Oh well, some 200 years could be called a pretty good run ...

Basically, these folks are way overcompensated, provide little or no value to the real economy, are ruining the country's ability to govern and even harming the ability of their own precious markets to remain healthy. Most of all, while they may have great number-crunching skills and domineering social intelligences, they're really, really stupid when it comes to seeing the big picture consequences of their actions, which is ultimately the most important kind of intelligence there is.

And just consider that Obama --the constitutional law professor-- considered it his responsibility to help them take down the country.

Obama's comedy act ...

Obama: We’ll Get Those Revenues Next Time

Don't hold your breath ....

Grijalva's double-dealing ...

I, for one, will not vote for Raul Grijalva again.

Grijalva Statement Opposing the Bill He Voted For Yesterday

Fooled again. There's obviously no point in supporting any of these creeps.

What's the best one can say about Obama? MIA? ...

MIA?

How about: Obama has from before he was elected worked against over 90% of all Americans?

Or why not just call him what he is: a traitor to those who voted for him?

Democrats Offer Strong Pushback to Ryan Budget… Except for MIA President

Obama's done almost everything that Bush did. What makes him any better than any Republican? At least the Dems in the House and Senate would have pretended to moderate the actions of a GOP President. Instead we have then working with a traitorous pretend Dem in the White House. Really, how is that better than having them knuckle under to at ignorant, vicious and intellectually deficient President like George W. Bush?

Who's gonna pay? ...

Such a question:

Here's what this all comes down to, dogma or no dogma: who is going to pay for a) the Bush tax cuts b) the bank bailouts and c) the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? If you want to get there by making janitors and pipe-fitters wait until they're 69 to retire, raise your hand. If you want to get there by making Jamie Dimon rent out his 900-foot rooftop terrace in Chicago two nights a year, raise your hand. [via The Left Coaster]

Guess, as if it's not absolutely clear, who Obama wants to carry the load. The 'good' Christian that he is he even calls it a sacrifice. Yours, not his, of course.

Right, after all they only had two years ...

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal Could Become Victim of Senate Calendar

If they had four years do you think they would have done any better? I don't.

I, personally, don't think Obama ever intended to fight for anything that would show actual belief in even a few principles or would require sustained effort, determination and possibly some courage.

Two years seems long enough to 'hope' for something other than Obama's usual ineptitude and/or deceit.

Still true ...

Closer to the Fall-of-Rome comparison that we'd like to think ...

Happy Thanksgiving!

When no one will listen, you try to make them hear you any way you can ...

Glenn Greenwald's writing is among the best of those who actually understand how the Democrats managed to shoot themselves in the foot (or was it the head).

from Lawrence O'Donnell vehemently denies his own word

People are suffering economically and Democrats have done little about that. Beyond that, they failed to inspire their own voters to go to the polls. Therefore, they lost. By basing their power in Congress on Blue Dog dependence -- rather than advocating for the views of their own supporters and implementing those policies -- they failed, and failed resoundingly. Building their party around a large number of muddled, GOP-replicating corporatists not only creates a tepid and failed political image, but far worse, it prevents actual policies from being implemented that benefit large number of ordinary Americans. Democrats repeatedly refrained from advocating for such policies in deference to their Blue Dogs, failed to do much to alleviate the economic suffering of ordinary Americans, and thus got crushed. Anyone who thinks that Democrats lost because they were "too liberal" -- rather than because Americans are suffering so much economically -- is wildly out of touch, i.e., is a multi-millionaire cable TV personality who has spent decades wallowing in trite D.C. chatter.

