Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThis comment appeared from a reader, responding to my post about how progressives view Obama and objecting to the notion that people who approve of his overall performance may not also harbor serious disappointment. As the reader put it:
If asked, I'd say that, overall, I approve of Obama's performance. However, the president has disappointed me on more than one issue since he was elected So because I've been disappointed in some of the Obama administration's actions, I'm not supportive? If I express that disappointment and disagreement, I'm not supportive?I'm really troubled by the trend of criticizing anyone who questions and disagrees with Obama. We are abdicating one of our fundamental rights as Americans if we offer unquestioning, blind allegiance to Obama or any other government leader.
I agree, and by no means intended to imply that anyone should offer Obama blind allegiance, something no politician deserves. He should be criticized and indeed must be criticized by progressives who hope to push him to take bolder stands on a range of issues, from civil rights to the treatment of detainees under US custody. The point of my post was to question the notion that, broadly speaking, "the left" is disappointed with him in a way that is thoroughgoing and unqualified, as Rachel Maddow seemed to imply, an assertion that begs the question of who we're talking about and, in my view, misreads the general mood even among progressives right now.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Is it that progressives are afraid that one day Obama may be saying, like Bill Clinton did, "We're Eisenhower Republicans"?
Posted by Mistral at 07/09/2009 @ 09:39am
Press, scramble all you like, but yr contention that Maddow's view is unrepresentative of progressives is supported by merely your opinion & the responses of a tiny sample of your friends.
Either of you may be right. But I suspect that, on the basis of Obama's record to date, Maddow is much closer to reality.
And that reality will grow with the number of dead in Af/Pak, the length of the depression, the disappearance of the public option for health insurance, continued extraordinary renderings & prisons abroad & suspension of habeus corpus. Support all that if you will, but don΄t credit most progressives with doing the same.
Posted by sloper at 07/09/2009 @ 10:26am
"Press, scramble all you like, but yr contention that Maddow's view is unrepresentative of progressives is supported by merely your opinion & the responses of a tiny sample of your friends."----Posted by sloper at 07/09/2009 @ 10:26am
I believe Mr Press ALSO quoted...polling data.
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 10:42am
I have to go with Sloper on this. A lot of progressives voted for Obama because the McCain option was worse.
Our two party system is extremely conservative. Both parties feed the military industrial complex it's red meat without question and are backed by big business. The GOP plays the game that it's a Godly party and the Dems play the game that they are the working peoples' party. Both parties have been lying to their constituents. Both represent powerful lobby groups that in turn are run by big businesses.
The chosen candidates from both parties are already bought and paid for by election time so it doesn't matter who gets elected, the big wheels still get greased either way.
So far, Obama has shown that he is a very good public speaker and has charisma. Up to this point though all he's accomplished has been the bidding for big business, not the little people. They may throw some kind of a bone out there before the next election to show some kind of victory over the heathen GOP like some watered down form of health care bill, etc., but aside from that, nothing will change if we continue on the path we've been on the last 5 months.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 10:42am
"Our two party system is extremely conservative."-------Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 10:42am
Wolf, wouldn't atleast ANOTHER possible explanation be....that you're extremely liberal?
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 10:54am
I'm going to go out on a limb here. I have no problem with Maddow's credentials and the role they play in how she assesses a situation. Nevertheless, she is now part of MSNBC; and, as far as I can tell, MSNBC has only one priority, which is to get better ratings than CNN (since they see that as the path to more advertising revenue). This leads me to have reservations about anything she says as a representative of MSNBC (and I suspect her contract specifies that, for legal purposes, she is now ALWAYS a representative of MSNBC), since, as Chomsky would put it, she is now part of the process that "manufactures consent." In other words she has been consumed by the "media machine;" and, until that machine ejects her (through its orifice of choice), we need to be skeptical in how we read her texts, particularly in matters of motive.
