I suppose it serves me right for reading Andrew Sullivan as much as I do, but I find myself really annoyed by all the people saying they’re “leaving the left” because Jane Hamsher said something mean about Obama.
I guess what bugs me most is the idea that they think anyone cares. The most ridiculous thing about pundits to me is how amazingly self-absorbed they are, how fascinating they find the twists and turns of their own minds. To me, it’s even worse when random people fall in love with their own beautiful minds.
Don’t get me wrong: when someone changes their mind about an issue and explains why, it can be very interesting. And I’m all for it. And when someone — I won’t name names — says “how the fuck could I have supported these idiots who drove the country into a ditch”, I think that’s great.
But why would anyone feel the need to announce to the world that they no longer feel like part of the left on account of the fact that some lefty bloggers aren’t sufficiently supportive of Obama?
Eric U.
when I hear crap like that, I am left with the same impression as when I hear someone call in to CSPAN on the Dem line and say “I’ve been a life-long democrat voter, but ….” and then spiel the latest republican talking point.
calipygian
There is precious little evidence that anyone with a smidge of power even pays attention to the top tier bloggers like Kos or Hamisher, etc. One level under them and anyone in the West Wing probably doesn’t know you exist.
As for fifth rate bloggers who have an audience smaller than some of the better commenters here at Little Green Balloon Juice that feel the need to write a self-important screed about how they are so portentiously leaving the left … well I suppose in cyberspace, no one can here you scream.
Will
Shrug. If that’s all it takes to make some be “not part of the left anymore,” they were never part of the left in the first place.
It’s not about what team you are on. It’s about what you believe is right. If that’s not true, then you’re doing it wrong.
Comrade Mary
Well, isn’t that just what you would expect of those Andrew Sullivans of the left-leavetakers?
Me, I prefer to stay on the left and brawl, as usual.
j.e.b.
You tell ’em.
The problem with Hamsher right now is that she’s let her justifiable frustrations with Obama on torture/state secrets/etc lead her to ridiculous complaints about health-care reform. (Hint: Obama never voted for Ben Nelson)
If Hamsher were “the left”, I’d leave it, too. Not for her being mean to Obama, but for her being unrealistic sometimes. (We’re supposed to be the reality-based community, which unfortunately requires that we understand that the Senate’s stupid rules are not Obama’s fault–he was only a first-term senator, for f*%k’s sake.)
But she’s not “the left”, so what the f&*k is wrong with these people?
Zifnab
Leaving the Left? But they only just got here!
I eagerly await the next wave of PUMAs and Lanny Davis’s, who can proudly proclaim how they were such loyal liberals until that one person said that one thing that pissed them off and now LOOK MOM! FOX NEWS PUT ME ON TV!
:-p Whateva.
If someone saying something mean about Obama has killed your desire for universal health care coverage or totally flipped your opinion on limiting green house gases or reversed your desire to create a path to citizenship for immigrants… fuck it, where you ever really with us?
Just Some Fuckhead
You need to hire an editor, DougJ.
DougJ
You need to hire an editor, DougJ.
Back atcha.
carlos the dwarf
Slightly OT, bu I really don’t get the Sullivan hatred among liberals. I know he’s (still) a fairly conservative guy, and I often disagree with him, but I have a lot of respect for him. What I think most people don’t realize about him is that he has two kinds of posts–his initial, knee-jerk reaction post, which is usually just an argument from the emotions he feels about the issue at hand, and a second type of post that’s more thoughtful and rational. What I respect about him is that he will almost always go back and rethink his position and move past his emotional gut reaction if he thinks it was wrong. The fact that he does that earns him a lot of respect in my book.
The Sullivan-hatred among conservatives, on the other hand, makes perfect sense to me. He’s got teh ghey, and he’s no longer useful to parrot the party line.
[Edited for clarity. EDIT FUNCTION WIN!]
Emma
I have never considered myself “of the left.” My first high school history professor taught me what he said was the greatest secret to supporting political parties/candidates: read their platforms, listen to what they were saying. I tended to gravitate towards the Democratic party but was not above listening to the kind of Republican we no longer have — fiscally conservative, socially centrist types. Now, I pretty much have no choice, really. The Republican party as represented by its leadership is batshit crazy.
Idolizing politicians is a mug’s game. But cutting off your nose to spite your face is an even worse one. And to do it in public, well, that smacks of masochism.
And I don’t read Andrew Sullivan — after the things he called people like me who opposed the Iraq adventure, I wouldn’t spit on his head if his brain was on fire.
mk3872
I think it is a great trend from both the left & right that people are standing up against hateful tirades by the likes of Jane Hamsher & Markos as well as Beck & Rush.
When someone says “why I’m leaving the —” they are saying they’ve had enough of these ideologically boxed-in pied pipers leading brainless hords down a dangerous unproductive path.
Noonan
@DougJ:
Now there’s a properly executed ‘back atcha.’
Emma
After writing my comments I saw Carlos the dwarf’s. And honestly, Carlos, no he doesn’t. He only seems to — three months later he’s back to the same crap on the same issues. If you have to think something through EACH time you encounter the same event, and learn nothing from the process… I don’t think you’re teaching me anything.
Jay B.
The fact that the douchebag called us all traitors for not going along with the whole We Gotta Kill Them adventure in Iraq? The kneecapping of meaningful health care reform in 1994 by printing McCaughney’s lies? The platform he gave to Charles Murray to spew racist junk science? The brain-dead neo-Thatcherism? The Trig obsession?
Want me to go on?
Sentient Puddle
@mk3872:
I think you’re right (and do appreciate when people do this), but it also makes the wording of the statement imprecise, at best. Just because I wish Jane Hamsher would shut the fuck up doesn’t mean I’m leaving the left. It just means I want Jane Hamsher to shut the fuck up.
Comrade Mary
Sullivan has the attention span and memory of a goldfish on everything but the childbearing history of Sarah Palin.
Xecky Gilchrist
Don’t get me wrong: when someone changes their mind about an issue and explains why, it can be very interesting.
The best example of this I can think of is your co-blogger John. I started reading here just before his conversion and it has been amazing to watch.
He’s come a long way since the “the Jane Hamshers of the left” days.
donovong
@Sentient Puddle:
A-the-fuck-men!
Zam
This.
Also this.
gbear
This posting has left me so outraged that I can barely type thru my tears.
Jay B.
@mk3872:
Who’s doing the what now?
After reading your muddled equivalencies Kos = Beck and your ridiculous premise (people on the right are standing up against Rush and Beck), I’m feel like I have no place in the self-described “Sensible Center” and will leave the corporatist hair-splitting limp dick noodling to people with the courage to have no platform but the status quo.
