Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, January 24, 2012
2012 Stranger Commenter Decides to Brag on Obama's Behalf
Posted by Paul Constant on Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:08 PM
This video was put together by beloved Slog commenter Digitocalypse. It serves as a good antidote to the lazy Democratic claim that President Obama has done nothing to help the country since he was elected:
2
That's awesome - appealing to our emotions so strongly without dipping all the way into mawkishness is not easy. Well done!
3
Hmm, someone will have to come up with an antidote for the lazy apologist claim that people who try to hold the administration's feet to the fire think Obama "has done nothing to help the country since he was elected."
5
Great video. Absolutely love it. I will have no problems at all voting for President Obama again. He's accomplished a whole lot, although there is much more to do.
7
Best president in sixty years. Thanks for this. We have heard too much right wing bullcrap lately.
8
Thanks for Posting, Paul! @3 I understand your point of course, but if you look at history, the left has always found a way to implode upon itself over and over again. Can't we just take a moment to revel in the fact that there actually is a stark contrast between this President and the last? Anyone who thinks otherwise should just vote for Ron Paul already...
11
What "Percent" are you in...by zipcode:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/…
Guess what...if you live here, it gets worse!
12
Ok, but seriously. A grassroots movement called #bragonObamasbehalf would be SO awesome! It would appeal to centrists because it shows humility and silent competence. It would also play right into the narrative he'll spin about him being the only "adult" in DC trying to work with a puerile "do-nothing" Congress. I LIKE IT! Start the movement...#bragonObamasbehalf
13
@8 - Thank you for this. It's perfect and it made me cry. Things are better because of an Obama administration.
17
@8 By all means. I was referring to the pissy backbiting at the front of the post. We acknowledge the administration's accomplishments. We'll keep demanding more (and less of the tortury police-state bullshit this administration has a nasty habit of supporting).
19
Who knew mediocrity would be so inspiring to so many! Though you forgot to add footage of dead civilians and starving children hiding in caves thanks to Obama's drone strikes. You could have included a graph of the increased deportations since GWB, the increased persecution of whistleblowers, and the signing of NDAA. That really makes folks all tingly inside!
21
@ 19, you can have progress (which we indisputably are getting with Obama), or you can have perfection. Which is it going to be?
Don't ignore that question when you respond. If you're intellectually honest, you'll tell me your choice.
Don't ignore that question when you respond. If you're intellectually honest, you'll tell me your choice.
23
The proportion of employed people is 0.3% greater than at the bottom of the downturn. The claim that we avoided a great depression seems premature, at best.
24
@21, You can have progress (although much of the progress noted is debatable) in some areas, and concurrent deterioration in other areas. Noticing the deterioration isn't equivalent to purism.
26
I am finding out that many of these nay saying liberals especially critical of the assassination policy of US citizens in terrorist organizations like Anwar Al-Alwaki, are probably secret LaRouchies. Glenn Greenwald is turning more as a gadfly than a serious columnist, given his flirtation with Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.
27
@19, false dichotomy, and a strawman to boot. "Better" is not "perfection", nor does wanting better in some areas (civil liberties; war on whistleblowers; rule of law; accountability for war crimes and financial crimes) mean that I'm blind to progress in other areas (healthcare; SCOTUS picks).
28
@21: Yes, what @24 said. The intellectually honest thing to do is to point out that your framing of choice is false. I don't expect purity or perfection, but for god's sake we have to acknowledge things like war crimes and eroding of civil liberties. The ability of some to shrug those off and say, "Eh, nobody's perfect," is sickening.
30
@26: It's a common LaRouch technique to draw ridiculous conclusions, as you have done here.
@27: Indeed.
@27: Indeed.
31
@1, @3, @19, @21, @27, @28 FTW!
Progressives for Rocky Anderson!
http://voterocky.nationbuilder.com/
http://twitter.com/#!/RockyAnderson
Progressives for Rocky Anderson!
http://voterocky.nationbuilder.com/
http://twitter.com/#!/RockyAnderson
32
@17 I totally agree. Especially as a member of the military the shit we are doing, which has escalated under Obama much to my own dismay, scares the shit out of me. As liberal as I personally am it gets harder and harder for me support this stuff, I am getting tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and having to serve that evil even though it's what I signed up for. I am still going to do it, just glad I signed for the non-violent part.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/rules_of…
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/rules_of…
33
I am so glad the Dow bounced back! And that gays can now die for a meaningless, suicidal foreign policy.
@26 Prove it.
At least that's the standard I use when the administration not only wants to kill Al-Alwaki, but his 16 year old son and nephew...at a family birthday BBQ.
Yes, count me as "in" for 2012 so we can kill more indisputably innocent women and children, strengthen the police state, and make sure to hand out as much Get Out of Jail Free cards to rich criminals.
I can either have "progress" (which we really have to lower the bar for this team) or I can have orgiastic liberal perfection (what demands are perfect? One's like "obey the law," "don't be a tool of the very class that put us in the financial hole we're in")--Purist!!! LaRouchie!...probably, maybe, secretly. Great logic there.
@26 Prove it.
At least that's the standard I use when the administration not only wants to kill Al-Alwaki, but his 16 year old son and nephew...at a family birthday BBQ.
Yes, count me as "in" for 2012 so we can kill more indisputably innocent women and children, strengthen the police state, and make sure to hand out as much Get Out of Jail Free cards to rich criminals.
I can either have "progress" (which we really have to lower the bar for this team) or I can have orgiastic liberal perfection (what demands are perfect? One's like "obey the law," "don't be a tool of the very class that put us in the financial hole we're in")--Purist!!! LaRouchie!...probably, maybe, secretly. Great logic there.
36
Chris Matthews claims Obama was solely responsible for ending the Iraq war! HAHA, adorable little talking head
37
Really, bhowie? Things aren't better? You don't want perfection? If my choice is false, then you have to explain your comments.
38
First of all there is a difference between assassination and targeted killings which if you didn't have such a hard on for the ACLU you would see.