Posted by smoliar at 07/09/2009 @ 11:49am
I'm going to go out on a limb here. I have no problem with Maddow's credentials and the role they play in how she assesses a situation. Nevertheless, she is now part of MSNBC; and, as far as I can tell, MSNBC has only one priority, which is to get better ratings than CNN (since they see that as the path to more advertising revenue). This leads me to have reservations about anything she says as a representative of MSNBC (and I suspect her contract specifies that, for legal purposes, she is now ALWAYS a representative of MSNBC), since, as Chomsky would put it, she is now part of the process that "manufactures consent." In other words she has been consumed by the "media machine;" and, until that machine ejects her (through its orifice of choice), we need to be skeptical in how we read her texts, particularly in matters of motive.
Posted by smoliar at 07/09/2009 @ 11:50am
Posted by smoliar at 07/09/2009 @ 11:49am
Okay, sloper, Wolf....seems even YOU guys are too far Right now.
smo raised you a "Chomsky" and has upped the ante on "progressive purity"....LOL
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 11:51am
I apologize for the double post. The Submit button returned me to Google Reader, which I found confusing. So it goes!
Posted by smoliar at 07/09/2009 @ 11:52am
Either he's extremely liberal or the definition of extremely liberal has changed.
It doesn't take much to be to the left of Obama and the democrats.
Hell I consider myself to be quite conservative and manage to be to the left of the current admin on several issues.
Or maybe it's not left at all...maybe it's more "libertarian" than anything else. Although I'd hate to be confused with Ron Paul.
Who knows. All the labels used nowadays are trite and sometimes sort of confusing.
Posted by TexasFlood at 07/09/2009 @ 11:55am
Posted by TexasFlood at 07/09/2009 @ 11:55am
Well, let me clarify, TF...."extremely liberal"...as compared to the majority of Americans, Democrat or Republican. ' In other words, Wolf is complaining that his viewpoint, which seems to be of a minority nature, even among Democrats, is not being represented.
Which unforunately for him...IS how policy matters in a democracy tends to be determined and the political parties follow that lead.
If he (or you) WERE a majority or even overwhelming minority....the parties and the politicians would follow. And it is typical that when that truism is recounted, there is a knee-jerk response of "The people are ignorant" or "The ones who 'really run everything' would never allow it."....condescension or paranoia.
And that's the on the RIGHT too...just ask your typical Ron Pauline or Glenn Becker.
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 12:17pm
as obama gets about the tasks of heracles he has in front of him, many will be disappointed.
and for good reasons. i still support obama despite the fact that i do not agree with everything he says/does.
i also think its important for progressives to register their discontent.
its part of the process.
keep complaining...its as american as satano-aynrando ideology and worship of pop cultural icons!!!
news flash! michael jackson is still dead!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/09/2009 @ 12:20pm
There have been alot of high expectations for Obama. People were excited to see a change from Bush/Cheney and had a lot of hope for Obama. But in our day and age of instant gratification some people expected to see Obama, immediately pull troops from the ME, to get the $800b spent and working for the economy. But the realities is that it is actually more complex than people know, especially if add increased oversight and accountability to that money. Any development project still has to go through all the local, state, and federal permiting process and for anything that end up under ESA oversight, could take 135 days just for compliance (not including any other factors, design, etc.)
Pulling troops out of Iraq, is going to happen, but lets at least attempt to support a phased withdrawal that give some chance for regional stability when we leave; that will take some time.
Obama has only been in office for 5 months, has greater issues facing him than any president in the last 50 years. Lets give him a chance to do what we elected him to do.
It is allways easier to criticize than to create.
Posted by Extraneous at 07/09/2009 @ 12:21pm
Which unforunately for him...IS how policy matters in a democracy tends to be determined and the political parties follow that lead.
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 12:17pm
hahahaha...
do you work for goldman sachs, too?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2009 @ 12:23pm
There have been alot of high expectations for Obama.
yeah, created by mr. obama.
