![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From Twitter 12-07-2010
Dec. 8th, 2010 02:03 amTweets copied by twittinesis.com
Dec. 8th, 2010
Yes, I'm sending this out. Today.
Dec. 8th, 2010 11:11 amSenator Russell Feingold
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4904
Mr. Feingold;
I write to you today asking you to reconsider a decision you announced recently- that you would not oppose President Barack Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries.
The events of the past forty-eight hours, in which Mr. Obama announced a back-room deal with Republicans that surrendered yet another of Obama's campaign promises for nothing new in return, and then called his allies "sanctimonious" for opposing his compromises, have made it clear beyond all doubt that our president is completely unwilling to stand for any of the issues that we elected him to support. Obama is completely unwilling to fight the Republicans on any issue- and far too willing to fight his own party on every issue.
I cannot and will not support such a man in 2012- nor will many like me. If Barack Obama receives the Democratic nomination in 2012, it is my judgment that the Republicans will win the White House, retake the Senate and expand their House majority in that election. The people Obama calls "sanctimonious" and "the professional left" will either vote third party or stay home in November rather than support Obama again- giving Republicans just enough of an edge to allow even a Sarah Palin to be elected.
The only real hope that progressives and liberals have for advancing their cause before Republicans bring another dark age on this country is that some Democrat, with a history of taking courageous stands and fighting the good fight, will put up a credible challenge to Barack Obama and deny him the Democratic nomination. This may, I admit, lead to a Republican victory in the general election afterwards; but as I believe Obama doomed to defeat regardless, I do not think there is any harm in the attempt.
The list of Democrats who could credibly make such a challenge is a very short one indeed- and your name is on top of the list. As one of a tiny minority who opposed the Iraq war, as the sole senator who opposed the USA-PATRIOT Act, and as your several battles against Obama's administration on health care, stimulus and taxes show, you are a man of principle and courage, willing to defy the party and even your party's President when your conscience dictates.
Furthermore, despite being principled, you are not a blind ideologue. Your shift on the right of self-defense and the means thereof is a clear example. You have demonstrated willingness to change your views when presented with contrary evidence and sound reasoning- and to overcome party power politics to find genuine common ground (as opposed to Obama's unilateral surrender) with individuals on the other side of the aisle.
Please consider what the past two years of Obama's leadership has cost you: a disaffected and dispirited base, a cold shoulder from the White House come re-election time, and a wave election that has (I hope temporarily) swept you out of office despite the personal approval of your constituents. It is entirely fair to say that Obama is the direct cause of your defeat- and if current trends continue, how many other Democratic lawmakers will lose their seats in 2012?
I admit that I am only one man, and by no means a rich man. My social circle is small, my financial means limited. Yet I will do all in my power to support you and to organize support for you should you consent to seek the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. This is support that will never again go to Barack Obama for any reason or purpose. I have no doubt that there are thousands, perhaps millions who feel as I do- that the man who campaigned as "Change we can believe in" is no change at all and must be replaced.
I urge you, as someone who believes it time to end supply-side economics and the gradual strangling of the working class and the lower class, to reconsider your decision and challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President in 2012. If the Democratic Party and the progressive cause is to be saved, it must first be rescued from a president with no interest in defending it. You are the best hope progressives have in the coming election. Please do not let us down.
Sincerely yours,
Kristan Overstreet
Livingston, TX
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4904
Mr. Feingold;
I write to you today asking you to reconsider a decision you announced recently- that you would not oppose President Barack Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries.
The events of the past forty-eight hours, in which Mr. Obama announced a back-room deal with Republicans that surrendered yet another of Obama's campaign promises for nothing new in return, and then called his allies "sanctimonious" for opposing his compromises, have made it clear beyond all doubt that our president is completely unwilling to stand for any of the issues that we elected him to support. Obama is completely unwilling to fight the Republicans on any issue- and far too willing to fight his own party on every issue.
