Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

What Bill Moyers said

Quoted by Greenwald. Of health care insurance rdeform:

MOYERS: I don’t think the problem is the Republicans . . . .The problem is the Democratic Party. This is a party that has told its progressives -- who are the most outspoken champions of health care reform -- to sit down and shut up. That’s what Rahm Emanuel, the Chief of Staff at the White House, in effect told progressives who stood up as a unit in Congress and said: "no public insurance option, no health care reform."

And I think the reason for that is -- in the time since I was there, 40 years ago, the Democratic Part has become like the Republican Party, deeply influenced by corporate money. I think Rahm Emanuel, who is a clever politician, understands that the money for Obama’s re-election will come from the health care industry, from the drug industry, from Wall Street. And so he’s a corporate Democrat who is determined that there won’t be something in this legislation that will turn off these interests. . . .

You really have essentially -- except for the progressives on the left of the Democratic Party – you really have two corporate parties who in their own way and their own time are serving the interests of basically a narrow set of economic interests in the country -- who, as Glenn Greenwald, who is a great analyst and journalist, wrote just this week: these narrow interests seem to win, determine the outcomes, no matter how many Democrats are elected, no matter who has their hands on the levers of powers, these narrow interests determine the outcomes in Washington, even when they have to run roughshod over the interests of ordinary Americans. I’m sad to say that has happened to the Democratic Party.

No, the two parties are not "the same." But they are different wings of the same palace: Versailles.

And it's that palace that needs to be burned to the ground.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Andre's picture
Submitted by Andre on

Democratic Soul Speakingt just for me, I would hope that the Democrats get this message, because I could see my utter disdain for the conservative republicans being totally overshadowed by my utter disgust with the Dems if they don't get very, very close, in not right there, to single payer. As one voter, my support of the Dems is in direct proportion to how close they get to single payer. And that's Dems on every level.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

My disdain for Dems already does overshadow my disdain for conservative GOPers. But the big reason for that is because its the Dems with a huge House majority and a filibuster proof majority and the White House.

Only tyrants rig elections.

TreeHugger's picture
Submitted by TreeHugger on

Ralph Nader was right....just two corporate parties.

And no, I did not vote for Nader. I voted for the 2% less evil corporate party.
Unfortunately, that sliver of distinction seems to have evaporated in the past 8 months.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Really?

Gore was decidedly not anti-government in his rhetoric. The lock box was their to protect government programs. Environment regulation was a decidedly government driven position. Today, the Dem Party's rhetoric is decidedly different, at least to me. Now we get "entitlement reform" rhetoric about out of control government programs potentially destroying the economy. That seems noticeably different than what Gore was about.

Only tyrants rig elections.

Submitted by lambert on

... but as I just pointed out, 2000 and 2009 are not the same years. We hadn't been through not one, but two burst bubbles in election 2000. Now we have.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

It's not 2008 (hope and change).

It's not 2006 (when the Dems were given the mandate).

It's not 2000 (Bush v. Gore (and Nader))

It's not 1992 (Clinton and HillaryCare, so called).

It's not 1972 (Nixon, Kennedy, and health care then).

And so forth. I agree that those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. But those who won't recognize face what is new are condemned to miss opportunities.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

nihil obstet's picture
Submitted by nihil obstet on

Explaining how you would have won the last war is what gets you promoted to general.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

What if the problem arises out of the influence of the corporations, personified by the White House Chief of Staff?

If Obama likes / trusts / relies on Emanuel, and Emanuel isn't being straight, isn't he in a position to make sure his crookery isn't discovered by virtue of his COS job?


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

mass's picture
Submitted by mass on

I don't think he was saying Obama is naive in all of this.

The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.---FDR

Submitted by lambert on

in a position to. Why would you believe that he is?

And why would you believe that Moyer's is saying the problem is one of personalities and hiden malfeasance and coverup, when it's clear that he's saying it's one of systems and interests:

these narrow interests seem to win, determine the outcomes, no matter how many Democrats are elected, no matter who has their hands on the levers of powers, these narrow interests determine the outcomes in Washington, even when they have to run roughshod over the interests of ordinary Americans.

If Rahm did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. Heck, if Obama didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

S Brennan's picture
Submitted by S Brennan on

For the record, there was a hell of a difference between Gore & Bush, but Obama & Bush?

Let's see as far as presidential policy goes Obama has continued Bush's:

"1] War in Iraq, by implementing Rumsfield's plan in whole.

2] Bailout of the financial sector, Giethner's policy is line on line with
Paulson's

3] Domestic spying and has suppressed any investigation.

4] Violation of unlawful detention, even using the same technique of moving
prisoners from jurisdiction to jurisdiction

5] Reliance on health insurers to set national health policy.

6] Oh yeah...Obama like to torture too.