"Obama Isn’t Spineless, He’s Conservative" By Paul Street

[WizardLeft62]

ZNet
Obama Isn’t Spineless, He’s Conservative: Reflections on Chutzpah, Theirs and Ours
By Paul Street
Saturday, December 11, 2010

"...Oh boy – so now he’s really gone and done it. President Barack Obama has (as widely predicted) “caved-in” to Republican demands for the preservation of George W. Bush’s arch-plutocratic, deficit-driving tax cuts for the wealthy few (at a cost of $900 billion to the federal treasury) in a tax “deal” that accommodates Republicans (and their wealthy paymasters) on the federal estate tax and cuts payments into Social Security. (Democratic congressman Gary Ackerman rightly calls the “tax deal” the GOP’s “Wet Dream
Act”). Adding insult to injury, Obama has (with what the New York Times calls “uncharacteristic emotion” accused those on his left (not hard to be) of being “unrealistic” and of “playing politics” with the American peoples’ lives because of their (he thinks) dysfunctional "purist" and selfish desire to see him fight against – instead of compromise with – concentrated wealth.. How dare we insist that he use his office and bully pulpit to resist those who held unemployment benefits and “middle class tax cuts” hostage to the a plutocratic agenda? “In this case,” Obama proclaimed, “the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.” Many liberals and progressives are “enraged.” “Disappointed” in Obama’s continuing business-friendly direction, they accuse him of “moral collapse” and criticize his “spineless” failure to “act on the courage of his convictions.” But “collapse” from what previous real progressive convictions? Obama (who first achieved public notoriety by cutting a deal with the far-right Federalist Society to become the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review isn’t being cowardly in his tax “deal for the American people” (well, for plutocrats) anymore than he’s been spineless while advancing an auto-restructuring plan that raided union pension funds and rewarded capital flight, pushing through a health “reform” bill that only insurance and drug companies could love, undermining serious global carbon emission reduction efforts at Copenhagen, prosecuting whistleblowers and harassing antiwar activists, and prosecuting and expanding criminal overt and covert wars in South Asia and around the world. No, he’s acting boldly and with chutzpah in accord with his longstanding: “deeply conservative” instincts, and giving the finger and occasional smack to “the left” along the way. Yes, chutzpah – the sort of thing you might expect from a guy who could make a speech in defense of war while (absurdly) receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

Here is yet one more opportunity for frustrated left and liberal Obama supporters/ex-supporters to consider the early and ominous wisdom of the eminent left political scientist Adolph Reed Jr.’s take on an unnamed Obama at the beginning of the future president’s political career in early 1996:

“In Chicago, for instance, we’ve gotten a foretaste of the new breed of foundation-hatched black communitarian voices: one of them, a smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable credentials and vacuous to repressive neoliberal politics, has won a state senate seat on a base mainly in the liberal foundation and development worlds. His fundamentally bootstrap line was softened by a patina of the rhetoric of authentic community, talk about meeting in kitchens, small-scale solutions to social problems, and the predictable elevation of process over program – the point where identity politics converges with old-fashioned middle class reform in favoring form over substances. I suspect that his ilk is the wave of the future in U.S. black politics here, as in Haiti and wherever the International Monetary Fund has sway.”

Ten years later, Ken Silverstein’s fall 2006 Harpers’ essay, “Obama, Inc.” included the following notable passage: “It’s not always clear what Obama’s financial backers want, but it seems safe to conclude that his campaign contributors are not interested merely in clean government and political reform...."

Read the Entire Article and Footnotes by Paul Street at:
http://www.zcommunications.org/obama-isn-t-spineless-he-s-conservative-reflections-on-chutzpah-theirs-and-ours-by-paul-street

Paul Street is the author of Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2008); and The Empire’s New Clothes: Barack Obama in the Real World of Power (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2010).

[notesdev]

1. in a very old school sense

where conservative = "interested in preserving the status quo"

yes, Obama in that sense in an ultra conservative. We've seen very little change from the "hope and change" President.

[molly77]

46. That hypothesis makes no sense.

Obama was opposed to the Iraq War.

He went to a church for 20 years that did some great community outreach. Millions given to homeless, Aids victims, and for college scholarships.