I cannot and will not support such a man in 2012- nor will many like me. If Barack Obama receives the Democratic nomination in 2012, it is my judgment that the Republicans will win the White House, retake the Senate and expand their House majority in that election. The people Obama calls "sanctimonious" and "the professional left" will either vote third party or stay home in November rather than support Obama again- giving Republicans just enough of an edge to allow even a Sarah Palin to be elected.
The only real hope that progressives and liberals have for advancing their cause before Republicans bring another dark age on this country is that some Democrat, with a history of taking courageous stands and fighting the good fight, will put up a credible challenge to Barack Obama and deny him the Democratic nomination. This may, I admit, lead to a Republican victory in the general election afterwards; but as I believe Obama doomed to defeat regardless, I do not think there is any harm in the attempt.
The list of Democrats who could credibly make such a challenge is a very short one indeed- and your name is on top of the list. As one of a tiny minority who opposed the Iraq war, as the sole senator who opposed the USA-PATRIOT Act, and as your several battles against Obama's administration on health care, stimulus and taxes show, you are a man of principle and courage, willing to defy the party and even your party's President when your conscience dictates.
Furthermore, despite being principled, you are not a blind ideologue. Your shift on the right of self-defense and the means thereof is a clear example. You have demonstrated willingness to change your views when presented with contrary evidence and sound reasoning- and to overcome party power politics to find genuine common ground (as opposed to Obama's unilateral surrender) with individuals on the other side of the aisle.
Please consider what the past two years of Obama's leadership has cost you: a disaffected and dispirited base, a cold shoulder from the White House come re-election time, and a wave election that has (I hope temporarily) swept you out of office despite the personal approval of your constituents. It is entirely fair to say that Obama is the direct cause of your defeat- and if current trends continue, how many other Democratic lawmakers will lose their seats in 2012?
I admit that I am only one man, and by no means a rich man. My social circle is small, my financial means limited. Yet I will do all in my power to support you and to organize support for you should you consent to seek the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. This is support that will never again go to Barack Obama for any reason or purpose. I have no doubt that there are thousands, perhaps millions who feel as I do- that the man who campaigned as "Change we can believe in" is no change at all and must be replaced.
I urge you, as someone who believes it time to end supply-side economics and the gradual strangling of the working class and the lower class, to reconsider your decision and challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President in 2012. If the Democratic Party and the progressive cause is to be saved, it must first be rescued from a president with no interest in defending it. You are the best hope progressives have in the coming election. Please do not let us down.
Sincerely yours,
Kristan Overstreet
Livingston, TX
Yes, I'm sending this out. Today.
Dec. 8th, 2010 11:11 amSenator Russell Feingold
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4904
Mr. Feingold;
I write to you today asking you to reconsider a decision you announced recently- that you would not oppose President Barack Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries.
The events of the past forty-eight hours, in which Mr. Obama announced a back-room deal with Republicans that surrendered yet another of Obama's campaign promises for nothing new in return, and then called his allies "sanctimonious" for opposing his compromises, have made it clear beyond all doubt that our president is completely unwilling to stand for any of the issues that we elected him to support. Obama is completely unwilling to fight the Republicans on any issue- and far too willing to fight his own party on every issue.
I cannot and will not support such a man in 2012- nor will many like me. If Barack Obama receives the Democratic nomination in 2012, it is my judgment that the Republicans will win the White House, retake the Senate and expand their House majority in that election. The people Obama calls "sanctimonious" and "the professional left" will either vote third party or stay home in November rather than support Obama again- giving Republicans just enough of an edge to allow even a Sarah Palin to be elected.
The only real hope that progressives and liberals have for advancing their cause before Republicans bring another dark age on this country is that some Democrat, with a history of taking courageous stands and fighting the good fight, will put up a credible challenge to Barack Obama and deny him the Democratic nomination. This may, I admit, lead to a Republican victory in the general election afterwards; but as I believe Obama doomed to defeat regardless, I do not think there is any harm in the attempt.