Frank Chow
Well done and well said. But it is my right to unsuscribe from all Firedoglake e-mail blasts because I find it annoying they petition every single thing they disagree with…It is clear petitions don’t matter and I also find Jane to be annoying.
The leaving the “left” and “right” game is not nearly as important to the rest of us as pundits would like their egos to think.
Sentient Puddle
@Sentient Puddle: I should follow this up with another somewhat related thought. While Charles Johnson’s “leaving the right” post was still interesting, I have a similar problem with it. He was less focused on policy and more focused on the right being filled with asshats. I don’t read LGF much, so I am speaking from some level of ignorance here, but his post didn’t really give me a firm idea where he stood.
Ash Can
Bleah. I’d had enough of the on-line drama on all sides by 10:30 this morning. Right now we have a nice December snow coming down here, and I’m looking forward to warming up some gluhwein tonight and putting up Christmas decorations. And I don’t need any bullshit Congressional resolutions to make me feel good about it, either.
Mike E
I will never belong to a club that will have me as a member.
And fuck Cheney. Also.
flounder
I think healthcare got really personalized.
I think this is a useful study in showing that some people are more like Joe Lieberman than they would like to admit (for the record I would punch Holy Joe in the face if I ever saw him in a dark alley). That is why we all aren’t Senators, and is why Lieberman should not be one.
I figured that health care would mostly suck, but I was just hoping that there would be enough spare parts stuck on to the thing that there would be a couple useful places and keywords, legislatively speaking to ramp it up down the line. I think Medicare 55 is honestly better than I expected.
arguingwithsignposts
says the man on a blog. :)
scudbucket
I really enjoyed this ex-lefty:
He gave a heartfelt voice to what are also my deepest worries about remaining a lefty: we don’t have enough corporate executives on our side.
mk3872
@Jay B.:
I see … so you would probably be someone who would say something along the lines of: Bush W was on the wrong of the issues, but at least he stood up for what he believed in, do I have this right?
IMO, a bill that moves us from covering ~80% of Americans to ~90% of Americans IS standing for something.
Lunatics on either side of the equation do not have sole ownership of ideation.
Just because YOU think someone must have a radical idea, does not make it necessarily brave.
valdivia
I think this is part of the making something on the left be the same as on the right. False equivalence and all that.
I am completely frustrated by some of the antics of those pursuing purity, unity ponies and perfection on the left but I will never let them make me leave MY party. what I hate about the whining is the fickleness of some of the Obama supporters who saw and heard what they wanted to hear and are now completely unrealistic about how their own projected expectations are not being met. Leaving the left because of this would be just as fickle and counter-productive.
Jay B.
I’d also like to say these people have never been on, or never understood, “The Left” to think that somehow disagreements — even violent disagreements — are somehow incompatible with being on the Left. Internal strife is our lifeblood and our heritage.
scav
@scudbucket: The serial killer demographic shaped hole under the big D tent is equally problematic.
John S.
Ideological purity is all the rage these days.
A lot of progressives (myself excluded) don’t want the teabaggers to have ALL the fun, so they are trying to horn in on a little bit of the action.
Shawn in ShowMe
All what people? The vast majority of posts from I see from the reality-based community are urging the the far left to stop behaving like teabaggers, not threatening to “leave the left” themselves. We’ve got nowhere to go. And once Left Blogistan has gotten over their butt hurt, most of them will come to the same realization, if they wish to stay relevant.
carlos the dwarf
@Jay B.:
I’d much rather save my rage for Beck, Inhofe, and Sarah Mooseketeer–the people who are really doing the most to hurt my country. I’d take Sullivan over them anytime. We can have feelings for public figures more complex than love or hate. Yes, Sullivan has done some pretty shitty things, some of which he’s apologized for, some not. I didn’t say I loved the guy, but I don’t consider him worthy of wrath on the same level as the selfish bigoted dipshits who control the Republican party. (And Joe Lieberman).
Paris
Sullivan linked to somebody else who is ‘no longer a liberal’ because of something Christian Parenti wrote. I don’t think Christian Parenti considers himself liberal so there was no need to leave.
Mike E
Damn, if that doesn’t fit on a t-shirt…
kommrade reproductive vigor
The same reason people feel the need to announce they’re going Galt from the left because some lefty bloggers/voters/co-workers/relatives/strangers on the train aren’t sufficiently supportive of [Fill in the blank]. They’re WATBs who need to be spanked until the shout Green Balloons!
Some people think everything should be an exclusive club where only the things they like are allowed and the furniture is very comfy. They’re called radicals and I wish there were a cure.
Xanthippas
Man, I hear you. Between people turning on Obama because of his completely foreseeable decision to continue the war in Afghanistan, and people deciding they can no longer be liberals because liberals say mean things about Obama, there’s plenty of opportunity for perspective correcting punches to the gonads to be handed out.
Jay B.
@mk3872:
I see … so you would probably be someone who would say something along the lines of: Bush W was on the wrong of the issues, but at least he stood up for what he believed in, do I have this right?
Nope, but when your done wiping the Insurance Industry’s profits off your face, let me know. After that, let me know how shoveling people’s money into private industry with potentially no upside helps the Democratic Party.
Insurance company profits, for starters. A public option and subsidies, or, horrors, a single-payer system would have made it 100%. All those lunatics in the developed world with their universal coverage, I tell ya. They’re CRAZY!!!
Look, Jay Rockefeller, who is nobody’s idea of a vertebrate had a better plan. But the Democrats went in with the immediate cave, sought “bipartisan” consensus and were held hostage by assholes in their caucus.
My idea is to rip off Western Europe or Canada’s idea. That’s a radical idea? Or, more to the point, do you have one?
El Cid
I thought being on “the left” wasn’t a fucking club you joined so you could be with or like other people.
I thought it was because you happened to come to agree with analyses and policies which for a variety of reasons were said to be ‘on the left’.
Either those analyses and policies make sense to you, or they god-damned don’t.
What, if somebody else on “the left” says something you don’t agree with, what, you now will decide to believe things you don’t believe make sense, or back policies you think are harmful or not helpful?
Jeff Fecke
Ever since Jane Hamsher wrote something mean about Obama, I’ve been outraged by Chappaquiddick.
Litlebritdifrnt
I am still torn on what to think about this entire health care mess. One the one hand I see someone quite reasonable like John saying its not such a bad thing, (and many of his commenters) and now Ed Schultz is about to have a damn cow he is so angry. I has a confuzzled.
Mnemosyne
@Jay B.:
And yet, by all accounts, Rockefeller is happy with the new plan. So is Rockefeller now a fucking sellout who shouldn’t be listened to because he didn’t go with your plan?
scudbucket
@valdivia:
I think this is part of the making something on the left be the same as on the right. False equivalence and all that.
