shame, shame, shame on mr hartmann

20 posts / 0 new
Last post
telliottmbamsc
telliottmbamsc's picture

The democrats were "in Control"  when they had the house, senate and congress. 

In my book "majority" means the same thing as "control" and if you can't get something done when you are "in control" or have the house, senate and congress or "majority" it means that the party that is "in Control" is a bunch of ineffective politicians.  For instance, the Democratic National Committee says either vote for the disclosure act or resort to selling baked goods cause you won't be getting a penny from us, or the President uses the bully pulpit effectively, etc. back door dealing. 

We all sat back and watched how Obama allowed Sealaska corp to clear cut mile after square mile of virign old growth Pacific Northwest Rainforest to get a vote on HealthCare so DO NOT make excuses for the democrats having majority but not being in control because they couldn't get the votes. 

Obama and the democrats had an interest that was served by not having that disclosure act pass.

Please call the caller back and apologies to him.

Thank you,

Comments

playa-gal
playa-gal's picture
Thom said today that Glenn

Thom said today that Glenn Beck has never directly talked about killing a specific person.  Actually he said he wanted to kill Michael Moore.  He even discussed hiring someone to do it vs. doing it himself!

So far as I recall, Thom, Stephanie, Ed, and Randi have never discussed killing opponents let alone specific individuals.  Liberals are too quick to accept the false equivalencies comparing the right and left pushed by the right and the main-stream media.

DRC
DRC's picture
I was hoping Thom would

I was hoping Thom would remember the Michael Moore soliloquy.  Thom is trying to be fair and nice when he only cites what he knows, so if he does not know or remember everything, don't get too upset.  

Thom has been very careful about false equivalency too.  I think it is unfair to tag him with that.

As for the "majority," please grow up and get real.  The Corporate Consensus has been in place for a long time.  If it is the entire GOP bought and enough Dems rented to get their way in the cash for votes electoral sell out we allow to pass as democracy, recognize that the party label is not where the politics really divide.  It is disingenuous or "lying" to pretend that Progressives or even "Liberals" have had the leverage to reverse the Corporate Majority's agenda.  The best they have done is to prevent it's utter domination and gain some concessions.  This did not begin with Obama.

The last Liberal in office was Johnson, with a cameo appearance by Carter.

Caleb
Caleb's picture
Thom has very often said that

Thom has very often said that both many Republicans and Dems are controlled by corprate interests. He has said that perhaps all of the Republicans are -- with a a few exceptions, perhaps a senator from Maine among them. And that many, many Democrats are.

Thom makes the point time and time again that many Dems are Dems in name only -- that is, they do the behest of their corporate masters who give them money. He told the story of an ex-representative who quit politics after a lobbyist from business told him: "We have a million dollars to spend on this campaign. Do you want us to spend it helping you or destroying you?"

Progressive Dems clearly have not had control of the house, the senate and seem not to control the White House. (Remember Rahm's insults, Gibb's taunts, etc.)

I think Thom is absolutely correct and is throwing cold water on us to wake us up to what is going on.

Republicans follow orders. Democrats are more like cats and will never march together in a dogsled combination. Will Rogers: "I'm not a member of any organized party -- I'm a democrat."

12jkwilkes17
12jkwilkes17's picture
Sorry, don't get the

Sorry, don't get the complaint.  Thom was correct.

Anyway, didn't see these other comments about Beck until now.  Posted a message about that.  Beck also fantacized about poisoning Nancy Pelosi's wine.

There's more.

mattnapa
mattnapa's picture
 Thom was correct about what

 Thom was correct about what exactly?

Dusty
Dusty's picture
DRC - As for the "majority,"

DRC - As for the "majority," please grow up and get real.

Good advice - try it on yourself.

mtdon
mtdon's picture
What's old and tired is the

What's old and tired is the arguement "obama means well - if the bluedogs or those pesky republicans only let him he'd turn into FDR"

THAT is complete BS.......

