Tonight's guests include:
Sen. Bernie Sanders, (I) Vermont
Ylan Mui, financial reporter for The Washington Post
Josh Rogin, staff writer for The Cable
Here's tonight's soundtrack!
And here's Bill Wolff, with a look at tonight's show:
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Video: Obama indicates beginning of end of war on terror
Video: Obama to take on GOP anew over Guantanamo closure
Video: Obama wiser to GOP in new Guantanamo push
Video: Protester finds sympathetic ear in President on Guantanamo, drones
Video: Obama on precarious legal ground in American deaths by US drone strikes
Video: Remember Memorial Day's meaning
Video: Freedom of Speech
Leave a Comment:
Hey, sweetie, you need stronger reins. (!)
Hey, did ya know that the Senate held a hearing on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act today, featuring the very first transgender person to testify before the US Senate in its entire history? Well, if you get all of your news from MSNBC you wouldn't know because the network didn't bother covering it.
What I expect is that you'll continue focusing exclusively on marriage and military service and continue mistakenly believing that those issues matter more to most LGBT Americans than being able to provide for our families.
That's what I believe, that you'll disappoint us yet again by failing to cover yet another vitally important story to LGBT working class Americans.
Go ahead, prove me wrong...I dare you.
Don't hold your breath, Rebecca. MSNBC is way too busy holding up the "support Obama" end of this war-time charade. FOX News is holding up the other side, but truth is *both* are serving the same establishment agenda.
If MSNBC was actually interested in truth, it would be investigating performance of the Obama administration on many issues, including LGBT concerns. I'm not talking about pretty words in a speech from Obama or an accidental comment from Biden. I'm talking about accomplishment. I'm talking about policy. I'm talking about wasted time that we can't get back. What did Obama do in his first 100 days? Anything?
Remember Obama took over 2 years to repeal DADT. He even took an official position against a court ruling that found DADT unconstitutional in order to slow-walk it for another six months while we were still at war in Iraq. Obama appealed the court ruling against DADT. In fact, he appealed it twice, asking the court to reconsider it's ruling.
Aside from LGBT concerns, Obama has not pursued other promises he made to progressive democrats with any discernable degree of enthusiam. Consider: Guantanamo still open. Allegations of torture were never investigated. The Bush tax cuts are still in effect. Banks and Wall Street were bailed out, but Obama failed to implement regulations with teeth, and Wall Street is now involved in an amount of derivatives trading and CDF activity that EXCEEDS the level prior to the market collapse in 2007. I call that a great example of Obama's failure. The job of the president is to PREVENT that from happening again. In light of the new level of derivatives trading and CDF activity, Obama has left us with prayer as a primary defense.
Meanwhile, Obama protected illegal Israeli Settlement construction with his veto in the UN Security Council. Obama demanded that Palestinians return to negotiations even though Israel has refused to stop Settlement construction. This CONTRAVENES the Road Map agreement. Obama has used the US leadership position in the Quartet to cripple it and prevent it from implementing the agenda for peace it was created to pursue.
Republicans and FOX News love all these things, and yet they pretend to hate Obama in order to fool Obama's base into supporting him while he finishes their agenda. And whenever Obama's poll numbers among democrats fall off, his secret helper Donald Trump trots out the old "birther" story and parades that around in order to boost Obama's numbers. If you understand psychology, you will appreciate how this works. The public is being fooled and manipulated in a complex, multi-level charade. MSNBC is part of it.
Consider how far to the crazy right side of the political spectrum the GOP has had to go in order to keep some light between themselves and Obama. He is now so republican that they have had to define themselves with insane positions on the crazy fringe of the right so that voters can differentiate between them. We didn't vote for that. Where is the leader we thought we elected? We were fooled and betrayed by a poser.
Here's a great example of how MSNBC is involved in fooling and misleading the public: Reload the top page of this blog. Look at the right side for a series of advertisements. Keep loading the page until you see an ad that says
"EXPOSED: Georgia Mom Makes $7,487/Month
And You Won't Believe How She Does It!"
This is a complete con job, a scam. The fact that MSNBC allows this ad to run says all you need to know about manipulating the public. That ad and the page it links to are listed at scambusters.org.
Rachel should be ashamed.
A big part of the problem is MSNBC and other ostensibly progressive media. For example, I don't believe that it's at all a coincidence that DADT has been repealed and pols and celebs are falling all over themselves to say how much they support marriage rights, but when a truly historic occurrence like today's hearing happens there's zero MSM coverage. Therefore, LGBT American workers will continue to be thrown under the bus by the Democrats because not only is there no political benefit to them in standing up for our civil rights as there is with the issues favored by the wealthiest segments of the LGBT community, they also know they won't be called to account for it by our "progressive" media outlets.