People were excited to see a change from Bush/Cheney and had a lot of hope for Obama.
as inspired by mr. obama.
But in our day and age of instant gratification some people expected to see Obama,
no comma necessary
immediately pull troops from the ME,
maybe if the u.s. gets downgraded to Bbb...
to get the $800b spent
gotta print it first!
and working for the economy.
spare change compared to the trillions the banks have hoarded.
But the realities is that it is actually more complex than people know,
it sure is a big boat. the problem is mr. obama lied in his campaign.
especially if add increased oversight and accountability to that money.
what, the fed? hahhahahahhhahahhahhahhaha!
Any development project still has to go through all the local, state, and federal permiting process and for anything that end up under ESA oversight, could take 135 days just for compliance (not including any other factors, design, etc.)
jeez, aig didn't have to wait so long.
Pulling troops out of Iraq, is going to happen,
"combat" troops. count on at least another 20 years.
but lets at least attempt to support a phased withdrawal that give some chance for regional stability when we leave;
phased makes sense.
that will take some time.
yep, 20 years.
Obama has only been in office for 5 months, has greater issues facing him than any president in the last 50 years.
thanks to st. ronnie.
Lets give him a chance to do what we elected him to do.
ain't gonna happen. or do you work for goldman sachs?
It is allways easier to criticize than to create.
we are pawns. we mean nothing.
posted by Extraneous
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2009 @ 12:33pm
Wolf, wouldn't atleast ANOTHER possible explanation be....that you're extremely liberal?
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 10:54am
No, because I'm not. I'm far from it actually.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 1:07pm
'The point of my post was to question the notion that, broadly speaking, "the left" is disappointed with [President Obama] in a way that is thoroughgoing and unqualified, as Rachel Maddow seemed to imply, an assertion that begs the question of who we're talking about and, in my view, misreads the general mood even among progressives right now.'
Indeed. Eyal Press has every right to wonder what Rachel Maddow means by "the left" -- just as we have every right to wonder what Eyal Press means.
If we define the "left" as everybody to the left of the Republican Party, then Maddow's claim that the left is generally disappointed in Obama is certainly way off the mark. However, if we define the "left" as the left-handed third of a tripartite electorate, which also includes a center as well as a right, then Maddow's claim may be accurate.
I admit that Maddow may be both factually and tactically wrong to claim that the left (even the left third of the country) is disappointed in our president -- though she may also be right. Nonetheless, I sympathize with her -- and her track record is pretty good.
On the other hand, we might all do better not to focus our disappointment upon any one person, not even upon the president. After all, real reform right now depends primarily upon Congress, and even more upon our ability as engaged citizens to move Congress in a progressive direction. We shouldn't make the common conservative error of assuming that our recurring national failures (such as lack of healthcare reform) are solely the fault of a few "evil" or flawed individuals in government. Maybe the real problem is structural or ideological gridlock, a systemic malaise above and beyond any individual's weaknesses. Maybe the real problem is us.
Posted by JakobFabian at 07/09/2009 @ 1:34pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2009 @ 12:23pm
If "the people were with you", Frosty.....they would be and the politicians couldn't stand against them.
Again...unless you want to go down the "Cabal" route.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 1:07pm
Well, nobody thinks they're "extreme", Wolf. CKA2ND is an out-and-out socialist and I'm sure he thinks he's just "one collapsed economy away" from being in the majority.
But if the two Parties aren't under pressure from "millions of Americans" to become more liberal....isn't there another possible explanation for why they are "extremely conservative" in YOUR view?
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 1:47pm
In case B Kool shows up
this is a jam session in NYC 1968 with Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix
Good stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-eNZK4ZUsE
Posted by antisocialist at 07/09/2009 @ 2:36pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2009 @ 12:33pm
Cheer up FZ. Or did you actually believe happ or was it coma who keep claiming that Obama is Magic?
Posted by Extraneous at 07/09/2009 @ 2:45pm
BTW, I was just shocked to learn that another musician I really like, Sky Saxon of the Seeds died June 25th in Texas of Heart and Kidney failure from an infection.
