Obama Forces Issue: "God," "Jerusalem" Back in DNC Platform

Image found at Indexed.

Previously, I kind of gave a combined shrug and soft applause to the DNC for not putting "God"--by generic name--into their 2012 platform. I don't see why it would be a requirement, or why it would be controversial not to have it there. We are not a theocracy, there "is no religious test" for public office. . .so WTF, please tell me? And what in the world does calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel have to do with a damned thing?

Sigh. So, it is with a combined shrug and a soft eye roll that I respond to the subsequent insertion of both God and Jerusalem back into the platform. Why the DNC would blink when Right Wing World squawks, I have no idea. But on the other hand. . .

Do you remember when RNC chairman ReiNCe PRieBuS was being asked about the inconsistencies between Paul Ryan's, Mitt Romney's and the RNC's positions on abortion (including no exceptions for rape or incest)? Reince pleaded that the platform was for the party, but Romney was the candidate, and had his own views? That muddled message was never really sorted out. I mean, what is the platform if your party's leader doesn't follow it? In the case of the DNC, Obama spoke, and the party followed. Obama led, in other words.

As an atheist, I find the issue ridiculous. But this is not an election-deciding issue for me. I'm resigned to the very public flogging of religion by both parties, regardless of its Constitutional appropriateness. We're not getting God off of the money, and we're not getting "him" out of documents like this one. . .apparently.

[Excerpt]

In turnaround, Democrats reinstate language on Jerusalem

Democrats resurrected language in their party platform on Wednesday declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel after Republicans accused them of showing weak support for the longtime U.S. ally. . .  

Read more at: NBC News

Democrats Cave on Surtax for Super Rich?

Harry and Chuck, you're letting us down.
Image from source, TPM

Why? This is an issue that is only defended by super-arch-conservatives. Taxing the super rich polls in the 80-percentile. Why on earth would the Democrats cave on that? Aaarrrrrgggggh. Harry, Harry, Harry. You know we're going to keep voting for you, because the alternative is so much worse. And I guess that's your reason, right there. I just don't understand how anybody is threatened by John Boner Boehner or Sen. Mitch Talking Turtle McConnell.

[Excerpt]


Dems Consider Dropping Demands As Republicans Risk A Shutdown

If it weren’t for the filibuster, Democrats would have the GOP neatly over a barrel. But Republicans believe they’ve regained the upper hand — and two developments suggest they’re right.
Senate Democrats are now considering dropping their demand that a payroll tax holiday for workers be offset by imposing a small surtax on millionaires, according to Democratic aides — resigning themselves to the fact that Republicans won’t lift their filibuster if the surtax stands. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Obama's Tax Plan

My biggest disappointment with President Obama's tax plan is the same one I have with the Obama Administration in general. Too often, they start out by compromising. They give away the big stuff up front, usually with no promise (or often even hint) of getting anything in return. On top of this, their rapid capitulation seems to be fear of either the roster of cartoon characters on FOX "News" and talk radio, or the more official, but equally cartoony characters on Capital Hill.

Keith Olbermann is several stages further up the rage-o-meter than I am on this issue. But I can't say he's wrong.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Randi Rhodes on Obama's Tax Cuts Deal: Relax

Today brought waves of protest and sputtering from progressives, liberals, Democrats and the rest of the left. They're mightily pissed that President Obama seemingly gave away everything to get something--unemployment benefits extensions--that Republicans would have eventually caved on anyway.  More on the discontent in a bit. For now, here is liberal talker Randi Rhodes' take on the matter. She makes a compelling case, as she did on the radio right after the news broke.  I'm still not sure which way to lean on this one.  Randi's not all sunshine and rainbows on it either, but she did have a significantly different spin on it.

Side note: I made the picture at the top of the page, and it's now featured as on of her photos on her blog. Which is kinda cool.

[Excerpt]

I know, I know. Relax. This is all part of a plan. And if it’s a plan to throw Obama’s base into a tizzy, it’s working. This deal is completely bipartisan, at least in the sense that it makes Obama’s supporters as mad at Obama as they are at Republicans. Remember, the Republicans didn’t get everything they wanted in this deal. But then the Republicans want everything. . .

Read more at: RandiRhodes.com

BCS: Battered Congress Syndrome

No, not BDS--Bush Derangement Syndrome, an affliction conservatives believe affects liberals (as though we don't have plenty of reasons). Battered Congress Syndrome is as good a reason as any for the constant capitulation of the Democratic-controlled Congress. Yes, I know that they have bare majorities, but when Republicans had similar percentages, they never ever rolled over for the other side.