I will say that Melissa Harris-Perry did an excellent segment on her show a few weeks ago about trans issues, but then dashed our hopes by only doing a short don't-blink-or-you'll-miss-it segment on the Cece McDonald case this week.
When black women's hair gets the better part of an hour but a black trans woman who's jailed for defending herself from a hate crime attack gets maybe five minutes, it speaks volumes about the priorities at MSNBC and the level of importance they place on the issues which most directly affect the lives of the majority of LGBT Americans.
LGBT communities comprise one segment of the progressive wing of the democrat party. Truth is ALL progressives and their interests have been thrown under the bus. Progressives in general have been lied to, manipulated, betrayed, and ignored by Obama and whoever sets his real agenda. Now they want to use fear to force us back in line just in time for the election, -so they can do the same thing to us all over again.
Obama is a great Republican president.
...Best since Clinton...
Sooo... Obama and Clinton now want to call what is happening in Syria a CIVIL war. What a joke. When war in Syria is funded, supplied, and supported by large outside powers like Russia, Iran, and the USA, it is a PROXY war. Calling it a civil war is just another lie intended to fool and mislead the public. Pay attention folks, because that lie serves a neo-Con agenda. The unfinished Bush-Cheney agenda for the mid east was to implement regime change in EVERY Arab country in the region surrounding Israel. Obama is completing that unfinished agenda even though his base didn't vote for that. So... WHO is Obama taking orders from? It certainly isn't the base of the democratic party. We have plenty of facebook correspondents in Syria, but where is the truth? -Where is our "Syriana" correspondent?
Ask Bin Laden.
Osama bin Laden died at Tora Bora and was stored in a freezer on board a Navy ship until Obama and the military establishment decided keeping his death a secret no longer served their strategy. Que the fake "burial at sea" story. Did you actually buy that?
@Kiev, I believe the armed forces' Joint Publication on Mortuary Affairs says "no" to decade freezer burn.
Isn't there a publication somewhere that says "no" to B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.T.I.N.G the public? How about lying to the public? Or breaking critical campaign promises related to ending our involvement in foreign conflicts?
Anything on that?
If our leaders don't keep their promises, and in fact do the exact opposite of those promises, then why bother to vote? Even when promised change, we always get the same result.
Kiev -
That's what's most worrying, to me, about a Romney presidency. Not so much the fact that he'll ruin the economy: the republicans know how to fix the economy, they just don't want Obama to do it. Nor is it the insane social-issues agenda that Mittens will push: we had that all under W.
No, what worries me most is that he's got this gaggle of neo-con schizophrenics as his advisors who actually believe in conspiracy theories that were made up as black-ops propaganda during the cold war and still want to actively be fighting a Soviet Menace! that hasn't existed for more than two decades.
Obama is pursuing a neo-con agenda, but that's because that agenda is an afterglow. That agenda is a leftover in the collective American psyche from almost a decade of having it drilled into our heads. If Romney is elected, that afterglow will come back as a five-alarm fire, and it's going to burn this country down.
And, of course, the democrats will be blamed for it.
Who the hell are you people and what have you done with Rachel?
Angel, I'm not sure it matters who they are. But I do find it dismal to think this may be the bulk of their contribution to our society.
What our President and the Senate has managed to accomplish, against obstruction to national progress, is impressive. (I don't have time to accumulate a lengthy list, work is calling.)
I can only imagine how much further we'd be as a nation if all our congressional representatives were working together for us instead of sabotaging us because of envious, bitter ill will towards one man.
I do not accept Obama's performance nor his policy on these matters. There is no acceptable excuse or explanation for what he is doing. Considering the interests of the democratic party that elected him and the wide-spread desire of Americans in general to end US involvement in foreign conflicts, what Obama is doing makes him illegitimate.
RE: Moment of Geek on tonight's show.
Tell Ezra Klein that Spider-man is one word.
Oh, I fully agree. He completely turned his back on the issues that he campaigned on, and it's disappointing to see him never be called on it. Conservatives make up stupid bullcrap to attack him on, because they obviously want to pursue the exact same policies but with an R not a D; and the liberals in his base are too paralyzed with Fear of a Romney Planet to call him on his bad behavior.
It's just a big bag of terrible, all around.
