Interesting quote from a NY Times article, I dunnoh why I'm posting it here, seems totally irrelevant being a discussion about the DOMA.
“I don’t see why he doesn’t have the courage of his convictions,” the chief justice said. He said Mr. Obama should have stopped enforcing a statute he viewed as unconstitutional “rather than saying, ‘Oh, we’ll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice.’ ”
The White House took umbrage at the remark and said the president was upholding his constitutional duty to execute the laws until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. “There is a responsibility that the administration has to enforce laws that are on the books,” said Josh Earnest, a deputy White House press secretary. “And we’ll do that even for laws that we disagree with, including the Defense of Marriage Act.”
There was a moment on Romney's 47% tape that didn't get looked at much, but it sums up the Republican attitude about corruption by Obama. They don't give a crap! The exchange in part:
ATTENDEE: "...the government in Washington right now is just permeated by cronyism, outright corruption. Our regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect the public are protecting the people that they're supposed to be regulating. And I think people are fed up with that.
Doesn't matter if you're in the tea party of Occupy Wall Street, people see that the government is working for the powerful interests and the people who well-connected politically and not the common person. Which threatens that whole idea that we have this great opportunity—which we should have and have had, historically—in the US for anybody, from whatever background, to become successful.
One way that that becomes compromised is when the government is no longer seen as being an honest agent. And where our tax dollars are not really being put to work for us but for the people who are plugged-in politically.
You know, you had cases like Solyndra and [unintelligible] that I've talked about and gotten involved in. You have Eric Holder who is probably the most corrupt attorney general that we had ever in American history. And I think it's something that if spun the right way in simple terms can actually resonate with the American people..."
Romney showed no interest. Deflects the whole idea, turning it into a game of extremely simplistic, boiled-down electoral messaging:
ROMNEY: "I wish they weren't unionized, so we could go a lot deeper than you're actually allowed to go. Yeah. I can say this, which I'm sure you'll agree with this as well. We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions.
Those people I told you, the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side, they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, "Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?" they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, "Are you disappointed in his policies that haven't worked?" they say yes.
And because they voted for him, they don't want to be told that they were wrong, that he's a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he's corrupt. Those people that we that have to get, they want to think they did the right thing but he just wasn't up to the task. They love the phrase, "He's in over his head."
But we, you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us, and these people are people who voted for him and don't agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them.
And the best success I have speaking with those people is, you know, the president's been a disappointment. He told you he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent, hasn't been below 8 percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can't get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won't graduate from high school. What are they gonna do? They usually pass on saying…and I could say to that audience that they nod their heads and say, "Yeah, I think you're right."
What's he going to do by the way is try and vilify me as someone who's been successful. Or who's closed businesses or laid people off—an evil, bad guy. And that may work. I actually think that right now people are saying, "I want somebody who can make things better, that's gonna motivate me, who can get jobs for my kids and get rising incomes." And I hope to be able to be the one who wins that battle."
Romney is lying. Did he really think that vowing prosecutions for Obama corruption would not have gotten him votes? Ridiculous, it would have propelled him immensely - I would have even considered voting for him if he ran on perp walking Holder!
So even more important than winning the White House was protecting the banks, the Halliburtons, the BPs. But the discussion between Pap and Brad was interesting, they couldn't arrive at exactly why Obama is protecting the banks, cutting sweet settlement deals and looking the other way.
I think the answer may have to do with the fear described by Christopher Edley, Dean of Berkeley Law who served on Obama's original transition team. Edley said Obama would not prosecute Bush era crimes because he feared a backlash by the military and intelligence communities.
Similarly, the banking industry has many methods for retribution should Obama not do his bidding. They not only have Congress pre-bought, they can wipe out the savings of Ma and Pa who have been scrimping and saving their whole lives. One of Obama's first acts in office was giving the banks everything they wanted, just like Bush did.
So my theory is that Obama is being arm-twisted (or blackmailed) because the banks securely own both parties and can indeed threaten to destroy the economy anytime they want.