The list of Democrats who could credibly make such a challenge is a very short one indeed- and your name is on top of the list. As one of a tiny minority who opposed the Iraq war, as the sole senator who opposed the USA-PATRIOT Act, and as your several battles against Obama's administration on health care, stimulus and taxes show, you are a man of principle and courage, willing to defy the party and even your party's President when your conscience dictates.
Furthermore, despite being principled, you are not a blind ideologue. Your shift on the right of self-defense and the means thereof is a clear example. You have demonstrated willingness to change your views when presented with contrary evidence and sound reasoning- and to overcome party power politics to find genuine common ground (as opposed to Obama's unilateral surrender) with individuals on the other side of the aisle.
Please consider what the past two years of Obama's leadership has cost you: a disaffected and dispirited base, a cold shoulder from the White House come re-election time, and a wave election that has (I hope temporarily) swept you out of office despite the personal approval of your constituents. It is entirely fair to say that Obama is the direct cause of your defeat- and if current trends continue, how many other Democratic lawmakers will lose their seats in 2012?
I admit that I am only one man, and by no means a rich man. My social circle is small, my financial means limited. Yet I will do all in my power to support you and to organize support for you should you consent to seek the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. This is support that will never again go to Barack Obama for any reason or purpose. I have no doubt that there are thousands, perhaps millions who feel as I do- that the man who campaigned as "Change we can believe in" is no change at all and must be replaced.
I urge you, as someone who believes it time to end supply-side economics and the gradual strangling of the working class and the lower class, to reconsider your decision and challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President in 2012. If the Democratic Party and the progressive cause is to be saved, it must first be rescued from a president with no interest in defending it. You are the best hope progressives have in the coming election. Please do not let us down.
Sincerely yours,
Kristan Overstreet
Livingston, TX
506 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4904
Mr. Feingold;
I write to you today asking you to reconsider a decision you announced recently- that you would not oppose President Barack Obama in the 2012 Democratic primaries.
The events of the past forty-eight hours, in which Mr. Obama announced a back-room deal with Republicans that surrendered yet another of Obama's campaign promises for nothing new in return, and then called his allies "sanctimonious" for opposing his compromises, have made it clear beyond all doubt that our president is completely unwilling to stand for any of the issues that we elected him to support. Obama is completely unwilling to fight the Republicans on any issue- and far too willing to fight his own party on every issue.
I cannot and will not support such a man in 2012- nor will many like me. If Barack Obama receives the Democratic nomination in 2012, it is my judgment that the Republicans will win the White House, retake the Senate and expand their House majority in that election. The people Obama calls "sanctimonious" and "the professional left" will either vote third party or stay home in November rather than support Obama again- giving Republicans just enough of an edge to allow even a Sarah Palin to be elected.
The only real hope that progressives and liberals have for advancing their cause before Republicans bring another dark age on this country is that some Democrat, with a history of taking courageous stands and fighting the good fight, will put up a credible challenge to Barack Obama and deny him the Democratic nomination. This may, I admit, lead to a Republican victory in the general election afterwards; but as I believe Obama doomed to defeat regardless, I do not think there is any harm in the attempt.
The list of Democrats who could credibly make such a challenge is a very short one indeed- and your name is on top of the list. As one of a tiny minority who opposed the Iraq war, as the sole senator who opposed the USA-PATRIOT Act, and as your several battles against Obama's administration on health care, stimulus and taxes show, you are a man of principle and courage, willing to defy the party and even your party's President when your conscience dictates.
Furthermore, despite being principled, you are not a blind ideologue. Your shift on the right of self-defense and the means thereof is a clear example. You have demonstrated willingness to change your views when presented with contrary evidence and sound reasoning- and to overcome party power politics to find genuine common ground (as opposed to Obama's unilateral surrender) with individuals on the other side of the aisle.
