Further Evidence that Obama Is a Republican

Preface by Washington’s Blog: We don’t think “Republican” or “Democrat” are good or bad labels. We think that both mainstream parties have been taken over by the same corrupt forces, and that the Red-versus-Blue dichotomy isn’t helpful. Indeed, we think that many Americans are disgusted by both parties.

By Eric Zuesse:

Greg Palast headlined at his site on August 7th, “How Barack Obama could end the Argentina debt crisis,” and opened:

“The ‘vulture’ financier now threatening to devour Argentina can be stopped dead by a simple note to the courts from Barack Obama. But the president, while officially supporting Argentina, has not done this one thing that could save Buenos Aires from default. Obama could prevent vulture hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer from collecting a single penny from Argentina by invoking the long-established authority granted presidents by the US constitution’s ‘Separation of Powers’ clause. Under the principle known as ‘comity’, Obama only need inform US federal judge Thomas Griesa that Singer’s suit interferes with the president’s sole authority to conduct foreign policy. Case dismissed.”

Singer is a major funder of the Republican Party. Palast’s report attributes this fact to Singer’s trying to buy that Party’s support in Singer’s duel against Argentina:

“Since taking on Argentina, Singer has unlocked his billion-dollar bank account, becoming the biggest donor to New York Republican causes. He is a founder of Restore Our Future, a billionaire boys club, channelling the funds of Bill Koch and other Richie Rich-kid Republicans into a fearsome war-chest dedicated to vicious political attack ads. And Singer recently gave $1m to Karl Rove’s Crossroads operation, another political attack machine.”

Palast implies that Obama is merely trying to induce Singer to throw his money to the Democratic Party instead of to the Republican Party. Palast says: “There’s a price for crossing Singer. And, unlike the president of Argentina, Obama appears unwilling to pay it.” Obama is doing this because he’s afraid of “crossing Singer”?

But that’s just nonsense. Obama isn’t afraid that Singer will donate to Obama’s political opponents. The Singer money, if that were the case, would supposedly be coming to the Democratic Party at this time when Obama is no longer running for any political office — Obama’s already in his final term of office. Political donations wouldn’t be to his benefit anymore.

Furthermore, Singer isn’t a Republican only after he became embroiled with Argentina. He has a long and deep history of funding not just the Republican Party but the Heritage Foundation and others of its far-right think tanks. Moreover, on 3 February 2012, Palast himself headlined “Romney’s Billionaire Vulture,” about “‘The Vulture’ Singer and why he needs to buy the White House.” Oh, so Paul Singer needed Romney to win in order to be able to control the White House? Really? Obama was Singer’s enemy? So, why then was Singer the financial angel of Republican Rudolph Giuliani? That’s before  Obama’s Presidency.

In fact, up through the end of 2013, Paul Singer had politically donated $7,909,427, of which 99.6% went to Republicans. And that record goes all the way back to 1990 if you click on “View all campaign finance data for Paul Singer” and download it.

Palast’s hypothesis is simply absurd.

Palast’s report continues:

“Obama’s devastating hesitation is no surprise. It repeats the president’s capitulation to Singer the last time they went mano a mano. It was 2009. Singer, through a brilliantly complex financial manoeuvre, took control of Delphi Automotive, the sole supplier of most of the auto parts needed by General Motors and Chrysler. Both auto firms were already in bankruptcy.

Singer and co-investors demanded the US Treasury pay them billions, including $350m ( 200m) in cash immediately, or — as the Singer consortium threatened — ‘we’ll shut you down’. They would cut off GM’s parts. Literally.

GM and Chrysler, with no more than a couple of days’ worth of parts to hand, would have shut down, permanently forced into liquidation.

Obama’s negotiator, Treasury deputy Steven Rattner, called the vulture funds’ demand ‘extortion’ — a characterisation of Singer repeated last week by Argentina President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

But while Fernández declared ‘I cannot as president submit the country to such extortion,’ Obama submitted within days. Ultimately, the US Treasury quietly paid the Singer consortium a cool $12.9bn in cash and subsidies from the US Treasury’s auto bailout fund.

Singer responded to Obama’s largesse by quickly shutting down 25 of Delphi’s 29 US auto parts plants, shifting 25,000 jobs to Asia. Singer’s Elliott Management pocketed $1.29bn of which Singer personally garnered the lion’s share.”