And with targeted killings the US goes to great lengths to minimize the collateral damage, but it can never be 100%
Also one party is center-left (unless your using European standards) and one is right wing so how are they the same?
There is no police state the 1st Amendment is still very much respected, sometimes too much like Citizens United, if there was people like you would be thrown in jail for "dissent"
And with targeted killings the US goes to great lengths to minimize the collateral damage, but it can never be 100%
Also one party is center-left (unless your using European standards) and one is right wing so how are they the same?
There is no police state the 1st Amendment is still very much respected, sometimes too much like Citizens United, if there was people like you would be thrown in jail for "dissent"
39
Wow, thank you for that link @32!
Here's an excerpt:
//What’s most notable here is that this is now the sixth prosecution by the Obama administration of an accused leaker, and all six have been charged under the draconian, World-War-I era Espionage Act. As EFF’s Trevor Timm put it yesterday: this is the “6th time under Obama someone is charged with Espionage for leaking to a journalist. Before Obama: only 3 cases in history.” This is all accomplished by characterizing disclosures in American newspapers about America’s wrongdoing as “aiding the enemy” (the alleged enemy being informed is Al Qaeda, but the actual concern is that the American people learn what their government is doing). As The New York Times‘ Charlie Savage wrote this morning, Obama has brought “more such cases than all previous presidents combined,” and by doing so, has won the admiration of the CIA and other intelligence agencies which, above all else, loathe transparency (which happens to be the value that Obama vowed to provide more of than any President in history).\\
Here's an excerpt:
//What’s most notable here is that this is now the sixth prosecution by the Obama administration of an accused leaker, and all six have been charged under the draconian, World-War-I era Espionage Act. As EFF’s Trevor Timm put it yesterday: this is the “6th time under Obama someone is charged with Espionage for leaking to a journalist. Before Obama: only 3 cases in history.” This is all accomplished by characterizing disclosures in American newspapers about America’s wrongdoing as “aiding the enemy” (the alleged enemy being informed is Al Qaeda, but the actual concern is that the American people learn what their government is doing). As The New York Times‘ Charlie Savage wrote this morning, Obama has brought “more such cases than all previous presidents combined,” and by doing so, has won the admiration of the CIA and other intelligence agencies which, above all else, loathe transparency (which happens to be the value that Obama vowed to provide more of than any President in history).\\
40
@ 24, there isn't any "concurrent deterioration." some things are in a holding pattern, but they aren't worse.
41
@37 It's simply a false dilemma as @27 pointed out, which makes your entire frame invalid. I dunno, maybe intellectual honesty also consists of knowing basic logic when trying to impugn somewhen else's intellectual honesty.
43
@38 Give me the exact definition that you are using to differentiate targeted killings approved by secret commitee, with secret evidence approved by secret courts and Assassination. I am just curious how they differ to you, because to me they are the same thing. Unless you only count assassinations as being by human hands and bullets instead of drones and missles.
44
@40
what's happening to public services and employees isn't deterioration perhaps? what about the on-going privatization of education? what about squandering the best opportunity we had in decades to rein in financial institutions when they desperately needed a bail out? etc ...
what's happening to public services and employees isn't deterioration perhaps? what about the on-going privatization of education? what about squandering the best opportunity we had in decades to rein in financial institutions when they desperately needed a bail out? etc ...
45
@38 Please tell me the difference between targeted killings and assassination? Is it like the difference between torture and "enhanced interrogation techniques?" Oh, wait it is. That was conceived in Israel and promoted heavily by the previous neocon administration including Cheney. I guess rah-rah progressives have really done a 180 now.
Oh, and how does killing MOSTLY innocent people in drone strikes constitute minimization of collateral damage--or as I like to call it by the quaint term: MURDER? I'd really like to see proof that those Youtube videos warranted such a response. I know, when I watch youtube videos, I think "Dangerous Terrarist! Freedom of Speech is alive and well peoples! Move along!"
Oh, and how does killing MOSTLY innocent people in drone strikes constitute minimization of collateral damage--or as I like to call it by the quaint term: MURDER? I'd really like to see proof that those Youtube videos warranted such a response. I know, when I watch youtube videos, I think "Dangerous Terrarist! Freedom of Speech is alive and well peoples! Move along!"
46
@28 No one has forgotten about those things. It's the kneejerk reaction that causes you to bring it up every fucking time someone points out that Obama has done some very good things that gets old fast. People deserve to be happy once in a while, even when other people are suffering. We don't have to endure constant unending brutal misery every moment of the day until the last starving person is fed and the last political prisoner is freed. We can if we want, but we're not obligated to.
47
@ 41, @27 and other sure seem to want perfection. I mean, if thinking the president can deliver all the things you want can't be fairly interpreted as wanting perfection from him, then the problem is with how you are framing the debate above.
50
@ 47, why don't you discuss it, then? If I'm wrong, won't it be easy to show it? At least as easy as it is to make quips? Or is it hard to find examples of where it's getting worse?
51
Following up, though, on my @27, the whole post is a straw man argument.
@Paul Constant, give me ONE SINGLE PUBLISHED EXAMPLE of a "lazy Democratic claim that President Obama has done nothing to help the country since he was elected." Just one, of a (preferably mainstream, but a fringe-y lunatic will do) self-identified-Democratic commentator claiming that President Obama has done nothing.
@Paul Constant, give me ONE SINGLE PUBLISHED EXAMPLE of a "lazy Democratic claim that President Obama has done nothing to help the country since he was elected." Just one, of a (preferably mainstream, but a fringe-y lunatic will do) self-identified-Democratic commentator claiming that President Obama has done nothing.
53
@50 I honestly doubt you seriously want to hear anything. This is a good summary of how things are worse in civil liberties--most of these points include recent examples of how they've gotten worse. And yes, there have been good things like Sotomayor, Lilly Ledbetter, GM didn't die (jobs were lost there though), and the fact that Obama failed to amend the Bush Admin SOFA.
I would argue that those poor horses you keep flogging are dead much longer than ours.
I would argue that those poor horses you keep flogging are dead much longer than ours.
