Saturday, March 28, 2009

I ain't never gonna forget

I just received further evidence that the progs who created a dangerous cult of personality around Barack Obama are now starting to regret their Messianic mania. The following message comes from Bob Fertik of Democrats.com, one of the sites that originally inspired me to jump into these waters:
Treasury Secretary Geithner proposed a $1 trillion plan to help Wall Street make a killing buying "toxic assets" with our tax dollars and guarantees. And he proposed a complex regulatory scheme to keep huge financial institutions from wrecking our economy once again.

But there's a better and simpler solution: break up those huge financial institutions. If they're "too big to fail," then they're too big to exist.

Returning to the banks and insurance companies that existed before the Reagan era would not hurt our economy. As Paul Krugman writes, "that boring, primitive financial system serviced an economy that doubled living standards over the course of a generation."

Our friends at A New Way Forward have a plan:

NATIONALIZE: Insolvent banks that are too big to fail must incur a temporary FDIC intervention - no more blank check taxpayer handouts.

REORGANIZE: Current CEOs and board members must be removed and bonuses wiped out. The financial elite must share in the cost of what they have caused.

DECENTRALIZE: Banks must be broken up and sold back to the private market with new antitrust rules in place - new banks, managed by new people. Any bank that's "too big to fail" means that it's too big for a free market to function.

On Saturday April 11, A New Way Forward will lead protests all across the country to demand these changes.

And if you're in New York City on Friday April 3, join the National March on Wall Street:

http://www.bailoutpeople.org/april3-4.shtml
I think that when progs focus only on Geithner, they demonstrate that they cannot yet bring themselves to admit that we were right about Obama all along. Poor Timmy must function as the scapegoat. But that transference won't last forever.

I reprint the above because I really like the formulation "If they're too big to fail, they're too big to exist." This axiom rebuts those free market fundamentalists who insist that a smidgen of socialism will turn the whole system blood red.

You've heard the argument: "If we ever allow gummint to butt into the affairs of free enterprise, even in one small instance, then where does it stop? Where do we draw the line? Do you want the gummint to run fast food restaurants and dog groomers?" We now know where the line should be drawn: If any enterprise is "too big to fail" -- AIG, for example -- then it should have been run all along by people accountable to elected officials. It should be a public trust, not a private for-profit concern.

So I support what Fertik has written here. But he has yet to take one important step:

APOLOGIZE.

Apologize for printing crap like this during the primaries:
The Last Hillary DLC-Straw

I have been silent about the neocon, Republican-Lite, Democratic “Leadership” Council (DLC), and their poster girl, Hillary, during the Primary season -- but enough is enough. Just like Joe LIEberman, Hillary is helping McCain to split the Democratic Party -- just as the DLC has been doing for over a decade.
Most egregious of all were the continual lies about the Clintons told by David Lindorff, who has a regular berth on Democrats.com. (Example here -- and hold your nose when you read it.)

Democrats.com is still publishing Lindorff and still publishing lies about Bill Clinton, the man whom all true progs still consider enemy #1.This is Lindorff's most recent foray into fake history:
Back in November 1999, Congress passed legislation pushed by then Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), rescinding the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act. The measure, backed by the Clinton administration, and overwhelmingly passed by the Senate (90-8) and the House (362-57), opened the way for banks to merge with investment banks and insurance companies, and led directly to the current financial cataclysm.
"Backed by the Clinton administration."

Lying Lindorff wants you to think that the whole thing was Clinton's idea. Yet he exposes his own lie by revealing the extreme level of congressional support for Gramm's measure: The thing was going to pass by a veto-proof majority. I've discussed the 1999 business at great length in an earlier post.
Both the right and (especially) the left blame Bill Clinton for the current financial crisis, though for very different reasons. Of course, both progs and reactionaries blame Clinton for everything -- up to and including the Chernobyl disaster, the 1972 remake of Lost Horizon, Britney's "haircut moment" and your aching back.
Here's the part that the the progs won't tell you about: The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed by a veto-proof majority in a Republican-controlled Congress.