And while I'm on a roll, what can democrats do if their leader is illegitimate? Anything? What can Americans do if their president is illegitimate? -Isn't that what some are claiming about Assad in Syria? Aren't they going after Assad with guns, mortars, and rockets? Isn't Obama aiding those who would overthrow Assad?
As progressives, where is our armament? Where are our weapons pointed at our own illegitimate leader? Do we have only words and reason? And what would Obama do if we had the same armament those people in Syria are using against Assad? Don't you think that hypocrite would be doing exactly what Assad is doing? -You're damn right he would. But that is a double standard. Obama can't live by the same logic he applies to the rest of the world.
As President Bush's lies once warned America that Saddam Hussein could overfly our country with drones that could attack US citizens with WMD, we are now doing exactly that to kill people in other countries. Remote controlled US drones are killing people that Obama suspects might be affiliated with our enemy. And we expect those other people and those other countries to just accept what we would NEVER accept here at home. Saddam's drones were never real, they were only an image of neo-Con plans projected onto the person conservatives wished to demonize and paint as our enemy.
Who is the demon now?
I agree with all your main points in the these posts ... but I wish you'd tone down the rhetoric a bit. You're not doing yourself any favors when you start sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
Yes, Obama's a fraud, and he's implementing the central agenda items of the American elites, in complete defiance of what most people in this country really want. And MSNBC, sadly including Rachel Maddow, are fully a part of the media wing of the system that supports what he's doing. (Chris Hayes and Melissa Harris-Perry do sometimes question it, though ... and I think Dylan Ratigan might do it as well occasionally, but I haven't seen him enough to know for sure).
But there is, for example, no central plan to enact regime change throughout the middle east. American activities in the region -- certainly including the president's gross moral hypocrisy regarding the slaughter of civilians -- can be explained as part of its typical imperial quest to maintain more power and influence than any other big player, no matter the human cost.
On all this stuff, Noam Chomsky has it right, and his detractors have it wrong when they claim he's invoking a conspiracy.
Hayes and Harris-Perry don't get enough airtime to matter. Ratigan did, but stangely enough, decided not to re-new his contract??
Who misses Keith Olbermann? God, I do. -Is it just a coincidence that Olbermann is silenced at a moment when America really needs the kind of news reporter who often evoked Edward R. Murrow's closing phrase, "good night, and good luck"?
I want Keith Olbermann and Eliot Spitzer to share the same news show. Are you listening CNN? Ted Turner? Hello?
Chomsky is good, but personally I prefer Norman Finkelstein.
Unfortunately, rhetoric is a necessary part of getting issues and points considered and debated by The People. The unfortunate truth is debate on most of these issues has largely disappeared from public discourse and dinner discussions around the kitchen table. People today are so desperate and busy trying to keep their heads above water they don't have time to think about what we're doing and where we are going. Back in the day, before the Great Recession, Bush and Cheney used rhetoric with great success. We can't fight and win these battles without using fire to fight fire. The difference between us and them is I will try not to use lies.
I don't want to come across as a conspiracy theorist. I don't think aliens are in control of our government, but it's clear to me the democrat party is not in charge of the oval office. Perhaps in name only, but not in practice. So who is in charge? Who does Obama listen to? Who sets the agenda? We need to put a face on this enemy so we can recognize him in our midst before he destroys us.
Quote: "there is, for example, no central plan to enact regime change throughout the middle east."
How do you know? Look, there's no chance in Hell that what has happened sequentially in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria has been a happy accident. The developments seem unlikely to have come about by pure coincidence, and more likely to be the result of careful planning and coordination. These are things the CIA does well. Remember when Bush said "Saddam must go, -he must leave Iraq"? Obama said the same thing about Gadhafi in Libya. It was a Freudian slip. Now he’s saying the same thing about Assad in Syria. It’s unbelievable. Does he think we are blind, or just stupid?
When you want to know how bad it really could be, google Alvin Greene from South Carolina. Tell me how that happened, then explain why it couldn't happen in a presidential primary.
Remember that in the primaries for the last presidential election, republican political sabotage resulted in the primaries of Michigan and Florida being “nullified”, which affected voter turnout as well as ultimately allowing the two states to realize only half their normal number of delegate votes at the democratic convention. This damaged Obama’s rival Hillary Clinton, thus improving Obama's statistical chances of becoming the democratic alternative to electing another republican president.
The GOP knew they were going to lose that election, so they had to be the alternative.
