« Joke of the day | Main | Watch your language »

Friday, July 15, 2011


Liberals have to get their heads out of Obama's ass. He's evil and not going to change, just fake it a little so the
gullible, naive and very narrow-minded minions will give him the throne one more time.

Ron Paul is much more progressive than BO and still has enough integrity to care about the non rich. He, Paul, is the lesser of the evils and smart voters are beginning to realize the reality of our corrupt government.

Don't you dare ... or we'll punch that stylus into that perforated box next to your name with slightly less vigor! YOU GOT IT!!! Don't even think about it!

Here's a quote from a member of the Progressive Change Campaign from an article earlier today in the puffpo(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/progressive-change-campaign-committee-obama_n_900155.html):

"It's not a question of who they're going to support for president, they're going to vote for Barack Obama. It's a question of where their time and money is going to go," spokesman T. Neil Sroka said.


I originally found this blog searching to see if other people were kicked out of the CommonDreams forums for daring question Obama and the Dems. I should think that as we speak anyone suggesting that we all "not dare" vote for Obama again is having those and all of their other previous comments - as well as everyone else's comments in response to those - scrubbed from the CommonDreams archives, Memory Hole-style.

These dreams-which-are-common seem rather similar to Orwell's nightmares.

Incidentally we just returned from a brief vacation in Quebec, which is beautiful. The US could learn a lot of things from folks up there about how to treat one's citizens. How about $7/day quality day care and rental bikes and big bike paths everywhere, great public transport, encouragement of immigration and diversity and some substantial support of family farms and local ag understood as preserving both ecomony and culture. We all know about the healthcare differences between there and here. A key appears to me to be that the leftists I spoke to there were not at all pacified by this and thought Canada could still be doing a lot better for the working schlub (likely true). The folks I spoke with on the issue were not at all happy with the Canadian liberal voting options and are holding out for more.

I don't want to say that Canada is heaven for all people, but at least I got the sense the average person has a decent shot at a meaningful life, and people's public behavior also seems more decent than in these parts, I should think as a result. (I have yet to visit Alberta or thereabouts, which is Canada's Texas in many ways, but even there a person gets decent public services and is unlikely to be electrocuted by the state.)

Some perhaps useful lingo, and (if you follow the first link there) another vivid example of the "left's" toothless protest against Obama:


At this point, it's clear that there is literally nothing Obama could do to cost himself the vote of the party hacks. Launch a new war of aggression against an oil-exporting Muslim country in knowing violation of the War Powers Act? Slaughter thousands of civilians with drone attacks in six different countries? Open new secret CIA prisons? Torture whistleblowers? Expand Bush's domestic spying programs? Make Bush's tax cuts for the rich effectively permanent? And now use the Democrats' own failure to raise the debt ceiling when they had the chance as a shock-doctrine moment to cut Social Security and Medicare?

At Balloon Juice, Obama's 22%-ers have been reduced to arguing that Obama is merely trimming waste in a way that does not alter "the promise of Social Security". It's not cutting, it's strengthening. Obama has moved the Overton Window so far to the right that they've internalized Republican talking points without even realizing it.

If Obama's deep religious convictions - or his pandering to the independents - next leads him to next call for a right-to-life amendment, they'll find a way to rationalize that too. "The other shit sandwich would taste even worse!" they'll insist in between their gagging...

Joe, how could you say that about the great liberal Democrat who wrote an Executive Order overturning the anti-choice Hyde Amendment?

Oh, he wrote an Executive Order making the Hyde Amendment the permanent law of the land? Never mind.

Great comment, Joe--spot on. Regarding social security and medicare, BTW, here's what Obama said on his 2008 campaign website:

Obama and Biden will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And they do not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age.


Obama and Biden are committed to the long-term strength of the Medicare program. They will reduce waste in the Medicare system, including eliminating subsidies to the private insurance Medicare Advantage program, and tackle fundamental health care reform to improve the quality and efficiency of our healthcare system.

"Do not feel" and "do feel" differ only by one little word, though, so it would seem pedantic to claim he was being insincere. Probably just a typo.

Splashing about in the shallow end can be extremely gratifying to the politically disabled.

"To be clear: I'll support Obama down the road against Sarah Palin, Lou Dobbs or any of the pitchfork carriers for the pre-Obama era. But no bumper sticker until the withdrawal strategy is fully carried out."


Please, no non-placement of bumper stickers! Anything but that!

Oh good lord. Read the Dave Lindorff column in CounterPunch today... the man still doesn't get it at some level(s).

"Faced with a collapsing economy that is at serious risk of performing a reprise of the Great Depression, Congressional Democrats and President Obama were in a perfect position to grab the flag and run home with it by declaring war on unemployment and on the party that has unequivocally declared itself openly to be the standard bearer of the wealthy and powerful."

The Dems have not declared themselves openly to be the standard bearer of the wealthy and powerful..?

"All the president and Congressional Democrats had to do was announce that Social Security, Medicare, education and programs to protect the poor were all off limits in any discussion of the federal budget, and to declare an immediate 25% cut in military spending..."

Um... right. The Obama Agenda at last..? The "real" Obama..? Why would anyone at this juncture think that this would be on the table for the party?

"But the Democratic Party, as I said, is a rotting corpse, and it certainly is not an organization that sees itself as fighting for the common man and woman."