The Republicans have long lived by what they call "The Buckley Rule": always support the furthest Right candidate who can plausibly win. This year, knowing that it would be a wave election, one that would sweep in huge numbers of Republicans in districts where they ordinarily couldn't get elected, they changed that to: support the furthest Right candidate, period. That's because they believe conservatism will work and want to advocate for it. Democrats don't do that. The DCCC constantly works to prop up the most "centrist" or conservative candidates -- i.e., corporatists -- on the ground that it's always better, more politically astute, to move to the Right. Even in the pro-Democratic wave years of 2006 and 2008, the Democratic Party blocked actual progressives and ensured that Blue Dogs were nominated, even though the anti-GOP sentiment was so strong that any Democrat, including progressives, could have won even in red districts (as Alan Grayson proved).

With that strategy, the Democratic Party now reaps what it has sown. Its message and identity are profoundly muddled, incoherent, unclear, uninspiring, and self-negating. Worse, its policies are mishmashes of inept half-measures that, with a handful of exceptions, produce little good for anyone (other than Wall Street, the Pentagon and other corporate interests). They are perceived as -- and are -- beholden to Wall Street, special interests, and the corporations they vowed to confront. They are without any ability to confront the massive unemployment crisis and financial decline the country faces. And as a result of all of that, they lay in shambles. Anyone who can survey all of that and cheer for the strategy which Democrats have been pursuing -- let's build our majorities by relying on GOP-replicating corporatist Blue Dogs -- or who thinks that this election loss happened because "Democrats are too liberal," resides in a world that has very little to do with reality. And that's true no matter how many times they repeat the simplistic snippets of exit polls to which they've obsessively attached themselves.

The only reason to cut or eliminate SS and Medicare ...

... if cuts are proposed and enacted in Social Security and Medicare, they will hurt millions, weaken the economy, and the deficits will not decline. It’s a lose-lose proposition, with no gainers except a few predatory funds, insurance companies and such who would profit, for some time, from a chaotic private marketplace. [emphasis added]

-- Galbraith Blasts Alan Simpson: He “Lacks the Temperment to Do a Fair and Impartial Job” on Deficit Commission by Jane Hamsher, firedoglake.com

And our day-late and dollar-short 'democratic' President, the O-Bomb, is doing all he can to help the destruction along.

Like Republican, Like Democrat ...

It's a smelly political swamp we've allowed to stink up our country:

To say that "Democrats, including liberals, will accept and push whomever Obama picks," based on the rationale that "Clinton & Obama like and trust her, and most liberals (myself included) like and trust Clinton & Obama" -- even if they know nothing about her, even if she might move the Court to the Right -- seems to me to be an exact replica of what I described four years ago.

Risky? ...

Digby writes:

Evidently it is now considered "risky" for Obama to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who is pro-choice:

Risky? Being President is "risky." What is Obama good for if he is so risk adverse that he falls all over himself to do whatever the Thugs and Robber Barons want?

What has Obama done other than place his footsies in Bush's ugly shoes? Certainly he will not take any "risks" that Bush hasn't previously tested.

What a waste.

Now that's a real surprise ...

Democratic Party Image at All-Time Low; 54% Now Rate Party “Unfavorable”

The biggest thanks should go to Barack Obama. He's taken lying to a Republican high for Dems.

But don't forget co-president Rahm-boy who appears to relish the most dastardly actions.

Next, we should thank Senator Reid.

And of course, Nancy Pelosi did her part.

And finally, the US Congress. Specially mention goes to the Senate. So proud. So arrogant. So corrupt. So incompetent.

The House? Well they almost did something to be proud of. But in the end they showed themselves lacking in guts.

No doubt all these actors got sufficient perks to make them forget about oaths of office, responsibility to country, integrity. Subservience to corporate will is all they need to feed their egos. Enjoy.

Quote of the day ...

Succinct. And unfortunately, oh so accurate:

... The fact is that after a campaign that appealed so successfully to idealism, Obama hired a bunch of saboteurs of hope and change.

Which is why expecting much, if anything, that Obama promised, or even claimed to support, is hopeless. Obama rivals the reThugs in hypocrisy.

What is pragmatism ...

