"The conciliating Barack Obama will roll over every time"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Almost all of the media outlets in this country -- newspapers, magazines, radio stations and TV stations -- are owned by Republicans who have great appreciation for the DE-regulation the Republicans have provided so they, the media moguls, could expand their media empires, create information monopolies in their markets, control the flow of information to the public, and rake in billions more dollars.
So, we have to wonder WHY all these corporate, Republican-loving media moguls are using their media outlets to boost Barack Obama.
One of the worst of the media conglomerates is owned by General Electric, which owns NBC and MSNBC and is one of the largest of the military-industrial complex empires. The Boys and Girls at NBC and MSNBC know their bread is buttered by the bosses at General Electric, so you will not hear a kind word about Hillary Clinton on those channels that is not offset by 1,000,000 words of praise for Obama as the The Boys and Girls at NBC and MSNBC swoon over Barack Obama.
What is it the corporate media moguls know they will gain in benefits from a President Obama that they fear they will lose if there is a President Hillary Clinton? The corporate media moguls do not hate Hillary Clinton because of who she is; they hate her because they fear she would break up their media empires and Americans would once again have more diversity in media ownership, and more honest and factual reporting.
I believe the corporate media moguls actually want Obama to be president since he would be the easiest person for the corporations to roll over.
Obama considers himself a conciliator, but if a president is not willing to fight the fights that must be fought against the Republicans to: (1) protect the American middle class (and the poor), (2) protect Social Security and Medicare, (3) fight "for" universal healthcare (Obama has already "caved" on this and leaves out 15 million people from his healthcare plan), (4) fight to reclaim our national parks and forests from the mining, drilling, and clear-cutting lumber interests (Obama has already "caved" to the mining interests), (5) fight to protect the right of ordinary Americans to sue for compensation for medical mistakes that have cost them their limbs, eyes or life (Obama has already "caved" on this), (6) fight for the right to bring class action suits in state courts where the costs are less and victims have a better chance of prevailing (Obama has already "caved" on this one), then he is the exact person the Republicans and corporations want to have in the White House.
Barack Obama "sees" things the way Republicans and the corporate lobbyists want him to see them, just as he "saw" things the way the healthcare lobbyists in Illinois wanted him to "see" things. So, as an Illinois state senator, Obama watered down the legislation that would have protected all Illinoisans with healthcare insurance and now, as a result, many Illinoisans are excluded from having healthcare insurance -- thanks to the conciliating Barack Obama.
Yes, Obama is exactly who the Republicans and corporate interests want to have in the White House; he'll roll over every time -- just as he has already done, frequently.
Time after time, the Obama supporters claim Barack Obama is opposed to NAFTA but don't seem to be aware that Sen. Obama voted to expand NAFTA to Peru and Oman. In defending NAFTA, Obama said:
OBAMA: "I believe that expanding trade and breaking down barriers between countries is good for our economy and for our security, for American consumers and American workers."
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/issues_trade.cfmIt is the failure of the media to inform voters that leaves Obama supporters believing in the myth that Obama is against "expanding trade and breaking down barriers between countries" when in fact he supports "expanding trade and breaking down barriers between countries."
The corporate media people tell us, over and over, about the crowds Obama attracts, but the fact remains that whether or not someone attracts a crowd is not a serious person's way of measuring how good or bad that person would be as the Chief Executive of this great nation.
When we want to know what a political person will do, we should check to see what he has done.
(1) Barack Obama voted to expand NAFTA -
http://tinyurl.com/2qn59q(2) Obama "caved" to the healthcare lobbyists in Illinois.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/?page=1(3) Obama hung in for 17 years with a crook (Tony Rezko) in order to raise money:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article(4) Obama voted "for" every Iraq war funding bill (except the last one, which Sen. Clinton also voted against) after bragging, during his U.S. Senate campaign in 2003 and 2004 -- long after the Iraq war started -- he would never do that (Obama's senate voting record matches Hillary's on every Iraq war funding bill):
http://tinyurl.com/2cjnxb(5) Obama is employing lobbyists as campaign advisors (lobbyists are already on the inside with Obama ... presumably they would follow Obama into the White House, much as the energy lobbyists followed Bush into the White House where they wrote the president's energy legislation for him. No need to "donate" to gain access to Obama ... these lobbyists are already inside the Obama team.):
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/07/sc_obama_backer_is_also_a_lobb_1.html(6) Obama says he is against the Yucca Mountain Project for storing the nation's nuclear waste, but one of his most generous backers is Exelon CEO John Rowe (the second-largest contributor to Obama's presidential campaign). Exelon is the nation's largest nuclear power operator.
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=335 and
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/7509662.html(7) Obama says he is against mandatory healthcare insurance, but then he goes on to say that if people don't buy health insurance, but get sick and go to the emergency room where we pick up the tab, Obama considers that "gaming the system" and he would PUNISH those people by "making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten
in the first place." Obama does not tell us how he would go about collecting that money. Would he garnish a person's wages? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31text-debate.html
(8) Last November, Obama opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872:
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5413#more
(9) "Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006":
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5413#more
I wish the media people would give the American voters the serious information we need to make wise decisions. But I think that is a forlorn hope.