55
@38
"There is no police state the 1st Amendment is still very much respected, sometimes too much like Citizens United, if there was people like you would be thrown in jail for "dissent" "
You mean like the literally thousands of people who have been beaten, pepper sprayed, tear gassed (sometimes tear gassed right to the head like Scott Olson), and arrested for exercising their constitutionally protected right to assemble and protest during Occupy events*?
http://occupyarrests.moonfruit.com/
Like this guy, who was literally arrested for the sole "infraction" of having an Occupy message painted on his jacket inside the Supreme Court?:
http://www.occupywallstvideos.com/video/…
Or like the scores of journalists (both traditional and citizen) who have been barred from Occupy events and even arrested?:
http://storify.com/jcstearns/tracking-jo…
Oh yah, Obama -- the constitutional scholar! -- is a regular champion of the First Amendment!
*While there have been occasional instances of individuals at Occupy demonstrations committing violent acts, there absolutely have not been 5,980 such instances.
"There is no police state the 1st Amendment is still very much respected, sometimes too much like Citizens United, if there was people like you would be thrown in jail for "dissent" "
You mean like the literally thousands of people who have been beaten, pepper sprayed, tear gassed (sometimes tear gassed right to the head like Scott Olson), and arrested for exercising their constitutionally protected right to assemble and protest during Occupy events*?
http://occupyarrests.moonfruit.com/
Like this guy, who was literally arrested for the sole "infraction" of having an Occupy message painted on his jacket inside the Supreme Court?:
http://www.occupywallstvideos.com/video/…
Or like the scores of journalists (both traditional and citizen) who have been barred from Occupy events and even arrested?:
http://storify.com/jcstearns/tracking-jo…
Oh yah, Obama -- the constitutional scholar! -- is a regular champion of the First Amendment!
*While there have been occasional instances of individuals at Occupy demonstrations committing violent acts, there absolutely have not been 5,980 such instances.
58
@40
I see that you are ignoring my reply. What about ~50% of Americans in poverty or low income according to the census burrow? is it deteriorating enough for you, yet?
I see that you are ignoring my reply. What about ~50% of Americans in poverty or low income according to the census burrow? is it deteriorating enough for you, yet?
59
P.S. of my last comment
Chris Hedges describes how the indefinite detention provision of 2012 NDAA is likely intended to be used against dissenters:
http://www.occupywallstvideos.com/video/…
"I think without question the corporate elites understand that things certainly economically are about to get much worse, I think they're worried about the Occupy movement expanding, and I think that in the end, and this is a supposition, they don't trust the police to protect them, and they want to be able to call in the army, and if this bill goes into law -- it's slated to go into law in March -- they will, they will be able to do that."
Chris Hedges describes how the indefinite detention provision of 2012 NDAA is likely intended to be used against dissenters:
http://www.occupywallstvideos.com/video/…
"I think without question the corporate elites understand that things certainly economically are about to get much worse, I think they're worried about the Occupy movement expanding, and I think that in the end, and this is a supposition, they don't trust the police to protect them, and they want to be able to call in the army, and if this bill goes into law -- it's slated to go into law in March -- they will, they will be able to do that."
61
@ 58, I'm not sure how you figure I'm ignoring you. I'd say that's an example of a holding pattern; given how Obama's been hamstrung by Congress, how do you think he can have done better?
The thing you left-wing critics seem to forget is that most of these problems involve many officials, elected, appointed, and career, as well as policies set in place by previous administrations. You may be under the impression one man can come in and bring about sweeping change by will alone; it sure looks that way, given the things you write and say.
There are many ways Obama deserves criticism. He seems timid to really take on his opponents. He doesn't do anything with the boldness his rhetoric suggests. He sucks up to corporate interests. But he's getting shit done, as this video shows. All it inspires in some of you is a bunch of "yeah, BUT" kinds of comments.
So, if it isn't perfection you want, then tell me what it is.
The thing you left-wing critics seem to forget is that most of these problems involve many officials, elected, appointed, and career, as well as policies set in place by previous administrations. You may be under the impression one man can come in and bring about sweeping change by will alone; it sure looks that way, given the things you write and say.
There are many ways Obama deserves criticism. He seems timid to really take on his opponents. He doesn't do anything with the boldness his rhetoric suggests. He sucks up to corporate interests. But he's getting shit done, as this video shows. All it inspires in some of you is a bunch of "yeah, BUT" kinds of comments.
So, if it isn't perfection you want, then tell me what it is.
62
The Right has moved the goalpost so far that you liberals are grateful for a fascist war criminal like Obama.
No matter who winds the election the Right wins.....
No matter who winds the election the Right wins.....
63
BTW, the NDAA policy sucks balls and is a major disappointment. THAT is an area where it got worse.
64
@61
So, according to you, Obama had nothing to do with appointing Geithner at treasury and the ~$15 trillions in nearly 0 zero interest loans to corporate America? in appointing Arnie Duncan at education and his privatization agenda for public education? in appointing Vilsack and his pro-agribusiness agenda at at USDA? and on, and on, ...
So, according to you, Obama had nothing to do with appointing Geithner at treasury and the ~$15 trillions in nearly 0 zero interest loans to corporate America? in appointing Arnie Duncan at education and his privatization agenda for public education? in appointing Vilsack and his pro-agribusiness agenda at at USDA? and on, and on, ...
65
@61: Here's the thing: I don't think anyone here is expecting purity or perfection, despite the efforts of some to create simple caricatures of arguments rather than take on the arguments themselves.
I will speak for myself when I say I had no delusions that Obama would bring about sweeping changes. He campaigned as a centrist who was friendly with Wall Street and pretty much stuck to his word there. There are plenty of things he promised and didn't do anything about, like EFCA and a public option, and sure, maybe he has been hamstrung by congress.
I'm not talking about those things.
The only things I honestly expected Obama to be better on that Bush was civil liberties and war. Those are among the few things the Executive Branch has any kind of direct control over, and not only are we not just in a "holding pattern," it's gotten worse, and he is proactively making it so. I'm not criticizing what he doesn't do; I'm condemning what he DOES. Not perfection, not purity, not even "progress," just more fucking humane.