Obama's pragmatism leads him to follow, perhaps reluctantly, in the footprints left by Bush and Cheney, and to work for Banker and Insurance Industry friendly legislation at the expense of 90% of the US population. Obama's pragmatism is tied up with 10%, or less, of the American people. He behaves as if he thinks his pied piper routine of the campaign is all that is needed for the rest of us. Obama's pragmatism leads him to ignore majorities, ignore popular support, ignore justice, ignore law, ignore constitution, ignore principle and cater to the rich, the loud, the corrupt, the greedy.

At firedoglake.com, Jane Hamsher's pragmatism is a quite the opposite:

As for FDL, we’ll continue to maintain the position we’ve held since June 23 and insist that a health care bill must actually achieve its goal of helping people, rather than the the unregulated monopolies who exploit them. That’s not being a “purist.” It’s just being pragmatic.

I'm with Jane.

Is Obama going to 'scamper' again? ...

For years, Democrats have failed to grasp the fact that they are perceived as "weak" not because of any specific policies, but because they are perceived -- rightly -- to believe in nothing (or at least nothing that they claim to believe). It is hard to imagine any act that could more strongly bolster that perception than to watch Barack Obama -- yet again -- scamper away from his own claimed principles all because the GOP is saying some mean things about him.

Scamper may provide the best imagery so far for what Obama does so well.

Scamper away little mouse, and all your little mousy friends in your administration and in Congress; scamper away into safe little holes but get out of our government and out of our lives. Then maybe we can find some people of courage to help rid us of the reThugs.

For those who cannot see ...

... this says it all:

No public option. No consumer protection agency to stop Wall Street from abusing Main Street. No accountability for Bush administration lawbreaking. Yet the progressives are supposed to get in line behind a supposedly Democratic administration. Good luck with that.

Another failure by corporate-owned and character-deficient Democrats ...

Working to get Democrats a majority was an absolute waste of time and money.

Democrats have retreated from adding new privacy protections to the primary U.S counterterrorism law ...

Rockefeller, smuckafeller ...

In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can't do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor, it doesn't have 60). But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process -- which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option -- Rockefeller is suddenly "inclined to oppose it" because he doesn't "think the timing of it is very good" and it's "too partisan." What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn't pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he "would not relent" in ensuring its enactment.

Except for, maybe Grijalva, 99.9% of those who have supported the Public Option appear to have been deliberately deceiving their supporters. I wish I believed these people would get their just desserts like getting soundly trounced in an election; having their entire constituency calling up and telling them to start doing their job instead of being a paid corporate pasty; or some other miraculous intervention to turn these turds into decent people instead of public paid conmen.

Today's quote ...

We’re stuck with Obama patty-cake to dangerous political freaks for seven more years, likely, ...

Obama seems to be destroying the Democratic Party ...

Perhaps that's unfair. Maybe he's just helping its decline. Anyway, Obama appears more Bush-like with each passing day. Democrats are falling left and right.

Obama in his wisdom decided to insist on legislation that works against the interests of the America public while ensuring some of the main products of his 'reign' will be designed for and by the corporations which have, apparently, bought his soul as well as the souls of the majority of our Congress, Dem and Thug alike.

I'm particularly impressed by the critical thinking skill of the press who are charged with keeping us informed about all these machinations. Great comedy is the only thing good that seems to come from the quagmire our country's ruling structure has turned into. I particularly enjoyed the following article by Jane Hamsher:

Writing About Politics Is Hard

Interesting the way some of the best reporting seems to emanate from The Daily Show. It's a weird, weird world and it only seems to get weirder ...

I wonder, when -heaven forbid- we complete the slide into absolute corporate control with the ultimate goal of absolute economic slavery, will Obama understand his role in ensuring the resulting human misery. That is, is Obama's role in this active or passive. I'm still not sure ...

But one thing I am sure about is that not being quite as bad as George W. Bush is no compliment.

And, sadly, there is no reason that a person who breaks a barrier, such as being the first black person to be elected the President of the United States, must necessarily be a person of character. But it is definitely a shame and a disappointment when such is the case.