It was another busy day on the Randi Rhodes Show today.
In the first hour, I welcomed The Hill’s Brent Budowsky to help us try to understand the budget quagmire in Washington DC. Honestly, I can’t understand the rationale of Republicans who think that cutting programs to help the needy and cutting taxes on the wealthy individuals and corporations is the way to dig out of a devastating recession.
In hour two, I was joined by David Dayen, who does an amazing job with the news at FireDogLake. I asked to to come on to talk about the 10-part series on HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) Part I of this series, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X .
And in hour three, Jeremy Scahill was my guest, to talk about his cover story for The Nation, “The Dangerous US Game in Yemen“. In case you’re wondering what we were talking about regarding Jeremy’s appearance on the Ed Schultz Show last night, just watch this…
Tomorrow, we’ll wrap up the week and celebrate April Fools Day with John Fuglesang, Lizz Winstead, Jamie Killstein, Andy Cobb and Tom Tomorrow!
Fantastic show again, but I am mystified at your favorable view of Obama’s appointments to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, with an established pro-neocon record (note her hiring only Federalist Society members to the Havard law faculty), and Sotomayor, who received a favorable rating from the insurance industry at the announcement of her Supreme Court appointment.
About the only time Sotomayor ruled in favor of a plaintiff over an insurance company (and that was highly qualified), she was the junior member of a review board and did the traditional thing of deferring to the senior judge’s opinion!
I believe your support of Obama, based upon future Supreme Court nominations, is as weak and lame as the opinion of the caller, Kim, who gave the usual excuses for Obama save for one:
How cany anyone justify Obama’s one hundred percent neocon administration?
(Sure, he appointed “eye candy” Vann Jones and Susan Crawford to positions of zero influence, but he quickly jettisoned them at the first opportunity.)
Everything Obama has done in office has been favorable to Wall Street; with not a single true democratic or progressive appointment to his administration.
Whether Jeffrey Immelt of GE, or Gen. Clapper’s appointment to Director of National Intelligence (Clapper was a former neocon member of Bush’s WMD-in-Iraq-fabricated-intel team), it would require at least twenty more pages to detail all of Obama’s neocon appointments (please read Matt Taibbi’s older articles on this subject if anyone requires further reference).
The Korporate Non-Media claimed Erskine Bowles, Obama’s neocon appointment to his “deficit commission,” was a liberal — and Bowles quickly lied to the effect that Social Security was responsible for the deficit!
Evidently, the fact that Bowles sits on the board of directors of Morgan Stanley, while his wife sits on the board of directors of JPMorgan Chase, established his “liberal” credentials?
Obama’s economic advisor during his presidential campaign was Robert Rubin, while McCain’s advisor was Phil Gramm (then vice-chairman of UBS, the foreign bankster); the two principal people behind the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. There was essentially zero difference between Obama and McCain — either way, Wall Street was covered!
Anyone who supports Obama’s reelection probably would support George W. Bush’s reelection — in deed they are equally as “liberal.”