Seriously, the voices in your head are lying to you. You've created some kind of a conspiracy theory that doesn't wash. Someone is feeding you a lot of inaccurate info.I have a feeling it is yourself.Nobody can understand what you're saying. You're not making any sense, you have no facts to substantiate your own theories.
If you want to dismiss what I say, then you do the work to refute it point by point. Oddly I see you haven't made the effort. Put up or shut up.
For starters, why don't you actually do some research on what happened in Florida and Michigan to prevent those states from having their votes counted in the democratic paimary, -why it happened, and who benifitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Democratic_primary,_2008
In August 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a proposal by its Rules and Bylaws Committee that only four states - Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina - would be permitted to hold primaries or caucuses before Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008. In the Spring of 2007, the Florida Legislature (controlled by Republicans in both chambers, passed the House Bill 537 which moved the date of the state's Republican and Democratic primaries to January 29, a week before the earliest permitted date of both parties. The Florida Democratic Party tried to amend the legislation and make the date February 5; however, the Republican-controlled legislature refused.
In response, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee voted on August 25, 2007 that Florida was in violation of its rules and gave the state 30 days' notice to change the date of its primary. As Florida did not respond, the Committee stripped Florida of its delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
The same thing happened in Michigan. Obama benifitted in both cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Democratic_primary,_2008
The Michigan Legislature passed a bill to move the date of the state's presidential primaries to January 15 in an effort to increase the state's influence in the presidential candidate nominating process. They argued that the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary unfairly dominated the selection process. Just as in Florida, the move-up bill originated in a Republican-controlled State Senate and passed by a 21-17 straight party-line vote with every Democrat casting a "no" vote.
Regarding Ezra Klein's Moment of Geek comments about Spider-Man...
Peter Parker did develop the Wrist Web-Shooters for projecting the adhesive he created in Line- form for swinging, web-form for entanglement and mass discharge for other purposes, but the climbing on walls was all from the radioacive spider bite... The Web-Shooters have nothing to do with wall-climbing...
Know why Parker extends his index and little fingers while triggering the Web-Shooter with his middle two fingers in his palm? The extended two fingers pull a safety switch which prevents the trigger from accidentally discharging when Parker makes a fist... Otherwise, fighting could get REALLY messy...
All details from The Amazing Spider-Man Annual #1, 1965...
When did this become a Republican blog site, and who let all these trolls in?
So, Catholics need not apply?
@Angel#77: ANGRY democrats are not trolls.
And unlike some sites, all are welcome to post civil comments here, with opportunity to add some value to the discussions.
?=| Okay... Catholics welcome - line 2. Republicans welcome - line 4. Americans welcome - line 1 to 9999999999
When did this become a Republican blog site, and who let all these trolls in?
You repeat the question, so I'll answer twice. Angry democrats are not trolls.
This place is worthless if it's nothing but mindless, happy peeps twittering agreement with every line issued by the MSNBC talking heads. That's not how the man on Main Street feels right now.
Kiev, I've been angry, spiteful, bitter, nonsensical, irrational, and just plain ignorant in some of my previous comments here. They haven't kicked ME off yet. Welcome.
wanna friend me?
Come on... I'm legit. I swear. "#%^&$". See?
@locknpost: Got your friend invite. I appreciate the gesture, however I never accept such requests. I haven't declined the request because that would be rude, but for the mean time I will ignore it.
Why have I implemented this policy? -Because "friending" allows unknown actors on the internet to know exactly when I am online. This (I have been told) opens one up to trojan and other hack attacks.
But I can be "friends" right here on maddowblog without any unnecessary and risky social media complications. Consider yourself friended.
As for being spiteful, I try to direct my criticism in a positive manner toward politicians and media pundits who I think aren't doing their jobs. I love Rachel and I want to like Obama, -or at least I wanted to like Obama. I supported him for 3 years. Now I'm just amused at the remarkable similarity of Obama's (effective) political direction with the direction of the prior Bush Administration. Remember this was the candidate of change. Turned out it was short-change.
There are so many things to fix. Community newspapers all over America are struggling to keep the doors open. These papers are the brick-and-mortar foundation of our democracy. Without them citizens will rely solely on FOX NEWS to keep politicians honest. Libraries and schools are being defunded left and right. Education and particularly higher education are deemed evil and socialist. Wall Street and investment banks are regulating the government, instead of government regulating Wall Street and Banks. Unions have been decimated, even though they were the rising tide that lifted all boats for working people.
To fix these things we need good journalism to set criteria for identifying problems and measuring progress of improvement. We also need leaders who can draw their sword from it's scabbard when confrontation is necessary to achieve results. With Obama, we have a leader with no sword or scabbard, but only a pen by which to sign endless compromises. And we all know what those compromises looked like.