When will we hold obama accountable for his ACTIONS?

NEVER is the answer.......  support Obama as he turns America into a banking cartel and help bring about the downfall of the working people....

"But Obama really wants to do the right thing!"

Obama campaigned against the democratic candidate and for Lieberman -  and then Lieberman was a vote against any sort of true reform in health care......

Obama appointed all the Banksters to run his economic policy

Obama personally killed the Volker Rule

Obama has sided w/ republicans and the blue dogs tenfold more than he's supported any progressive candidate or policy.....

etc etc etc

and i'm really tired of the "Obama is a good and decent man"  and that Daley was a brilliant choice and reagan was basically a decent person.....

when people say this I say  HOW do they know this?

the facts say otherwise.......

and when you ONLY talk about the Repub's you are only talking about 1/2 of the story -  and are in fact being intellectually dishonest.....

I used to expect more and expect bettter from the left......

But we don't have a left -  only democrats - 

2008 saw a huge increase in turnout from the youth and 1st time voters -  people who BELIEVED -  well now we've created another generation of disaffected and cynical non-believers -  but that's all fine AS LONG AS THE DEMS WIN

we play into the repub's strategy when we allow the disaffected to increase and decrease voting turnout......

And economically there is no discernible difference between the dem's and repub's -  both are captured.....

Don't beleive me?  then you may be one of those people still surprised by Obama's actions...... try this:

the next time Obama is going to make an announcement on some sort of policy issue -  say what would that cynic say about it and then see what ahppens....  you won't be surprised is my guess...... as Obama does not surprise me anymore - 

and next he's coming after your Social Security  to pay off his bankster buddies......

louisehartmann
louisehartmann's picture
Actually - Thom just had a

Actually - Thom just had a brain fart and forgot about the Beck/Moore audio. He's allowed a brain fart once in while.

DRC
DRC's picture
Dusty, I was complaining

Dusty, I was complaining about another bogus talking point that ignores political reality.  Nuance matters here, and Thom's point about the Liberal/Progressives not having ever had a legislative majority since Johnson is correct.  And even then, we had to commit political suicide to get the moral results of Civil Rights.  And, of course, we keep being told that the Republicans were the party of Civil Rights while the Southern Dems were the segregationists as if these Dixiecrats did not move seamlessly into the GOP.

Those who want the Democrats to be as effective at reform as the ruling party is at enforcing the order of the powers that be are not being honest about how things are; and just to express disgust at the situation is not to bring any strategy about how to fix it.

I am perfectly willing to debate ideas with you,  Dusty, but you tend to make it personal rather than about how to get anywhere.  I get the impression that you think I need to be converted to something or sent to camp to get over some bad ideology rather than able to be persuaded by evidence and ideas.  The point of growing up is that being angry is only where to begin.  I think one can hold the big perspective and still find useful things to do in the meantime.  Some of these things just help people in distress.  Others help build the constituency of opposition by stripping away the illusions.

What I am certain about is that fewer people will be persuaded to look at their own delusions by insults and indictments than they will by human contact.  A major reason to continue to work "within the system" is that there are many people there.  If the system proves not to work, those who have been working with these people will have a better chance of convincing them to try something better.

When I work the inside, I really like the street theater and outside movement activists--as long as they don't make me their enemy.  I don't insult them or act as if their protests were not based in good perceptions of reality.  I don't make the gap between political possibility and good policy the fault of the latter.  It is a way of talking about better government instead of just complaining about how screwed we are.

Anyway, maturity is not a state we achieve and maintain with the perfection we think we do.  I am always "growing up" I hope.  What I would appreciate is more of your thinking and less of your complaints.  No insult intended.

norske
norske's picture
"Actually - Thom just had a

"Actually - Thom just had a brain fart and forgot about the Beck/Moore audio. He's allowed a brain fart once in while." LH

lol.

