leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-07-08 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
78. He's a free market true believer and a die-hard supporter of corporations.
He's basically a supply-side kind of guy, so this mumbo-jumbo made sense to him.
His top economic advisors would not be out of place in a bush administration (except for their competence).
I am disappointed though that he exhibited the same kind of gullibility that the "democrats" in Congress exhibited toward king george for the last seven years. That gullibility is so head-scratchingly inexplicable that one's thoughts inevitably stray toward the word "accomplice."-----
The comment was in response to this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7959915Why do you think Obama was in favor of the Bush/Paulson BAILOUT SCAM??
Most of the country saw right through all the Henny Penny stuff and knew better than to trust Paulson or anyone else in the Bush administration ~ and yet Obama was all for it. Sure, he listed a few protections that should be included ~ but supported the bill even though those protections were not included, in spite of endless emails and calls from wise voters.
The bailout amounted to yet another pillaging of this country by a band of criminals ~ an early October Surprise.
It makes no sense to me that someone as intelligent as Obama would fall for this scam. Why do you think he supported it??----------------------------
First of all, I don't see any reference to CounterPunch. Nor do I see any evidence of sleaziness. The OP poses a quite good question. I have wondered about this myself. Why did Obama support the bailout? Did he feel he had no choice? Was he hemmed in? (It was just before the election.) Was this some sort of blackmail? Did he really think it was wise to give this humungous amount of money to the Bush Junta, with virtually no oversight, a few months before they are outa here? And if he disagreed with the bailout or its terms, why didn't he (or why couldn't he) say so? All legitimate questions, and, indeed, essential questions for the people of this country. What the hell was going on with this? Why did Obama so readily agree to what most Americans considered foolish and wrong? We're bailing out a pyramid scheme by the super-rich, with zillions of dollars through Bushwhack fingers?!
The commenter (#78) answers that he is thinking the word "accomplice" with regard to our Democratic Party leaders over the last seven years. That is not an unreasonable, nor even a particularly leftist (Counterpunchy), comment, considering that the American people have given our 2006 Democratic Congress a 10% approval rating. They have failed us, is the general opinion. His target is general--the Democratic leaders. He does not use this word on Obama exactly, but he does criticize him as "gullible." He says he is disappointed. I have to say I am, too. I thought Obama would at least insist on oversight, and also some "trickle down" money. My conclusion is not "gullibility," though. My conclusion is blackmail, or fear of some kind, something we can't see. Obama's position on the bailout is otherwise inexplicable to me. I think he is very intelligent, and also has a good heart and good instincts. I think he was "over a barrel" in some way.
My nagging question is: What on earth do the Bushwhacks HAVE on our Democratic leaders, what "barrel" are they holding them all over, to extract such a heavy price--basically, the total bankruptcy of the U.S. unto the 7th generation and beyond? And I felt the same way about impeachment, and about the escalation of the Iraq War, with billions and billions more dollars handed over to the Bushwhacks, by a Democratic Congress that was elected to END the war.
Real uneasiness, based on my belief that most of our Democratic leaders--though there is hardly a one of them who can prove that he or she was actually elected, given the 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting with virtually no audit/recount controls (none, in half the systems in the country)--are at least partially interested in protecting the interests of the American people, some more than others. I do not have any such belief in the Bushwhacks. I think every last Republican leader in this land is a traitor to our country and our people. The Democrats are more complicated, with mixed motives, some good, some bad. And they have been struggling with a fascist junta. Out of power, really out of power--kicked to curb by these nazis. I'm sure many have looked on with utter dismay at what the Bushwhacks have done, and have felt as powerless as the rest of us, even if they are more privileged than the most of us. Other D's have actively colluded. Where does Obama fit in? Obviously, he has been successfully vetted by the global corporate predators and war profiteers who rule over us, or he wouldn't have gotten anywhere in the 'TRADE SECRET' voting system, or with the corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies. He wouldn't be let anywhere near the White House if he hadn't passed the 'Bilderburg Group' vetting. But that doesn't mean he's one of the evildoers. I don't think he is. I think he may view his role differently than those who vetted him. They wanted someone to calm things down a bit, and distract us, while they conducted the final looting--and someone they could easily Diebold out of office in 2012, after thoroughly destroying the country and blaming it on him and "the liberals." He sees himself as the one who can let us down gently, our rescuer. I think he's hemmed in by the realities of our situation, and his own. He figured you can't do anything if you don't have power. (We should be thinking this about transparent vote counting!). He is quite right. So he's made deals and agreed to some things--some of which we know about, some of which we don't--in order to achieve power, that he might not have liked, and would never have initiated. Moving the Forever War to Afghanistan. The unaccountable bailout.
My conclusion: The Bush Cartel is extremely dangerous, and that danger is no less lethal with Bush-Cheney out of office. They cannot have done what they have done without, a) Democrats who are complicit, and b) Democrats who are fearful. Their spying maybe? Fear of nuclear holocaust? Fear of Diebold and ES&S? I don't know. I don't think it was easy to get the Bush Junta to leave, on schedule, when their term was up. I think someone had to convince them to exit the White House, when the time comes. And I think "no impeachment" (and continued immunity from a mind-boggling list of crimes) was part of that deal. But they remain the murderous, unbelievably greedy and conscienceless criminal enterprise that they have been all along. This is the circumstance in which Obama ran for president, and has offered himself as a "good emperor" to somewhat ease our pain and restore some sort of credibility to the government.
To get back to your point, this kind of criticism--which I have just written--is essential to our understanding of our government and the powers that have control of it. I may be wrong on some points--or on all points--but I am not ill-willed--neither toward Obama, nor toward my life-long political party. I think it's essential that we keep our eyes open, and fully face our situation. We cannot make good strategic decisions, as individuals (where to put our energies), or as a leftist democracy movement, or as a political party (what policies to formulate, propose and fight for), if we do not really understand what is going on in this Byzantine 'Roman Empire' that the USA has become.
I feel kinship with the comments of LeftOfDial, and of the poser of the original question in the OP you cited.
Why do you think Obama was in favor of the Bush/Paulson BAILOUT SCAM?? A good question. The kind of question we need to be asking. LeftOfDial answered the question, to the point. And I don't understand your citation of that answer as an example of sleazy trashing of Obama. It just isn't. He thinks Obama is gullible and possibly complicit in the bailout, and a free-marketer. Well? Has Obama said anything to remove that impression? I don't fully agree with LeftOfDial's assessment of the situation, but I think it is a fair one. ALSO, it's something Obama should KNOW--that some people, who are inclined to be on his side, feel he's complicit.
Do you have another example of what you have described as a pervasive dissing of Obama at DU over the last few weeks? I hadn't noticed this. I see a lot of good questions being raised, and thought-provoking posts. I've seen strong criticisms of his appointments. (I've made some myself.) And I've seen A LOT of good will toward Obama. Where is your evidence that this is not a reasonable, useful and even essential discussion that we have been having about our new president?