The author
Posted on 10/07/2010 8:52:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I don’t care what Will.I.Am told you, today is not a new day. Even worse, President Obama is only a sleeker, more web saavy 2.0 version of Bush, and voting in the 2010 midterms will only make things worse, not better.
Many Obama fanatics continue to cling to the pre-election version of Obama in order to duck the unrelenting truth that the dream of change has shape-shifted into a recurring Groundhog Day nightmare where life today is pretty much the same as it was yesterday. Instead of facing the fact that voting for Obama was a mass exercise in folly, Obama devotees engage in inconsistent mental contortions which lay the framework for a hallucination born of unbridled optimism; that Obama’s prudence and incrementalism will pay off in spades if we all just give the young man a little more time. But what evidence do we have that President Obama will do anything more than what he didn’t do between 2008 and 2010?
To have both houses of Congress, the White House, be America’s first black President and underachieve to such an enormous degree isn’t solely a consequence of naiveté. To the contrary, Obama’s inertia is a sure sign that he and his accompanying power structure have no interest in meeting the needs of the American people. And to cling to Obama as a savior is to engage in the politics of religious sentimentalism.
Since Obama supporters and detractors have adopted an us versus them posture, corporate interests who quarterback our economy are busy misdirecting the energy and efforts of both Tea Party enthusiasts and Progressive activists. Why else do you suppose that the Republican Senate minority’s aha moment of using the filibuster as blunt force object to bludgeon the Democrat’s legislative agenda came during Obama’s first term? Does anyone really believe that this is the first time such a zero sum scheme occurred to an opposition party? And why do you suspect that the Democrats didn’t respond to such a misuse of power by forcing Republicans to filibuster, or by passing all bills through the reconciliation process?
Corporate conglomerates like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and JPMorgan bought and paid for Obama during his campaign, while simultaneously (and patronizingly) patting small donors like you on the back for re-energizing the Democratic process through $10, $20 and $50 contributions. They knew that the Obama supporters would be expecting the President to make good on his promise of “change” once elected. And with a Democrat controlled Congress, Obama would have no excuse for thwarting the will of those who elected him. Enter the filibuster. The arcane Senate rule has been misused so that Obama and the Democrats can delay any fundamental action until they lose one or both houses of Congress, after which time they’ll have a valid cover-story for their malaise.
In the meantime, the filibuster serves an ulterior goal of focusing the ire of the American people on one another instead of the real puppet masters. The use of the filibuster has infuriated Democrats and emboldened conservatives who are now expressing their mutual antipathy via town halls, op-eds, and media bobble heads. It’s all meaningless white noise. Because although this back and forth may prove cathartic, it accomplishes nothing. It is akin to shadow boxing in a padded room.
Those who argue that voting is the answer, or that sitting out this election cycle and allowing Republicans to regain control of Congress would only make things worse, were obviously asleep at the switch when Republicans and Democrats morphed into a singular corporate hegemony.
The only difference which currently exists between the two parties is purely rhetorical. We’re left with two equally troubling choices. Either we go rogue or go zombie. We can no longer afford to pretend that a government which handed out 750 billion dollars to bankers, but is still allowing thousands of Americans to be made homeless by greedy lenders, is acting in the people’s interest. Neither can we pretend that pulling a lever or pressing a button at a ballot box will produce any meaningful change in the lives of everyday Americans.
Voting and marching were effective revolutionary tactics during previous eras. However, the strategies of the 1960’s are lost on an electoral system awash in corporate campaign cash. We must dismantle the corporate system which has successfully overthrown the people and inserted itself as the primary beneficiary of the Democratic process. It’s time to starve the beast. It’s time to engage in a form of consumer activism whereby we withhold our dollars from the very corporate entities that are oppressing us. It’s also time that we actively and verbally condemn our broken government, and support the people and organizations that have begun to fight back.
Revolutions act as decontaminants to the immune systems of governments and are necessary to the function of a healthy democracy. Revolutions, however, are never televised. We should’ve known when we saw Barack Obama on Oprah that he wasn’t the real deal.
********
Yvette Carnell is a former Capitol Hill Staffer turned political blogger. She currently publishes two blogs, Spatterblog.com and GoGirlGuide.com.
The author
Can I contact her to find her source of mind warping pharmaceuticals.
>>We should’ve known when we saw Barack Obama on Oprah that he wasn’t the real deal.
**
You mean he didnt pay for your motgage, rent, water, electricity and gas?
Another 20 watt light bulb moment
Great job, Yvette, I like your fire and your mental processes. However, I would like you to rethink whether it is the government or corporations who are the problem. Corporations only give to government to influence laws that affect their businesses. Government enacts laws that affect us all, not just businesses. I think if you will rethink whatever you consider to be problems today, you will see they can be traced back to government policies rather than businesses.
I’m not quite sure when ANYONE will understand that banks DO NOT want people’s homes, they lose millions of dollars on foreclosures.
It drives me insane to keep seeing idiots state that the greedy banks want people out of their homes when it’s simply untrue.
Thanks for letting me vent...
20 watt? You’re much too kind to her.
Alright. Which of you Freepers adopted the pen name “Yvette Carnell” and wrote this editorial?
She is right on a number of points, mainly that Obastard has no interest in making lives better for Americans; he just wants to punish America for being the evil capitalist oppressor of poor people throughout the world.
Yvette is a former Hill Staffer turned political blogger. She currently publishes two blogs, MadHowardGrad.com and GoGirlGuide.com.
Yvette Carnell is a proud graduate of the real H.U., Howard University. She worked as a Capitol Hill Staffer for both Congressman Berry (AR) and Senator Boxer (CA). In 2004, she was Regional Field Director for America’s Families United (AFU) where she managed the distribution of over 20 million dollars in grants to AFU’s grant recipients for voter registration and GOTV efforts. Today, she works as a political blogger and freelance writer. She is publishes two blogs; MadHowardGrad.com and GoGirlGuide.com.
she is a very special person.
Well, she’s got cool eyebrows.
I’m a loan officer & recruiter.
Must be my late night naturally optimistic nature presenting itself again.
I have to disagree with banks lose money. (Bear with me here).
Conventional loans probably are losers to foreclose on however the majority of the loans taken out for homes under FHA, VA, USDA and a whole myriad of other names all had to have PMI insurance (mandatory) which is factored into the payment. That insurance is strictly in the event of default. This insurance pays 80% of the loan amount.
The lender gets the payoff and then throws the home back on the market and sells it thereby getting more for the property.
Noone can satisfactorily (at least to me) explain the process (or wants to?) as this is something I’ve been questioning for months.
When all the dominoes started falling in 2008, the insurance companies could not keep up. It may be a losing situation now but not initially.
Now this is based on my own conclusions and if someone has a clearer understanding, I would appreciate the input.
Obama’s Achilles’ heel is that his is not American.
I wonder if she will write the same article in 2012 (if Ø runs)?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.