Just imagine the Rahm Emanuels of the party going after Dean if this happened under his watch. What a bunch of two faced morons. I bet Rahm is going to keep his mouth shut tomorrow instead of the usual anti-Dean sniping we are used to hearing. Will Rahm go after Tim Kaine? Will he go after Obama? Ha! What a joke these people are.

 It is unbelievable that Feingold, a critic of TARP, is paying for Obama's bailouts. He is trailing in polls to Russ Johnson. Obama has lost popularity in Wisconsin. Big deal. Hasn't Feingold been right on many issues, including TARP? Why can't he use that to distance himself from big government abuse that seems to be a big deal with certain democrats that are not tea partiers but find some resonance in the message.

What Feingold needs to do is show his independence on issues without going overboard in demonizing Obama. He needs to be out campaigning in townhalls in Reagan Democratic Wisconsin and bust the misperceptions of his career. He needs to be spending money energizing the base to show up at the polls because base turnout will be important to counter the polling numbers.

From this article in the Dystopian Wisconsinite:

Much like many of this year's tea party-associated GOP candidates, one of Johnson's core campaign points is criticism of the financial bailout. Funny then that Johnson's campaign has been the beneficiary of the largess of the very corporations he believes should not have received bailout money.

For example, the cash Johnson received from the Financial Services Roundtable PAC on August 27 and the American Bankers Association PAC on July 8 and July 30 came from, amongst others, hardcore Treasury bailout beneficiaries such as JP Morgan Chase, SunTrust, Bank of America, Regions Financial, Zions and First Horizon. The money Ron Johnson received from the Bluegrass and Senate Majority Fund PACs came, in part, from one of the greatest bailout beneficiaries of them all, Goldman Sachs. Despite statements about staying out of politics this cycle, Goldman donated to both PACs on March 31 of this year. On June 24, Ron Johnson's campaign received two $5,000 donations from the Bluegrass PAC, a day later the campaign received two donations from the Senate Majority PAC in the same amounts.

Johnson's actions also bely the no-interference from government creed he subscribes to in the campaign.

Johnson demands a smaller, less-involved government, saying our current one is "robbing the bank accounts of future generations of Americans." But even while Johnson calls government spending and subsidies a "threat to our freedom" and insists "government doesn't create jobs," he refuses to acknowledge that his company received millions of dollars in industrial revenue bonds. Johnson's campaign maintains the money he received was not a government handout. Yet this exact form of government subsidized loan is what fiscal conservative temple The Cato Institute calls "corporate welfare."

As everyone debates whether or not this constitutes a government subsidy, the blog Uppity Wisconsin reveals Johnson's membership on the board of an industrial development corporation partly funded by the city and county that "has successfully helped area business apply for and secure over a million dollars in Customized Labor Training (CLT) grants… designed to assist companies that are investing in new technologies or manufacturing processes by providing a grant of up to 50% of the cost of training employees on the new technologies." Yet, Johnson insists that subsidization "doesn't work through the free market system very well."

Feingold needs to really ramp up his election campaign. He needs to be a top priority for the Democratic Party to protect. Part of his undoing has been his own fault. WHile he has taken the right stances, he has not done enough to make his views known to the casual political observer alloiwing someone like Johnson to paint him as someone who rubberstamps Obama's decisions.

To his credit, Feingold has tried to engage Johnson in as many debates as possible. But Johnson wisely limited it to three. In absence of debate, Feingold really needs to highlight the disingenuous nature of Johnson's campaign using blunt descriptions. He has to fight like that weasel Lieberman did. He has to convey the message that while Obama's presidency and the current senate may have indeed been a disappointment, no one wants to go back to the years prior to 2008 which brought us this mess. He has to clearly illustrate his record that he has worked with Obama on what is sensible and has opposed measures that worked against the people(this approach won't paint him as an opportunist cashing in on the anti-Obama wave).

I think part of Feingold's downfall is that he did not step up loudly enough on issues like TARP the way other senators held up other Obama measures. So the casual voter never noticed it.

In this The Hill interview, Gibbs bashes the professional left and expresses bafflement why they would be mad about Obama's performance and then Gibbs does the Blue Dog/right wing trick of attributing it to "ideological purity".

Well, Gibbs,  I am an example of a "moderate" who voted for Obama and is disenchanted. I am pro-voucher, pro-Death penalty, am neutral on gay marriage(though I am for civil unions and for open gays in military), neutral on taxes(I am not necessrily in favor of more taxes, though if the government shows accountability, I am not againt it). I am not even that set on universal health care though there should have been some sort of public option.  The whole torture thing wasn't even on my top list of issues though I did want to see it addressed.  it's obvious I am not a classic lefty. So I gotta say this. After 8 years of Bush, I EXPECT more liberal policies to be implemented now ,not because I am very liberal, but for a need to balance out the neglect for liberal policies in the last 8 years.