I'm not close to being in Thom's league but I read for an average of 4 hours a day at about 3000 wpm. There are many times (Too many as of late) where I have the information somewhere in the nether regions of my brain but not quite accessible...until the pressure is off and it comes pouring out. Kinda like the Socratic method of asking one student the answer which takes the pressure off of the others to come up with the answer.

I prefer books to web sites but the computer has been a savior of sorts for my wife. I used to bring piles of books and magazines home weekly which became sort of a family joke as we were running out of places to keep them.

 

DRC
DRC's picture
As we get older and our

As we get older and our mental hard drive becomes overloaded, information retrieval may become less efficient and "cross wiring" occur more often.  Instead of moaning about aging, I just accept the fact that knowing too much to remember is OK.  Most of the time, when I stop trying to remember, the file comes up on its own.  Bottom line, being human is better than being the perfect computer even if human error makes certainty and systems planning a joke we play on ourselves.

pict
pict's picture
DRC wrote: Dusty, I was

DRC wrote:

Dusty, I was complaining about another bogus talking point that ignores political reality.  Nuance matters here, and Thom's point about the Liberal/Progressives not having ever had a legislative majority since Johnson is correct.  And even then, we had to commit political suicide to get the moral results of Civil Rights.  And, of course, we keep being told that the Republicans were the party of Civil Rights while the Southern Dems were the segregationists as if these Dixiecrats did not move seamlessly into the GOP.

Those who want the Democrats to be as effective at reform as the ruling party is at enforcing the order of the powers that be are not being honest about how things are; and just to express disgust at the situation is not to bring any strategy about how to fix it.

I am perfectly willing to debate ideas with you,  Dusty, but you tend to make it personal rather than about how to get anywhere.  I get the impression that you think I need to be converted to something or sent to camp to get over some bad ideology rather than able to be persuaded by evidence and ideas.  The point of growing up is that being angry is only where to begin.  I think one can hold the big perspective and still find useful things to do in the meantime.  Some of these things just help people in distress.  Others help build the constituency of opposition by stripping away the illusions.

What I am certain about is that fewer people will be persuaded to look at their own delusions by insults and indictments than they will by human contact.  A major reason to continue to work "within the system" is that there are many people there.  If the system proves not to work, those who have been working with these people will have a better chance of convincing them to try something better.

When I work the inside, I really like the street theater and outside movement activists--as long as they don't make me their enemy.  I don't insult them or act as if their protests were not based in good perceptions of reality.  I don't make the gap between political possibility and good policy the fault of the latter.  It is a way of talking about better government instead of just complaining about how screwed we are.

Anyway, maturity is not a state we achieve and maintain with the perfection we think we do.  I am always "growing up" I hope.  What I would appreciate is more of your thinking and less of your complaints.  No insult intended.

So, you explain your complaining by asking others to complain less? 

Got it.

You accuse Dusty of tending to make things personal but apparently believe that when you tell someone to grow up and get real that is not personal and is not an insult?

Got it.

You suggest that a more worthwhile alternative to complaining is to "help build the constituency of opposition by stripping away the illusions." Yet when we attempt to strip away those illusions you accuse us of complaining.

Got it.

I am getting as sick of your words as I am of Obama's speeches.

 

 

norske
norske's picture
"Most of the time, when I

"Most of the time, when I stop trying to remember, the file comes up on its own." DRC

Which is exactly how it works in the class room. Simply speaking the brain resets itself when the person sitting next to the person asked the question is "off the hook". A friend of mine at UCLA wrote his thesis on this subject and others took that and ran with it......Works with dogs also.

norske
norske's picture
Different strokes for

Different strokes for different folks.....which is why poly is so popular here.

If a DRC wants to work within the framework of the system to reform the Democratic party....that's cool.

If me or a Dusty wants to hold Obama accountable for the same things we held Bush/Cheney accountable for....that's cool also.

There is no need to convert one side to the other as in practice both approaches are complementary, or should be.