@34: Let's just say I am a "purity troll." If that honestly sickens you more than bombing and locking up people you need to readjust your moral compass.
@46: Sorry to kill your buzz, dude.
I will speak for myself when I say I had no delusions that Obama would bring about sweeping changes. He campaigned as a centrist who was friendly with Wall Street and pretty much stuck to his word there. There are plenty of things he promised and didn't do anything about, like EFCA and a public option, and sure, maybe he has been hamstrung by congress.
I'm not talking about those things.
The only things I honestly expected Obama to be better on that Bush was civil liberties and war. Those are among the few things the Executive Branch has any kind of direct control over, and not only are we not just in a "holding pattern," it's gotten worse, and he is proactively making it so. I'm not criticizing what he doesn't do; I'm condemning what he DOES. Not perfection, not purity, not even "progress," just more fucking humane.
@34: Let's just say I am a "purity troll." If that honestly sickens you more than bombing and locking up people you need to readjust your moral compass.
@46: Sorry to kill your buzz, dude.
66
@ 61
Only a tool could have thought that Obama alone was going to bring change. So why did Obama chose to leave the business end of things to professional politicians while he send everybody else home after the elections? why didn't he purge agencies of Bush appointees? Why did he surround himself with individuals formerly on corporations payrolls?
Only a tool could have thought that Obama alone was going to bring change. So why did Obama chose to leave the business end of things to professional politicians while he send everybody else home after the elections? why didn't he purge agencies of Bush appointees? Why did he surround himself with individuals formerly on corporations payrolls?
67
@65
Obama didn't campaign as a centrist: he campaigned as a progressive as shown by his claims that he was going to get rid of the revolving door in Washington DC, that he was going to renegotiate NAFTA (and ended up signing 3 FTAs worse than NAFTA), that there wouldn't not be any back room deals, etc ..
Obama didn't campaign as a centrist: he campaigned as a progressive as shown by his claims that he was going to get rid of the revolving door in Washington DC, that he was going to renegotiate NAFTA (and ended up signing 3 FTAs worse than NAFTA), that there wouldn't not be any back room deals, etc ..
68
OK, Obama haters: What's your solution? Stay home in November and hand the election to the Republicans? Vote for a third-party candidate and accomplish the same thing?
What is it that you want, and what's your plan for getting there?
What is it that you want, and what's your plan for getting there?
69
I am not an Obama hater (he is better than the ghouls on his right) and part of my solution is to primary Obama to hold him accountable, but apologists have already kowtowed to DNC 3rd way Democrats. Now, only a 3rd party candidate can hold Obama accountable. Dem loyalists are the only one to blame for the democratic deficit in selecting pres candidates.
70
@ 65, thank you. I can see that more clearly now. That said, the war ended. Do you believe he could have unilaterally pulled out three years ago? I don't. I do believe he should stand up to Congress on civil liberties more, though, and should have vetoed NDAA and others like it.
@ 64, What would a Republican president be doing on those issues? Much, much more. If those are the issues that are most important to you, that's your right, but it doesn't prove that "concurrent deterioration" is going on, let alone that the progress happening is "debatable." (And Obama did run as a centrist, I'll bear witness to that.)
@ 64, What would a Republican president be doing on those issues? Much, much more. If those are the issues that are most important to you, that's your right, but it doesn't prove that "concurrent deterioration" is going on, let alone that the progress happening is "debatable." (And Obama did run as a centrist, I'll bear witness to that.)
71
Third parties are fools' errands. Learn from history. Do what the christianists and tea partiers did - become a loud and indispensable part of a current party.
72
@69, what do you mean by 'hold him accountable'? I am not an expert in internal party politics, so please spell it out for me. You wanted a more progressive (or more something) person to run against Obama in the Democratic primary? What does that accomplish, besides squandering resources?
Is there something I'm just not getting?
Is there something I'm just not getting?
73
@17 (and fellow travelers):
You said: "We acknowledge the administration's accomplishments." Actually, I went back and reviewed all the comments you have made on Slog, and you have never acknowledged a single accomplishment of the Obama administration. Not one.
You all bring to mind a marriage to a spouse that is quick with criticism and never gives any praise. After a couple of years of that kind of marriage, you look around and think "Am I fucking crazy? Why would I live with this constant drumbeat of negativity? Sure, I deserve some criticism, but don't I also deserve a kind word or two?"
@28 says: " I don't expect purity or perfection, but for god's sake we have to acknowledge things like war crimes and eroding of civil liberties. The ability of some to shrug those off and say, 'Eh, nobody's perfect,' is sickening."
Remind me to never attend any kind of celebration with you whatsoever. What's sickening is the ability of anonymous blow-hards like you to sit on the sidelines and bitch and moan in your demoralizing, demanding way without understanding how hard it is to make progress in this world. You just assume that anyone can snap his fingers and cure all the problems of the world and that anyone who doesn't do so is an idiot and morally compromised as well.
Obama is disengaging from Iraq. You all seem to prefer the Republican alternative of permanent imperial warfare. Do you think we live in Luxembourg? Have you ever lived anywhere other than the bluest of blue precincts? This is a country that embraced slavery and Jim Crow for hundreds of years. We fought our bloodiest war over these issues. And there are millions--millions--of Americans who still believe in plantation economics and de facto segregation. Do you think it is easy for President Obama to lead a country in which those people donate generously to the Republican Party and vote, and vote, and vote?
It's people like you with your incessant bitching that gave us eight years of George W. Bush.
I hope your negativity is restricted solely to your disappointment in the political system and doesn't extend to unreasonable, hypercritical demands of your spouse, siblings and co-workers. (Hint: if you spend a lot of time alone, and you think everyone else is an asshole, maybe you should be looking in the mirror.)
More...
You said: "We acknowledge the administration's accomplishments." Actually, I went back and reviewed all the comments you have made on Slog, and you have never acknowledged a single accomplishment of the Obama administration. Not one.