That was my first reaction too. Some tit-for-tat thing that people with their ‘finger on the pulse’ would say. It’s also a way to marginalize the left: people are leaving the left because it’s too far left. Meanwhile, Tea Baggers are moving to the right because the GOP is … too far left. It all makes sense when you surrender to the fact that we live in an ever rightly-re-centering nation.
MBunge
“What, if somebody else on “the left” says something you don’t agree with, what, you now will decide to believe things you don’t believe make sense, or back policies you think are harmful or not helpful?”
I don’t think anyone is changing their mind about any of that. They just don’t want to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with folks they see as asshats. These “I’m leavin’ the left” jokers are bothered less by the substance or even the quantity of lefty criticisms of Obama and more by the tenor of such attacks.
For example, if you read Glenn Greenwald every day, you’ll come away feeling like Obama is no better than Bush. Which is, of course, utter bullshit. Even when I find myself agreeing with one of Glenn’s diatribes against Obama, I also find myself thinking that Glenn is one massively self-righteous prick I wouldn’t want spend much time around.
Mike
JMY
One thing I do agree with is that many people failed to listen to what Obama said about certain issues during the campaign, for example, Afghanistan, health-care, gay rights, etc. So when people get mad when he takes a certain position on an issue, then you hear the “oh he betrayed us” “that’s not change I can believe in” “he’s just like Bush” memes, I get confused and wonder, what were people listening to during the campaign? Some people became infatuated with Obama, the personality & celebrity – how he commands and audience and can inspire people through great speeches – that they sometimes failed to listen to what he was saying. He said he would approach his presidency in a bi-partisan matter, he would look to Republicans for ideas, and he gets bashed for it when that is what many people like about him.
John S.
They weren’t — except for maybe the voices in their own heads.
SATSQ
scudbucket
@Litlebritdifrnt:
Because, from what we’ve been told, this is a plan with mandates but no cost containment, no public option to act as a competitor to private providers, a ‘medicare buy-in’ for folks 55-64 which only lasts for three years and isn’t subsidized, and no (so far as I know) guarantee issue. It’s a huge win for the insurance companies: mandates with no cost containment, plus they get to shed all the new 55-64 years olds onto the govt till the real plan takes effect.
Wannabe Speechwriter
I just don’t get this obsession by Greenwald, Sirota, et al over “Obama-worshipers.” Every time Greenwald cites a columnist or a blogger who bends over backwards for the President, you can see he or she will write or has written something critical of the President.
Does Obama make mistakes? Yes. Has Obama done things that have been in contradiction to his campaign or has even resembled the Bush administration? Yes. However, he is the leader of the Democratic Party and, with that, the progressive movement. Right now is our shot at changing things. This is the hand we’ve been dealt and we’re not going to be dealt a better hand a year from now or 3 years from now or 7 years from now. If we go to the electorate and say “give us 4 more years with this new guy because Obama was too conservative” we will sound just as pathetic as the right-wingers who insist “Bush was too liberal.” As one of the less-quoted lines in “The Gambler” goes:
The key is to find a way to make your hand win, not to complain to the other players you had 3 aces instead of 4.
However, I guess the thing that bugs me is how Greenwald is going after a no-named blogger and some dudes who e-mailed Sully. I also remember Glenzilla going after some DKos blogger who said HuffPo was too critical of Obama. Also, he cited the fact the dude’s online poll was largely in favor of his sentiment to prove DKos had drunk the Kool-Aid.
Remember, the problem with the teabaggers is not their are some crazies but rather larger interests that make policy give them financial support, media airtime, etc.. If those who are more Catholic than the Pope want to go after Obama or Rahm or Richard Wolfe or Eugene Robinson or some lawmaker or media hack that pushes the “just be patient, we’ll bring the unicorns” line, more power to them. However, going after some dudes who know how to e-mail The Atlantic or use blogger.com seems a little petty and insincere.
arguingwithsignposts
@JMY:
Well, to be fair, I think people did listen to what Obama said about many issues, and also all the talk about change. And there’s probably a lot of “buyer’s remorse” in all this thrashing about (I know I’ve had my share – not necessarily toward Obama, but toward the entire political process right now).
I wasn’t disappointed in his Afghanistan policy, because I knew he’d campaigned on that. OTOH, he also campaigned on repealing DADT and a public option in HCR.
That said, I will *never* subscribe to the “as bad as Bush” camp, because, short of starting another two wars and allowing an American city to be swallowed up by a disaster and appointing preening assholes to the Supreme Court and reinstituting torture and a new Guantanamo, there’s no f**king way he could be as bad as Bush.
El Cid
@MBunge: That doesn’t make much sense, either.
If the entirety of “the left” was made up of the most annoying members of ANSWER and the Revolutionary Communist Party and some guy who just quoted Ralph Nader all the time, it still would have zero effect on what ideas made sense to me and what policies I thought were correct.
I could see someone declaring that they were ‘leaving’ a certain party, or group, or organization.
You can “leave” the left all you want, and if you still hold certain ideas or support certain policies, well, you’re still there.
Jay B.
@Mnemosyne:
Sure, it’s fine. Parts of it at least. But how about this: was it worth the political price the Democrats have had to pay for it? Was this the best they could have gotten, given the environment, or was the inevitable result of selling out truly bold reform before they even started horsetrading? If you think Reid has done a good job with this you are out of your mind — and I know that you’re not.
From the start, they’ve done a shitty job selling reform. We pay 100% more than most industrialized nations for literally the same or worse results. Why has this been so hard to disseminate? Because at least half our caucus sucks Insurance lobby wallets.
Yet we were promised major reform. Is this it? Could this have been done if it wasn’t sold as something bigger? Absolutely. Once it became “the culmination of the liberal dream of universal coverage”, jackals like Lieberman and Nelson — to say nothing of the worthless piece of shit opposition party — they knew Reid would let them hold all the cards.
Why is it that it seemed determined from the start that the Senate wasn’t going to do the right thing? Why was it automatically assumed that they’d need 60 to pass it? Why was reconciliation taken off the table? Because too many Democrats didn’t want “universal coverage” — despite public support, despite the House plan, despite threats from the deflated liberal base.
So now we have a nice plan, in parts. Senators are happy because the grind is over. Now the Democrats, shot full of self-inflicted wounds, get to limp away with a watered-down bill to crow about and we’ll have to figure out how best to spin it to make ourselves feel better.
But forgive me if my radical, dirty hippie hopes were a little higher than this, given the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The Democrats’ message taken over by lobbyists and idiots screaming about death panels because too few of them know how to fight for the right things, or worse, too few of them care to.
arguingwithsignposts
@El Cid:
I like the cut of your jib.