The best example was Obama''s offer of a ten-to-one ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. In short, Obama's compromises offer republicans 10 democratic concessions to every one republican concession. So whose side is he on again?
@Kiev, I understand. It's ok. We can just be blog buddies. I'll be fine.
Constructive criticism has its value.
The competition newspapers and journalism faces in the Internet age can be frustrating. Our consumer need for immediate gratification is satisfied by an endless supply of "validity" to any "fact", opinion, or whimsy imaginable, no matter how absurd. But that's freedom of speech. And it also is the most versatile medium for innovative exchange, citizen interaction and collaboration.
With the reality of the influence that the Internet and television have in our lives - I believe you are correct, in the heightened importance of education (and healthy community participation) to nurture an environment for critical thinkers and civic engagement. Perhaps... the more that newspapers and journalists mentor to this environment, the more invested the community will feel to them.
Did you mention faux news? The news conglomerate that has all but butt rubbed out any source of Republican integrity, civic comprehension, ideas, or action? Hand out swords to those who don't respect anything but their own status, and you'll find nothing but the blood of all who show reverence towards humanity.
Yes, many have expressed their impatience with our President making too many concessions in order to keep forward progress under the extra weight of congressional stones. Nothing more irritating than packing a backpack full of useless stones up a hill. It slows you down, but builds muscle and determination.
OK. Read your comments. I'll dwell on that.
I agree with everything you said but the last paragraph. Yes, the president is offering concessions, -and you may feel it is an effort to "keep forward progress", -but my opinion is there's no forward progress. We are losing ground. We are losing ground in Washington and in practically every state except California and New York. We are losing ground in states that were the foundation of union power, and Obama can't show up to command his troops in their moment of need. He was in the state next door for 3 days, but just couldn't make it to Wisconsin.
By the way, let me touch on the characteristic of Obama's concession offers. His last budget offer was for a 10 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. This is typical Obama governance style. In general, across the board, Obama is offering 10 democratic concessions to every 1 republican concession. Whose side is he on again?
Metaphor time: Lets say our party is a naval ship in a war. We are engaged in a battle at sea. The enemy ship is within gun range and has shot our own ship full of holes. In fact, we are sinking. We look to our captain in a moment that will define our lives and what we stood for in the hours of our last day. If we put down life boats, the enemy will strafe us with machine guns. Should our captain:
(A) Hand out personal floation devices to every crew member, making sure that each one is properly inflated?
(B) Offer a compromise to the victorious enemy, that he (read we) will surrender peacefully if they will only strafe half of the life boats?
(C) Order all-ahead full power and a new course heading to ram the enemy boat head on at maximum speed?
A captain has to have a confident ability to fight and a willingness to use that capacity. Has Obama demonstrated this leadership characteristic in any battle with our republican opposition? No. On the other hand, Obama does possess the capacity. He has demonstrated it only toward unseen and unproven "enemies" and their families in places like Libya, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Frankly, what Obama has done there reminds me of immoral American activities in the Vietnam war prior to our withdrawal. So he's a stooge for the military establishment in countries that can't fight back, and he's a political coward here at home.
Is that what we voted for?
It doesn't make sense. -Unless he's actually in on it. Unless he's a republican poser. Then it all makes sense.
Fine. Point made. Based on the available situational information of your scenario; on impulse, I would choose (C).
OK. You mean our captain (our president) should choose option C. Obviously I agree.
So how many of us need to tell him that in order to get this done? He's up there right now making excuses for his failure saying he's "the president of all the people", inferring that requires further compromise. And after the GOP refused his last 10 to 1 budget offer, I'm really afraid of what Obama will do next if he continues along this political tragectory.
We should prepare for the possibility that our captain will sacrifice half of our life boats in order to save himself. -Or we could mutiny, bypass the captain, and ram the enemy head on without him. We must be ready to save ourselves and our party interests.
@Kiev, I would hope a Captain would know more, in their final evaluation, especially when responsible for the lives of others. Like:
Is it dark? Are there other resources in proximity who can respond? Is the enemy a ship full of mercenaries, or a crew of forced enlistees? Has communication been established with either the allied forces, or the enemy? What is the estimated short-term/long-term costs verses gains. What is the estimated success of a direct assault? What was the mission and its priority level prior to the enemy engagement? Does the enemy have plans of genocide for our people? And are the available lifevests made by ACME?
