review those campaign brochures.
Added: Matthew 23:27-- Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
Luke 18:9-14
came to mind when you mentioned "praying ostentatiously." The Pharisee and the Publican
I grew up Presbyterian (which fundies will tell you is only a half-step from Unitarianism. LOL) though I'm non-religious now. That was considered almost a guiding passage for Presbyterians. I think my pastor must have done sermons on it every other month.
walking it back already?
"... "some ability to hire and fire based on faith."
..."-- http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2...
And there's absolutely no oversight or accountability now--if it's expanded, who's going to be inspecting thousands of Christian churches/orgs to ensure they're complying?
It's a crock, entirely. And us Jews (and Muslims and atheists and all who believe in separation) don't want our money going to organizations that make you pray to Jesus or listen to their sales pitch before they feed you.
Also--pay attention-- failed abstinence-only sex ed and foreign aid will be expanded next from Obama, i bet.
I think I just heard a
I think I just heard a collective groan coming from the NJDC (National Jewish Democratic Council). They have been trying so hard to make sure that Obama receives the same level of support from Jewish voters that other Dem candidates have. It's not working and the difficulty of their task just increased greatly.
Agreed!
I do not want my taxes going to fund programs that coerce the needy into converting under the guise of "helping." (Prisoner outreach! Argh!)
I wouldn't take that bet. I'm sure he'll have a landmark speech to "start a discussion" on teen pregnancy/abortion, HIV/AIDS outreach to the Third World, etc.
yup-if it wasn't for lawsuits from Americans United,
and others, there wouldn't have been any oversight at all--and Obama wants to expand this?!?
He's gonna fund Religious Police too, to go everywhere and check? Not.
Remember, VL, Roger Stone ran and financed
Al Sharpton's campaign for the presidency. Personally, I think it was a trial run to see if they could pull it off. I know of no reason why Obama would be running now. Just like I don't understand why he'd be making these big steps right before he actually has the nomination. Anyway, Rezko has a lot more ties to the right than to the left. Perhaps the point of the house was that they were telling him he'd be president.
For the record, I don't have an ounce of documentation on anything except the Sharpton story which the Village
Voice covered and to which Sharpton copped.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
So, is Obama a Blue Dog Dem, Repub Lite, or Leftie Lib but
just covering it up?
What does he stand for?
(Listening to excerpt from his Patriotism speech right now--and I'm still trying to figure out how deliberately deciding to not wear a flag pin now is described somehow as simply "carelessness" on his part....)
he's everything he accused Clinton of, and much more--
he's Dubya 2.0.
Is he TRYING to swing the nomination to Hillary?
Maybe he decided he was in over his head, and is now throwing the game. I can't explain it otherwise. (well, yes, I can, but I can only hope this is the explanation).
I'd try to play dumb, but I'm not that smart.
I broke into applause
at the computer, startling everyone here!
Excellent news!
With everything Mr. Obama's said and has been highlighting over the past few weeks, no one deserves your unendorsement more at this time.
lambert? you next?
c'mon--it's liberating. : >
Hey! Hey! Hey! Good-bye!
Come on and kiss them, good-bye!
Come together at The Confluence
Come together at The Confluence
Christian rock concerts
From the NY Times story in whaleshaman's comment:
"Between now and November, the Obama forces are planning as many as 1,000 house parties and dozens of Christian rock concerts, gatherings of religious leaders, campus visits and telephone conference calls to bring together voters of all ages motivated by their faith to engage in politics."
Rock On!
Also, I love how the Times story gets reaction from all sides...except liberals and others concerned about the erosion of the separation of church and state...those who think this is a bad idea.
I guess for the MCM and the Obama campaign, we don't exist.
What you quote is gone from the Times story now
I just went there to copy it to send to somebody, and it's been removed.
Maybe a cached copy here?
Try here:
If that doesn't show you what you need [I checked the link during the preview and it still worked], I took a screenshot and saved it in a .png format.
Leave a note here if there's a way I should do something with it other than save it to my hard drive.
you could post a copy of that screenshot here
in the mighty corrente building
I thought you read the Audacity of Hope.
Obama wrote it there for all to see that he favors Bush's faith-based initiatives--right along with the arguments for privatizing social programs.