You all bring to mind a marriage to a spouse that is quick with criticism and never gives any praise. After a couple of years of that kind of marriage, you look around and think "Am I fucking crazy? Why would I live with this constant drumbeat of negativity? Sure, I deserve some criticism, but don't I also deserve a kind word or two?"
@28 says: " I don't expect purity or perfection, but for god's sake we have to acknowledge things like war crimes and eroding of civil liberties. The ability of some to shrug those off and say, 'Eh, nobody's perfect,' is sickening."
Remind me to never attend any kind of celebration with you whatsoever. What's sickening is the ability of anonymous blow-hards like you to sit on the sidelines and bitch and moan in your demoralizing, demanding way without understanding how hard it is to make progress in this world. You just assume that anyone can snap his fingers and cure all the problems of the world and that anyone who doesn't do so is an idiot and morally compromised as well.
Obama is disengaging from Iraq. You all seem to prefer the Republican alternative of permanent imperial warfare. Do you think we live in Luxembourg? Have you ever lived anywhere other than the bluest of blue precincts? This is a country that embraced slavery and Jim Crow for hundreds of years. We fought our bloodiest war over these issues. And there are millions--millions--of Americans who still believe in plantation economics and de facto segregation. Do you think it is easy for President Obama to lead a country in which those people donate generously to the Republican Party and vote, and vote, and vote?
It's people like you with your incessant bitching that gave us eight years of George W. Bush.
I hope your negativity is restricted solely to your disappointment in the political system and doesn't extend to unreasonable, hypercritical demands of your spouse, siblings and co-workers. (Hint: if you spend a lot of time alone, and you think everyone else is an asshole, maybe you should be looking in the mirror.)
74
@70:
Except the NDAA passed with a veto-proof majority, so any veto would have been purely symbolic.
I do believe he should stand up to Congress on civil liberties more, though, and should have vetoed NDAA and others like it.
Except the NDAA passed with a veto-proof majority, so any veto would have been purely symbolic.
75
@73: If objecting to murder, war crimes, and indefinite imprisonment is "negativity" and "unreasonable, hypercritical" then so be it. But I never said I think Obama "can snap his fingers and cure all the problems of the world" or anything of the sort. And if you knew me you'd know I hardly "sit on the sidelines;" I, in fact, know very well what it is like to try to organize for change and make very glacial progress. You make a caricature of an argument and bash that, rather than take on what I'm saying directly.
It's nice that Obama is sticking with Bush's pullout plan for Iraq, but that is hardly an end to war there. Moreover, he has expanded the war to Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere.
So a few critical comments on one thread is "incessant bitching" huh? What, in your view, is a reasonable amount of holding leaders accountable? Or should we just go along with whatever Obama does because he's not THEM. If people wouldn't complain so much we wouldn't have terrible presidents like Bush? How does that even make sense?
Thanks for making it personal; I have a great relationship with a loving partner. Thanks for your concern.
It's nice that Obama is sticking with Bush's pullout plan for Iraq, but that is hardly an end to war there. Moreover, he has expanded the war to Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere.
So a few critical comments on one thread is "incessant bitching" huh? What, in your view, is a reasonable amount of holding leaders accountable? Or should we just go along with whatever Obama does because he's not THEM. If people wouldn't complain so much we wouldn't have terrible presidents like Bush? How does that even make sense?
Thanks for making it personal; I have a great relationship with a loving partner. Thanks for your concern.
76
It's hard to really care about a particular law, such as NDAA, being passed when no one in DC actually expects to be bound by laws anymore. It's really such a quaint notion.
I found the following appropriate as it encapsulates the hippie beaters on Slog:
"Oh, President Obama! What a visionary! What a leader! Such momentous change from the dark days of evil, crazy Bush!
I always especially enjoy that argument from liberals and progressives. "Oh, the Democrats might be doing most of the same things, well, practically all the same things, and maybe some of the things Obama's doing are even worse ... but the Republicans are crazy!"
Yeah, I see how that works. Obama and the Democrats do all this -- and they're entirely sane. They know exactly what they're doing, why, and even what the effects will be.
This, we are repeatedly assured, is a notable improvement, for which we should be properly grateful."
I found the following appropriate as it encapsulates the hippie beaters on Slog:
"Oh, President Obama! What a visionary! What a leader! Such momentous change from the dark days of evil, crazy Bush!
I always especially enjoy that argument from liberals and progressives. "Oh, the Democrats might be doing most of the same things, well, practically all the same things, and maybe some of the things Obama's doing are even worse ... but the Republicans are crazy!"
Yeah, I see how that works. Obama and the Democrats do all this -- and they're entirely sane. They know exactly what they're doing, why, and even what the effects will be.
This, we are repeatedly assured, is a notable improvement, for which we should be properly grateful."
77
@76: "t's hard to really care about a particular law, such as NDAA, being passed when no one in DC actually expects to be bound by laws anymore. It's really such a quaint notion."
You make a good point. I feel that way about the hub-bub with SOPA and corporate personhood. Who gives a fuck what technicality they use? They do what they want anyway.
You make a good point. I feel that way about the hub-bub with SOPA and corporate personhood. Who gives a fuck what technicality they use? They do what they want anyway.
78
I lol'd at "practically all the same things." Remember how Gote and Bush were virtually the same too? Jesus.
It's no use Matt, these are the people who would rather it all burned.
It's no use Matt, these are the people who would rather it all burned.
81
I don't want to watch anything burn.
I want to do my part to help steer America away from it's current course to becoming a totalitarian, imperialistic plutocracy. Or maybe we're already there. We should fix that.
Even if it means NOT voting D for President (GASP!).
I want to do my part to help steer America away from it's current course to becoming a totalitarian, imperialistic plutocracy. Or maybe we're already there. We should fix that.
Even if it means NOT voting D for President (GASP!).
82
@80: Seventy years ago, preventing the burning of Jews, homosexuals, Roma, and political dissidents meant being in favor of joining a war, in this country.
83
Or just not wanting to watch American cities burn as that's what actually got us to declare war seven years after the holocaust began. Americans were clearly against intervention through much of 1941.