Please consider what the past two years of Obama's leadership has cost you: a disaffected and dispirited base, a cold shoulder from the White House come re-election time, and a wave election that has (I hope temporarily) swept you out of office despite the personal approval of your constituents. It is entirely fair to say that Obama is the direct cause of your defeat- and if current trends continue, how many other Democratic lawmakers will lose their seats in 2012?
I admit that I am only one man, and by no means a rich man. My social circle is small, my financial means limited. Yet I will do all in my power to support you and to organize support for you should you consent to seek the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. This is support that will never again go to Barack Obama for any reason or purpose. I have no doubt that there are thousands, perhaps millions who feel as I do- that the man who campaigned as "Change we can believe in" is no change at all and must be replaced.
I urge you, as someone who believes it time to end supply-side economics and the gradual strangling of the working class and the lower class, to reconsider your decision and challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President in 2012. If the Democratic Party and the progressive cause is to be saved, it must first be rescued from a president with no interest in defending it. You are the best hope progressives have in the coming election. Please do not let us down.
Sincerely yours,
Kristan Overstreet
Livingston, TX
A Fox news reporter makes Bill O'Reilly laugh when he says that Obama has basically said he'll always negotiate with hostage-takers- metaphorical or real.
And then the reporter tries to explain to O'Reilly that no, he was dead serious when he said that.
Meanwhile, while teabaggers oppose the compromise, the conservatives who screwed us all over under Bush are enthusiastic about it:
And finally, Andrew Sullivan continues to try to make the argument that the compromise works for Obama:
My response: So, what Sullivan is saying is that tax cuts- which are over three-quarters of the total cost of the compromise- ARE good for the economy? That the Republicans have been RIGHT these past thirty years, and the more taxes are cut for the rich the better?
Because, rest assured, if the economy improves for any reason whatever after this compromise passes, that WILL be the Republican position. Democrats, under Obama's leadership, will be complicit in the tax cuts, and thus unable to oppose that position effectively.
If this argument holds water, than when Obama signs this compromise into law, he will be signing his own pink slip- and also the death warrant for any attempt to actually balance the budget before the whole system collapses.
And then the reporter tries to explain to O'Reilly that no, he was dead serious when he said that.
Meanwhile, while teabaggers oppose the compromise, the conservatives who screwed us all over under Bush are enthusiastic about it:
The Wall Street Journal: "this deal is superior to anything we could have imagined six months ago. Much credit goes to Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans for holding together against the class war attacks of Chuck Schumer and other Democrats."
And finally, Andrew Sullivan continues to try to make the argument that the compromise works for Obama:
My view is that the McConnell-Biden deal - for that's who negotiated it - is great for Obama. Why? Because it will greatly add to economic growth in the next two years, the sine qua non of survival in this economic climate; because, once the Democrats had failed to pass a budget before the election, this was the best Obama could possibly get; and because Obama - especially in his riveting press conference yesterday - took the angry and beleaguered position of doing the post-partisan best for the American people, rather than trying to score one against the GOP or for the Dems.
My response: So, what Sullivan is saying is that tax cuts- which are over three-quarters of the total cost of the compromise- ARE good for the economy? That the Republicans have been RIGHT these past thirty years, and the more taxes are cut for the rich the better?
Because, rest assured, if the economy improves for any reason whatever after this compromise passes, that WILL be the Republican position. Democrats, under Obama's leadership, will be complicit in the tax cuts, and thus unable to oppose that position effectively.
If this argument holds water, than when Obama signs this compromise into law, he will be signing his own pink slip- and also the death warrant for any attempt to actually balance the budget before the whole system collapses.
A Fox news reporter makes Bill O'Reilly laugh when he says that Obama has basically said he'll always negotiate with hostage-takers- metaphorical or real.
And then the reporter tries to explain to O'Reilly that no, he was dead serious when he said that.
Meanwhile, while teabaggers oppose the compromise, the conservatives who screwed us all over under Bush are enthusiastic about it:
And finally, Andrew Sullivan continues to try to make the argument that the compromise works for Obama:
My response: So, what Sullivan is saying is that tax cuts- which are over three-quarters of the total cost of the compromise- ARE good for the economy? That the Republicans have been RIGHT these past thirty years, and the more taxes are cut for the rich the better?