Here is my hypothesis.

Obama became president when this country was in overt fascist mode. Not just playing around behind the scenes. After the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election, not the American people, there is no doubt.

The policies that Obama is subscribing to are really clinton policies. Hillary clinton was the first choice for president in 2008, not obama. Do you think Obama wanted a clinton administration? All the high level positions are clinton retreads.

It is highly debatable , but I like having Obama as president rather than hillary. The legislation that Obama vetoed to give the banks retroactive immunity from criminal foreclosure policies would have never been vetoed by hill.That bill has far reaching ramifications for the banking industry in the US.

[notesdev]

49. Opposition back then is meaningless

it was a safe position, given his constituency, and it was to no actual effect. So he could posture all he liked.

When it came down to actually having to make a decision, the decision made has been to make no decision at all - whatever his opposition to wars in the past, in the present his policy is to continue both ad infinitum, as well as maintaining virtually every other aspect of foreign policy unchanged.

It's one thing to say you're against something when you're not held to it. It's quite another to actually act on the sentiment.

[NYCGirl]

2. Compared to the author, who is a Marxist, I suppose most

Democrats are conservative.

[WizardLeft62]

3. Yes, the DLC Democrats are Republican-Lite

Yes, the DLC Democrats are Republican-Lite and have remade the party more in the image of Ronald Reagan than FDR or LBJ.

Then-Senator Barack Obama praised Ronald Reagan during the 2008 campaign to the Reno Gazette saying:

"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people—he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Obama never specified those "excesses" but made the charge anyhow. It does not take a "Marxist" to realize that Obama did not care about the left from the start and sought to pander to the right wing from early on. Even establishment candidate John Edwards, who is not a "Marxist" criticized Obama's praise of Reagan.

This is the same Ronald Reagan who ignored the AIDS crisis and allowed war crimes to go on in Central America during his presidency along with torture and Latin Americans being disappeared then as well. The war crimes of the Reagan administration let alone the Iran-Contra affair are staggering and continued under the Bush administration. Obama has not addressed but has defended the Bush torture regime in court, which is fact. One does not have to be a "Marxist" to realize that the Democrats are acting more and more corporatist and militarist than having a strong or sound economic and social conscience.

Paul Street again offers a useful analysis and it's worth reading his conclusions and checking the article's footnotes.

When President Obama ignores the Democrats in Congress, again and again, in the future, to negotiate with the Republican Party (in some quarters of society it's called going over the head of another) instead of even informing the Democratic Party, don't be shocked or surprised. And if somehow you are surprised, reread this article by Paul Street.

[theoldman]

4. At first I thought that Obama's praise of Reagan was a political ploy.

Now I am not so sure. Reagan was a great politician who lead us over the cliff. Obama is not a great politician but seems to be capable of doing the same thing.

[olegramps]

39. His over blown rhetoric is just that, nothing more than hot air.

I read both of his books and it was a constant theme that we have to compromise in order to achieve any advancement. I discussed this with my brother who has a PHD in history and teaches in a university and very much aware of the political scene. He was of the opinion that he would be a very weak leader but we had little choice in thatr McCain and Palin were totally unacceptable. He commented recently that Obama has by his ineptitude has legitimized Palin who is little more than a vacuous pinhead.

[whathehell]

50. I no longer have ANY faith in this man. n/t

[mrdmk]

51. A leader is someone who takes the lead on matters and endeavors

I would have to agree with your brother. At the same time, when the primaries were proceeding in 2007, the Democratic candidates were Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. We had to make a choice between a known DLC candidate and candidate that was a declaring them-self to be a moderate. What does one do?

We must also remember that at one time Obama had to ask the DLC to take his name off of their Web Site.

[Laelth]

19. Well said. n/t

-Laelth

[laughingliberal]

28. +1000 nt

[sasha031]

6. do you have any proof that Paul Street is a marxist?

I found the article very interesting.

