Well... It's Not Like We Weren't Warned...

From March of 2009...

<snip>

In order to assuage concerns among progressives that the Obama administration intends to follow in the Bush administration's footsteps by trying to cut Social Security benefits, high-level Obama officials have been telling journalists such as The American Prospect's Ezra Klein -- on the condition of anonymity -- that they have no intention of touching Social Security, producing reports which then faithfully communicate that message, such as this one from Klein, two weeks ago:



Based on those same anonymous conversations, Klein wrote other posts telling progressives who are worried about Obama's intention to cut Social Security that they were worrying about something that doesn't exist.

But in The New York Times today, David Brooks recounted what he described as "conversations with four senior members of the administration." Those unnamed Obama officials all called Brooks in order to refute his column from last week which argued "that the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous." Brooks -- like Klein -- granted anonymity to and then proceeded to quote all four "senior members of the Obama administration" (a) without explaining why he did so, (b) without describing efforts, if any, to persuade them to use their names and (c) without providing any information about who they are or what their motives might be (all flagrant violations of the supposed NYT policy governing the use of anonymity). These paragraphs were the result of the anonymity Brooks gave to the Obama White House (emphasis in original):



<snip>

Link: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/03/06/anonymity/index.html

Brooks piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/opinion/06brooks.html?ref=opinion

And from May of last year: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/10/obama-packs-debt-committee-with-supportes-of-social-security-benefit-cuts-and-privatization/

I could go on... but...

:beer:

:smoke:

:shrug:

Leave your ultimatums at the door and support the President. mmmkay?

Now we see what he does. And if he attacks Social Security, then he should be abandoned. And since it's an attack on Social Security, a primary challenge might even be feasible.

with a plethora of options and choices -- when it comes to consuming things -- we usually get a political, either/or dilemma. Pick A or B. This or that. There is nothing else.

Isn't there something wrong with that? Why maintain an illusion of choice when the ones available are chosen, presented and in relationship to each other only?

We only play on THIS chessboard with these pieces. You can be black or white. Now play.

:sarcasm:

Nothing has changed since President Obama's SOTU address, wherein he stated his intention to cut costs and fraud but not benefits.



FYI: the WH has already pushed back and denied Fred Hyatt's right-wing WaPo Business Section spin.