Well, actually up through 2008, Lindorff said that the Dems were the lesser of two evils, and would fight for the common man, and that anyone voting for a non-major party candidate was throwing their vote away. In fact it was arguing with Dave Lindorff himself about just this in 2009 which got me tossed from CommonDreams, all of my posts and his responses flushed down the Memory Hole!

Also, didn't we just identify (above) the GOP as "the party that has unequivocally declared itself openly to be the standard bearer of the wealthy and powerful"? That was for contrast with the other party that we expected to turn swords into plowshares for the proles because... um... why now?

"As for the White House political team, and the president himself, they seem to have long since lost their grip on reality."

No they haven't. They are aware that advancing the cause of corporate America will make them stinking rich like the Clintons. In fact one is a Clinton.

"The president has been hanging around with Wall Street bankers, taking their money and their self-serving ideas, for so long now he actually thinks like them."

How old was Obama when this was last not the case... 12, 13? The sort of ex-Obama supporter still clings to the notion that Barry changed, man. He used to be so cool, and he suddenly sold out in the last few months. Not, y'know, self-evidently about a lifetime ago.

This part is sick-making:

"What has happened is that the Democratic Party is no more. It is, at this point, all about current incumbents gaining the favor of the corporate elite, lulling the public into a non-voting torpor or stupor, and of course, arguing that people worried about the nation's future should vote for them yet again because "the Republicans are worse.""

This is *exactly* the line Lindorff spewed in 2008, even after Obama pledged his fealty to the Wall Street bailout. I'd be curious if anyone recalls his position on Nader/the Greens in 2000 and 2004.

"The bad news is that there is little likelihood of any Third Party arising before 2012 that could seriously contest the national election..."

Dude. DUDE. YOU MOCKED ALL OF US WHO SUPPORTED ANYONE OTHER THAN OBAMA AS RECENTLY AS 2009. You helped dig the graves of small party and candidate efforts as recently as 2008, encouraging people to vote Obama as opposed to "throwing away votes" on piddling little efforts such as, I don't know, MAINTAINING BALLOT ACCESS STATUS FOR THE GREENS.

I'll ask in this forum the same question that got me banned from CommonDreams because I wouldn't drop it... Why should any of us ever listen to a pundit like Lindorff ever again? If the job is to make judgment calls, this is poor enough performance to be fired, or the readership equivalent of just getting ignored. If your doctor, stockbroker, entrail reader or astrologer were this bad at their job you'd stop consulting them as well. I hear not one word of contrition from the vocal Obama supporters, even the ones who reluctantly admit that he's doing a terrible job. The line is still somehow even in that subset that the Dems were fine and dandy until the past few months and that in 2008 no one could possibly have predicted the how Obama could "change" into a right winger. I've heard relatively more honest (and easier to follow) arguments from evolution deniers.

My question exactly, Chris. In fact I've got a half-written posting about it that I started last week (a followup to the Democratic Recidivism posting), but I'm out of town at the moment so I don't know when I'll get around to publishing it.

And I'm with you on Lindorff--I haven't wasted time reading anything he's written since 2008, and never will again. There are too many other people around who have things to say that are much more worth my time.

Actually, the name of Lindorff's website "ThisCantBeHappening!" is pretty appropriate - words generally spoken by someone who doesn't want to face their reality.

Huh. I found ThisCantBeHappening some time ago but lacked the time to follow up on it. Well, Harpfool just saved me some time there. . .

Chris asked what Scalia would call a question "that proves too much." Ah, only a rightwinger could formulate the notion that a proposition is too good at establishing proof in a court of law where that's supposed to be the point, but the idea is found again here. Though this hardly defends Lindorff, he should be aware that he's in august company. Nobody, I mean nobody, in pundit circles is judged, seriously, by performance. It's off the table. They're professional prognosticators who can never be trusted to correctly prognosticate. Indeed, the error is expected, even for the obvious.

Take the housing crisis. I knew it was coming. I'm not in a place of power in society that I had information that no one else did. I have no scholastic pedigree (on that subject) that would have given me special insight. I just listened to honest economists who pointed out it was coming. Those, of course, weren't pundits.

There were no WMDs in Iraq: I could have told you that the first time Bush mentioned them. (And would have pointed out that he just changed the definition of WMDs.) Scott Ritter made that clear. Pundit's didn't believe it for years.

And, of course, chances are you were ahead of the curve as well, on this and dozens of other issues. Hell, I come to places like this because this is how you stay ahead of the curve.

The entire point of Being Serious is that you're always fucking wrong. That's it. It actually requires that. Pull too far ahead of the class and you ruin the entire enterprise. That's why being right can never, ever, get you points. Remember all the hate the people who were right about Iraq were getting in -- damn, 2007? All a blur now. That hate isn't a bug, it's a featurue.

I suggest that if you're still in at least a tenatively polite situation with someone aspiring to the pundit class, you're better off persuading the audience than him, since he won't change if it alienates his audience. And I think a strong way to do that is to point out that the Dems won't work for you. This is easiest if you're a minority, but if you have a pressing issue that's serious, or even life or death, for you compared to the mainstream upper-middle-class white person, it's hard for detractors to manage a not-obviously rightwing argument against you, though some will try. Generic abstractions give you "Dems will/will not sometimes fight for the little guy." Fuzzy. Better: "My grandmother's (or my) medicine would be paid for under this third party guy's plan, but the Dem and the Repug would both fail to meet that need." Worst case scenario, they plainly tell you that their own personal wants trump your personal needs, which is proof to all online that it's time to move on anyway.

The comments to this entry are closed.