Just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't mean you have to call the a Marxist. I thought this was the kind of behavior you might find on the free republic

[NYCGirl]

22. Here:

Street is a left Marxist whose leading influences beyond Marx include Gerrard Winstanley, Edward Palmer Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm, Rosa Luxembourg, Noam Chomsky, and John Pilger. Street is an outspoken critic of pseudo-populism, which is usually engineered with the help of mass media, especially as it perpetuates corporatism and imperialism. Street is also an expert analyst and commentator on contemporary racism in the "post Civil Rights era."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Street_(journalist)

[democracy1st]

31. wikipedia is your source ? Read about internet character assassination. (link)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm

[WizardLeft62]

32. Agree 100%

History Professors warn students against using Wikipedia as a "source" as it has been revealed to be very shoddy in the past.

Looking at the Wikipedia site in a casual manner might be okay, but, reliance on Wikipedia as a substitute for any real or substantial research work, and subsequent analysis, is not scholarly and certainly not suggested.

[olegramps]

41. Would you mind citing an example.

With your superior ability for research it shouldn't require much effort.

[Scruffy1]

24. And what's wrong with being a Marxist?

In my whole life I have never seen Das Kapital proven wrong. Every economist has read him. We are in one of the cycles caused by overproduction now, made worse by the neo-con belief that the economic cycles can be smoothed out by easy money-which just leads to a bigger bust.

[Myrina]

33. +10

:thumbsup:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. If he is a Marxist, so what?

Marx was actually right about some things.

We have to stop running and hiding when someone cries "socialist!" or "Marxist!"

My standard response to righties on my local paper's website is "You say 'socialist' as if that's a bad thing." It makes their heads explode.

[NYCGirl]

44. Nothing, if that's what you think. But probably 99.9% of

Democrats are conservative when viewed by someone who's Marxist.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. Yes, or by anyone who remembers the 1960s

and hasn't had their brain clouded by right-wing propaganda.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. Conservative/liberal is a differenct spectrum than socialist/capitalist.

IOW, your comment is nonsense.

You can be a liberal or conservative capitalist; you can be a liberal or conservative socialist. The right loves to call Obama a liberal socialist, and NEITHER is true. He attitudes toward government are decidedly conservative, and his economic policies are as far removed from socialism as you can get. While doing everything in his power to empower the money end of the capitalist system, he does fuck all for the workers.

[olegramps]

40. It seems to me that Jesus would be included in that group.

[NYCGirl]

45. Good thing he's not running for POTUS, then. NT

[xxqqqzme]

48. using your 'source'

'..."We either transcend the corporate-managed profits system or we descend ever further into barbarism, totalitarianism, and ecological ruin over the long haul."...' Paul Street

So if I agree, that makes me a 'Marxist'?

[caseymoz]

59. Attack the person, not the argument.

Look at the evidence he presents. You don't have to be a Marxist to follow his conclusion.

And it's not like any of what's happening now is really making it look like Marx was right after all.

:sarcasm:

I'd say this government, conservatives and corporatists are the real Marxist, bringing Marx back from the dead by proving him right at every turn. We look down on the Soviet Union, but I find it questionable if this country is even going to last the next decade.

[RufusTFirefly]

61. You got a problem with Marxists?

[sasha031]

5. an excellent read/ thank you

[jaxx]

7. Paul Street

Paul Street (born May 23, 1958) is an American radical-Left journalist, author, historian, and political commentator.

Street is a left Marxist whose leading influences beyond Marx include Gerrard Winstanley, Edward Palmer Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm, Rosa Luxembourg, Noam Chomsky, and John Pilger. Street is an outspoken critic of pseudo-populism, which is usually engineered with the help of mass media, especially as it perpetuates corporatism and imperialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Street_%28journalist%29

______________

This is who we should listen to? I don't think so.

[sasha031]

8. speak for yourself

[jaxx]

9. I did. And for many others who are Democrats.

The far left doesn't speak for us.

[QC]

11. McCarthyites do not speak for us either,

though they certainly do speak loudly of late.

[bread_and_roses]

38. Right, it looks like Goldman Sachs speaks for most Ds - or they speak for them

whichever. Not a dimes worth of difference between them in most cases.