Again, I'm not surprised
But it still smells bad every time he pours this brew.
He's repub in sheep's clothing
and has been since the beginning. Which is the change he was referring to, I think: changing the dems to reps too. I'm sorry your hopes were dashed, VL, but he's not the genuine article. This is what has bothered me since I first heard of him, his pre-packaged slickness which sure looked like it was targeted at the R's--especially when I McLaughlin or one of the other shouting heads saying he would be great to attract R's since there was no slavery in his background and so race would not come into it, there wouldn't be victim stuff. I thought then that they really meant liberal ideas wouldn't come into it.
Even my genius brother fell for it, and is still falling.
Elliot Lake
Some of y'all don't seem to have read me very closely
http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2008/02/i-d...
Since I began to know much about Obama, I've never held out much hope for him.
Given some evidence, notably his voting record, I felt I could rely on him to be 2% less evil than McCain. I still expect that's true, but it's increasingly clear that there are absolutely no limits to how far he's willing to go to kiss the ass of radical right.
He needs to have a little fear o' god that his base won't support him, and thus I'm agreeing more with the leverage-oriented PUMAs.
That said, I am very wary of any positive claims progressives may make for McCain, who seriously sux. But McCain is beholden to his base, and Obama is also beholden to McCain's base. Something needs to be done about that latter fact.
The problem
with the 2% less evil than McCain is that a Democratic Congress is more apt to oppose McCain's evil proposals than to oppose Obama's evil proposals.
That's what makes Obama a non-starter.
Just the issue of Social Security is enough to scare the living crap out of anyone who thinks these things through.
If McCain submitted proposals that would endanger the efficacy and/or survival of Social Security we could expect (with ample evidence) that a Democratic Congress would fight back and kill any such measures.
But what happens if Obama makes proposals that would adversely effect Social Security? Would the Democratic Congress strike back hard against a Democratic President as they have and would (Social Security War of 2005) against a Republican President?
It just doesn't make any sense to back Obama, didn't at the start of the primaries, doesn't now and never will.
Well, if a Democratic Congress v. Bush is any indication
Congress will just cave, period, no matter who is in the White House.
And actually, SS is the only topic where Congress actually fought back (aaaaah the good ol' days when the progressive blogosphere was fighting tooth and nail for progressive causes).
But otherwise, it's been cave-fest since 2006.
Go Global!
I'm not a broad for McCain, and I never will be.
I may be mad and sad, but I'm not stupid.
VL, I'm sorry this happened.
I thought he could actually resist going to the right even before he won the nomination. I thought he wouldn't listen to his worst advisors, and insist on humiliating the left the same way the GOP has for decades, just to show he's tough.
Even when Clinton had policies I disagreed with, she didn't do this. She didn't lie about being different and special, and that we would be transformed by change, right along with her, then turn completely around and figuratively call us suckers.
I didn't expect he'd be that heedless of a convention fight, nor the political hay that will be made by the GOP once the DNC cracks down on any dissent -- not by protesters, but by credentialed conventiongoers.
I'm sorry this is happening; I had a sliver of hope he actually meant what he promised. But if it must happen, I'm glad it's happening now, when we can still get to convention attendees and remind them there's a democracy to fight for, if our leaders refuse the mission.
The candidate you never wanted
The candidate you never wanted
At a price too high to pay
Progressives have been given
Much cause to walk away
(but to walk where, exactly? the roads have been privatized...)
++++
Xtian rock sux
Imagine having your campaign contributions go to support this abomination.
"endorse" is a strong word.
the way i figure it, i still four months to summon the courage to actually VOTE for the capitulating coward. and i've been voting for some pretty sorry-ass democrats down here in the south the last 35 years, so it's not like i'm the squeamish sort.
i may end up voting for him, but i've got more respect for my fellow voters to actually ASK them to consider voting for obama.
p.s. john lewis' primary challenger has bad check charges - his check to get his lexus hood ornament and other trim gold plated bounced. talk about a diametrically opposed sense of values- it's the saint vs. the gangsta. more thuggin' for obama.
"Endorse" was a bit of ironic hyperbole...
given what I wrote in the endorsement:
http://www.correntewire.com/vastleft_end...
It's also the form I used for my prior endorsement of another candidate:
http://www.correntewire.com/vastleft_end...