In spite of that inconvenient fact of history, Brauer writes:
Bill Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall.
See? This proves what I've said for months -- the difference between liberals (such as myself) and progressives is that progressives lie. Progressives cannot say "Hi!" without lying.

When forced to confront the inconvenient fact that I have just now put into boldfaced letters, the progs retreat to a more weasle-like position: "Yeah, well, Bill Clinton did nothing to fight it." Anglachel digs up contemporary reports to demonstrate that, in fact, he did. Here's the bottom line:
So what do we see in this contemporaneous report? That the White House had been pushing back on this act for months. That certain Congressional Dems, Dodd and Schumer foremost, explicitly wanted to kill Glass-Steagall. That the White House fought them as well as Gramm on this issue. That the White House rallied Democrats to present a solid front to the measure, requiring that the CRA be protected, which some Congressional Dems were just as happy to toss out along with all other protections.
"CRA" stands for Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 law which helped minorities get home loans. Clinton fought to get the best deal that he could, but gale-force political winds were against him.

Yes, you can blame the repeal of Glass-Steagall on Democrats -- not all of them, perhaps not the majority of 'em, but a good number of 'em. But you can't blame Bill Clinton. Blaming Bill Clinton is like blaming Raoul Wallenberg for not defeating the Wehrmacht single-handed.
Yet Democrats.com continues to publish Lindorff -- to publish the lie.

APOLOGIZE, Bob Fertik.

Apologize and choose sides. You can join the Clinton wing of the Democratic party or you can be part of the anti-Clinton, pro-Obama wing. You cannot finesse your way between the two. You cannot have one from column A and one from column B. We will never allow that. You must choose.

Do not think for one second that you possess the words that will bring reconciliation. Even if you had the eloquence of a Shakespeare, your rhetoric still would not suffice. The wounds inflicted in 2008 were deep -- far deeper than you realize. And the only salve for those wounds will come when the Obots lose face. Complete, total, merciless loss of face: Nothing else will do.

No, we will never "get over" the primaries of 2008, just I never "got over" the Florida vote theft of 2000. I will not forget being called a racist every single day. I will not forget the lies. I will not forget the death threats. I will not forget the astro-turf hate messages (many from the same ISP in Chicago) that flooded my blog every day. I will not forget the totalitarian imagery and the Mao-like cult created by the Obama camapign. I will not forget seeing my own (former) party embrace tactics that would have made Lee Atwater blush. I will not forget the election fraud in the caucus states. I will not forget the disgusting and unforgivable treatment of Hillary's delegates at the convention.

As Richard Pryor said at the end of his most famous routine: "Y'all probably done forgot about it. Yuk, yuk, yuk... But I ain't never gonna forget."

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Are you sure Bill isn't responsible for Britney's haircut?

Cuz I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that he was.

RedDragon said...

From what I hear, the Clinton's were responsible for the demise of the Dinosaur also! You know they were also involved with Kennedy's assassination?

I freakin hate these fake ass Democrats. I would like to know where these so-called "Progs" were these past 8 years?

Hiding in their mama's basement i presume!

Anonymous said...

Couldn't we just as easily accuse the Obamanites of splitting the party?

Yes. I got mad at Lindorff during the primary.

I cannot forgive or forget the cheating during the primary. In addition to the caucus fraud, I think some pretty heavy money and threats went down before the convention.

Fran in Phila.

Mr. X said...

Yeah, being wrongfully called racist was the worst. Especially from people who were voting for Obama because he was black. I wouldn't mind the irony if it were anything else. But projecting their own racism onto others was the worst tactic of all. Obama used this as well. Always accusing the other of what he was doing himself. Bamboozle anyone?

I can't forget. Even if I want to.

makana44 said...

I can't tell you how grateful I am you clarified that for me. I've heard and read several places the last few weeks that Bill Clinton was responsible for repealing Glass-Steagall, the one who flung the gates open to the barbarians. I had a profound case of cognitive dissonance; even feeling shame and guilt. Thank goodness Al Gore invented the Internets :) or I might never have learned the truth.