You can’t leave “the left” unless you embrace positions that you haven’t previously embraced. And for me, not so much.
Toast
Sully’s overplaying the whole “Leaving the Left” thing in a stupid attempt to balance his “Leaving the Right” dalliance. It’s gotten a little ridiculous.
That said, there is a nugget of truth in there. I’m pretty disgusted with a lot of lefty bloggers who seem overly eager to cry “FAIL! FAIL!” at every turn (many of whom started doing so on 1-20-09 shortly after noon). And I’m even more disgusted with bloggers like Digby who actually seem to think progressive political power is more important than extending health coverage to as many Americans as we can manage under the current circumstances. Get a grip already.
Obama’s no savior and he’s surely not perfect, but people – and by people I mean liberals – need to re-adjust their OUTRAGE knob somewhere south of eleven pronto. The real bad guys aren’t in power anymore. Our imperfect Dems are muddling along instead. And while it ain’t always pretty, it’s not worthy of the hyperbolic screeds being thrown about on our side of the divide.
JMY
@arguingwithsighposts:
Fair enough. I know he campaigned on repealing DADT. The thing is, he wants to do it a certain way (through Congress, to pass a law the would effectively get rid of DADT), but others want him to do it another way (executive order). The public option he campaigned on yes, but he can’t control how Congress acts. All he can do is encourage Congress to include a PO and for the people to urge their representatives to support it.
The DADT issue is one that irritates me b/c he has consistently said that he wants to get rid of it through Congress, but some act as if he never said it. They just hear, “I’m going to repeal DADT.” So when DADT is not repealed immediately, some people on the left get angry and act as though the president somehow hates gays. There have been progress on certain issues that are important to gays, but because DADT or DOMA aren’t automatically repealed, some how he is ignoring gays.
It’s things like that that lead me to believe that some just didn’t listen to what he said on the campaign. They have a right to be disappointed in some areas, but if they would have listened, it probably wouldn’t hurt as much.
Stefan
The whole “GBCW” phenomenon on DailyKos leaves me cold for this exact reason (and there’s been quite a few of them of late). Even the better-written ones have a narcissistic aftertaste to them. If you’re going to leave, then just leave. I haven’t posted there in months and I don’t feel a particular need to call attention to that fact or explain myself.
MobiusKlein
The Kvetchers (like Digby) were very harsh against Bush, so it’s good in some way that they are equally harsh vs Obama. Not the suck-up Obamabots the left is accused of being.
So yeah, they have complaints. Just use some sense each time to evaluate if they are overreacting or on to something. Sometimes, there actually is a wolf.
Xanthippas
The reason you find yourself agreeing with Greenwald is because he is very good at making his case. Those who dare to disagree with him about something had better have their facts in order, or they’ll be demolished by his reason and careful argument.
Anyway, people need to remember that Greenwald largely focuses on civil liberties, and in that area Obama has been very, very disappointing. He’s quick to give credit where it’s due, but there’s so little credit to give the Obama administration in that regard that it’s easy to see why someone like Greenwald would be quick to take on Obama’s defenders. That being said Greenwald, for whatever reason, has a tendency to refer to “Obama’s defenders” without actually linking to anyone who goes to any great lengths to defend Obama. He’s been doing this since way back at the beginning of the year, criticizing Obama’s defenders in only the most generic of terms, and only recently has he found specific defender’s of Obama that he’s willing to criticize (specifically, the one Andrew Sullivan linked to.) Greenwald is so careful, thorough and methodical with his arguments that it’s kind of hard to excuse him taking an out on identifying exactly who all these defender’s of Obama are.
El Cid
I can’t stand the entire genre of “I can no longer” whatever.
Make your god-damned argument. If it’s a shitty argument, no one cares what you do. If it’s a convincing argument, then it’s convincing no matter what you do about it.
Corey
@MBunge:
On the substantive things that Glenn writes about, he’s right; Obama is mostly no different than Bush. You might find him much more palatable from a rhetorical or stylistic standpoint, though (I certainly do too).
The one thing I find so amazing about this little inter-Left tiff is how unmoored from actual facts those who are “leaving the left” are. If Bush did something that we didn’t like, and Obama continues the policy, then Obama deserves our vociferous anger as much as Bush did and perhaps more so.
We’re liberals for Christ’s sake. We don’t support people out of blind loyalty or political expediency. We don’t hero-worship our leaders. And that’s really what the “leaving the left” bullshit is about – failure on the part of actual liberals to slavishly support whatever Obama does, even when those actions are decidedly illiberal.
williamc
This whole country seems like its gone mad; no one seems to be able to stay on topic on any subject anymore without resorting to acting like 12 year olds, blowing raspberries and screaming, “but they did it too!”.
DougJ’s post is about “leaving the left”. There is no such thing. The left isn’t some trendy club that you can just walk out of and ask for a refund, its a set of beliefs that should form the basis of how you live your life and view the world, just as the right should be. A leftist believes in social equality, economic fairness for all, and having an open mind to new experiences. A rightist believes in a status quo social order, economic fairness for businesses, and opposition to any new outlook in life. You can no longer leave the left or the right as you can just turn off your brain. Sully is just publishing these letters because he’s “leaving the right” and hates “liberals” (though he doesn’t seem to understand that in the USA today, his beliefs make him a Center-leftist; there are no Tories in America) and like a lot of gays, including myself, he’s a drama queen.
Even though I read Sully a lot, I understand his past; he is partly to blame for healthcare failing in the 1990s, the Bell Curve stuff is utter crap (imagine his OUTRAGE if someone published a book whose premise is that gays are dumber than other people), his calling us anti-war folks traitors in the early 00s, and I’m sure there are other things you professional Sully-haters can pinpoint that I am leaving out, but the Trig stuff is fair game: her story really doesn’t make any sense!
Oh, and leave Greenwald alone! I think people have a hard time dealing with Glenn because they don’t get where his outrage comes from, but its pretty simple: he hates hypocrites. Think of everything you’ve ever read by him, remember every time that you’ve seen him speaking, and you can see it. He’s railing against Obama and the Kossacks and assorted characters because they are being hypocrites, namely they have said and behaved one way in the past and are now saying and doing the opposite.
I campaigned for the President in Georgia during the primaries last year, I’m the very definition of an “o-bot”, but the President of the United States isn’t just the president of everyone, he’s the leader of the Democratic Party, and the President isn’t leading the party, he’s letting it be run by “moderates” in the Senate, who in turn are leading the Party into a ditch next year.
J.W. Hamner
Is this post supposed to be ironic? I can’t wrap my head around somebody who posts on a major blog with an active commenting community shaking his head at the “Crazy Things People Say on Those There Intertubes!” I mean, yeah, who wants to listen to the thoughts of some random schmuck you’ve never heard of?
