Monday, November 1, 2010

Cenk Uygur: What Obama is missing

I know that everyone will me yelling to write this now. I hear now, "we are trying to win an election." You're not helping! "Criticizing Democrats now looks into bed with Karl Rove"! OK, hopefully not the last one, which seems to be monstrous, but you get the point.

The reality is that many people speak, we really do something. Malan and Mae, we participate in It is part of their efforts more for people taking care of volunteers and to make calls to reveal the strong progressive vote.Please contribute to this effort if you have a time libre.Certains elections are very narrow and speaking to voters real help enormously.

Now, the reason why I'm writing a critical piece of Obama at this stage is because I've seen just an excellent interview Jon Stewart had with him on The Daily Show. In fact, I thought it was the best Chairman interview I've ever seen (my detailed analysis of the interview is here).

Stewart him actual address critical merits his record for the first time.Almost all others who interviewed him have greatly distorted case or he disputed the droite.Stewart asked all rights issues. And the responses were very informative. This is what I learned.

Unfortunately, the Obama does is it it is not alone.almost the entire media Washington do not understand what the hell we are talking about when we say the change. Obama said he received 90% of what we wanted in the reform of health care and that people are complaining that we get the other 10 %.J'en totally disagree with him on the percentages (I think it was closer to 40%), but that misses the whole point.

We're not quibble about législatifs.Par example compromise, I would have given the exemption of the NRA and all other exemption proposed to the Act of communicating. We are not stupid, we are aware of the need to make trade-offs and the fact that of course you can't get all you want.

The real issue is not whether you changed certain provisions and is not changing. It is question of whether or not you have changed the System. This is the change we need.

Thus, in the case of health care, as long as there were some efforts to break the monopoly of insurance we would all jumped dans.Nous does not have a single payer, we didn't need Medicare buy-in for everyone, we didn't need even the public option for everyone (all those which would have been great, but we were far from these policy cimate). It was just something, something to start the dash system change.

We settled for the Medicare buy-in starting at age 55. We installed the public option only applies to 5% of the country, the latest proposal. There is no wild claim no mythical inflexible progressives requiring 100%. We wanted not just as the core of the system to be exactly as it was before. And unfortunately it is.

Yes, we had more coverage than most people. I am not neglecting the good sides of the Bill, but at the same time, you may not be deliberately dense to what we say.Private insurance is still our only option, pharmaceutical companies have massive monopolies, our bonuses are back and we are always at the mercy of those companies.

But health is an exemple.véritable nub of the issue is how our elections are funded. Lobbyists kill us.Democratic voters hate and do Republican voters.They buy our politicians and corrupt the entire system.This is what the Tea Party protesters are angry about their hearts (73% of the Tea Party supporters were against the decision of Citizens United allowing companies to spend unlimited money on elections) .c ' is the only progressive are angry about their hearts (86% of Liberals are against Citizens United).The system is broken.Our politicians do not work for nous.Nos representatives represent us. That is what we wanted to change!

And what was done about it?Almost nothing!Yes, Obama administration brought a little more transparency in the process initially (although after Citizens United we have taken a giant step backward - and it is a part of the reason is one of the most unpopular decisions in the history of the Supreme Court) .Oui, administration prohibited particularly lobbyists to work for them directly.But is there any major piece of legislation fixing the core of the system.

If we continue to let the special interests, corporate interests and lobbyists are buying our politicians, there is no hope on one of the questions.Obama was right, the best we can hope for is a little change in different domaines.Si you agree this false premise, Obama was the best he could do to these constraints.

But we did not elect him to accept this premise, we have elected to change this premise .c ' is change expected - and to not get.

Unfortunately, based on responses from President Obama Jon Stewart again that he does not and is there no intention to push this agenda for the next two années.Et it will probably be just as flummoxed and then to why people are not satisfied with his shyness efforts.Votre is not based on your policies spécifiques.Elle proposals is based on your lack of vision.

If he fought tooth and nail for full public financing of elections for the next two years, even if he did not win, us have any return him 100 %.Il is not 100% success, but we need you at least head in good direction.Et we need you to understand what it means by change.

Watch the young Turks here


Follow the Cenk Uygur on Twitter:

This entry transmitted via the service for full-text RSS - if this is your content and you read on someone to another site, please read our FAQ page
Article five filters features: After Hiroshima - non-rapport Cancer Catastrophe of Fallujah.

View the original article here

No comments:

Post a Comment