In fact, over the six years before Democrats re-won Congress, Republicans did everything in their power to shove Democrats into--quite literally--the basement. Why on earth haven't the Democrats returned the favor, at least once in a while? BCS?

[Excerpt]

Battered Congress Syndrome

President Bush doesn't hesitate to kick Congress around, but Congress just can't bring itself to kick back.

During oral arguments yesterday about whether a federal judge should enforce congressional subpoenas against a belligerent White House, representatives of the judicial and executive branches both noted that Congress hasn't exercised its full constitutional powers. . .

Read more at: Washington Post

Telecom Immunity a Done Deal?

Photo of Steny Hoyer from source, Raw Story

This story has been exhausting for liberal bloggers like me. For months and months, we've been writing, reading, calling and emailing our representatives, telling them "No immunity!" Congress now seems prepared to "compromise" (read: capitulate) to the Bush administrations' wishes, allowing them to continue to wiretap without warrants. And the biggie: retroactive immunity for the telecom companies who aided Bush illegally.

Not incidentally, such a ruling would also insulate Bush himself from further scrutiny in this matter. And I suspect that some members of Congress from both sides of the aisle want to cover their own butts as well. Disgusting.

[Excerpt]

Deal reached on wiretap expansion, telecom immunity

Wary of making the debate between liberty and security into a campaign issue, Congressional Democrats appear ready to retreat in their years-long effort to instill some sort of accountability on the Bush administration and its enablers in the telecommunications industry for their extra-legal surveillance of Americans. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Democrats Cave on War Funding (Again)

Photo from source, AFP

Y'know, we are in a political season where Democrats should be riding high. Not only did they win the last election, but Republicans and their policies have been an unmitigated disaster. A Democratic Presidential victory should be a foregone conclusion. And yet, on nearly every issue, the Democrats give President Bush nearly everything he wants. WHY???

[Excerpt]

Democrats again impotent to rein in Iraq war funds

Democrats failed again this week in their efforts to influence Iraq war policy, showing themselves incapable of carrying out the mandate of voters who gave them a majority in Congress one year ago.

Democrats took control of US Congress in January 2007, propelled by voter rage over Iraq, but they have had had no luck in using the US legislature's power over federal spending to force a timetable for US withdrawal from Iraq. . .

Read more at: AFP

Congress Capitulates: Ridiculous Condemnation of MoveOn.org

Congress has an approval rating lower than the President, something that should not be possible given the man who occupies that office. The actions taken by Congress in the last week cannot do anything but make that number go down.

Congress was unable to preserve Habeus Corpus. They also were unable to make sure that military service members receive as much time away from combat as they spend in combat. What could they pass? A meaningless condemnation of a newspaper ad.

I have already written and excerpted several posts on the faux outrage over this ad, and I still believe that's all it is. The ad itself (outside of a play on words: Petraeus/Betray Us) contains nothing but legitimate disagreement and questioning of the so-called "Patraeus Report." It is not "disgusting" as the President claims, nor any of the other colorful adjectives used by politicians and pundits.

It is dissenting political speech. One of the ideas this nation was founded on, and supposedly holds to be one of our fundamental rights. The Senate's condemnation of political speech is in my view fundamentally un-American.

After so many posts addressing this ad, I had no further intent to write about it. Due to today's decision, I had no choice. The behavior of this Congress, with its constant capitulation to the President's whim has seriously angered this Democrat. They behave as though Bush still has a 90% approval rating, and that confronting him would do them irreparable harm.

But this President is not popular. No one from his administration is running for President. The Democratic voter base is swelling to the point where success for a Democratic candidate ought to be assured. Instead, they keep rolling over.

Where is the response to the White House's constant refusal to abide by Congressional subpoenas? Where is the response to the White House's failure to deliver requested documents? Where is the response to the other innumerable transgressions the administration has committed--transgressions that would have put any other President in peril of impeachment?

And finally, where is the actual effort to end the war? Democrats are themselves in peril of so angering and frustrating their voters that they lose elections they should be winning by default.

Grow a spine. Grow some balls. Do what you were elected to do. End of rant.

For another take on this story, with some key facts behind the vote, go here:

Democrats fail to prevent Senate condemnation of MoveOn ad at RawStory.com

and here:

Do the Democrats even know who votes for them anymore? at DailyKos.com