Comrade Dread
Well, not to sound like the old conservative I used to be, my guess is that the Boomers kicked it off by thinking and obsessing over themselves as the greatest, smartest, and best generation ever. They taught their kids self-esteem and how damn special they were up the wazoo regardless of whether or not there was anything to base it on.
And then the internet came along and let any narcissistic jackhole wax sub-eloquently about any topic they have no information or expertise about and the anonymity encourages us all to act like bigger jackholes than we would in person, and we still get lots of comments and people noticing our posts even if we write complete and utter crap that makes everyone dumber for having read it. Thus the narcissistic jackhole evolved into a troll.
And then trolls further evolved into: Driveby Trolls; Concern Trolls; Spoof Trolls; and the now rampant Emo Troll who is sad. So very sad. Why can’t we all just get along, and oh my God, it’s so uncivil and horrible what you’ve been saying, and it hurts me to see poor X attacked that way, I don’t think I can stay here anymore, I must now go and lie fully clothed in my bathtub and listen to Morrisey and try and think of kittens to cheer me up, you should feel horrible and beg me to come back because you hurt my feelings…
williamc
@Corey
This.
@Comrade Dread @ 64
This., pt. 2.; if I were a psychologist, I would declare that you won the internets today, but then you’d have to pay for the full hour…
MBunge
“On the substantive things that Glenn writes about, he’s right; Obama is mostly no different than Bush.”
No, that’s bullshit because not undoing actions taken by Bush is not the same thing as Obama initating such actions and that’s not a semantic difference. If Obama doing everything Glenn wanted would only produce marginal negative consequences, I’d probably be more on Glenn’s side. But not only would such negative consequences probably be quite severe, Glenn is UTTERLY INDIFFERENT to that probability.
If Obama did exactly what Glenn wanted and the result was Americans getting killed, I think Obama would be tormented by that until his dying day. But if Glenn got his way and Americans got killed, I don’t think he’d miss a lick of sleep over it. In fact, I think he’d get off on being so morally resolute in face of such an awful result.
Mike
scudbucket
@Toast:
The real bad guys aren’t in power anymore. Our imperfect Dems are muddling along instead.
But don’t you think this is a bit question begging, given the complaints. I see exactly why true progressives are pissed: Obama hasn’t delivered anything progressive – no public otion, no DADT, no climate bill, no withdrawal from Iraq, no increase in transparency (well, a little, but…). Moderate dems are happy, because he’s moving things in a lefty direct on some rather banal issues – or rather, he’s moving banal-ly to the left on some issues.
I say, let the fringe go crazy, and we’ll let the fear of future elections settle which direction the party takes.
Corey
@MBunge:
“No, that’s bullshit because not undoing actions taken by Bush is not the same thing as Obama initating such actions and that’s not a semantic difference.”
Yes, yes it really is the same thing. Plus, they aren’t just maintaining policies, they’re actively defending them in court and to the public/media. At this point, there are few real substantive differences in the civil liberties policies of the Bush and Obama administrations.
If Obama did exactly what Glenn wanted and the result was Americans getting killed, I think Obama would be tormented by that until his dying day. But if Glenn got his way and Americans got killed, I don’t think he’d miss a lick of sleep over it. In fact, I think he’d get off on being so morally resolute in face of such an awful result.
If you seriously believe the conservative frame of “civil liberties or death by terrists” then you aren’t a member of the “left” to begin with.
Comrade Dread
Let’s put it this way, guys. I’m not a Democrat, probably never will be. (Not a Republican either).
Given how nearly the entire Republican apparatus and media pundits turned into yes men who kissed Bush’s behind no matter how far he turned from what were previously thought to be ‘conservative’ principles, and as a result, they and their party, and their principles have lost all credibility, wouldn’t you rather have a large chorus of vocal objectors letting the rest of us know when you think Obama is not living up to the ideals of the party?
You know, just in case he screws things up, you might actually retain a shred of credibility, unlike your Republican brethren who keep on chanting that up is down, black is white, and the Earth really is flat.
FlipYrWhig
@scudbucket:
No, see, I think it’s the reverse. I think that people have decided that adopting an attitude of self-righteous pissed-off-ness is the way to demonstrate that they are, in fact, “true progressives.” Alexander Cockburn has been doing it in The Nation for, like, 25 years. Showing outrage means you’re paying attention the proper way, and, consequently, if you’re not showing outrage, pretty much all the time, you’re the enemy. Not only is it tiring to watch, it’s all an affectation.
sparky
@MBunge: um, what exactly is your argument here? that the US should be a police state?
as for your contention that continuing Bush policies is not the same as initiating them, sorry, not buying. Obama continuing them is legitimating them, and that is every bit as pernicious as establishing them in the first place. and, of course, he is continuing them, which means the US is going to continue to outsource torture, etc. we are just pretending we aren’t.
yeah, i think it’s a good thing that people on the internets are still being shrill. unfortunately, some people seem to think shrill=drama. some other people seem to think drama=shrill (substance).
both “somes” are wrong.
DougJ
I can’t wrap my head around somebody who posts on a major blog with an active commenting community shaking his head at the “Crazy Things People Say on Those There Intertubes!” I mean, yeah, who wants to listen to the thoughts of some random schmuck you’ve never heard of?
Fair enough.
Wannabe Speechwriter
@williamc:
I agree and if he wants to go guns blazing against Obama, the Democratic leadership or hack reporters who appear on da cables, more power too him. But someone who e-mails Sully or has a DKos or Blogger.com account? That’s my only beef.
I find it very hard to say that even those in the “chattering classes” who have been extremely supportive of Obama haven’t either expressed reservations about certain proposals or given either webspace or airtime to those who have criticism of how Democrats in Congress and the White House are handling things. I think Glennzilla is worries too much about progressives bowing down to Obama and worshiping him as a God.
The Raven
Sent to the White House:
As Terry Pratchett observed, hominids have a design problem: a tendency to bend at the knees. The question is, do you trust the king, er, president or think for yourself? We corvids think the new health care plan is probably going to provide us with much food, sooner. Ditto Afghanistan.
Croak!
Tom
You’ll Never Be A Man? I’m gonna have to go download Trust now.
JMY
@scudbucket:
“I see exactly why true progressives are pissed: Obama hasn’t delivered anything progressive – no public otion, no DADT, no climate bill, no withdrawal from Iraq, no increase in transparency (well, a little, but…).”
Where do I start?
No public option: That is on Congress, particularly the Senate. He can encourage and demand it all he wants, but if Democrats in Congress can’t get it done, since they pass the laws, then the only thing he can do is veto a bill, which at this point considering how far we’ve come, would be stupid, and we would be back to square one.