Perry Logan said...

It's very simple. Real Democrats don't run smear campaigns.

I, too, was grossed out by the primary campaign, the misogyny, and the cheating. I ran with the PUMAs for a while, but then they grossed me out, too. NO QUARTER, where I was hanging out, quickly became as nasty as anything from the Obama camp, with right-wing smears flying everywhere.

Question: How would Democrats campaign if they couldn't use right-wing smears?

Anyway, when Obama finally took office, it was such a relief, I tried to put a good face on it. It was fun savoring the Republicans' humiliating defeat. So I went back to boosted Obama for a while...

Now, after at least one screw-up a day, even the progs seem aware they picked the wrong candidate. So I find myself switching gears again. Politics doth make fools of us all.

Meanwhile, I hope none of us is holding their breath waiting for that apology.

fif said...

I absolutely love the last section of this post. It articulates exactly how I feel about 2008, and my burning sense of injustice about the way Hillary Clinton and her supporters were treated by the so-called "progressives." They used every Rovian tactic available, and with delightful menace. I will never forget it, and I am enjoying watching them squirm as the truth about the true "Republican-lite" candidate is revealed.

OTE admin said...

The PUMA's ultimately turned me off with their absolute bullshit; Hilaryis44 comes to mind when it was obvious the proprietor wasn't a real Democrat at all or even pro-Hillary with his constant attacks on Democrats (calling them "Dimocraps," which gives that guy's game away). Despite my misgivings over Obama, which I mentioned time and again, I refrained from criticizing him much after he won. What was done was done, and the best we could and can do is try and force him to be a Democrat. I really wanted and still want him to succeed and do right by the people who elected him.

But I am scared of his neoliberal crap ultimately costing the Democrats in 2012. From Timmy and Larry to the truly putrid Arne Duncan, I am really worried.

This is one case where saying "I told you so" rings hollow.

gary said...

"Apologize and choose sides. You can join the Clinton wing of the Democratic party or you can be part of the anti-Clinton, pro-Obama wing. You cannot finesse your way between the two. You cannot have one from column A and one from column B. We will never allow that. You must choose."

Well, "you" will never allow that. I note that in the final paragraphs of your rant you use the more appropriate "I". Wait a minute, isn't Hillary Clinton Obama's Secretary of State? Don't the vast majority of Hillary supporters now support Obama? Don't the polls back this up? Will the PUMAs be virtually forgotten by history? I think so.

donna darko said...

Great post, Joe. You nailed it.

Hillaryis44 are Democrats. Democrats are Democrats' best critics. I also think the writers are women.

Anonymous said...

What Gary said above.

Obama's current 65-ish% percentage approval rating is almost all from the Democratic cohort, at 87% approve from them. (The GOP adds little to the number, subtracts a lot, at a 9% approve level).

Assuming the old Hillary/Obama split of the party at about 50-50 (and that might be close to the right number), you now have maybe the 13% total of those who favored Hillary against Obama now (and 37% favoring him). That's close to 3-1 of the old Hillary side we may infer now approve of Obama, and we may overestimating the dissenters from Obama on the old Hillary side. For some of those who were on the Obama side during the primaries are now in the disapproval numbers.

XI

OTE admin said...

No. Hillaryis44 is NOT Democratic, and yes, the proprietor was outed some time ago. It is a man who runs the site.

donna darko said...

PUMAs were right about Obama, the entire 2008 election, the mysterious forces behind the election (Wall Street and their media) and everything else.

Polls don't mean anything because people are not yet connecting Obama's actions with Obama. But they're getting there slowly.

DancingOpossum said...

Every single president has approval ratings at those numbers at this point of his presidency. Every one.