Because, rest assured, if the economy improves for any reason whatever after this compromise passes, that WILL be the Republican position. Democrats, under Obama's leadership, will be complicit in the tax cuts, and thus unable to oppose that position effectively.
If this argument holds water, than when Obama signs this compromise into law, he will be signing his own pink slip- and also the death warrant for any attempt to actually balance the budget before the whole system collapses.
And then the reporter tries to explain to O'Reilly that no, he was dead serious when he said that.
Meanwhile, while teabaggers oppose the compromise, the conservatives who screwed us all over under Bush are enthusiastic about it:
The Wall Street Journal: "this deal is superior to anything we could have imagined six months ago. Much credit goes to Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans for holding together against the class war attacks of Chuck Schumer and other Democrats."
And finally, Andrew Sullivan continues to try to make the argument that the compromise works for Obama:
My view is that the McConnell-Biden deal - for that's who negotiated it - is great for Obama. Why? Because it will greatly add to economic growth in the next two years, the sine qua non of survival in this economic climate; because, once the Democrats had failed to pass a budget before the election, this was the best Obama could possibly get; and because Obama - especially in his riveting press conference yesterday - took the angry and beleaguered position of doing the post-partisan best for the American people, rather than trying to score one against the GOP or for the Dems.
My response: So, what Sullivan is saying is that tax cuts- which are over three-quarters of the total cost of the compromise- ARE good for the economy? That the Republicans have been RIGHT these past thirty years, and the more taxes are cut for the rich the better?
Because, rest assured, if the economy improves for any reason whatever after this compromise passes, that WILL be the Republican position. Democrats, under Obama's leadership, will be complicit in the tax cuts, and thus unable to oppose that position effectively.
If this argument holds water, than when Obama signs this compromise into law, he will be signing his own pink slip- and also the death warrant for any attempt to actually balance the budget before the whole system collapses.
Crooks and Liars has the full transcript of Keith Olbermann's Special Comment from last night.
Talking Points Memo has links not just to Olbermann's video, but also to Rachael Maddow calling out Obama's talking points as bullshit.
Quoting the money part from Olbermann's comment:
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Thanks, Keith.
Talking Points Memo has links not just to Olbermann's video, but also to Rachael Maddow calling out Obama's talking points as bullshit.
Quoting the money part from Olbermann's comment:
Yesterday I had an exchange with a very Senior member of this Administration who wanted to sell me on this deal. I pointed out that that was fine, except that — as I phrased it to him — "frankly the base has just vanished." "Well," he replied, "then they must not have read the details." There, in a nutshell, is this Administration. They didn't make a bad deal — we just don't understand it.
Just as it was our fault, Mr President, for not understanding your refusal of even the most perfunctory of investigations of rendition or domestic spying or the other crimes of the Bush Administration, or why you have now established for those future Administrations who want to repeat those crimes, that the punishment for them will be nothing.
Just as it was our fault, Mr. President, for not understanding Afghanistan. Just as we didn't correctly perceive, Sir, the necessity for the continuation of Gitmo. Or how we failed to intuit, President Obama, your preemptive abandonment of Single Payer and the Public Option. Or how we couldn't have foreseen your foot-dragging on "Don't ask, don't tell." Just as we shouldn't have gotten you angry at your news conference today and made all the moderate Democrats wonder why in the hell you get publicly angry so often at the liberals who campaigned for you and whether you might save just a touch of that sarcasm and that self-martyrdom for the Republicans.
And of course, Mr. President how we totally betrayed your Administration by not concluding our prayers every night by saying "Thank you for preventing another Great Depression, you are entitled to skate along on your own wonderfulness indefinitely and if you get less than you could have on Health Care Reform or taxes, well, that'll be okay, we're happy to pay $10,000 for a $300 car because hey, it could've been $20,000, right? And because we only expect you to do one thing correctly during a presidency and you had pretty much cleared that obligation when it proved that you were, indeed, not John McCain."