No DADT: He wants to do it the right way: through Congress, to pass a law effectively ending it, not through executive order that doesn’t do anything but allow the next Republican president to overturn it or allow for no incentive or ambition to effectively end DADT.
No climate bill: Uh, they are working on a climate bill. The House already passed theirs in the summer. The Senate is currently working on it.
No withdraw from Iraq: No not immediately, but within the next year or two. Did you not hear his speech earlier in the year?
No increase in transparency: I think they’ve done a lot to be transparent, but there are differing opinions on what is or isn’t transparent or the amount of transparency. But let’s not act as if there has not been huge progress on that front.
Barry
DougJ: “But why would anyone feel the need to announce to the world that they no longer feel like part of the left on account of the fact that some lefty bloggers aren’t sufficiently supportive of Obama?”
Eric got it at the first comment – “I’ve been a lifelong Democrat, but…..”.
williamc
gawd, if once of the brightest commentariats on the net is having a conniption fit over the President and his “lack” of progressive accomplishments (there have actually been quite a few, besides us all not wearing barrels as clothes and eating grass because the banking system collapsed last year), i can’t imagine what the dinnertable conversations in non-wingnut/non-outraged lib homes around the country are like…
Midnight Marauder
@Corey:
Now, here’s where I get really pissed off, when people start pulling out the “OBAMA’S DOJ IS DEFENDING BUSH’S POLICIES!”
They. Are. NOT. His. Lawyers.
I know, I know. Obama is in charge now, so everything is supposed to just change at the fucking snap of the fingers. But it doesn’t work like that. Do you know why you’re so pissed at the DOJ and their actions recently, Corey? Because the actual lawyers working there are still left over from the Bush administration.
And that’s the same all across the board. Remember those briefs from a few months ago where “Obama” was claiming those dirty gays and lesbians ate babies and went around stabbing old people in the face? Well, those were written by Bush cronies at the DOJ. Because it takes time to root out such incompetence after it was given free reign for almost a fucking decade.
So, yes, there are plenty of areas to be upset with Obama not moving fast enough on or whatever the outrage du-jour of the moment is. But this bullshit about “they’re actively defending them in court,” is simply that: Bullshit.
I swear, the way some people around here have been freaking today, you would have thought that President Obama kicked Joe Biden out of his administration and brought Dick Cheney in as his right hand man.
I mean, what the fuck is wrong with some of you people? The histrionics are just out of fucking control right now. Get a fucking grip on reality. Wow.
Corey
Yes, the presence of a few Bush administration holdovers explains the coordinated and obvious campaign the administration has made to Congress and the media to preserve the Bush administration’s surveillance and detention policies.
People will believe anything to continue worshiping their leaders, I suppose.
JMY
@Corey:
Okay, let’s talk about all the attorneys and judges Obama has appointed, but can’t get confirmed because of the obstruction in Congress by Republicans, putting secret holds on nominations. Dawn Johnsen was nominated for OLC what seems like ages ago and spoke out against Bush policies, yet she can’t get a confirmation vote at all because some people hate her views on abortion. How do you explain that?
Liberty60
@Toast:
I stopped calling myself a republican in the mid 90’s, when I realized that for too long I had been coasting on tribal affiliation, like a Cubs fan or something, when in fact I had nothing really in common with them.
This is a failing of most parties and movements- the “get with the team” herd mentality, that prevents useful disagreement and discussion.
I enjoy some of what Sullivan has to say, most of what Greenwald has to say, object to each of them on other parts; I support Obama generally, but disagree with his Bushian national security policies.
Erick Erickson is the apotheosis of this tribal drum pounding. The very last thing sensible people need to do is start forming groups to send fake dog poop to each other in the mail just because we disagree.
Well OK…leaving a flaming bag of dog poop on Dick Cheney’s doorstep I could get with; but only that.
Corey
What do you mean, “how do I explain that?” Republicans are douchebags. Is that not known?
I’m not saying that there aren’t significant structural elements to the impasse in Washington. I’m not saying that Congress isn’t a big (or the biggest) reason for that. I’m not saying that Republicans aren’t obstructing the hell out of everything they can.
But Obama isn’t a helpless little lamb, despite how much he’d like the base to believe that he is simply at the mercy of Congress, Republicans, or whoever the killer of hope is du jour. The OLC is important, but we have an Attorney General who can stop the Justice Department from defending the excesses of the Bush administration. But he doesn’t, and the administration defends those excesses, because they aren’t interested in curtailing them.
That doesn’t mean Obama is evil or whatever. But it does mean that “the left” is perfectly justified in being pretty fucking pissed off.
scudbucket
@FlipYrWhig:
@JMY:
Look, I’m an Obama fan. But the issue being discussed is the extent to which he’s representing progressive ideals. On this score, he’s sadly lacking. He continues to invoke the states secret privilege regarding detainees; he (just today) requested that the charges against Yoo be dropped; he presented, but did not argue for, DADT; he has been silent about reforming health-care at its core problem, cost containment; he has been in abstentia regarding the Iraq troop pullout; and he hasn’t even proposed that the best way to reduce the federal debt is to stop funding two ridiculous wars and increase taxes on the top five (two, one) percent. The criticism isn’t refuted by pointing out that he has an antagonistic Congress (even tho it’s controlled by people with D’s after their names); it’s that he hasn’t pushed the debate in those directions.
FlipYrWhig
@scudbucket:
But, here’s the thing. US politics is fucked up in about a hundred ways, but one of the most prevalent is the strangeness about “momentum.” If Obama tried to do something substantive about due process for terror suspects or equal protection for LGBT people (which in terms of principle he obviously should), he would trigger howls of outrage — howls of outrage that aren’t just annoyances but that _prevent other shit from happening_. It cascades. The whole thing comes crashing down: no health care bill, no jobs bill, no stimulus, no cap-and-trade, and every night a report about the Failed Obama Presidency, and every other night a report about how the Failed Obama Presidency is causing Congressional Democrats to waver and voters to reconsider, and it all feeds back into the “momentum” loop.
He has to do these things in a sequence, every step of which is precarious. Consequently, many important things _have_ to go on the back burner _for now_. They’re not being a bunch of dicks just to spite Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald. They’re trying to get shit done, and each thing depends on the last and affects the next.
The hue and cry about what he isn’t doing reminds me of the China-Taiwan situation. Yes, it’s stupid that the US can’t say anything like “Taiwan is independent,” because it will make China throw a fit. But if China throws a fit, it makes the world a much scarier place. Lots of people die. Even principled decisions can get things all jacked up. And then what do you have? You can’t fight every war, even when the sides are clear.
