misssylviadrake (misssylviadrake) wrote,
misssylviadrake
misssylviadrake

The great positioner

Personal views include politics so,

Having just read how Obama is such a great guy for compromise he's ready to shred social security, I've decided Obama is a Positioner. He pretended to be a Democrat and positioned himself into the White House. He's a Republican and not even a liberal one (in the 1950s sense). And now it seems no one can dislodge him in order to give us a democrat to vote for in the next presidential election. Meanwhile under the cover of compromise he enacts great harm. On my Trollope19thCStudies list a during the height of the trumped-up budget crisis, someone reminded us of how Obama has never tried to say how much all this is lies, never makes any attempt to educate the public on why there's a job crisis -- and that the way to create jobs is to spend the taxpayers' money on themselves.

He did a cagey pretense of being liberal during his campaign, the whole tone of the presentation, the things he said he would do, and was for during the campaign. Sometimes too people going for office pretend to be more rightist or whatever to get into office, and once they get there use the office decently. I've read FDR ran on a conservative sounding platform in 1932. Not 1936 when he described himself as hated by all the types we watch running the government today and said he was glad to hate them in turn and would carry on with his pro-people policies. The past does not matter here, the present does. Obama is prepared to begin to destroy social security the only program left to the average person -- not that it's enough to live on any more. And he's a monster in that he is in the way, working for the bankers & warmongers.

The biography is one long positioning of himself. Never a word about his mother's Ph.D or her real life. No it's all white grandfather and pietry for his black family in Africa.

What he's doing now - he thinks - is positioning himself to be president again. He had better think again.  For Hacker's article in the New York Review of Books is spot on.

No that Hilary Clinton would have been any better probably.  Clinton was with her husband in destroying welfare, signing NAFTA, freeing the banks of regulation. She was not any different as far as I can see -- though had she gotten into office she might not have lain down and allowed people to kick her. 
I dislike her book very much: she talks of children as investments, of women who don't deserve to keep their children, it's not a collective ideal but networking her village. Her piety drips. I also disliked the idea of quangos, and her defense of them when asked in congress about how many people might feel having to cope with intimidation was to sniff condescendingly. Honest I see little difference between her and Obama; six of one half a dozen of the other.

I don't know that there was anyone since Edwards's apparently liberalism might have been a stance too. But that there was not does not make Obama any better. We ought to stop pretending, that's all.
So I was fooled that's all.



Sylvia
Tags: politics
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 3 comments