Great guy, fun band. I went to a birthday party bash for him in 1967 at POP in Long Beach.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHTyLBIZ1g
Posted by antisocialist at 07/09/2009 @ 2:51pm
For what it's worth (I know, nothing), jackobfabian gets my vote for the best analysis today. actually, the only actual analysis.
Posted by gren at 07/09/2009 @ 2:58pm
Another point, Press, at the risk of being picky, but "to beg the question" does NOT mean to raise or suggest a question. Check it out, & use it right.
Posted by sloper at 07/09/2009 @ 3:13pm
this is a jam session in NYC 1968 with Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix
Good stuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-eNZK4ZUsE
Posted by antisocialist at 07/09/2009 @ 2:36pm
You like Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix?! They don't mix to well with your political views.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 3:25pm
isn't there another possible explanation for why they are "extremely conservative" in YOUR view?
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 1:47pm
How about in YOUR view Mask? Go ahead and explain why the democratic national party has shifted so far to the right where John Dean III is now a democrat. My views are pretty much the same as the have always been. When Eisenhower and Nixon appear to be liberal in comparison with the politicians of today the question has to be asked, how did this happen?
Do YOU think the people of the U.S. just decided to slowly drift to a more religious/conservative platform, or do you think it may have been done be design? For example, do you think the American Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are merely tax exempt think tanks or perhaps they are groups of very powerful and influential people pulling the strings in D.C. Read Woodwards last book on W and you'll see that a conservative think tank picked Patreus to run the war in Iraq, not Bush or McCain.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 3:31pm
Time to lighten things up a bit.
The Summer of Love 1967
Eric Burden-Monterey
http://tinyurl.com/burdenmonterey
Buffalo Springfield-For What it's Worth
http://tinyurl.com/BuffSpringfield
Country Joe and the Fish
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDhLYJMPlYg
Hendrix doing Like A Rolling Stone for Dylan
http://tinyurl.com/aonubq
Janis-Ball and Chain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGJynZNr7rk
Not Monterey-diff concert but Quick Silver Messenger Service Fresh Air
http://tinyurl.com/ndbq8g
Posted by antisocialist at 07/09/2009 @ 3:45pm
You like Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix?! They don't mix to well with your political views.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 3:25pm
No, everyone including myself falls into the trap of stereotyping.
I've shared that I was a hippie and my music tastes stay pretty much with the 60's. I love many types of music, but that remains my favorite.
I argued about hippie life wife JR (Emile) because most hippies I knew back then were like me, anti-govt. We wanted as little to do with govt as possible. Heck, one of the main themes of the hippie lifestyle was "don't trust the govt".
So, while I'm almost bald now (I wore my hair in a 'tail until the mid 90's when I started losing my hair), I still have a full beard, eat naturally, burn incense, live a low footprint life. I did leave the weed and drugs behind decades ago.
But the music remains a big part of my enjoyment.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/09/2009 @ 3:52pm
But the music remains a big part of my enjoyment.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/09/2009 @ 3:52pm
Well I'll be darned!! We actually like some of the same music!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 3:56pm
But if the two Parties aren't under pressure from "millions of Americans" to become more liberal....isn't there another possible explanation for why they are "extremely conservative" in YOUR view?
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 1:47pm
Another think on this Mask. Who do you think makes up the political platform upon which the candidates will run? It sure as hell isn't the millions of Americans. The two parties decide the issues, the platforms, what will debated and two a large extent how the debates will take place. The American people get to watch the show, but aren't the directors of the show. The only part we play is our vote and I'm not too sure that counts for a whole hell of a lot.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 4:01pm
Another think.....damn fingers. Should be thing.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 4:02pm
Another think...
it's your inner german shining through.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/09/2009 @ 4:24pm
But the music remains a big part of my enjoyment.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/09/2009 @ 3:52pm
Well I'll be darned!! We actually like some of the same music!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 3:56pm
Life has all kinds of strange twists and turns; sometimes you even find moments of commonality that you didn't think could exist.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/09/2009 @ 4:26pm
So far, Obama has shown that he is a very good public speaker and has charisma.
and that he has won the highest office in the land, a landmark accomplishment.
