How Obama Revolution Came to America

Accuracy in Media ^ | April 6, 2009 | Robert Chandler

[fretzer]

There are ten easy steps toward a progressive-socialist-Marxist civil society: change the popular consensus; destroy Christianity, the traditional family, and existing social mores; transform the culture; install a radical Left mind-control; attain political power; impose strict control of the military and law enforcement; restrict freedom; socialize the economy; erase American sovereignty; and embrace a world without borders.

[sickoflibs]

See #20 on Blue Dogs

[MissesBush]

SICKOFLIBS: You’re probably right—I think many of the Blue Dogs will want to keep their jobs rather than keep Haglosi happy. On the other hand, I worry that many could be ideologues who will say “The goal of national healthcare is more important than any one man’s career—including my own.” And I don’t underestimate Witchlosi and Oscumbo’s powers of arm twisting and threatening. You can bet all kind of threats will be made to pull campaign funding from these Blue Dogs if they stray on healthcare and any support from the party’s campaign committees. But who knows? Wretchlosi may prefer to keep a seat in Democratic hands even if it means losing the healthcare vote.

[nathanbedford]

This is approaching the level of Franz Kafka incoherence.

First, I never posted any article on this thread, although I did allude to one and furnish a link.

Second, I utterly reject an argument that those who warned against Barack Obama were hysterics because Bush was bad too. Think about it for a moment, besides being an argument resorting to relativism it is an utter non sequitur. What do Bush's sins have to do with being hysterical because one warns of Obama's sins? One simply does not prove the other.

Politics ultimately is the business of choosing. To kick kitty litter over an issue by saying, "nah, nah, nah your mother is one too," hardly advances our ability to choose. It is cynical and cheap, it is childish, it sounds clever but it is only a dodge from choosing, it moves us not 1 mm closer to a more perfect union.

[nathanbedford]

It is not so simple to predict the blue dogs will likely vote against health care to save their chances for reelection. The administration and the House leadership have a lot of tricks up their sleeves. Some blue dogs can simply be let off the hook because the Democrats have enough votes without them. Others they can buy off with spending or promises of committee advancement. Others can make a huge show of obtaining concessions from the administration which are ultimately meaningless, or which might be later swept away in reconciliation, but which nevertheless give the blue dog sufficient cover to vote for the bill.

We already know that the administration is threatening to avoid the filibuster process in the Senate by the nuclear option. There is a lot they can do in reconciliation by dividing up the more notorious provisions between a House version and a Senate version and giving their members cover by gaining concessions only to have the invidious provisions of the bill restored in conference. Later the representative or senator can say, I voted against that terrible provision but it was put back in conference.

I cannot predict what a majority of the blue dogs will do, I wager that many of them themselves do not know. But I don't think it's in the bag by any means.

[sickoflibs]

Cheer up gloomy freeper,

Those Tactics that worked for stimulus and cap and trade votes are not looking that good now because the Blue Dogs think they were setup (ala 1993+1994) and told Pelosi they wont support a bill unless the Senate can pass a bill. That is how Obama got caught at the press conference without a bill and looked very uncomfortable.

MSNBC liberals have been discussing reconciliation as a possibility and are very unhappy about the option. They cant get massive spending done easily and there would be expiration dates on it at a time when they are likely out of power. Instead they want Obama to beat Blue Dogs into submission like the commercials against them now but Obama would much prefer a bi-partision bill ( that would be his greatest victory beyond imagination) . reconciliation is Obama's gun on the table to scare republican RINOs but it is democrats that are becoming terrified now, not RINOs.

What we need is to counter a compromise between both parties moderates with a union of conservatives and liberal single payer democrats voting no. This is why I always say Pelosi is our best friend We need it to look like Obama failed to unite democrats, not that evil republicans stopped reform.

They can still pass things that are bad. But this is doing damage to them WAY beyond anything we could dream of the past 4 years, as Jim DeMint commented 'let's break them' .

[spintreebob]

unfortunately win, try some big stuff happened before get stuck.

We had the same thing in Illinois. Indicted Dem Gov Blago steadfastly refused to raise the income tax. If the RINO had won, there is no doubt in anyones mind that she would have done exactly what Blago's successor is now trying to do, raise the income tax.

The real question is:
Now that we are here, what do we do now?

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Now that we are here, what do we do now?”

