US Ambassador Lew Amselem: A Ghoul from Horror Films Past

This made me curious to know more about Obama's nominee to replace the odious Amselem.  From Whitehouse.gov, dated September 14th:

Carmen Lomellin, Nominee for Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the Organization of American States, with the rank of Ambassador

Ms. Lomellin is currently the Director of Outreach for the Organization of America States (OAS). She previously served as the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission of Women within the OAS, where she focused on hemispheric policies and issues affecting women, particularly in the areas of gender equality, economic empowerment and human rights. Prior to her time at the OAS, she served as White House Liaison and Senior Policy Advisor to the Director at the Office of Personnel Management in the Clinton Administration. Ms. Lomellin also worked in Presidential Personnel at the White House and as Adviser on Hispanic Affairs for the White House Office for Women’s Initiatives and Outreach. Prior to her time in Washington, Ms. Lomellin held various positions in Chicago, including serving as Director of the Private Industry Council of Chicago for Mayor Richard M. Daley. She has worked for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund as Director of Leadership Development, and for Chicago United, a civic think tank, as Director of Economic Development. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Management from St. Joseph’s Calumet College and a Masters in Business Administration in International Business from De Paul University.

I haven't read anything good, bad or indifferent about her so far. Anyone have any insights to share?

Note that Ms. Lomellin's nomination has been held up by Congressional Republicans along with many other nominations.  They're conspiring to keep Bush moles in place in the executive branch for as long as possible.  Now one of those moles carries out a destructive act of sabotage.  There will be more coming.

It will be much worse at Defense, where the fight is over Afghanistan and, according to the Manchester Guardian, over an Obama proposal to greatly reduce the number of American nuclear warheads.

Time to let Democratic congressmen know that it's their job to end the Bush administration promptly.

Unfortunately, the US elite are the still the counter-revolutionary force of the world capitalist political economy.

You will be hard pressed to find instances whereby the US Foreign Policy Establishment supported any effective reformist government ...especially in Latin America

It is clear that the ultra-reactionary Republicans are holding up Democratic appointments.  But the Democrats are hardly pressing ahead.

They are crippled by their need to primarily satisfy the needs and interests of their extremely wealthy donors.

Remember, under the dictatorship of Capital, the political system tends to operate as a "hierarchy of interest satisfaction."  In other words, those individuals, families and corporations on top of the economic pile tend to get their interests satisfied more readily, with more concern and with larger amounts of the government budget. 

Those on the bottom of the economic pyramid tend to get their interest and needs ignored or, if not ignored, they will be sparsely supported (per capita) with government funds.

The major cause for the operation of the hierarchy of interest satisfaction is the "investment theory of politics"

Wealthy individuals, families and corporations invest in politicians, political programs, and political parties as they do any business venture.  They invest because they expect a return.

Under the regime of capitalist (elite) democracy, alliances between major economic actors cause political parties to rise or fall.  If an alliance is strong and secure, the political party representing it will usually rise to power.

If world capitalist conditions change, the members of the economic alliance may find that their interests have changed and thus the alliance will probably break down.

If that occurs, a shake up of the major economic actors occurs and they negotiate new investor alliances that better suit their interests within the new global economic conditions.

Why am I pontificating?

Because the investment alliances haven't actually changed from Bush II to Obama/Clinton.  The alliance has stayed stable but it has found that the Democratic Party will more efficiently secure their interests as compared to the reactionary Republicans.

This is the major reason the Democrats aren't putting up much of a struggle to place their own supporters in various lower level positions.  The Democrats don't see that their own people will be much different.

So, why sweat the small stuff?

He should instead crack open the book Chavez gave him by Eduardo Galeano. Latin America does not forget its history unlike many in the United States. The more the US allows this madness in Honduras to continue, the deeper it will become embedded in the historical, collective memory of the region. And then when more Cubas and Venezuelas pop up Americans are left standing around wondering "why?"

http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/

Business proposes Zaleya be reinstated but lose command of the armed forces, Michiletti remain in congress,  and an international force of Columbia, Canada, and Panama enforce the peace.  Convenient how those are the 3 countries whose Leaders have been decidedly pro-coup.