What, then, really  accounts for Obama’s doing Singer’s bidding? He does it because he supports Republican policies and did so even before he entered politics in 1996. As a black man in the era after Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy, in which no black man could reasonably aspire to win Republican Presidential primaries, especially in the Southern states, and so he had no reasonable likelihood of being able to win the Republican Presidential nomination, he entered politics as a “Democrat,” instead. It’s what he had to do to be able to get to the top, and as an intelligent person he knew this; and, so, it’s what he did.

All along, his aspiration was to win the White House and to move the American political center to the right, in the way that only a far-right “Democrat” can even possibly do.

No matter how conservative a “Democratic” office-holder is, no Republican contender for that office can possibly win the Republican Party’s nomination to contest for it unless he’s offering to Republican voters in Republican primaries policies that are more conservative than the incumbent Democrat’s policies are. Consequently, only  a conservative “Democrat” has the capacity to move the political center to the right. Similarly, only a liberal “Republican” (none of them exist) can move the center to the left.

American aristocrats who fund “Democrats” in Democratic primaries are therefore looking for a gifted politician who will move the political center to the right. Bill Clinton was one. Barack Obama is another. Hillary Clinton is another. (Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are even more conservative  than was Bill Clinton.)

Barack Obama is the most effective Republican President since Ronald Reagan.

Obama isn’t for sale. He is a committed fascist, an adherent to fascism. (Mussolini’s other term for it was “corporationism.”)

That’s why Obama refused to do anything to support a public option in health insurance as soon as he won the Presidency in November 2008 — though he had campaigned on the public option. That’s why he appointed the aristocracy’s drones, such as Timothy Geithner to run Treasury, and Lawrence Summers to run economics, and Eric Holder to run “Justice, and now such a far-right “Democratic” threesome at the FCC so that they’re able to outvote the 2 Republican members on the 5-member FCC Board and end the open Internet, in a move that’s so far rightwing that even the 2 Republicans on that Board voted against it.

And that’s why Obama’s “Justice” Department intensified Karl Rove’s and Leura Canary’s frame-up of Democratic Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, the most gifted Democratic politician in the South, and refused to free him from prison on the faked charges that George W. Bush’s team had used to get Siegelman framed and convicted.

And that’s why Obama is fighting like hell for the Koch brothers in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations with Europe, to force the EU to weaken their anti-global-warming standards so as to allow Europe to import the Alberta Canada tar-sands oil of which the Koch brothers own around 40% and two other U.S. majors own a good chunk of the rest.

And that’s why both of Obama’s two Secretaries of State, Clinton and Kerry, rigged their Environmental Impact Statements on the Keystone XL Pipeline project so as to lie and say it would have virtually no impact on global warming, when that proposed Pipeline’s only major intended use would actually be to export those filthy oils into Europe.

And that’s why, in a historically unparalleled recovery after an economic crash, wealth-inequality has soared after George W. Bush’s economic crash, the opposite of the norm, such as was the enormous reduction of wealth-inequality after Herbert Hoover’s economic crash.

Unlike Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Barack Obama is a committed fascist.

Face it, Greg Palast, and all other willfully blind liberals, who don’t see what they’d rather not see, because it’s even uglier than what they allow themselves to see.

The only way forward for the Democratic Party, and for the United States, is for a Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives to introduce the first impeachment resolution to remove Obama from the White House, using Democratic not Republican reasons for it and Democratic not Republican arguments for it, and then to challenge all of those Republicans who mouth their wanting to impeach Barack Obama to show their true colors and vote the way they had said they want to vote, or else to vote to keep Obama, the man they repeatedly damn, in office.

The result of that vote in the House, if it takes place prior to the November 2014 mid-term congressional elections, would be to upset the 6-to-1 odds that now are set, that Republicans will control both the Senate and the House in 2015 and 2016, and to make both houses of Congress be controlled instead by Democrats during President Joe Biden’s brief reign, 2015 and 2016. Biden would then be splitting with Hillary Clinton the conservative vote in the Democratic primaries, and the lone progressive candidate in those Democratic Presidential primaries would win the Democratic Party’s nomination and so the Presidency, and the catastrophe of the Republican Trojan Horse, Manchurian candidate, Republican-in-“Democratic”-sheep’s-clothing Barack Obama’s Presidency will become replaced by our having a real Democrat, in the mold of FDR, back again in the White House — and along with a solidly Democratic Congress.

The vote for impeachment, if some Democrat in the House has the vision and the courage to introduce such a resolution, would be a majority vote for the resolution. It would then go the Senate, which would likewise majority-vote for it.