And as for Hillary being Secretary of State, I'm sure the Obotti would have preferred it if she just went away and licked her wounds and stayed out of the public light, in obscurity, like, forevah, but that isn't her way, and she isn't out to please any of you Obots. She's out for herself, as she damn well should be given her treatment by the party to whom she has shown nothing but loyalty and devotion. The SOS post is the least Obama could have done for her, it's the minimum down payment and I expect her to extract every last penny. God knows she deserves it.

Even in the face of Obama's total collapse into pure DLC Repub-lite, the Obamaites still can't face it. They are STILL whining about Hillary and the PUMAs. Get over yourselves, guys -- your guy won, as you were so fond of reminding us over and over and over and OVER. Now that he "won," it's all on him. He gets all the blame if he f's up because there's no Clinton around for him to blame.

Oh, but you also told us he could handle the job. Seems you were only right on one count.

Anonymous said...

Well, the fact that Clinton couldn't have done much with a veto when the final reconciliation bill came through with a veto-proof margin doesn't exactly show he was against the measure in question, per se.

Maybe (and apparently the case), he WAS against the original Gramm bill on the basis of opposing other things than the Glass-Steagal repeal-- things like the CRA, or certain financial privacy issues. (These concerned the Senate, whose original passage at 55-45 was close to party line voting, with the GOP mainly for, the Dems mainly against).

Once those ancillary issues were fixed in the House bill (passed on a voice vote), and those fixes included in the reconciliation bill presented for Clinton's signature, he, like most Democrats, apparently found it to his liking (only a handful of Democrats voted no on the final passage).

Which would figure, since both Rubin and Summers supported it, and a contemporaneous congratulatory message from the business community applauded Clinton and his Sec. Treas. along with the lead Republicans. And in the recent time frame, Clinton DEFENDED the repeal as a good thing:

In response to criticism of his signing the bill when President, Bill Clinton said in 2008:

"I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill ... On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence." [22] [Wiki article on the Gramm bill]

XI

donna darko said...

He's made things much worse with TARP, trillions in bank bailouts and the toxic assets which will destroy the economy and our country. Obama will be the only one to blame.

Zee said...

Excellent post, Joseph, and I hope Bob Fertik, one of my favorites in the progressive spheres, takes it to heart and does grovel and apologize as he should.

He is one of the few I bother to respond to when I still get an email notice...much in the same vein as you've written here...ie, wake the hell up!!!!

As for the useless comments here about PUMA, who the hell cares about the troglodytes who post "democrap" on PUMA sites? That would be like blaming Joseph because of what useless, aged gray-haired meglomaniacs, paid operatives, clowns, and LaRouchies posted here in the comments section.

Get a damned grip...you blowhards who are predicting failure for PUMA strike me as less interested in the goals therein and more like misogynistic pigs gloating...prematurely, however else? Much like the rest of your severely labored blowharding? No doubt.

Obviously, Susan, I am not talking about your frustration. Heaven knows I constantly provoke the ire of the lowest common denominator on PUMA sites ...the ones who use phrases like "democrap." There are plenty of good venues that only need conviction and earnest effort to remain viable. There are useless, petty PUMA sites which give soapboxes to clowns and which ban people and whine but there are also others run by leaders as open and sharp as Joseph. We need these places. And we have to endure regulars who might be dottering old blowhards or clowns or cultists or rightwing agenda trolls, etc, without tarring the blog leaders/owners for allowing the widest possible discourse.

Lori said...

By the way. Alex Rodriquez runs Hillary is 44 and he is absolutely a Democrat. He did work on the Perot campaign but he's come a long way since then. Dimocraps refers to the dems who are not standing up to Obama's shift to the far right.

I wouldn't use it but that doesn't mean that some people aren't pissed enough to do so. I don't know anything that Alex has gotten wrong yet and he makes some pretty strong statements.

He hasn't printed a single baseless smear yet, and has quite accurately predicted where Obama was going. There aren't many well-known Obama supporters about whom the same can be said.

donna darko said...

I read about Alex Rodriguez and he definitely sounds like a Democrat as head of OH Honest Elections in 2004 and on Hillaryis44. Perot is 1992.

I call them Dims all the time and I only voted Democratic.