But congrats on coming full circle Neocon in comparing the War on Terra to the last World War. It's almost like a subtle death rattle for Iran.
But congrats on coming full circle Neocon in comparing the War on Terra to the last World War. It's almost like a subtle death rattle for Iran.
86
The ability of Obama's liberal apologists to ignore his civil rights violations as inconvenient but necessary (in a realpolitik way) is truly amazing. The same people who roundly condemned far less egregious abuses of power by GWB now have no problem with carrying out actions the Bush neocons could only have wet dreams about. Liberal apologist are so blinded by the prospect of a Presnit GOP Wackadoodle they can't see that Obama is merely the moderate Republican in the race.
87
@82: Ah yes, the myth of "The Good War" rears its ugly head once again to conveniently justify imperialist acts by the US. I'm surprised it took eighty-two comments to get there. You don't honestly think the US got involved in Europe out of concern for the holocaust do you? (The S. S. St. Louis serves as a case in point.)
89
A couple of thoughts about third parties...
I called it a fool's errand above, but there has been one successful third party in our nation's history (not counting the chaos of the Adams and Jefferson years) - the Republican Party. And it came about at a time like our own - when the country was becoming severely divided and one party was becoming increasingly ineffective.
Those conditions run parallel to our own, but with one crucial difference - in the 1840s and 50s there was a single overriding political issue, slavery, on which everything crystallized, and was the primary reason disaffected Whigs decided to form a new party. Today, things are more general, as the Obama critics here point out. Some are concerned mostly with war and civil liberties, others more about the wealth gap, and beyond that the economy, health care, school reform, and so on. There may be a lot of left-leaning people who are dissatisfied with the Democrats on some or all of these issues, but it's harder to rally people around multiple issues, all of which are more abstract than slavery was.
Some of you might say that all these issues have a common root - unchecked corporate power - but that's not something a large number of people are willing to rally around, at least not yet. That's the complaint of people who already left the Democrats and have burned their bridges with the establishment, and this notion's ability to unite people was on ample display during the later stages of the Occupy protests. Something better has to be identified - something that masses of people can get behind, not just the people who are too far left to vote Democratic.
I think this is the only way a left-wing third party can do anything other than siphon off votes from the Democrats and hand victory to the Republicans - it has to be a NEW Democratic party, just as the Republicans became the new Whig party. Because aside from the Republicans, all other third parties in this country have come from relatively extreme positions in the political chart and only appealed to people already leaning that way. The GOP appealed to a broad cross-section of people who opposed slavery for a number of different reasons (many of which were not very humanitarian), and included powerful and wealthy people who helped get it off the ground.
More...
I called it a fool's errand above, but there has been one successful third party in our nation's history (not counting the chaos of the Adams and Jefferson years) - the Republican Party. And it came about at a time like our own - when the country was becoming severely divided and one party was becoming increasingly ineffective.
Those conditions run parallel to our own, but with one crucial difference - in the 1840s and 50s there was a single overriding political issue, slavery, on which everything crystallized, and was the primary reason disaffected Whigs decided to form a new party. Today, things are more general, as the Obama critics here point out. Some are concerned mostly with war and civil liberties, others more about the wealth gap, and beyond that the economy, health care, school reform, and so on. There may be a lot of left-leaning people who are dissatisfied with the Democrats on some or all of these issues, but it's harder to rally people around multiple issues, all of which are more abstract than slavery was.
Some of you might say that all these issues have a common root - unchecked corporate power - but that's not something a large number of people are willing to rally around, at least not yet. That's the complaint of people who already left the Democrats and have burned their bridges with the establishment, and this notion's ability to unite people was on ample display during the later stages of the Occupy protests. Something better has to be identified - something that masses of people can get behind, not just the people who are too far left to vote Democratic.
I think this is the only way a left-wing third party can do anything other than siphon off votes from the Democrats and hand victory to the Republicans - it has to be a NEW Democratic party, just as the Republicans became the new Whig party. Because aside from the Republicans, all other third parties in this country have come from relatively extreme positions in the political chart and only appealed to people already leaning that way. The GOP appealed to a broad cross-section of people who opposed slavery for a number of different reasons (many of which were not very humanitarian), and included powerful and wealthy people who helped get it off the ground.
91
@89: Yeah, I don't look to third parties as any kind of an answer. I just resent all the energy, time, and passion devoted to presidential elections that could be so much more valuable if put elsewhere, and the partisan groupthink that shouts down any criticism. Hold your nose and vote for Obama if you think that is the pragmatic thing to do, just don't wrap it in this warm, fuzzy, feel-good horse-shit and pretend he isn't doing evil, evil things in the world. We are the ones that have to work to bring real hope and change in the world, not put our faith in messianic yet corrupt leaders to do it for us. That is all.
92
@91 - This. I'm in Texas, a state no Democratic Presidential candidate stands a chance of carrying in the near future so "luckily" I don't have to lie to myself about Obama. The feel-good horseshit you describe proves that most Democratic voters differ little from their Republican counterparts who can't see beyond than their own pocketbooks, and we liberals who get suckered time and again by light Republicans like Obama must learn to deal with that unfortunate reality. Lesser of two evils is still evil.
93
@ 92, does that mean the greater of two evils is the same as the lesser? That we might as well take 15 steps back instead of one?
Black and white thinking is a losing proposition. What are you doing to get involved at a local level? Texas Democrats exist and get elected, too. Are you doing anything to hold the party's feet to the fire, as some upthread say they're doing?
Black and white thinking is a losing proposition. What are you doing to get involved at a local level? Texas Democrats exist and get elected, too. Are you doing anything to hold the party's feet to the fire, as some upthread say they're doing?
94
@3 FTW.
@93- You're the one using black/white thinking here. You're saying we're either with Obama or against progress. Bullshit. I'm for a progressive, and Obama only vaguely seems to agree with me.
@93- You're the one using black/white thinking here. You're saying we're either with Obama or against progress. Bullshit. I'm for a progressive, and Obama only vaguely seems to agree with me.