My analysis of the public-opinion polls relating to impeachment, now and during GWB’s Presidency and also during Bill Clinton’s, is that the public sentiment to remove this President is stronger than for either of those Presidents, and would be far stronger when the final congressional votes will be taken on the matter than was the case in 1998 regarding Bill Clinton.

And it would make a huge favorable impact on America’s future, as well as on the world’s future. But it’s got to be done fast, if it’s not already too late to start.

Barack Obama is now a deadweight to Democrats in Congress who are set to bear the blame from voters for policies that Obama and the Republicans in Congress have actually caused; and here would be the only opportunity for congressional Democrats finally to say: “Enough now, of rule by Obama and other Republicans! Elect me to fight them!”

Tell your Democratic Representative in Congress: Do it or else! Or else the Democratic Party dies and America will continue to be ruled, at the Presidential level, only by two conservative Parties.

Polls show that Obama has moved not only American politics but American public opinion to the right, except on “social” issues, which aren’t critically important for the aristocracy anyway.

America’s movement into fascism needs to stop, now: and be reversed. This is the only way it can happen.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Voice of Reason

    It is my understanding that G.W. Bush could still be impeached. This would obviously be too late to undo much of the damage he caused. But it wouldn’t be too late to re-open discussion of – and hopefully reverse – some of the more disastrous Bush policies, for example:
    o using the nation’s credit to pay for tax cuts for the nation’s wealthiest citizens
    o the 2002 nuclear first-strike defense (sic) strategy

    In short, why not go for a ‘two-fer’?

    • paul

      It would be an excellent idea to impeach Clinton too. It’s not like prior presidents were good, but these three seem to have taken things to a whole ‘nother level of corruption. I think it’s a serious idea. We need to think of it as showing that we definitively want to take a different path as a nation, it seems to me. A lot of the worst policies really seemed to take off under Clinton. They were there before, but with Clinton, the elites seemed to ‘floor it’.

      • nomadfiles

        Impeach Clinton for what? Bush and Obama crimes are an order of magnitude worse than anything Clinton ever did. Essentially it’s the same string of crimes, from Iraq to Libya. A program of massive destruction of nations and wanton murder of innocents. Bush is Obama and Obama is Bush.

    • Tsar Caustic

      The House rules (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-104/pdf/GPO-HPRACTICE-104-27.pdf) say:
      Impeachment is a constitutional remedy addressed to serious
      offenses against the system of government. It is the first step in a
      remedial process–that of removal from public office and possible
      disqualification from holding further office. The purpose of
      impeachment is not personal punishment; rather, its function is
      primarily to maintain constitutional government.
      Since the consitition says the only action that can be taken on impeachment is
      removal from office and disqualification to hold office again, the whole thing is moot.
      Unless you believe in the untested theory that pensions/SS protection etc could be
      stripped but there’s nothing in the constitution to support that idea.

      Since Bush is already out of office impeachment is not the appropriate action.

      It would make Congress look like more of a Clown Show than it already does.

      Criminal charges would be the way forward, which seems really unlikely, unless they’re filed in another country.

      • Steven

        You make the idea sound all the more appealing…
        o “Impeachment is a constitutional remedy addressed to serious offenses against the system of government.”
        o “its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government.”

        better late than never
        o “pensions/SS protection etc could be stripped”

        why they might ask to be taken into protective custody!
        o “Criminal charges would be the way forward, which seems really unlikely”
        that is exactly why impeachment WOULD BE “appropriate”
        o You are being too charitable to Congress – and you are offending the clown profession in the process.

  • BuelahMan

    The WB disclaimer notwithstanding, this is little more than a Democratic Party cheerleader posting this.

    The push should be for ALL to abandon both parties, as has been my mantra for years:

    Ne’er an R or D Again!


    The sooner the masses (and the ones with the biggest plank to use, like Zuesse here at WB) understand and STOP the continuance of a wasting, worn and deadly system that can NEVER, EVER be revived even back into the imaginary belief that any of it was once wholesome and worthy of participation, the sooner we can take back the Republic.

    But this type of DemocRAT cheerleading is actually detrimental to the goal of eliminating the hoax. Just as much as any reTHUGlican cheerleading.

    But that’s just it. It is the tired old ping pong effect between the two that Eric cannot seem to grasp he is perpetuating. Its just the same old, same old.

    • Voice of Reason

      At the risk of being subjected to verbal abuse, is it not true that the U.S. was once run by an intelligent aristocracy that had at least some clue about the limits within which it needed to contain its greed, lust for power and abuse of the country’s “masses” (i.e. you and I)?
      P.S. Wasn’t FDR the last example thereof?

