All respect my friend, but Democrats are not trying to damage the relationship between big business and Republicans and quite to the contrary. It was President Bill Clinton (Democrat) who signed the financial modernization act which allowed three previously discrete financial industries (banking, securities, and insurance) to consolidate. It may not sound like much but this act, authored by three Republicans, was more than an olive branch to Wall Street. It was the birth of "too big to fail" and the precursor to our current financial meltdown. Maddow is simply asking if Democrats understand that by serving corporate interests, they've empowered their political enemies and disenfranchised much of their base?

Unions are all but dead in this country so I'd hardly call them anyone's backbone at this point. That's not good enough for some, unfortunately. Wisconsin proves that Republicans and Big Business want to completely eradicate organized labor, effectively "salting the earth" so unions, once destroyed, can never grow again. Organized labor needs a "Hail Mary" pass at this point if it hopes to come back. I really don't think that will come from Democrats and I fear it won't come from the people, either. Despite it being against their own interests, most Americans have swallowed whole the idea that organized labor is an obstacle to prosperity. Unions are getting it from all sides and I'm afraid no amount of free pizza will change that. However, if things turn out well for labor in Wisconsin I might sing a different tune.



In reply to this comment by My_design:
Maddow makes a lot of sense here, but seems to forget that it is a 2 way street. She pointedly admits that Unions are the backbone of the Democratic machine and that Republicans are trying to do away with that. Kind of like how Businesses are the backbone of the Republican machine and Democrats are trying to damage that relationship. Each gives bonuses to their backers. In either case the public loses. Seems to me that the money goes to private security firms, or money goes to Union bosses, over inflated pensions and employees that can not be fired. But that doesn't make what is happening in Wisconsin right.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

And Democrats aren't corrupt? Someone needs to come down from that tower.

I didn't say that, but there's a matter of degrees. Republican corruption usually involves outright devastation to people's lives for profit (let's "privatize" social security, let's start a war to get oil rights, let's pretend the environment is indestructible), whereas Democratic corruption usually presents itself as siding with Republicans on whatever horrific scheme they're looking to implement, plus they get involved in some of the "traditional" corruption -- funneling public money into private hands in return for campaign contributions -- though they seem to do this to much smaller degrees than Republicans do.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Netrunner, I can think of one thing. The 1913 Federal Reserve act. Woodrow Wilson member of the Democratic Party.
I did add the qualifier "In my lifetime" for a reason. That said, the Federal Reserve Act was a good thing. Only crazy people are against the idea of having a central bank at this point. I may want more firm oversight to ensure it's not being mismanaged, but that's wholly different from declaring the very idea evil.

Plus, while I'm not going to try to defend Woodrow Wilson against nonspecific charges, I should point out that it's not as if his name evokes the same effect as Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, or even Herbert Hoover in people.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
How about the repealing of the Glass Steagall Act, President Bill Clinton?

...and Majority Leader Trent Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich. So Clinton's failing was that he didn't fight the Republicans like the left of his party wanted him to. Still fits my description.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
How about the current president and Habeus Corpus for Bagram Airforce base detainees?

You mean the rights denied them by a 5-4 decision (5 Conservative vs. 4 Liberals) of the Roberts Supreme Court?

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Preservation of extraordinary rendition? Escalation of Afghanistan? Violations of Pakistani sovereignty?

The Afghanistan war was started by Bush, as were the violations of Pakistani sovereignty (though it seems unlikely that we are really operating without Pakistan's approval). Again, the worst you can say here is that Democrat Obama has been insufficiently anti-Republican in his stance, something I would agree with as a general criticism of Obama. He isn't as left as I wish he was.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
You know what don't answer those questions. I don't want to see any more rationalizations for the two parties today. Freedom of choice be damned.


Ahh, so I am to let your eminently answerable questions stand as if I had no answer for them? Talk about limiting freedom of choice...

What's limiting your choice isn't what the two parties are doing, it's your view that there's nothing you can do to a) change how the Democratic or Republican parties do things, or b) form your own party around a platform that would appeal to an untapped coalition of voters.

And Democrats aren't corrupt? Someone needs to come down from that tower.

I'm referring to a system that lends itself to corruption. See Philip Zimbardo's Lucifer Effect.

Netrunner, I can think of one thing. The 1913 Federal Reserve act. Woodrow Wilson member of the Democratic Party. How about the repealing of the Glass Steagall Act, President Bill Clinton?

How about the current president and Habeus Corpus for Bagram Airforce base detainees? Preservation of extraordinary rendition? Escalation of Afghanistan? Violations of Pakistani sovereignty?

You know what don't answer those questions. I don't want to see any more rationalizations for the two parties today. Freedom of choice be damned.

^ "The 1999 repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act. Thanks to a Democratic Presidency."

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.[13] After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[14]

(Wikipedia)

*****

Yes, Clinton should have vetoed it, but let's not forget who got the ball rolling.

Nice post. Good info.

>> ^Shepppard:
Clinton is a bloody hero in this clip..
and somehow, I just can't get past the fact that he's got like a 6 hour flight back to the states, with two very grateful good looking Asian women.


And time to celebrate... with a cigar!

Okay so I decided to do some research and here's the key to shut up people who are just blindly blaming Obama for this.

Read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/14/obama.gays.military/

Here's the key point from the article:

" During the presidential campaign, Obama said he would work to end the policy, but because it is dictated by federal law, he can not end it unilaterally.

Congress must pass legislation overturning the policy, which was put into place at the beginning of the Clinton administration. Former President Bill Clinton tried to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" policy when he took office in 1993, but he was strenuously opposed by the military leadership."

This is going to be a hell of a fight and Obama just can't wave a magic wand and make it happen. He's going to have to contend with Congress and the military leadership, both of which are full of jackasses I'm sure. Just like the gay marriage issue, homosexuality carries stigmas which are currently ACCEPTED by a majority and therefore it takes a lot to deal with them and protect the minority which they affect. Just like proposition 8 in CA, when put to a vote, these fail right now because you have old, bigoted fucks still in positions of power.

So calm the fuck down with placing blame and realize that this is going to take time. It is VERY sad to see someone who is just being discriminated against, but this is NOT a quick fix and I don't believe Obama has the authority to just overturn the military's decision.

Nixon tried to hijack the American process of electing presidents. Bill Clinton got his dick sucked.

I don't see how you compute things.