The Raven
The thing so many people writing here miss is that:
Progressive policies have majority support. (Which, alas, doesn’t necessary translate into majority support of progressive politicians.) We progressives are the center.
Who writing here supports:The no-strings-attached bailout?A blank check for the insurance companies on healthcare?DADT?Torture?Bushian executive privilege? If you answered no to most of these, you’re progressive, and you’re the majority. Insist that your pols represent you. Insist that Obama represent you.
Croak!
The Raven
The thing so many people writing here miss is that:
Progressive policies have majority support. (Which, alas, doesn’t necessary translate into majority support of progressive politicians.) We progressives are the center.
Who writing here supports:
— The no-strings-attached bailout?
— A blank check for the insurance companies on healthcare?
— DADT?
— Torture?
— Bushian executive privilege?
If you answered no to most of these, you’re progressive, and you’re the majority. Insist that your pols represent you. Insist that Obama represent you.
Croak!
mk3872
@Jay B.:
A European model (single payer) was NEVER offered here and would NEVER pass within the American system.
Next time, vote for Pres Kucinich and then you won’t be so disappointed.
Corey
@FlipYrWhig:
Are you kidding me? Are you familiar with American politics? Do you read this website?
The minority party calls the President an appeaser, a Marxist, a Leninist, a communist, a terrorist sympathizer, a jihadist, a Muslim, an elitist, naive, effete liberal and about a million other names. They do this from the floor of the House and Senate and on the oodles of media time they’re given by brain-dead bookers and reporters. They are pitching a fit already! They are literally doing everything they can, procedurally in Congress and in the media, to stop the administration.
Do you really think that if the administration stood up for something once in awhile, that this would somehow get worse? How in God’s name could it get any worse than it already is?
scudbucket
@FlipYrWhig:
If Obama tried to do something substantive about due process for terror suspects or equal protection for LGBT people (which in terms of principle he obviously should), he would trigger howls of outrage…
But I think this makes my point as to why progressives are pissed off: no matter what he does there will be howls of outrage. Haven’t you been paying attention? The whackiloons hate him. We went through the birther thing; the socialist-road-to-communism thing; death panels; dithering on Afghanistan; is-he-leading-the-generals-or-following; inviting terrorists to kidnap governors daughters.; Acorn is corrupt and stole the election; and now (as an example) the ‘he must boycott Copenhagen, teh evidence has no merits’ crazies.
The progressive argument is that he ought to take a stand on these issues on principle instead of being bipartisan (whatever that means )- and getting beat up anyway .
scudbucket
@Corey:
And this. Also.
Midnight Marauder
@Corey:
You know, a wise person once said:
In other news, FlipYrWhig pretty much nailed it right here.
The Raven
(Hope this isn’t a repost)
The thing so many people writing here miss is that:
Progressive policies have majority support. (Which, alas, doesn’t necessary translate into majority support of progressive politicians.) We progressives are the center.
Who writing here supports:
— The no-strings-attached bailout?
— A blank check for the insurance companies on healthcare?
— DADT?
— Torture?
— Bushian executive privilege?
If you answered no to most of these, you’re progressive, and you’re the majority. Insist that your pols represent you. Insist that Obama represent you.
Croak!
bernard
oh you mean Obama wants progressives and liberals on his side! He ran over them so many times, i must be missing something. More pressing issues right now. will get back in touch when i can.
keep the faith!!
gwangung
@bernard: Yeah, you sure are missing stuff.
Jeeezus.
FlipYrWhig
@Corey:
My point wasn’t that people will shriek, because, yes, they always shriek. My point is that when one aspect of the Obama agenda goes down, it’s going to fuck up the entire rest of it. That’s why there’s a _sequence_. No one is making any big sudden movements until health care is over one way or the other, because if you do health care you can do other things, but if you can’t do health care you can’t do squat.
That’s why the civil liberties stuff is on the back burner, because making a big stink about civil liberties–EVEN WHEN IT’S ETHICALLY RIGHT–means shutting down everything else Obama wants to accomplish that’s even remotely controversial. Because there’s no constituency for it. It can’t pass. Support for LGBT causes can’t pass. Push them and they not only don’t go anywhere, they lead to a round of stories in the media about how Obama has been weakened, which means that the next thing he wants to do is going to be that much less likely to pass. That was my main point, that stupid construct of self-fulfilling “momentum.”
The “progressive argument” is that you fight for everything all the time. The progressives who want to have that argument, IMHO, aren’t properly factoring in this idea that each lost fight makes the next fight harder to win. And sometimes doing the right thing in one case means you lose your ability to do more right things later, because you don’t get “later.” You can be maximally principled and end up with nothing to show for it. And I’m not sure why that’s supposed to be better than being a wussy compromiser who _does_ end up with something to show for it. Obviously the calculus varies for different values of “something.”
eemom
@FlipYrWhig:
I’m late to this, um, party…….but you, sir/madam, are spot-fucking-on.
(also, while it may not be the actual goal to piss off sanctimonious self-aggrandizers like Hamsher and Greenwald……there’s no actual downside to doing that.)
scudbucket
@FlipYrWhig:
The progressives who want to have that argument, IMHO, aren’t properly factoring in this idea that each lost fight makes the next fight harder to win.
Well, two things here. First, a progressive would claim that the type of trust you are talking about is merely an article of faith, and that a battle lost without the appropriate amount of effort signals a losing campaign (ha! no pun intended).
But second, I’m not sure that losing the support of progressives right now matters for what the WH can, or cannot, get accomplished. As has been mentioned, the GOP will block anything that comes out of a Democratic committee on purely partisan grounds. This leads to weasely back-room compromises that no one likes. That said, Kos’s mantra about electing better democrats is really – I think – the right strategy. If he, and Jane Hamsher, and Moveon can shake the shoes of some recalcitrant centrists, and get them to vote lefty, then all the better.
Personally, I’m impressed with how much Obama has been able to accomplish. Just two small examples. The govt buyout of GM (as opposed to a loan, the company was only worth $5.2B) was the right thing to do, but I never thought he had the giblets to pull it off. And also that the Treasury, under him, is actually recovering, instead of writing off, TARP loans is a pretty radical change from the previous administration.
lol
@calipygian:
SEIU has paid attention to Jane Hamsher ever since she started fucking Andy Stern.
I’m not joking.
MBunge
“If you seriously believe the conservative frame of “civil liberties or death by terrists” then you aren’t a member of the “left” to begin with.”
It’s not a frame. There has always been a balance between civil liberties and security and there always will be. My point is that, even if I agree mostly with Greenwald that Obama is striking the wrong balance, I’m aggravated with Glenn because he goes on and on and on as though THERE WERE NOTHING TO BALANCE. He acts like these are the easiest decisions in the world to make and throws a hissy fit over Obama not doing the “obviously correct” thing.