      • BuelahMan

        Why would I verbally abuse you? I agree (except about FDR). FDR was instrumental and (willing?) participant in the Communist takeover of this country. He was instrumental in forcing WWII. Because of him, the Great depression was extended and could have easily been stopped via the same means as occurred in Germany at the time. Rosenfeld had his directives to join the war to save Britain and establish Israel for the Zionists (his advisors, like today’s POTUS’s advisors, have Israel, Zionism and Judaism as their main focus). Its is much worse today.

        So, even if an aristocracy ran things early on, those have been replaced by tribe members who were basically despised by those early Founding Fathers.

        These tribe members don’t care about the masses… they just care about their “chosen” status to rule the goyim. The others who are non-committed, just take advantage of the perks and say nothing. Only a small handful are decent and say something..

        Thomas Jefferson would be rolling over in his grave had he known how Levy had obtained his beloved Monticello for a pittance, but how they have destroyed this country overall.

        I am not anti-Semitic: I am anti-Jewish control of America and the world.

  • nomadfiles

    “We don’t think “Republican” or “Democrat” are good or bad labels. ”
    Sorry but I strongly disagree with your disclaimer. “Republican” has been a bad label ever since Nixon and the southern strategy. “Democrat” was not a bad label until now. It started to become so with Clinton and his efforts to be more like the Republicans; an effort that has culminated in the abominable Obama. It hadn’t fully become a bad label in 2008. I voted for Obama. But after that first term the truth was revealed. In the Democrats and Republicans what we have is a right wing party and a further right wing party. Now they are both bad labels. Very bad. The Dems are worse because they are into betraying their constituency. At least the GOP is up front about its rapaciousness.

    • Voice of Reason

      Aren’t you forgetting that famous Vietnam dissenter – and from what I reader 2004 presidential election winner – John Kerry? Al Gore’s disgust and frustration, when informed by the powers that be he couldn’t be president, seemed genuine. But Kerry’s response to the 2004 election fraud was what made me give up on the Democratic Party – and the country’s purported ‘democracy’ (sic). I came so close to voting for Obama I had to ask for another ballot in 2008.

      • paul

        Kerry’s response to the 2004 Stolen Election was horrible and showed that he never really intended to win, though Gore’s reaction in 2000 wasn’t that much better. It’s so obvious sometimes that the national level pols all know it’s a game.

      • nomadfiles

        Yeah. It’s been a slippery slope since Clinton. Interesting point about Gore. Can you point me to a source about the PTB informing him he couldn’t be president? I had no access to behind the scenes info at the time. But I remember noting that he seemed to me to be trying awful hard to lose. That didn’t make sense to me then. But now that I have peeked behind the Wizard’s curtain, I know there was a grand conspiracy to install Bush.

        • Steven

          Do a Google search with “wise men”, “2000 U.S. presidential election” and Gore and you will get about 8,300 references.

          • nomadfiles


    • Jill

      Nixon was charged with being an imperialist buy some Americans; I would say in the case of Obama if the shoe fits wear it.

  • Tsar Caustic

    No True Scotman, right Mr Zuesse?

    • cettel

      You and many others miss the point: there is an ideological polarity between conservative and progressive; and it’s that one (conservatism) is basically backward-looking towards a supposed ideal that existed in the past, and the other (progressivism) is forward-looking towards an ideal that is achievable in the future. If one political party clearly is of the former type, but the political opposition is either split or else not clearly of the latter type, all we’ll even possibly get is backward-movement, which is today’s reality. That’s bad for the future; it is wrong.

      • BuelahMan

        Just more, tired, old stereotypes that totally miss today’s reality.

        Even the “ideology” you reference is so convoluted as to confuse everyone. It simply is not refelctive of what we see with our own, two, open eyes.

  • paul

    This is really a nice article. I don’t agree with every aspect of it, but it’s at least an attempt to grapple with the awfulness of both parties, and in the current political environment, when ‘progressives’ seem to be lockstep in their denialistic attempts to meme-blame the GOP for everything (regardless of the near decade now that the Dems have been in power, if one goes back to 2006), and ‘progressives’ hysterical, fascistic and possibly insane rage to scapegoat any lefties who disagree with that as ‘extremists’, as crazed, irresponsible, childish radicals and reds, who don’t want to actually ‘get anything done’, this serious attempt to sketch a way forward for remaining genuinely progressive Dems (there must actually be some) is refreshing. Well done.