How do you spell disheartened?  Well, however you spell it, I get the sense that a HUGE part of the progressive community in America is either there or heading there.  The “light at the end of the tunnel” that looked so bright to me when Barack Obama was sworn in as President is contracting at an alarming rate.  Actually, the “red flags” as I called it, went up prior to his inauguration as I watched in disbelief while President-elect Obama made one curious selection after another when setting up his cabinet and his circle of advisors.  I knew little about Rahm Emanuel, but what little I had heard was ALL BAD.  Talk about your “consummate” politician – your “political insider” – your “same old same old” Washington politician.  My first thought was, “How can that lead to the ‘change I can believe in’?”

Then there came Tim Geithner.  Again, I knew little about Geithner because I live on the “left coast” and he was the chairman of the New York Fed (as well as – by my understanding – another Treasury Secretary who was a ‘devotee’ of Goldman Sachs).  However, me putting two plus two together led me to believe that Geithner had an unknown complicity in the meltdown that actually guaranteed victory for Obama.  I mean, how could  a majority of voters pick a candidate like John McCain who claimed “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” while it was actually crumbling as he spoke?  (considering McCain’s “great foresight” in his choice for VP – everytime I think of my disappointment in Obama I’m reminded the choice was McCain/Palin – OH MY GOD!)  Since President Obama’s inauguration EVERYTHING I’ve learned about Geithner has further caused me to wonder what it is that our President sees in this guy as our nation is heeving at her sides from the strain of the unemployed and underemployed workers?  Wall Street banks are making BILLIONS yet loans to small businesses which fuel employment are MINISCULE. (OK, you guessed right, the “too big to fail” banks are gambling with cheap money from the Fed again)

Of course, I’ve mentioned several times on this site – I started saying this PRIOR TO THE INAUGURATION – what was Obama thinking that caused him to choose Larry Summers as his chief economic “analyst.”  Again, Summer’s history put him right in the middle of the meltdown that Obama was chosen to “fix.”  Did anyone besides me find it ironic that McCain’s economic advisor (and presumably he would have been Treasury Secretary had McCain won) was Phil Gramm while Obama’s chief advisor was Larry Summers?  These two economic “geniuses” were instrumental in repealing the Glass Steagall Act which had been in place since the years after the Great Depression to prevent banks from doing EXACTLY what they’ve been doing since Gramm and Summers “had their way” with the rest of us.  All these “investment banks” such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and formerly Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers were prohibited from collaborating with commercial banks such as Chase, Bank of America, etc. and insurance companies.   The result of what became known as Gramm-Leach-Bliley has been the merging of commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies to form corporations who are now considerd “too big to fail.”  Thus, the rationale for the so-called “TARP” bailout of AIG, Goldman, B of A, etc.  (actually, as far as I can tell, the TARP funds that Bank of America got were used to buy Merrill Lynch – certainly not to get “lending” going again).

I figured out that President Obama’s view of the military changed dramatically once he became “commander in chief.”  Somehow, I felt he was trying to convince republicans that he wasn’t “weak.”  Therefore, we’re still in Iraq at almost pre “surge” levels ONE YEAR after Obama took office.  He has NO INTENTION of getting our troops out of Iraq in the 16 month timeframe he PROMISED in the campaign.  (in fact, it’s unclear to me whether or not he’s bought the military “coolaid” that we need to leave a substantial level of troops there indefinitely)  He’s due for his first “State of the Union” speech and it will be very interesting how he approaches the subject of Iraq.  Will he even mention it?  My guess is that if he does, it will be in passing and he will frame any comments he makes in what a wonderful military we have and what a great job they’re doing over there (where they don’t belong) and he won’t mention that he’s following the “timetable” negotiated by GW Bush (and, likewise, paying for it with borrowed money).  President Obama, when looking at this realistically, has shown not ONE OUNCE of leadership when it comes to Iraq.  (our brave soldiers are still having their lives ruined every day over there – where they don’t (and never did) belong – to “save face” for America – remember Viet Nam – deja vu all over again!)

We’re also about 60,000 troops deeper into Afganistan.  All this to the tune of close to 200 BILLION DOLLARS per year (including Iraq) that “We the people” don’t have.  We’re STILL BORROWING money to pay for military adventurism.  The truth is that the United States CONTINUES to have troops stationed all over the world at a huge expense to the taxpayers – but a CONTINUING BOON to the “military industrial complex” – with NO END IN SIGHT.  President Obama is responding to David Patreaus in the same manner that George Bush did.  I know that Obama is sensitive to the comparisons to Bush – I’ve heard some people call it “Bush-lite” – but, the reality is WHAT IT IS!  And, after all of this, does ANYONE think that Barack Obama has convinced ONE REPUBLICAN that he’s “strong?”  Is there anyone out there who believes there is a republican ANYWHERE who’s going to support this president ON ANYTHING?  Well, I’m sure you can tell, if there is anyone, it sure as heck is NOT ME!

 I was really hoping President Obama would try to convince ME he was not weak.  (I could have said strong)  How could he have done that?  Well, he got off to a good start when he set a ONE YEAR timetable for closing GITMO – of course, this is another timetable that appears to have been words only.  Soon after making his stand on GITMO our new president started a STARTLING string of curious actions which seemed to play into the hands of the republicans.  It  was almost as if Obama didn’t understand there’s a war for the heart and soul of this nation going on and he’s a CENTRAL FIGURE.  He wasn’t elected to make nice to republicans.  He was elected to CHANGE the course of Washington.  Just showing leadership in the FIGHT to “right” the “wrongs” of the Bush administration would have gone a long way to keep my support.  Well, where then has he failed?   I’m not going to go into that in too much detail – if you are interested in my thoughts I’ve got over 200 posts, and curiously (I’m only a 6th grade school teacher) – I think my advice to the president has been much more accurate than what he’s been getting from Emanuel, Geithner, Summers, and the others he’s surrounded himself with.