Mike
MBunge
“as for your contention that continuing Bush policies is not the same as initiating them, sorry, not buying. Obama continuing them is legitimating them, and that is every bit as pernicious as establishing them in the first place. and, of course, he is continuing them, which means the US is going to continue to outsource torture, etc. we are just pretending we aren’t.”
1. Obama isn’t just continuing all of Bush’s policies.
2. So, while Obama is dealing with the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, two wars and trying to achieve meaningful health care reform…he also has to engage in a years long death-struggle over this?
Mike
Bender
Thanks for writing the most ignorant thing I’ve ever read, even from a Ball Juicer. Tell you what — the next time I want to know what a leftist believes, I’ll ask Glenn Beck. That’d be fair.
Mnemosyne
The next WATB who tells me s/he’s not going to vote in November because they’re sooooo upset that Obama hasn’t fixed 30 years of Republican mismanagement during his first 12 months in office gets punched in the nuts.
I mean it.
FlipYrWhig
@scudbucket:
But it doesn’t work. It just comes across as “even the crazy blog liberals think Obama’s a wuss who’s doing a bad job.”
The Raven
These people never were part of “the left” to begin with. & they are trying desperately ignore the reality that the left was right, the left still is right, and, with Obama’s help, you hominids are shooting yourselves in the foot. Maybe that’s what’s needed. “Accentuating the negative” is what the real radical left calls it. But it’s going to hurt. Do you hominids really need to shoot yourself in the foot to get decent healthcare?
Jay B.
@mk3872:
Oy. First, single payer, or some kind of government run health care program may in fact be viable here — provided you actually knew that we have three distinct government-run programs now with the VA, Medicare and Medicaid and that two of the three are very popular with their constituents. Add in the sweet health care our government representatives get and well…its good! Maybe the existence of these government programs is simply magic.
But that’s not really my point. My point is that it’s hardly “RADICAL”, and you seem to think it is. It’s more than many in the Democratic caucus have zero interest in doing something like this because they are literally in bed with the insurance industry (namely assholes like Lieberman and Bayh who are married to insurance industry lobbyists) and plenty more who take their money and their side in the matter of health care.
What irks me in particular is that you came in equating Kos with Glen Beck, proclaiming that “ideological boxes” have hurt us for too long (ignoring the vast circle jerk of bipartisanship which has given us two wars, a crippled economy and manifest corporate giveaways) and that the decent people on the right and left are rising up against ideologues like Jane Hamsher and Rush Limbaugh which is a fucking fantasy and a stupid comparison to boot. First, Hamsher’s sin is to criticize Obama from the left without using the Republican line. Second, point to a single fucking person on the right with ANY political power or voice who opposes Limbaugh. And since almost no one on the right, mainstream or fringe, operates in good faith — from the Republican leadership to the tea bag crowd and certainly few deviate from even the mildest criticism of the blowhards who call the shots — we mainstream liberals have to deal with and within the Democratic Party, a perfectly imperfect vessel which is chock full of greedy, backstabbing, lying douchebags who are just as dangerous as the godawful Republicans. It’s just that we do have allies and people who deal in more or less good faith in the Party, so it’s the only game in town. It’s when things get “bipartisan” that we all should worry.
Finally, you seem to be under the impression that your “post-ideological” approach seems NOT to be an ideology. It’s self-delusion. You offer the same constricting ideological box you whine about others having — yours is all about “sensible centrism” as if that’s a higher caliber of idealism when in reality, it lacks idealism completely.
Of course there’s a time for pragmatism and compromise. But when you immediately cede most of the items that could help move the debate to a more sane center and keep it on the “how can we work with the insurance industry to fix what they broke” level, it’s simply waving the white flag on truly meaningful reform.
And that’s not necessarily Obama’s fault, but he’s been all over the map on this and his leadership on this issue can be called into question, whether or not that makes you uncomfortable with people actually having meaningful political differences and a political point of view.
liberal
@carlos the dwarf:
Given that that scumbag “made” the pseudoscientific tract The Bell Curve while he was editor at The New Republic, and given his infamous “fifth column” remark, I’d say hatred of Sullivan among liberals is well-earned, whether or not it’s a good use of personal time and energy.
liberal
@Emma:
Huh? The Republican Party has been certifiably batshit crazy since 1994, and plain old vanilla batshit crazy since about 1980.
liberal
@Xanthippas:
What does it matter if it’s forseeable? It’s stupid, regardless of his campaign position.
liberal
@MBunge:
Huh. I didn’t.
liberal
@JMY:
Silly. I knew all along Obama wasn’t that liberal, because I took the time to look up his Senate voting score at Americans for Democratic Action.
Doesn’t mean there’s not plenty to be disappointed about.
And if anyone actually thought “a [truly] bipartisan approach” was anything more than a campaign platitude, AND (given the current state of the Republican Party) a good idea, then they don’t have a brain.
BruceFromOhio
@mk3872:
ROFLMAO
BruceFromOhio
@FlipYrWhig:
This.
When I don’t understand all of the nuances or the mechanics of something, it looks easy.
Which is why if I ever need a lawyer, I hope Glennzilla can quote me an hourly rate. And also why I’m willing to let Obama lead, while I fund ActBlue to help kick the living snot out of worthless Senators.
El Cid
What if we don’t vote in order to become impressed or disappointed? What if we just vote as one temporal expression of a real world choice apparently available between two possible governing leaders? What if we were able to identify the differences between an Obama and McCain and both recognize that they weren’t as much as they should have been yet were enough to choose one over another?
And what if some of us can both read CounterPunch and DailyKos and not experience heartbreak or freakouts? What if some of us can balance Karl Marx’s excoriation of the harm which the bourgeois dominated government can inflict upon the working classes with his invocation that workers should of course use the tools of bourgeois democracy to achieve what improvements and advancements they can, however imperfect?
Michael E Sullivan
@MBunge
Currently, there is no trade-off between civil liberties and security.
There is a tradeoff in principle — effective security measures often somewhat curtail liberties, and a balance must be struck.
But the most gross violations of civil liberty under the Bush (and now Obama) administrations are not effective security measures, they are batshit insane, often racist or nativist, raw power demonstrations that probably on balance make us less safe. We are creating new terrorists with legitimate grievances daily. We are making it easier for Al-Queda and the Taliban to recruit. Eliminating these idiotic and evil practices would increase our safety, not lessen it, and yes, if you believe otherwise you are buying the right wing frame. Nobody is practicing or proposing policies that make us safer, only that make (some) people feel good that we are doing something, even if it is completely counter productive.
Do you really believe that indefinite detention of thousands of people without any significant evidence against makes us safer? That torturing people makes us safer? HOW?