The problems arise, as I see it, is when one side asserts that their way is the only way. Both sides do it and that does wear thin. Speaking for myself, I try to point out the inconsistencies and hypocrisy in the Obama admin. and hold truth to power....regardless of who is in office. I could care less what another persons opinion is....unless said opinion attempts to disenfranchise my position with zero rational/logical arguments.

How often does a poly get upset or vent his frustration on another person...no matter how obtuse?

It's possible to take a strong stance while remaining neutral on the personal level....which I struggle with frequently.

Pretzelogic in ...
Pretzelogic in Philly PA's picture
   @DRC - In all seriousness,

   @DRC - In all seriousness, are you new to the subject of American politics?  The Democratic majority was remarkably effective... in the House.  As of October, the Senate, on the other hand, had failed to act on no less than 420 bills passed by the House.  Ah yes, the Senate... where all good ideas seemed to go to die.

   There's a Senate rule/tradition, called the "filibuster" (not to be found anywhere in the Constitution, of course, though the Constitution does establish that the houses of the Congress can establish their own rules of procedure).  This rule was traditionally used sparingly by the minority party at any given time.  While its use has increased somewhat in the last few years, the Rape-Public-CON Senate minority in the last Congress (2008-2010) sharply increased the use of that procedure - a record 275 filibusters.

   To help put this in context, consider that the first Senate filibuster happened in 1837, but the procedure was rarely used at all until the 1960s.  Use spiked a bit in the 70s & 80s - there were typically ~ 40-50 filibusters per Congressional (two-year) session.  In the early 90s, use increased again to ~ 80 or so per session, but then began to level off again so that by 2004 it was back down to about 60 filibusters or so.  In the 109th Congress, there were a total of 54 filibusters.  Then, in the 110th - 275 of them.

   Furthermore, in contrast to the public image of Senators nobly talking in support of their cause until their voices give out, in the most recent iteration of the rule it was merely necessary to "invoke" it - no one actually needed to say anything on the Senate floor.  Once invoked, a 60 vote "supermajority" was required to end it - a corresponding procedure called "cloture".  And once invoked, there was a mandatory amount of time required to be set aside for "debate" on the measure before a cloture vote could even be held (with additional mandatory time set aside for further debate after).

  Consider, if you will, that the same Rape-Public-CONS who, only a few short years ago responded to the Democrats' comparatively limited use of this procedure by threatening to invoke what the CONS themselves called the "nuclear option" to end the filibuster altogether, were now the same ones using that same procedure a record (by far) number of times, even on measures that they knew they would (and, in fact, did) ultimately vote to support! I.e., this was just a stalling tactic to prevent the Senate from taking up other business.  This is why many Democrats, and others, referred to the CONS' use of this procedure in the 110th as ABUSE.  Check the Constitution - the framers did not envision the Senate as requiring a "supermajority" to move legislation!

For more information on the filibuster, see:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate 
* http://www.examiner.com/democrat-in-san-francisco/democrats-take-up-the-good-fight-to-reform-the-senate?render=print
* Google

   If any/all of this is really news to you, your accusations of political incompetence were understandably naive.   Of course, if you were actually already aware of the filibuster situation, your own argument was disingenuous to say the least (and to put it as kindly as possible).  Your point about the insidious influence of corporate lobbying is very well taken, however.

mattnapa
mattnapa's picture
 I assume Thom will make of

 I assume Thom will make of point of correcting the error on the air?

sashasue
sashasue's picture
While we're talking about

While we're talking about Glenn Beck, he also called for "shooting them [progressives] in the head" on June 9, 2010:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcNwACyoRto

louisehartmann
louisehartmann's picture
He already did on the air -

He already did on the air - yesterday. He had a brain fart - it's allowed once in while....

chilidog
telliottmbamsc wrote: We all

telliottmbamsc wrote:

We all sat back and watched how Obama allowed Sealaska corp to clear cut mile after square mile of virign old growth Pacific Northwest Rainforest to get a vote on HealthCare

What's this all about?