I’m going to go chronological – because if you’ve been here before you’re likely to know what my number one gripe is.  But, let’s start with the so-called “stimulus” package.  That was an early “red flag” for me, because it was pared back considerably to get 3 republican votes.  The bill could have been passed using reconciliation – EASILY – with a full slate of “projects” to refurbish the sagging infrastructure of this nation – and instead we got a smaller bill with tax cuts for the people still working instead of help for those who weren’t (I’m one lucky enough to still be working – would have GLADLY gone without the $40 or so that came my way from the tax cut each month – it might even be less than that).  Now, the word is out that Obama is going to implement a “freeze” on NON MILITARY (naturally – who would have guessed) government spending – my guess is this will FURTHER EXACERBATE the unemployment situation (is he still trying to please republicans?)  Obviously, the additional “stimulus” that is needed at this time AINT GOING TO HAPPEN – unless you consider the stimulus that will result from the escalation in Afganistan.  As far as I can tell, the Massechusetts senate election has put our president into “panic mode” and we will have more poorly thought out decisions coming.  (I honestly wish I didn’t feel this way – and, as usual, I HOPE I’M WRONG)  It’s almost as if President Obama and the LARGE MAJORITIES OF DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS are afraid of republicans.  I think that is what is most disheartening!

OK, I know I’m repeating myself but this is MAJOR so you know that I couldn’t go without bringing this next thing up.  President Obama chose Eric Holder as Attorney General.  I had NO knowledge of him.  At this point in time, I wish Obama would treat Holder as if he was a fish which was too small – and THROW HIM BACK!  What has this guy done?  Well, his most significant move was to throw out the conviction of Alaska’s Ted Stevens (a republican – of course) for prosecutorial misconduct.  To make matters seem more convoluted, he’s left the conviction of Donald Seigelman in tact – but Seigelman was a democrat who was targeted by Karl Rove and the “Bush Crime family,” so I guess that’s territory that Holder won’t “tread.”  Holder – with Obama’s blessing – has turned his back on our previous president and vice president who ADMITTED on national TV to committing WAR CRIMES.  Bush – everyone knows this – violated FISA THOUSANDS OF TIMES – everytime he did it, he was committing a FELONY – but, for some reason Holder (and Obama) don’t want to go there (are they wiretapping?).  Dick Cheney committed treason (outing a CIA agent) along with being a war profiteer (while if not illegal – deserves investigation and castigation), Donald Rumsfeld authorized torture and was also a war profiteer – as the DEFENSE SECRETARY!  And, this torture led to several deaths – including the recently exposed MURDER of three “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo – and Holder (with Obama’s blessing, evidently) doesn’t want to investigate.  The only explanation for this is that Holder (and Obama) can’t see the “forest for the trees” – or – unfortunately, if not that, then the only other conclusion I can come to is that they are doing the same things that they should be investigating Bush/Cheney for.

President Obama, recently, has come out supporting strictor regulations of the Wall Street Banks that are snubbing their noses at the very taxpayers who bailed them out.  Obama has finally figured out that there’s a lot of “populist rage” out there.  Unfortunately, I’m not at all convinced that he’ll get this right either.  It seems that President Obama sees everything from the “prism” that for him to remain successful he has to placate republicans.  I’m afraid he’ll take the results from Massachusetts and interpret it as some kind of republican “steamroller” on the loose.  I interpret it as a large group of progressive voters in a “Blue” state – doing what I (and MANY OTHERS) have been predicting for months – STAYING HOME, not voting at all.  Then you have all the “independents” who are going to vote against the establishment until they get the message – which, apparently isn’t going to be anytime soon.  And, I’m afraid Obama’s going to increase his attempts to placate “conservatives” as the result of the Massachusetts debacle – when he should be doing whatever it takes to ENERGIZE LIBERALS!  Without his liberal base (I’ve been trying to tell him this since before his election) he’s not only a ONE TERM PRESIDENT, but a TOTAL FAILURE as a president.

Obama’s decision to essentially PARDON Bush/Cheney will go down as one of the MAJOR BLUNDERS of all time.  Here’s why: as the President continues to grapple with where he stands on issues, he will be undermining his own chances for re-election and with that the democratic control of congress.  If the republicans manage to gain control of either the White House or Congress in the near future – THAT WILL BE THE REASON WHY!  If the American public had any idea what had been done under Bush, I’m convinced the republicans would be an afterthought.  THEY’D BE TOTALLY ON THE DEFENSIVE – and, then being the party of “NO” would truly BACKFIRE on them.  As it stands, we have a president who will soon be considered an “empty message” if he doesn’t figure out that trying to be the democratic version of Ronald Reagan is a BAD IDEA!  I’m a school teacher and I’m hearing several of my workmates saying they don’t even want to watch the “State of the Union” speech – the reality is that Obama’s losing credibility with the “ones that got him there.”  And, he seems to be the last one to figure this out.  I have no doubt that Rahm Emanuel is telling him something like, “Don’t worry, they’ll be there when you need their votes.”  Well, I believe the message of Massachusetts is saying just the opposite.  Do you honestly think there’s anything President Obama can say in the State of the Union address that will please republicans?  I’m still waiting for him to do something that pleases me.