Mark Udall besots the Udall Legacy

The thing about posts like these is

that it's harder for me to care about social security because being 27, I've never had much belief that I'm ever going to get it and frankly it doesn't concern me nearly as much when I think about the state the planet will be in once I'm 65 or 75.

Don't misread me, any Democrat that thinks cutting social security in this manufactured crisis should be dragged through the streets, I'd just like to see more people do something meaningful other than rally behind the social security issue.  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 19:53:44 PM UTC

understand the frustration

posts like this may be harsh, but I really do hold our side to a higher standard, and that should include the requirement that they not parrot Washington, DC conventional wisdom and that they try to tell the truth as much as possible. Udall is not doing that. Neither is Bennet, for that matter.

It may seem like a fantasy to think of SS being there when you retire. It is also probably a fantasy that you will have a 401k account that you can rely on for your every need at that time. And this is not to mention the fact that almost every U.S. corporation from here on out has - or has plans to - dissolve their pension plans. (Wall Street will loooooooooove that.)

The Republican response to this is we all have to have personal responsibility and we'll all become rich by investing our 401k money in the stock market. Oh, and to have churches like New Life and Saddleback help the poor. (As if they couldn't do that now.)

You might be shocked to know, I was, that at the onset, Social Security started collecting funds for its plan 3 years before monthly payments started. Can you imagine any politician proposing such a thing now? Or any set of Americans willing to make that initial sacrifice to the greater good?

---

by: Zappatero @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 01:36:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh I dont think its harsh,

harshness is what makes it great. It's true and it's harsh. Yippee. Great blog.


 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 19:38:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One Time I Was Convinced SS Would Die

That was when I was in my 20's, 40 years ago, and my 30's and my 40's.   Yet, the money is here, and I'm seeing it after paying in at the maximum rate from 1965 onward.  It's easy to look ahead and think that this very successful system will crater, but it won't unless we let it.  

---

by: saindenver @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 15:56:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree and disagree that we have the power

It's difficult for me to believe that the American people can stop an agenda to strip us of entitlements, but I also agree that we can, but we don't have enough will.  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 19:34:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Need to get rid of the oligarchs

like Udall, Bennett and just about every member of the Democratic Party. They've sold out the middle class in the past and this "grand bargain" of the right wing debt limit deal is just another capitulation.

---

by: COgator95 @ Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 21:01:14 PM UTC

There are two possibilities:

1. Either Mark Udall understands the economics of the situation but is deliberately feigning stupidity in order to pander to the slack-jawed teabagging ignoramus demographic and, more to the point, to serve the corporate tyrants who grease his palms, pull his strings, and make his mouth move,

or:

2. Mark Udall really does not understand the economics of the situation and is himself the slack-jawed teabagging ignoramus that he represents himself to be.

Whichever it is, Mark Udall's tenure in the U.S. Senate represents a grave threat to the U.S. economy and American democracy every bit as much as the Tom Coburns and the Rand Pauls.  In fact, Udall may represent a graver threat because, as a "Democrat," he faces little organized resistance from the people who would be fighting him if he were a "Republican" pursuing the exact same agenda as he is now.

Same goes for Obama, Bennet and the rest of the scumbag Corporate Dems. They must be driven from power. Nobody should be supporting the Democratic Party now, as it has been hijacked by vermin. Would you spoon-feed a tapeworm? If you were on a bus that got hijacked, would you assist the hijackers by helping them make the bus go faster and farther in the hijacked direction because it's "your bus" and you want to be a "team player"? Obamabots need to wake the fuck up and pay attention to what's been going on in this country, or should I say what's left of this country.  Obama and the OFA/DNC gang have been governing to the corporate right of Ronald Reagan, and they are now trying to push the country even further in that direction, and there are legions of "Democrats" enthusiastically supporting this travesty. How the fuck did so many people become so stupid and gullible so fast?


------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 21:17:04 PM UTC

Mo Udall was a fine, principled, courageous, great American statesman.

Mo Udall always put the public interest first. In stark contrast, Mark Udall puts his own thirst for personal power/gratification first and serves only as a hired puppet of the corporate oligarchs in direct opposition to the public interest. Shame on weasel-boy Mark for sullying the family name. Shame, shame, shame.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Sun Jul 31, 2011 at 21:47:49 PM UTC

Hear, hear!

to both your comments!

---

by: Zappatero @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 01:36:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Many of Us Knew Udall Would Not Be Liberal

But, we had hopes that he would not be conservative, either.  I am unsure that a liberal can win in Colorado.  We can say that it's the fault of someone else, but we have put up liberal, or at least progressive, candidates in 2004, 2006 and 2010; and we lost at or before the convention or the primary.  If a liberal can not win a Colorado Democratic primary, how on earth can we conclude that one will win in the general?  Colorado some times votes for Democratic candidates, but it is not Blue in the same way as the "Blue" states of California, Washington, New York, Massachusetts or Vermont. We've a lot of education work ahead of us.  

---

by: saindenver @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 16:03:32 PM UTC

Two different target audiences

exist prior to and after the primary/convention scene.  The candidates that win have been able to wear sheep's clothing long enough to confuse primary voters into thinking that their "wild-eyed liberal" opponents shouldn't get votes.  There is also the "popularity contest" problem infecting elections: it's almost never really about policies, but about personalities.  We can see what the results of that process is.