Should we send you a PUMA membership card?
"Friends don't let friends vote Republican" but it's not too late to lean on the DNC to have a fair, open and transparent convention.
I *knew* you're be the first to come around. Your support was even cooler than tepid. Admit it. Now that Obama has layered that last straw on your back, who are madder at? Him or the DNC?
And what do you want to do about it? (We're with you all the way)
Come together at The Confluence
Come together at The Confluence
"Tepid" was Lambert's word, BTW
Obama's actions in the last couple of weeks are showing that the "2% less evil" thing is starting to wear pretty thin.
I will say, that “Friends don’t let friends vote Republican” is very refreshing to hear.
One of the main reasons I decided to endorse was that I was seeing some progressives start telling themselves "McCain isn't so bad." I wanted to make a statement to help pull them back from that brink.
The issue at hand is that Obama seems to have no limits to how far he'll capitulate, and zero fear that his base won't support him, and there I think the PUMAs have a very important agenda. I hope the movement can stay pure and honest and constructive enough to either get Obama to stop listening to his worst angels, or -- if one may dream -- for the superdelegates / DNC to put a better candidate on the November ballot.
Whoa! Kos pulled his $2300 check for Obama?
Oh, man, Obama really *is* in trouble. Well, what did Kos expect? Look at who was backing Obama all this time. They never really liked Pelosi, Reid and Brazile in the first place. And as for Dean, they simply can't see straight. There's nothing Dean can do that they will not worship.
But pulling a maxxed out donation? You've got to be pretty pissed to do that.
Come together at The Confluence
Come together at The Confluence
wow~! Kos coming back to his senses?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/1/0...
i knew he'd come around eventually. ;-)
(i noticed that the general climate on DU has markedly changed as well. it's a totally new phenomenon; nice to see some sanity finally, after months of... less than sanity. heh.)
Is Obama aiming for a realignment?
Is the idea to use progressives to secure the nomination, and then once in office, jettison the progressives and govern in such a way to draw together a new coalition?
I cant' see the math ultimately adding up unless that's the end goal. Maybe I need some physics to square this one.
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
or, the opposite?
Is his goal to incense the left so much that at the convention he appears to be both moderate and a victim -- one he doesn't portray himself as, but one in the context of demonstrations and turmoil -- thus solidifying his new base of moderate Republicans and anti-racist voters?
He doesn't need to jettison the progressives if the country does it first.... remember the Palmer Raids, the Red Scare and provocateurs... be careful out there.
And yes, I've knit myself a new tinfoil chapeau. I think it's smart.
Not all PUMAs are for McCain
Yes, there are some and they tend to get a lot of attention on Fox. But the rest of us aren't ready to take that step and may never be. We like to have the McCain Dems in our coalition because there is strength in numbers but early on we came to a clear understanding that we will vote our conscience in November.
BUT, vastleft, what if we don't have to choose between the evil of two lessers? What if we can still turn things around right now?
Come together at The Confluence
Come together at The Confluence
"What if we can still turn things around right now?"
I hope we can.
Getting HRC or Gore or Edwards as the nominee would be a big improvement. What are the chances? How could that be made to happen?
Alternatively, helping ensure that Obama is less evil is a productive use of the leverage.
What's changed for me is the certainty that without such leverage, the capitulation is limitless, and I am swayed that withholding our votes -- at least until and unless something significant changes -- now makes sense, because Obama seems hell-bent on proving he's no different from McCain, and that he's motivated by the exact same thing: a fear-based compulsion to appease the radical right.
Yes, basement angel, that was always his strategy
I have no doubt about it. I saw it coming when I was a Kossack last year. He *had* to tack right in order to appeal to the Republicans he needs to win. And now that he's lost a good many of the Clinton voters, he has to pursue the right more. It's almost self-sustaining. The more he goes right, the more of his base he loses, the more he has to go right. That's why I could never glom onto him. His campaign was not rooted in a set of core Democratic values so he felt free to pitch them as soon as he knew he no longer needed them.
He's on that proverbial slippery slope and now his most ardent supporters are starting to see what he really is. The question is, do they hate Clinton more than they despise the Messiah for tricking them?
Come together at The Confluence
Come together at The Confluence