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Thanks, Keith.
Crooks and Liars has the full transcript of Keith Olbermann's Special Comment from last night.
Talking Points Memo has links not just to Olbermann's video, but also to Rachael Maddow calling out Obama's talking points as bullshit.
Quoting the money part from Olbermann's comment:
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Thanks, Keith.
Talking Points Memo has links not just to Olbermann's video, but also to Rachael Maddow calling out Obama's talking points as bullshit.
Quoting the money part from Olbermann's comment:
Yesterday I had an exchange with a very Senior member of this Administration who wanted to sell me on this deal. I pointed out that that was fine, except that — as I phrased it to him — "frankly the base has just vanished." "Well," he replied, "then they must not have read the details." There, in a nutshell, is this Administration. They didn't make a bad deal — we just don't understand it.
Just as it was our fault, Mr President, for not understanding your refusal of even the most perfunctory of investigations of rendition or domestic spying or the other crimes of the Bush Administration, or why you have now established for those future Administrations who want to repeat those crimes, that the punishment for them will be nothing.
Just as it was our fault, Mr. President, for not understanding Afghanistan. Just as we didn't correctly perceive, Sir, the necessity for the continuation of Gitmo. Or how we failed to intuit, President Obama, your preemptive abandonment of Single Payer and the Public Option. Or how we couldn't have foreseen your foot-dragging on "Don't ask, don't tell." Just as we shouldn't have gotten you angry at your news conference today and made all the moderate Democrats wonder why in the hell you get publicly angry so often at the liberals who campaigned for you and whether you might save just a touch of that sarcasm and that self-martyrdom for the Republicans.
And of course, Mr. President how we totally betrayed your Administration by not concluding our prayers every night by saying "Thank you for preventing another Great Depression, you are entitled to skate along on your own wonderfulness indefinitely and if you get less than you could have on Health Care Reform or taxes, well, that'll be okay, we're happy to pay $10,000 for a $300 car because hey, it could've been $20,000, right? And because we only expect you to do one thing correctly during a presidency and you had pretty much cleared that obligation when it proved that you were, indeed, not John McCain."
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Thanks, Keith.
More bullshit from the White House...
Dec. 8th, 2010 02:40 pmThe Political Wire nails it:
Well. This two-faced doubletalk is worthy of the Republicans.
Oh, wait- Larry Summers is a former financial megacorp CEO, and Obama is... Obama.
So I guess this is typical for them.
White House economic adviser Larry Summers told ABC News that a failure to pass the tax cut compromise President Obama negotiated "would significantly increase the risk" of a double-dip recession.
Said Summer: "If this process were to break down and a bill were not passed, downward revisions would commence."
Of course, just yesterday Reuters notes President Obama said that "he no longer sees the danger of a double-dip recession."
Well. This two-faced doubletalk is worthy of the Republicans.
Oh, wait- Larry Summers is a former financial megacorp CEO, and Obama is... Obama.
So I guess this is typical for them.
More bullshit from the White House...
Dec. 8th, 2010 02:40 pmThe Political Wire nails it:
Well. This two-faced doubletalk is worthy of the Republicans.
Oh, wait- Larry Summers is a former financial megacorp CEO, and Obama is... Obama.
So I guess this is typical for them.
White House economic adviser Larry Summers told ABC News that a failure to pass the tax cut compromise President Obama negotiated "would significantly increase the risk" of a double-dip recession.
Said Summer: "If this process were to break down and a bill were not passed, downward revisions would commence."
Of course, just yesterday Reuters notes President Obama said that "he no longer sees the danger of a double-dip recession."
Well. This two-faced doubletalk is worthy of the Republicans.
Oh, wait- Larry Summers is a former financial megacorp CEO, and Obama is... Obama.
So I guess this is typical for them.