What decade are you living in? The 50's? That was a time when so-called "Liberals" could point to at least a slice of reality in the US and make a case that some middle-of-the-road "regulated capitalism" had merit. There was still deep poverty among both whites and people of color, and ferocious repression and oppression of people of color, but much of it was hidden from "mainstream" view (and we won't even mention our adventures abroad, supporting torturing murderous dictators and the crushing of indigenous peoples and workers). At that time, in at least a slice of the population, wages were high enough to support a family, companies paid for decent health care insurance, and workers had pensions to supplement their SS.

That time, in case you hadn't noticed, is long gone. And it ain't coming back, by all the signs.

I don't know what reality someone has to be in these days to think that a Marxist analysis of our current state has no worth.

It all comes down to what it has always come down to: Which side are you on?

[Ken Burch]

52. You should listen to the left though

WE get something that YOU don't about this situation...

Something that the tax surrender just reinforced...

"market values" will always PREVENT progressive social change.

This system can't BE reformed.

[rhett o rick]

56. Who speaks for you? Do you like Sen Sanders? I am so curious who you

guys follow.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Why not? He's a Marxist, not a Stalinist or even a Leninist.

He believes political power is rooted in the disparity of weath between the owner class and the working class. Can you say it is not?

Marxism is not, primarily, a political theory but an economic theory from which political events are inevitable outcomes.

Perhaps you need to learn what Marxism is before slamming someone based on him being a Marxist.

[WizardLeft62]

14. Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky is actually a structuralist who focuses on class power. Negating the reality of class power would be to ignore, well, reality. Without struggle against class power, which, yes does exist, people are sure to be relegated to serfdom and servility to the most powerful echelons of society.

In short, the leftist analysis of corporate power is as relevant and accurate now in 2010, as it had been in the 1960s.

Those damn "hippies."

Yeah, Ronald Reagan hated the left and hippies as Governor of California.

What does Obama think of the left? Oh yeah, too "purist" and part of the present problem. That darn "public option fight." Just like Reagan firing Professor Angela Davis and targeting other liberal academics when he was Governor of California.

[Skittles]

15. your destroy the messenger path seems to be the only one you have left

[jaxx]

16. Another perspective is good.

Lets people decide for themselves when they know where information comes from. That can be a factor in how the info is presented.

[Skittles]

17. that's kind of like a FOX NEWS debate

you're defending the indefensible

[jaxx]

18. I haven't watched fox news for a long time.

They bore me with their constant carping and talking points. They all sound the same.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. They sound just like any other McCarthyite shite flinger

nt

[dreamnightwind]

35. You're correct on this point

The perspective of the information provider is a huge part of "information" (this equation, perhaps: observed phenomenon passed through perspective = information).

In this case the source of the information validated it even more for me. It comes from a serious critique of our economic system which is failing us right now. I intend to dig deeper into this viewpoint, it is tragically under-represented.

We really need to look at more analysis from left perspectives. When do we get exposed to this side of things? Pretty much never, unless we seek it out. We're living in a right-wing nightmare, without much serious discussion of alternative policies or even alternative critiques of our leaders. Tax cuts for the rich, bailouts for failing deregulated businesses and austerity for the masses. We're supposed to accept the narrative of corporate group-think and hope everything turns out ok. It won't.

[Enthusiast]

34. It's an all too familiar path.

It's heard on Fox News 24/7.

[Laelth]

20. I think that might be a very good person to listen to. n/t

-Laelth

[Scruffy1]

25. I will listen to whoever I want.

I suppose if you inherit a lot of capital you probably are not very fond of Marx et al. But then you don't have to worry about being homeless and hungry in order to preserve a belief in the invisible hand of the market place.

[Hawkowl]

26. Shoot the messenger

Nice play of rethuglican tactics. If the point is indisputable, simply tear down the messenger. Disgusting.

[laughingliberal]

29. Listening to someone who criticizes pseudo populism...as it perpetuates corporatism & imperialism...

might be smart at this point. Unless, of course, you favor corporatism and imperialism.

I haven't found it to my liking.

[fasttense]

36. Yes, we should listen to him.

So wikipedia thinks he's a Marxist. Since when has wiki been the defining source? RepubiliCONS think Obama is a socialist, Muslim, American hating Christian. Should we quote them too?