Posted by emile duBois at 07/09/2009 @ 4:28pm
Here's the Maddow interview link, folks:
www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10400
It's only 20 minutes or so of your time, and well worth it I think.
I can't begin to spell out my own --fairly complex-- views in a brief post, but in the simplest terms it ought to be rather obvious to the alert and intelligent that we are living in a time of rapidly darkening prospects, overall.
The ease with which multiple hundreds of billions of dollars were liberated last year from U.S. taxpayers pockets to save the captains of our economic Titanic is perhaps the only symbolic moment one might need to understand the depths to which we are almost certainly headed.
The rest is just details --albeit demonic details that only add to the potential horror.
On a final note, no one should be under any illusions regarding the recent Cheney/Bush administration. It could accurately be understood as essentially the eyes of the crocodile. There's more to this beast than most of us truly know --and it aint over just 'cuz Obama's in charge.
But let's please keep our heads up, our eyes wide open, and our ears pricked up. We'll need every bit of sense to emerge intact.
P.S. I may check out Larry's youtube music posts (above) later. He's quite a study in contradictions in any case --kinda like Michael Jackson (come to think of it), but in a more insidious way.
Peace, out.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/09/2009 @ 4:49pm
P.S. I may check out Larry's youtube music posts (above) later. He's quite a study in contradictions in any case --kinda like Michael Jackson (come to think of it), but in a more insidious way.
Peace, out.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/09/2009 @ 4:49pm
I almost linked a jam session with Jerry Garcia and New Riders of the Purple Sage, but I was trying to stay mostly with Monterey 67.
I think you'll enjoy the Morrison/Hendrix Jam
Posted by antisocialist at 07/09/2009 @ 5:01pm
Cheer up FZ. Or did you actually believe happ or was it coma who keep claiming that Obama is Magic?
Posted by Extraneous at 07/09/2009 @ 2:45pm
not sure what you mean.
dwight howard is magic. (did you see how rashard lewis collapsed in the finals?)
hedo was, but now he's a raptor.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/09/2009 @ 6:47pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/09/2009 @ 4:01pm
Wolf, isn't it a BIT of a coincidence that folks whose political ideology isn't winning in a democracy, are the ones who tell us "the democracy isn't working"?
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 6:51pm
At least you like Jimi instead of the eagles or lynyrd skynyrd.
So much of the old school rock all the "hippies" love is so reminiscent of the current breed of "rock and roll": derivative garbage not worth the brain cells it takes to listen to.
It's amazing, no matter how much the music scene has changed in my lifetime, the mainstream crap is still just plain old crap.
Oh and btw, anti is a hipster? Holy fuck I knew I hated him for a reason. The only thing that makes memcringe more than a hippie is a hillbilly.
Posted by TexasFlood at 07/09/2009 @ 9:38pm
Sorry I meant that the other way around. Hillbillies are MUCH better than hippies. Barf.
Posted by TexasFlood at 07/09/2009 @ 9:49pm
To whom it may it may be of interest.....
I happened to catch the super absorbent interview of Walter Kirn --a new addition to my personal menagerie of beloved characters/thinkers-- on C-Span the other day. He's even better in his unassuming way, I think, in the interview with Brian Lamb than he is in this rather psychedelic sojourn from the Atlantic in 2005:
www.theatlantic.com/doc/200501/kirn
I may have to check out the newly released book.
And in the way of music I ran into this electric guitar archeology that plays out with some nice add-on connections to some additional gems I think.
tinyurl.com/nflwf7
To the discerning imbiber...... Enjoy!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/10/2009 @ 01:53am
Wolf, isn't it a BIT of a coincidence that folks whose political ideology isn't winning in a democracy, are the ones who tell us "the democracy isn't working"?