There's more...

 I am one of those sick and tired of Republicans trying to claim family values as their specialty. They have gone after Obama and Clinton personally. Yet what they have both managed to do is raise fine wholesome studious families that will make any grandparent proud. The Bush kids(both generations), the Reagan kids(some of them), Palin kids are not exactly the best example of "wholesome" family values. Yet how do they get away with this audacity?

Anyway, congratulations to the Clintons on Chelsea's upcoming wedding.

There's more...

 Who do you trust? Geithner who oversaw a bailout without adequate oversight? Or Elizabeth Warren who has been fearless in championing for the regular folk? I am not sure if I share as much empathy as Warren does for the little folk. But more often than not, I trust her. There is none of that untrustworthy vibe I get from Warren that I have gotten from Geithner.

Why am I talking about this? According to this article on Huffington Post, according to some sources, Geithner has expressed opposition to the possible nomination of Warren to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

There's more...

I am just stunned that the Obama administration is just getting by with words and not enough action. How come there are no high profile firings after the BP fiasco? His and Salazar's reaction is to reorganize departments? HOW IS THAT GOING TO HELP? That is just politicial bull. How about raising accountability? Reorganizing things just adds to the beauracratic label Democrats get tagged with. We have Republicans, ridiculously opposing efforts to raise the cap on damages,  doing all they can to look like fools and yet Democrats are not annhilating the Republicans on this issue? Somehow, the fringe Tea Partiers are coming off as the only people angry at government inaction when some of their own members have a mixed record on this very issue of punishing BP?

Saying you are angry is not the same as real actions conveying you are angry.  

There's more...

 Don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to more regulation. I just think we have a bigger problem. I am sick of the lack of accountability under both administrations. THe problem with the BP problem wasn't just inadequate regulation. They weren't even enforcing the existing rules. At this point, government is so bad, would we better off voting for a candidate based on accountability regardless of the candidate's ideology? At least such a candidate, even if he or she differs from us on some policies, will at least enforce the existing good ones better than the one who panders to us but does nothing.

There's more...

 First of all, everyone should get the most basic healthcare services for free for society to function normally. I have no problem with that. I am still not sure if our current healthcare bill addresses that issue.  But other than that safety net, I am against a person like this idiot, Donna Simpson, in getting the same kind of healthcare coverage at the same affordable rate as everyone else. She is eating her way intentionally to become the world's fattest woman.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/donna-simpson-nj-woman-ea_n_501245.html

Donna Simpson currently weighs 600 pounds, so she's going on a diet in hopes of reaching what she considers her ideal weight: 1,000 pounds. The 42-year-old mother, a resident of Old Bridge, NJ, consumes a whopping 12,000 calories a day in an effort to reach her goal.

Simpson already holds the Guinness World Record for world's fattest mother. She insists she's healthy despite the fact that she cannot walk more than 20 feet independently.

The grocery bills frequently reach $750 a week and Simpson supports her diet with money earned from a website where people pay to watch her eat. Her husband, Phillipe, who weighs a 150 pounds, fully supports her plans

 

There's more...

The past few months, all we saw were instances of so called "moderate" senators in the Democratic Party bashing the liberal and lefty parts of the party. What I fail to see is a verbal dressing down of these senators by the liberal wing of the party. The reason why people like Evan Bayh and Lieberman(not a DEmocrat) can say such things unchecked is they do not fear being called out for their inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and bullshit by the liberal senators who just sit quietly. We need variations of the Alan Graysons in the senate - the bad cop, the good cop who can take subtle digs, and then the unpredictable cop who can say what is on his mind and use that to appeal to folk.

Where are the prominent liberal senators like Boxer doing to point out the inaccuracies of Bayh's bullshit? Forget the unity facade. The Blue Dogs have ruined that by spectacularly blowing the 60 seat majority they held briefly by passing little of consequence. What is Bernie Sanders doing squandering away the advantage he had? In theory, he had equal power to that of Lieberman. Just as Lieberman threatened to vote with Republicans, Sanders could have easily negated that by saying he would abstain if Lieberman was pandered to on a compromise.

Come on folks, fight fire with fire.

Barney Frank is a freaking wuss. No wonder Democrats dont generate enough respect among the masses. Now he talks about how 59 is not enough to pass a bill and that it somehow rejects the electorates wishes if we just go for a simple majority?

WHAT???? Bush never had 60 votes, yet got some of his agenda passed. HOW THE HELL DID THAT HAPPEN? Sure many democrats catipulated and went along with the Republicans. But what if they didnt. Do you seriously think Bush would  lay passive?