But aside from that, Marx was right. His analysis of economic issues was spot on accurate. His solutions on the other hand, left much to be desired.

And Paul Street's analysis is spot on too. One of the reasons I did not vote for Obama in the primaries was his vote in favor of the telecom amnesty act, that was soon overshadowed by his yes vote on the Wall Street bailout.

Obama is a conservative RepubliCON much like Herbert Hoover was. When a Democratic president acts like a RepubliCON, the country starts voting real RepubliCONS into office. It happened under Clinton and it happened in the midterm. It's because the nation only hears the one side. Rarely are any real liberal issues discussed seriously and when they are it is usually to condemn and ridicule the left. The RepubliCONS most represent what both political parties are saying. So, the obvious solution is to vote RepubliCON.

Now, this will probably work in Obama favor in 2012 as it worked for Clinton in his reelection. I say probably because sometimes people catch on they don't really have a liberal even if he calls himself a Democrat. But this will kill any Democratic or liberal Senators and Representatives chance for reelection. We will very likely lose both houses in the next voting cycle and we will probably get a RepubliCON in the White House in 2016.

See, Obama is pushing the RepubliCON line and the RepubliCONS are pushing the same line so, voters are going to pick real RepubliCONS.

Unless of course the economy goes to hell. Then all bets are off.

[yurbud]

13. sad but true. He throws us a few bones and hooves, but the rich get the meat

and we get the bill.

[ladjf]

21. He shouldn't be claiming that he is a Democrat . nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

57. +1000!

[MissDeeds]

60. +1001

[laughingliberal]

27. K & R nt

[Fokker Trip]

30. Between Winkileaks and Obama's position on tax breaks..

I've seen a lot more of the Authoritarians on this site that I had previously.

Obama came from the University of Chicago. I'm not surprised at all that his ideas are in line with the infamous "Chicago School" beliefs and positions.

The ideas of Strauss, Friedman, et al. permeate the entire school like a foul stench. Obama is just carrying the flag.

[katty]

55. bingo

[Raksha]

63. I'm afraid you're right. Obama is a neocon.

Re "Obama came from the University of Chicago. I'm not surprised at all that his ideas are in line with the infamous "Chicago School" beliefs and positions.

The ideas of Strauss, Friedman, et al. permeate the entire school like a foul stench. Obama is just carrying the flag."

No other conclusion is possible.

[MrMickeysMom]

37. Knock-knock.... Who's there?

The University of Chicago School of Economics...

My hubby's been telling me this for years.... I'm finally in FULL agreement.

Where's that stamp that was used for an Obama Poster that said "hope", but had Assange's face?

That's our new "hope" right there... and there's a concerted effort to kill it, too...

[WizardLeft62]

64. Samir Amin - Capitalism In Crisis: An Obsolete System

Samir Amin - Capitalism In Crisis: An Obsolete System
Source: Pambazuka
Tuesday, December 14, 2010

PAMBAZUKA NEWS: Can you tell me very briefly what your book, ‘Ending the Crisis of Capitalism or Ending Capitalism?’, what is it about?

SAMIR AMIN: The title of my book is indicative of the intention. The title, in a provocative way, is ‘Ending the Crisis of Capitalism or Ending Capitalism in Crisis?’ As you can see, these are two different visions and strategies of action. Capitalism is currently in a crisis. This is not just a financial crisis which started with the breakdown of the financial system in September 2008. The financial crisis is itself the result of a long, a deep crisis which started long before, around 1975 with as of that time, unemployment, precarity, poverty, inequality, having grown continuously. And this real crisis of really existing capitalism has been overcome by financialisation of the system and the financialisation of the system has been the Achilles heel of the system. Therefore I thought that, and I wrote in 2002 that financialisation, being the Achilles heel of the system, the system will start breaking down and moving into a deeper crisis through a financial crisis, which is what happened. Now we are at that point in time and we have to look into what strategy. Can we develop … is it reasonable to think that the system was not so bad and that therefore we should go back, restore the system as it was before the financial breakdown. That is one alternative. It is the choice of the ruling power of capital. It is the choice of, for instance, Stiglitz and people who are presented as critical – they are not critical. Or, the alternative – and it is the alternative which I think is the only reasonable one – is to look at that deep crisis of the system as the signal that the system is an obsolete system. That is, it has now come to a point where continuing the accumulation of capital is deepening and continuing the destruction of the natural basis for the reproduction of civilisation. And therefore that we ought to move and start moving beyond capitalism.