96
@ 94, since @ 92 seems not able or willing to answer the question I posed, would you care to take a stab at it?
I'm serious. "Lesser of two evils is still evil" is one of those nonsense things that gets bandied about. It's nonsense because it essentially says that there's no difference between the lesser and the greater.
I really want someone to say why I should regard Obama as a conservative when he ended the Iraq War, ended DADT, and got at least some kind of health care reform passed. None of this would have happened under McCain or any of the current Republicans seeking the nomination. And if you read carefully, none of his critics here has even conceded the point.
If you, or anyone, can clearly articulate this viewpoint, I will be grateful, and that's no bullshit.
I'm serious. "Lesser of two evils is still evil" is one of those nonsense things that gets bandied about. It's nonsense because it essentially says that there's no difference between the lesser and the greater.
I really want someone to say why I should regard Obama as a conservative when he ended the Iraq War, ended DADT, and got at least some kind of health care reform passed. None of this would have happened under McCain or any of the current Republicans seeking the nomination. And if you read carefully, none of his critics here has even conceded the point.
If you, or anyone, can clearly articulate this viewpoint, I will be grateful, and that's no bullshit.
97
@96 First of all the whole notion of lesser of two evils itself is quite ridiculous. If you're going to have a Manichean world view like Bush Jr. did, then at least have the consistency to call the lesser evil what it is...evil. It's not nonsense at all. You use these bullshit phrases and then when they are carried to their logical conclusions you claim it's nonsense all because you don't want to admit you're still voting for evil. The lesser evil is typically the nicer, friendlier, more effective evil. Still makes it evil.
Labels like conservative or progressive are pretty obviously flawed at this point. But OK. Obama no more ended the Iraq War than my grandmother did. The Bush Admin had already negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement to withdraw at the time they did. The Obama Admin wanted to extend this, plus the wonderful foreign policy consists of more bloodshed and imperialism coupled with a troubling police statism that has accelerated. Also, why do we need to be a pacific power anyway. That's pretty much PNAC stuff--or very neoconish in my view.
Like I said: yay, gays can die for a suicidal foreign policy. If they want to do that, it's fine. They should get the paltry benefits that we give any other veterans (and of course I think all veterans should receive more attention than they're getting).
And the healthcare reform that Obama signed was a Heritage Foundation (and yes, proposed by Nixon, revived by Dole), Chamber of Commerce-worshipping deal that will do nothing to curb costs. No drug reimportation or cost negotiation. But it will help put more people into the system of for-profit insurance. We'll see how it works in half a decade when it's actually instituted, minus all the waivers the administration seems to be granting.
Coupled with his treacherous free trade agenda (hello, did anyone pay attention to that), his constant need to discuss mom and pop "lying" on their loans for $250k while he grants blanket immunity to his buddies who participated in documented cases of accounting control fraud and collectively took in the tens of TRILLIONS interest-free--well I'd consider that insane but not necessarily conservative. Neoliberal maybe.
More...
Labels like conservative or progressive are pretty obviously flawed at this point. But OK. Obama no more ended the Iraq War than my grandmother did. The Bush Admin had already negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement to withdraw at the time they did. The Obama Admin wanted to extend this, plus the wonderful foreign policy consists of more bloodshed and imperialism coupled with a troubling police statism that has accelerated. Also, why do we need to be a pacific power anyway. That's pretty much PNAC stuff--or very neoconish in my view.
Like I said: yay, gays can die for a suicidal foreign policy. If they want to do that, it's fine. They should get the paltry benefits that we give any other veterans (and of course I think all veterans should receive more attention than they're getting).
And the healthcare reform that Obama signed was a Heritage Foundation (and yes, proposed by Nixon, revived by Dole), Chamber of Commerce-worshipping deal that will do nothing to curb costs. No drug reimportation or cost negotiation. But it will help put more people into the system of for-profit insurance. We'll see how it works in half a decade when it's actually instituted, minus all the waivers the administration seems to be granting.
Coupled with his treacherous free trade agenda (hello, did anyone pay attention to that), his constant need to discuss mom and pop "lying" on their loans for $250k while he grants blanket immunity to his buddies who participated in documented cases of accounting control fraud and collectively took in the tens of TRILLIONS interest-free--well I'd consider that insane but not necessarily conservative. Neoliberal maybe.
98
I'm one that considers due process a core principle of our political system. Without it, all the other Constitutional rights are moot. The President now only needs to say you're a terrorist and you're persona non grata. And it's all legal now!
We'd still have troops in Iraq today were it not for Wikileaks. Obama didn't really want to leave but he had no say in the matter. It's a failed mission he was willing to keep going (and funded) until he got re-elected to avoid its inevitable collapse on his watch.
The healthcare law was a sop to the industry. The much-ballyhooed pre-existing condition provision was a red herring, most people who have insurance are on group plans that waive that requirement. There is no requirement to make it affordable, and good luck finding an affordable individual plan for the previously un-insurable. Show me one person who's health insurance has improved as a result of this plan, I may reconsider. In fact, my premiums increased by about 7% this year as a result of its enactment. Thanks a lot.
Instead of incrementally dismantling the radical unitary executive constructed by Bush's DOJ lawyers, Obama has audaciously doubled down on unchecked executive power by zealously pursuing Bush-era whistle-blowers and using the state secrets doctrine to prevent the accused from access to the courts, even going so far as to threaten detainment of lawyers seeking discovery of state's evidence against their clients. Obama has invoked the draconian WWI-era Espionage Act six times against suspects, a law that has only been employed three times in the 89 years before Obama was elected. Warrantless wiretaps, you name it, Obama has taken an authoritarian stance on every critical civil rights question.
Just imagine the flames and exhaust emanating from DailyKos and HuffPost if John McCain had done these things.
That said, if Texas was in play I'd probably vote for Obama only on the Supreme Court question. (OTOH, Elena Kagan bears all the hallmarks of a dark horse not particularly friendly to abortion rights.) I'm actually glad I don't have to though.
More...