Good question, Well for the next year we bring bills down as best we can. Sometime next year republicans will need some united simple theme like “We need to save this nation, help us take back America” for 2010 election.

Our best bet is to win back enough House and Senate seats to be able to block most things but not everything because we want them having the appearance of control for another 2 year cycle to have hopes of beating Obama. We do not want to be in control with a tiny margin to be blamed for all Obama’s defeats and when the economy goes bad again.

Then by 2012 we want democrat's polls to be where republican's were last year, maybe by then republicans will be something worthwhile, unlike now.

And Sarah Palin will not save the party, sorry to crush the Palin-ites. I know the 'Death Panel" line got you all excited as it did MSNBC(KO gave her a Special Comment LOL) .

[org.whodat]

Good question, Well for the next year we bring bills down as best we can. Sometime next year republicans will need some united simple theme like “We need to save this nation, help us take back America” for 2010 election.

Wrong, with the stupid party it way past themes. It's put up are shut up. I want to see proof that they are for the people that pull the leaver and not the tarp hogs on wall street. If the republicans don't have sense enough to run against wall street and the bailout's. And putting people in jail and getting our money back, Then they are the cooked goose party. I'm not drinking any lame brain theme BS the government cannot be in the game of picking business winners and losers.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Wrong, with the stupid party it way past themes. It’s put up are shut up....”

I agree but my plan at that post gives them till 2012 to do that. I would be happy if democrats lost more ability to get things done in 2010 but with republicans still not in charge, as I said.

Honestly I have no faith in Republican party for anything. They only oppose Obama now because it is politically opportune to do so. I think gridlock is our best bet.

[PhilCollins]

Republicans will gain seats, in 2010, only if they campaign together, similarly to the Contract with America. They should promise that, if Republicans regain control of both Houses of Congress, they’ll pass a set of about five bills, including cutting tax rates to the 1988 rates, repealing all laws that violate the 10th Amendment, and tripling fines, for employers, who hire illegal aliens. The money, from those fines, would be used to build a brick wall, along the Mexican border, and to hire border patrol agents.

[freekitty]

Get real; you don’t know anymore than we do.

[sickoflibs]

RE :” Get real; you don’t know anymore than we do.”

YES I DO!!! LOL

Maybe but I couldn't help notice how clueless republicans were last two years. One of my favorites was when congressional opinion poll approval went into teens (<20%) and many freepers claimed that was good and meant that democrats would lose election in 2008.

Then there was the “McCain will save us from democrats” posts, yes and the ‘McCain is going to win because voters don't want change’ posts. Then there were the "Obama will be able to pass anything he wants" posts.

I think one problem is that many here isolate themselves to those that agree with them. Follow the crowd. talk radio encourages us to do that. You really have to see what others think even if you disagree. Know your enemy.

[freekitty]

Your last paragraph is bs.

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

“RE :”Now that we are here, what do we do now?”

Blow the place apart. Period.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Republicans will gain seats, in 2010, only if they campaign together, similarly to the Contract with America.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

It is not so simple to predict the blue dogs will likely vote against health care to save their chances for reelection. The administration and the House leadership have a lot of tricks up their sleeves. Some blue dogs can simply be let off the hook because the Democrats have enough votes without them. Others they can buy off with spending or promises of committee advancement. Others can make a huge show of obtaining concessions from the administration which are ultimately meaningless, or which might be later swept away in reconciliation, but which nevertheless give the blue dog sufficient cover to vote for the bill.

All of the above is possible. In addition, some congressnuts claim that they don't care whether they are reelected or not. They, the political Kamikazes, may be the most dangerous of all, because if, in spite of all the popular opposition, they pass Crap and Trade, BHOcare, amnesty, etc., it's unlikely that we would gain a veto-proof majority in 2010.

[PhilCollins]

That’s a great cartoon. It worked in 1994, so it would work, in 2010, especially since Obama is more liberal than Clinton.

[lakertaker]

Looks like 1976-1980.

Palin may not be the answer to the GOP but I am old enough to remember when some were saying Reagan was unelectable in 1980.

I do agree with your strategery. BHO seems to love the blame game so as little ammo he can get the better.

You can turn me into Flag@Whitehouse.org

[Impy]

I hope the sharks are hungry.

[Impy]

The parallels with 93-94 are eerie.