This isn't to disagree with what you're saying, of course.  The corporatists have to be exposed for who they really are.  That will take lots of education.  Hopefully that education won't be in the form of a collapsed economy before voters figure out who's been lying to them.

---

by: WeatherDem @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 16:17:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On that point:

We can say that it's the fault of someone else, but we have put up liberal, or at least progressive, candidates in 2004, 2006 and 2010; and we lost at or before the convention or the primary.

The problem is not that a progressive candidate can't win a general election against a Republican in Colorado -- the problem is that our corrupt/incompetent state Democratic Party leadership has consistently thwarted all attempts to get a real progressive nominated for statewide office, or even a congressional district. How often has a Republican defeated a true, solid, populist progressive in a major Colorado election? (Cay Kennedy comes to mind, but the reason she lost her re-election attempt was that the corrupt/incompetent party "leaders" diverted resources away from Carrie's campaign and others and poured it into Prince Michael's illegitimate campaign to continue his role as a Wall Street stooge in the U.S. Senate.) Wouldn't it make sense to at least try to do the right thing, rather than continually slap lipstick on corporatist pigs and market them as "Democrats"? We've seen the catastrophic results of that strategy again and again and again. How many more lessons are needed? Look at what's happening in Washington right now, and explain to me again why it makes sense to support candidates who actively undermine the core principles that the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for. Cuz that really, really, really, doesn't make any sense to me at all. I'm not opposed to a big tent -- but if the tent doesn't stand for any core principles at all, what's the point of having a tent?

So, what evidence is there that a strong progressive populist voice can't draw tons of independent voter support in a Colorado general election? Just because the state Dem party leaders and CorporatePols propagandists repeat a talking point over and over, that does not make it true. Much of the fear and anger that fuels the "tea party" movement actually originates from the consequences of the policies they're manipulated into exploiting. So why not drive home that message? Why not reach out to them instead of wallowing in hyper-partisan kabuki theater that only ensures nothing good gets done? Wouldn't that make perfect sense in so many ways? But instead, the Democratic "leadership" embraces the right-wing/corporatist bullshit instead of steadfastly calling bullshit on it. Why?

Why should I support a "team" whose favorite play is to take the snap at midfield, scamper backwards into their own end zone, take a knee for a safety, and then declare "Stop being such a purist -- at least we're putting points on the board!"?  

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 18:50:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

(typo fix: Cay = Cary, of course)

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 19:09:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now I see more typos.

I wish these things could be edited. Hopefully the post makes ample sense anyway.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 21:30:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

UPDATE: Bennet buys into the Big Plan

"Michael's glad to see that this Washington-inflicted crisis is getting resolved," he said. "It should have never come to this point, but it's important now that we focus our attention on job creation."

Almost any and every economist says you should not cut spending in a recession/depression and that these cust will cost us jobs everywhere. Just another idiot we've sent to DC.

---

by: Zappatero @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 16:35:53 PM UTC

Job Creation?

Though I do think Micheal is a pretty smart guy, this is simply PR BS.  

but it's important now that we focus our attention on job creation."

Perhaps some one can show us how the US can focus attention on job creation when there is no budget for spending, a moratorium on further spending and short term Treasuries are near zero percent?  Oh, maybe we can make the fees for M&A projects tax free, I'm sure that would help develop jobs...in China.

---

by: saindenver @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 17:14:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Update: Fresh bullshit from Mark Udall:

From the Coloradoan:

Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., will vote for the debt ceiling compromise negotiated by Democratic and Republican leaders over the weekend.

"If we'd defaulted today it would have had ripple effects to the world's economy," Udall said in a conference call with the Coloradoan and Denver Post.

"It includes a down payment on spending cuts that I think are generally balanced although there's a little bit of heartburn in the numbers for everybody," Udall said.

Note the bullshit logic -- that the unavoidable alternative to this "deal" would have been to default on the national debt. (See: Krugman.)  In other words, Mark Udall is in lockstep with "tea party" ideology. But we already knew that. If Mark Udall were one-tenth the man his father was, he'd be hammering home the point that the GOP is engaging in terrorism against the nation by holding the economy hostage. Instead, Mark not only agrees to pay the hostage-takers off, but enthusiastically pushes for higher ransom and openly embraces the agenda and tactics of the hostage-takers.  

Also, from Mark's cushy perspective, when he agrees to a policy that will needlessly cause a great many people to suffer and even die from lack of food, shelter and medicine just so Mark's owners can add a few more billion dollars to their offshore hedge fund accounts, that equals "heartburn" for him. What an asshole.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 19:44:10 PM UTC

What are you saying?

That theres no hope in our elected leaders?

I'd like to reemphasize, not that anyone would really give a flying fuck but, you stated

Also, from Mark's cushy perspective, when he agrees to a policy that will needlessly cause a great many people to suffer and even die from lack of food, shelter and medicine just so Mark's owners can add a few more billion dollars to their offshore hedge fund accounts, that equals "heartburn" for him. What an asshole.

Those who benefit and have privilege from a system that destroys lives (all life as we know it), will never question the legitimacy of that system. In other words, there is no getting to them to stop their evil ways until you strip that privilege and benefit from them.  

 Do or do not, there is no try.  

---

by: Yoda69 @ Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 20:57:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]