We'd still have troops in Iraq today were it not for Wikileaks. Obama didn't really want to leave but he had no say in the matter. It's a failed mission he was willing to keep going (and funded) until he got re-elected to avoid its inevitable collapse on his watch.
The healthcare law was a sop to the industry. The much-ballyhooed pre-existing condition provision was a red herring, most people who have insurance are on group plans that waive that requirement. There is no requirement to make it affordable, and good luck finding an affordable individual plan for the previously un-insurable. Show me one person who's health insurance has improved as a result of this plan, I may reconsider. In fact, my premiums increased by about 7% this year as a result of its enactment. Thanks a lot.
Instead of incrementally dismantling the radical unitary executive constructed by Bush's DOJ lawyers, Obama has audaciously doubled down on unchecked executive power by zealously pursuing Bush-era whistle-blowers and using the state secrets doctrine to prevent the accused from access to the courts, even going so far as to threaten detainment of lawyers seeking discovery of state's evidence against their clients. Obama has invoked the draconian WWI-era Espionage Act six times against suspects, a law that has only been employed three times in the 89 years before Obama was elected. Warrantless wiretaps, you name it, Obama has taken an authoritarian stance on every critical civil rights question.
Just imagine the flames and exhaust emanating from DailyKos and HuffPost if John McCain had done these things.
That said, if Texas was in play I'd probably vote for Obama only on the Supreme Court question. (OTOH, Elena Kagan bears all the hallmarks of a dark horse not particularly friendly to abortion rights.) I'm actually glad I don't have to though.
99
@96- dirac did a nice job responding to your questions.
Here's another thing: You are being black and white in your thinking, if not in you pontification about your thinking. Being unhappy with Obama is not being happy with the GOP. Criticizing Obama is not praise of the GOP.
Here's another thing: You are being black and white in your thinking, if not in you pontification about your thinking. Being unhappy with Obama is not being happy with the GOP. Criticizing Obama is not praise of the GOP.
100
@ 99, you're incorrect. I never said nor implied those things.
@ 96, I suppose faint praise is better than none? I'll take it. And I know that HCR was a conservative plan - we gotta begin somewhere, don't we?
@ 96, I suppose faint praise is better than none? I'll take it. And I know that HCR was a conservative plan - we gotta begin somewhere, don't we?
101
Here is what Rocky Anderson, presidential nominee for the Justice Party, had to say about the "lesser of two evils" argument, just a few hours ago:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/fhul0a
http://twitter.com/RockyAnderson
<<<<>>>>
Spoiler. That’s what many people are afraid of. They say that a popular candidate from a party other than the Democratic and Republican Parties might take votes away from the dominant-party candidate who is the “lesser of two evils” – the person who is not as bad as the other dominant-party candidate.
Has our democracy become so debased – and have the American people become so timid? Are there any moral, legal, or political lines beyond which we will not support someone who has blatantly and repeatedly violated our Constitution, our nation’s most fundamental traditions, and human rights commitments, while accepting millions of dollars from bankers while ignoring the criminality of Wall Street white-collar scammers?
We now have the opportunity to come together for positive change. We can do better than simply rearranging the politicians who play by the same corrupt, diseased rules. We can take a stand for a transformation of our government by ending oppressive rule-by-the-wealthy and instituting government of, by, and for the people.
That’s not being a spoiler. To vote for and support a candidate who has always stood firm for the rights of people and for leadership in the public interest is to defend our Constitution and to be part of a powerful grassroots movement for accountability, equal justice, and a fairer shake for the vast majority of people.
<<<<>>>>
And here is the reply of one Rocky supporter:
"@RockyAnderson I would argue that those lesser evils that take votes from the honest candidates are the real spoilers!"
More...
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/fhul0a
http://twitter.com/RockyAnderson
<<<<>>>>
Spoiler. That’s what many people are afraid of. They say that a popular candidate from a party other than the Democratic and Republican Parties might take votes away from the dominant-party candidate who is the “lesser of two evils” – the person who is not as bad as the other dominant-party candidate.
Has our democracy become so debased – and have the American people become so timid? Are there any moral, legal, or political lines beyond which we will not support someone who has blatantly and repeatedly violated our Constitution, our nation’s most fundamental traditions, and human rights commitments, while accepting millions of dollars from bankers while ignoring the criminality of Wall Street white-collar scammers?
We now have the opportunity to come together for positive change. We can do better than simply rearranging the politicians who play by the same corrupt, diseased rules. We can take a stand for a transformation of our government by ending oppressive rule-by-the-wealthy and instituting government of, by, and for the people.
That’s not being a spoiler. To vote for and support a candidate who has always stood firm for the rights of people and for leadership in the public interest is to defend our Constitution and to be part of a powerful grassroots movement for accountability, equal justice, and a fairer shake for the vast majority of people.
<<<<>>>>
And here is the reply of one Rocky supporter:
"@RockyAnderson I would argue that those lesser evils that take votes from the honest candidates are the real spoilers!"
102
@99- What you say and what you say about what you say are two different things. You're seriously as bad as SB when you get rolling.
Here's what you said @21- "...you can have progress (which we indisputably are getting with Obama), or you can have perfection. Which is it going to be?"
That's a direct black/white, Obama/everything else question.
Here's what you said @21- "...you can have progress (which we indisputably are getting with Obama), or you can have perfection. Which is it going to be?"
That's a direct black/white, Obama/everything else question.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Outside the Gay Bar by Dan Savage
-
Lunchtime Quickie: Cyclist vs Car by Kelly O
-
SL Letter of the Day: Infantile-ism by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Lying Liars by Dan Savage
-
What Did an ESPN Blogger call the Asian American Baller Lin? by Charles Mudede
-
Walmart Tries to Pay Workers in Walmart Vouchers by Paul Constant
-
Why I'm Suing Attorney James Egan by Pete Holmes
-
Pharmacy Can Refuse Women Emergency Contraceptives, Judge Rules by Cienna Madrid
-
What Do You Think of Microsoft Office for the iPad? by Paul Constant
-
Have You Gayed Your Dead Mormon Today? by Anthony Hecht
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (102) RSS