Evaluating the risk/reward: I expect the President and Congress to hold their ground, or more, on the more equal (1:1) workable bipartisan concession like they proposed in late 2011 for the coming budget battle.
If the fringe right holds government functions and national default hostages in their demands to move from temporary damage and obstruction, to full blown national economic sabotage (which would result in global)... then it's "FULL SPEED AHEAD". I believe "necessary personnel" will be ready, willing, and able.
Ahhh... don't take the metaphor too seriously, I only used it to drive home my single and perpetual point, which is we have Benedict Arnold for a captain. I used the life vest scenario (option A) to draw a parallel to Obama's politically infamous but scientifically effective suggestion that all Americans should fight the rising cost of fuel by properly inflating their car tires. Perhaps the inference was not so clear as I thought.
Sigh... so yea, I would hope the Captain would know more too. Buuuuttt we have a three year history with this guy that proves otherwise.
Your closing recommendation sounds reactive rather than pre-emptive. We both know republicans have done and ARE doing everything they can in congress to prevent economic improvements through stimulus. They have also operated through political networks of influential friends at banks, wall street, AIPAC, Israel, and the National Chamber of Commerce to destroy Obama and the democratic party policies that found support among a majority of voters. They have already done everything possible to commit national economic sabotage with the goal of making Obama (and our policies) a failure.
In short, we have given those jerks too much time and too many opportunities already, and all we have gotten is piss in the face. The opposition wants to pick a fight. The question is whether Obama is going to give them one, or turn the other cheek.
Darn. I missed "properly inflated". Which means I probably missed more analogies.
I could be biased, but I don't think we should try reading into the tides of war (since we're invested in a grit and glory discussion) by battle outcomes alone.
Forget the enemy's scout ship. I want the command ship, the one that's carrying my enemy's Admiral; The Citizens United.
The most effective pre-emptive thing I have heard of, is for states to follow Montana's ban on corporate moneys' domination of elections, thereby minimizing their ability to own our officials and policy. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/13/nation/la-na-court-campaign-money-20120613
And that makes us, the citizens of our states, respective Captains. Do you think we'll accept? lose the war due to clashing partisan interests and bribery? or simply retreat to our respective galleys to resume our proper position? http://www.followthemoney.org/
And btw, that President you're talking about, with his loyal congressional captains, did attempt a pre-emptive by-the-dark-of-night strike of campaign transparency within ObamaCare. Because, they cared. It's our turn.
Yep, I'm still angry. Heh.
Regarding Obamacare, what Obama did in the dark of night was remove the public option, -apparently because he cared. -About what I don't know. The personal mandate part of Obamacare can be attributed to Charles Grassley and 19 other republicans, who proposed it as an alternative to Hillycare, which proposed an employer mandate.
RE State bans or limits on corporate campaign money: Well thank God for Montana. Or thank Ted Turner, who I think owns most of that state. Still, I imagine a case will be brought before the Supreme Court for denying artificial citizens their freedom of speech. What a croc that is... Our problem is the court has already ruled.
I was miffed about the public option being removed as well. Though, i recognize they didn't have the senate votes, I admire those like Colorado Senator Michael Bennet for swinging it out all the way for the public option.
Montana's Supreme Court has ruled already, backing the state's right. Now, the interesting dilemma, I would think, for the corporate boot lickers and their two key sympathetic ideologically driven judges seated on the US Supreme Court, is they have been trying to challenge the federal constitutional degree of authority to protect the people's rights and national interests in an effort to broaden the stroke of states' power and authority. Think they're feeling conflicted?
United States of America is easier to defeat when you divide the fleet and commandeer each, one state at a time. $$$, power, and acquisition and privatization of public lands.
"This land is
yourland, this land ismyland, from California, to the New York island..."Why are they being so obvious and in a hurry about it now? Perhaps the aging of their primary stuck-in-a-rut loyal base, social media organizing, and President Obama all scare the hell out of them.
Disclaimer: Don't take what I say too seriously. I'm in the middle of some creative writing.
RE: US Supreme Court vs Montana. I think I've seen this movie. It didn't end well. All they have to do is what they did to win the squeaker Florida election in Bush vs Gore back in 2000. -Just declare the ruling cannot set legal precedent.
Musical soundtrack for this post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQLzZ1zlkGo&feature=related
IF we fight like its OUR LIVES at stake rather than some ridiculous form of sophomoric entertainment, and we hold our leaders to high standards of expectation and accept NO EXCUSES, then Mr Guthrie might be right after all. God speed.