Check the entire interview and audio at:
http://www.zcommunications.org/capitalism-in-crisis-an-obsolete-system-by-samir-amin

[zalinda]

43. Don't believe Paul Street, then try this one

http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/ by Todd Spivak or if you prefer the Cliff Notes version http://wonkette.com/361542/barack-obamas-dastardly-rage-and-corruption-revealed

zalinda

[indepat]

53. It's almost as if the ground-work were being laid for landslide Republican wins of the presidency,

Senate, and the House in 2012. Realizing scathing fusillades will follow for stating what should be obvious, let me add BHO surely seems to be the most RW Democratic president since the late-19th-century as the most knowledgeable voice on this board (imo)(TFC) has indicated. ;)

[DeSwiss]

54. K&R

While I agree with much of what the post says in its description of Obama, however in the end: Conservative = Spineless. Because no matter how you cut it, the results are pretty much the same: the ripoff of the poor and powerless.


- We're just having a hard time admitting this because we helped to put him there.......

[sam sarrha]

58. bi-partisanship is really just kissing GOP Ass.. but Obama said it was OK, it tastes like Chicken..

[colbertforpresident]

62. Obama lost my vote

He is NOT what he was advertised to be.

[certainot]

65. Left isn't getting obama's back, so don't expect him to stick his neck out too

far.

this is politics and the right gets away with election theft and lying us into wars and plane crashes. and it won't change much as long as the Left ignores the right's most important weapon, banging obama and dems over the head all day long, with no challenge from the left.

[WizardLeft62]

66. Obama is no "Lefty" or "Liberal"

I only expect Obama to stick his neck out to the right wing Republican Party, the corporatists and the militarists.

Not once has Obama actually or literally went to bat or the mat for any liberal or leftist or progressive principles.

Obama may sound in rhetoric as if he is some kind of liberal or leftist or progressive, but, his pro-corporate and anti-civil liberties record only indicate more and more that Obama is no "Lefty" or "Liberal."

The question thus begs: when will Obama "stick his neck out" so the Left can support Obama's "back" because so far this president is acting more like a Republican from the Herbert Hoover era than any other time period.

Obama is also doing a fine job of selling out FDR's legacy.

[Creative]

67. Funny...

:crazy:

[WizardLeft62]

68. And... a comedy of errors...

Sad, as in Tragedy there can be Comedy...

That is a comedy of errors...

Obama is a comedy of errors and comics thought joking about him would be "difficult."

Giggle and gurgle.

[WizardLeft62]

69. Obama = Republican

1. Obama’s tax bill of 2010 GUTS Social Security
2. Obama lowers estate tax for the rich
3. Obama double downs on Bush Wars, (have become Obama’s wars)
4. Obama attacks Teacher Unions (teacher unions now hate OBAMA)
5. Obama does not attack the Banks? he bails them out? (Just like the GOP)
6. Obama passes the Romney/Dole Health Care Bill (Romney/Dole are Republicans)
7. Obama is/was against the Public Option
8. Obama opposed Drug re-importation
10. Obama hand picks the "Cat Food Commission" to destroy Social Security
11. Guantanomo still open for business
14. Patriot Act renewed again by Obama
15. Renditions continue by Obama
16. Ben Bernanke is reappointed again, by Obama
17. Americans are targeted for assassination by Obama
18. Obama supports more off shoring of American jobs
19. Obama’s tax cuts help the wealthy and harm greatly the poor, elderly and disabled.
20. Obama sits back and does nothing but support the TSA
21. Obama freezes federal wages for 2 years and no COLA for another year with Social Security
22. Obama TARP Funds for Legal Services for Foreclosure Victims are blocked by the U.S. Treasury
23. Obama attacks Unions (His Big Screw You to the UAW is very Republican)
24. Obama endorses the Bush agenda of spying on and killing Americans