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 6:51pm
Mask, What political ideology? You ask just about any American right now if they are happy with the way things are going and I'd wager that most of them would say hell no....even with Obama as president.
Good God man, do you think Obama is happy with the way things are going right now? Unlike you, I don't think our government is perfect as is and that there isn't room for improvement. While saying this I am also aware of the realities of the world that no such thing as a utopia like society exists, but we should strive toward that type of society.
Let me ask you this question. With W as president for 8 years, did you think democracy was working? Did the checks and balance system work?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 06:36am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 06:36am
Kind of my point, WOLF.
The Right was happy under Dubya and the GOP...because they were winning. They are pissed now and claim weird-ass things like "Dems want one party rule" and "Obama's making himself a dictator"...because they're NOT winning.
Now the "pure progressives" are ALWAYS claiming "the democracy isn't working"...because they're ALWAYS not getting what they want.
But here's a question....WHY is that? I guarentee you, that 98% of the "real liberals" will say either-
A. "Because the people are ignorant"
B. "Because 'they' (whoever 'they' are) control the Media, the agenda, the access to REAL information, etc., etc., etc."
and NEVER..."Because our ideology just isn't popular."
and again, look at the Right, right now, they're saying it too.
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 07:53am
A. "Because the people are ignorant"
B. "Because 'they' (whoever 'they' are) control the Media, the agenda, the access to REAL information, etc., etc., etc."
and NEVER..."Because our ideology just isn't popular."
and again, look at the Right, right now, they're saying it too.
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 07:53am
Agreed. The answer closest to my point is B, but I don't think it's the media. I think it's the organizers behind the political parties themselves. There's a good book on this particular subject. It's fiction of course, but main theme behind the book is people with power controlling the politicians behind the scenes. The book was written in the 70's and it's called "The Captains and the Kings". At the end of the book there's a bibliography citing several books in the library of Congress of actual events that did take place.
Another book somewhat touching on this subject is "The Godfather". Both depict how politicians are outright controlled either through bribes, blackmail or both.
All you need to do to see if this is real or not is look at how many politicians and inside beltway folks have recently been outed for graft, bribery or whatever.
Here's a list of just a few names: Randy Cunningham---defense contract kickbacks
Tom DeLay, 58, The indictment charges that DeLay conspired to have corporate contributions funneled through his political action committee to help Republican state candidates.
Jack Abramoff ...Indian lobbying scandal
John Murtha supposedly under investigation for campaign kickbacks...don't know if this one is true or not.
But, you get my drift. This is business as usual in D.C.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 08:59am
Oh, I forgot ex-senator Ted Stevens.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 09:00am
Tom DeLay, 58, The indictment charges that DeLay conspired to have corporate contributions funneled through his political action committee to help Republican state candidates.
Jack Abramoff ...Indian lobbying scandal
John Murtha supposedly under investigation for campaign kickbacks...don't know if this one is true or not.
But, you get my drift. This is business as usual in D.C.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 08:59am
Oh, I forgot ex-senator Ted Stevens.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 09:00am
A bit of a correction Wolf-
I'm no fan of either Delay or Stevens but Delay was indicted by a Dem prosecutor in Texas in 2005 who subsequently lost his job and the indictment has never gone to trial. Stevens conviction was overturned in April of this year.
As to Murtha, I have written here about my personal experiences with Murtha and Defense contract. He is not someone you you would like.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/10/2009 @ 09:51am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 08:59am
But then, doesn't that mean bouncing back to "the people are ignorant"....because they're not voting out all those corrupt types?
Again WHAT IF, America is neither as far to the right as Larry is nor as far to the left as you are...
and they're pretty much getting what they want?