Aaron,

Fredericton, NB, Canada

Frank Balzer's contention that the Democrats are supposedly not fighting to get their nominees confirmed, because there's not much of a difference between them and the Bush hold-overs, is nonsense.  If there were no significant differences, the Republicans wouldn't be blocking the Democratic nominees.  Mr. Balzer also asks us to believe another piece of illogic: He says that Democrats are beholden to their donors, who dictate capitalist policies, and that somehow vitiates their desire to push for Obama's nominees. That would in turn require us to believe that Obama's nominees are less "capitalist" than the hold-overs, as if Democrats themselves were unenthusiastic about Obama's nominees.  But wait, Mr. Balzer has already told us there's no real difference between the nominees and the hold-overs. His argument contradicts itself.

If the Obama Administration can be faulted for anything in this, it's not recognizing that there is a war of obstruction that Republicans at all levels in Washington are waging against Obama's policies, his personnel and even his place in history.  That they want to destroy him politically is additional evidence that Mr. Balzer's thesis is wrong:  Obama represents a seismic change, and the Republicans are frightened of it.

Well, there's another way to look at it.  Organizations are not always monolithic; the Democratic Party never is.

Thus the remaining Republican agents scattered around the 3 branches of government may coordinate to sabotage Obama, but Obama's "party" has factions that have no interest in defending him.  Obama is overly willing to put up with those factions because he's still something of a newcomer, and he isn't really about to challenge the capitalist interests that have invested in both parties.

Hillary Clinton is a faction leader in her own right.  If Democratic congressmen in her faction don't feel that Obama's appointees reflect their Lannie Davis preferences, there's not going to be much pushback on the GOP minority to stop stalling.  It's like the health care debate; the real fight is inside the Democratic Party, but bought-out corporate Dems can facilitate GOP sabotage efforts by saying that bipartisanship is required on an issue that they want to bury.

Listen to the presentation given at the General Debate of the 64th Session of the U.N.  for Honduras  by  Ms. Patricia Isabel Rodas Baca, Minister for Foreign Affairs

http://www.un.org/ga/64/generaldebate/HN.shtml

It includes a few words given by President Zelaya via cell phone to the gathering.

Presentations given by several in addition to the above were very informative, thoughtful and hopeful.

http://www.un.org/ga/64/generaldebate/index.shtml

The Obama Presidency is different than the Bush II Presidency.  But it isn't a seismic change.

For example, after the coup, Obama could have openly visited with Zelaya (and he still hasn't) and demonstrated via the international media that he was in total solidarity with him.  In addition, he could have immediately declared that it was a coup

Afterwords, Obama should intiated an economic and political blockade as has been done toward Cuba.  He could have frozen all the assets of the oligarchs and the military and police leadership.  Second, he should not have only revoked their visas, but he should have had arrest warrents ready for any coup plotter who entered US territory.

He should have recalled all military advisors and embassy personnel and US staff. 

He should kept a constant drumbeat about the coup on the world stage, about its criminality and the criminal nature of those who participated.  The media should have be used as bully pulpit focusing on the criminality of the coup and the human rights abuses perpetrated by the leadership of the coup...like it is done with Iran.

However, I've hardly seen any of the above actions taken by President Obama, his entourage or Clinton's office.  In fact, a close associate of Clinton's Presidential bid is acting as a lobbyist for the coup regime as we speak.

Why isn't she speaking out against his activities?

Remember, President Clinton was almost brought down by the reactionary Republicans via impeachment procedings.  Clinton was not a progressive of any stamp.  Nor is Obama.

But the reactionaries hate even the Clinton Democrats.  The Democrats that contributed toward deregulating the banking and finance industries, actively fought for NAFTA, pushed through the Republican's hobby horse, welfare reform, and so on.

In fact, Obama has to answer for the build up of military bases in Colombia, the rapid excalation of military actions in Afghanistan (and somewhat in Pakistan), and the maintenance of a global neoliberal financial speculative system.

Also, he has not cut the military budget, he has added to it.  He has not cut back on any of the US's 750 - 1000 foreign military bases.  Bush II rapidly expanded this system of bases and Obama has not even started to eliminate them.

The radical Right was supported by an alliance of investors, evangelical churches, energy, tobacco, big Pharma, insurance  firms and the military; however, this alliance has lost a significant number of its elite supporters, but sections of the elite are supporting the Republican Right.

And there is still a large rightwing media infrastructure in place and its leading stars still "earn" millions spouting their hate and misinformation.  And this infrastructure never supported a Democrat (no matter how conservative).

When the radical Right lost wholesale to the Democrats, they lost positions of status, wealth and power.  They want all of those things back.  This group actually believed that they were going to be a permanent majority as they are in FL and TX.

The Democrats were to the permanent minority party.  They were to be the whipping boy.  They are not playing that role presently and this angers the Republicans.