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 10:18am
Amazing how the leftist still support the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats after the amazing "boondoggle" that everyone said would not work, has not worked! Maybe its just all the Porkulus spending for extremist leftwing ideologies that keeps their heads spinning round and round? 9.5% unemployment, 9,000,000,000. jobless and NO spending to save existing jobs, businesses, or industries that employ those out of work. Jobs that will never return to these shores.
"Out of the $787 billion of the stimulus, roughly 60 percent goes to individuals in temporary tax rebates and increased entitlement spending. This will provide little boost to the economy. History says that people will only spend 20 percent to 40 percent of a temporary tax rebate, for the very good reason that they know it's temporary.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, disposable personal income increased at a healthy 1.2 percent in April and 1.6 percent in May. Is this money coursing through the economy? No, it appears most of it is being saved. In April, personal consumption declined 0.10 percent, and in May it ticked up a mere 0.20 percent. Americans refuse to spend their money as heedlessly as Obama's economic gurus hope."
You just can't reason with fools or expect intelligent economic choices of them.
Posted by BigPasture at 07/10/2009 @ 10:33am
Mask, a large portion of Americans probably even the majority, seem to have no clue as to what's going on. And I don't mean they don't pay enough attention to who's running for local alderman.
Humans are pretty stupid.
Posted by TexasFlood at 07/10/2009 @ 10:35am
and they're pretty much getting what they want?
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 10:18am
Are you getting what you want in the overall scheme of things? That's the question each person has to ask him or herself. And, if the answer to that question is no, than being complacent about it doesn't help that person's predicament does it?
From what I've see, the right wing groups are very successful about getting what they want on the agenda and having a forum from which to air out their problems, hence Rush Limbaugh and the like.
People who don't fit the democrat mold perfectly don't have any recourse aside from people like Rachel Maddow or perhaps Keith Olbermann and The Nation whereas the first two are both a relatively new phenomena, The Nation isn't of course.
I guess I'm tired of hearing that American values are going to church and paying your 10% to God, driving a gas guzzler, going into hock to keep up with the Jones', and blindly going into wars because it's the patriotic thing to do. Those "values" came from somewhere and some people decided those were core values to install upon the American people....even our presidents have to make the appearance of being church going folks. Now the question is this, why?
Do you think the majority of Americans go to church every Sunday? Supposedly 43% of Americans attend church regularly (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance). That means the majority of Americans do not. So, why the facade? Because both politcal parties are trying to get part of that percentile knowing full well the rest of the population couldn't give a shit less. Elections are being decided on the least common denominator not the greatest. Mathematically it makes sense to win, but effectively representing the masses, it doesn't.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 10:44am
"You just can't reason with fools or expect intelligent economic choices of them."----Posted by BigPasture at 07/10/2009 @ 10:33am
You mean you want us to stop talking to you, RIO???
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 11:02am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 10:44am
Wolf, again, you're left with three choices...
A. "The people are being fooled!!!!!"
B. "____ controls it all."
C. "My viewpoint is not a majority viewpoint."
Now...why is it ALWAYS "A" or "B"?
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 11:04am
You just can't reason with fools or expect intelligent economic choices of them. Posted by BigPasture at 07/10/2009 @ 10:33am |
No, but we try with you, Rio, we try.
'Entitlement spending' is much more likely to end up back in the economy (can't spend food stamps on shares of GMGMQ, can ya?) while the permanent tax cuts endorsed by Pugs, and you, almost exclusively end up in CDs or savings accounts since the people they benefit most need to spend the least.
People aren't spending wildly because they've been cowed by the implosion of neoliberal capitalist bullsh-t that has been running amok for three decades now and are wary that they may join the apparently 9B unemployed (who knew we had 8,700,000,000 illegals hiding out here?).
As for extremist, leftist, ideologies...I'm looking at an article about funding the recycling of water in the parks and golf courses of my hometown, Pacifica, with money from the stimulus right now...oooh...fascist water conservation...that'll bring our country to its knees.
If the stim-u-less plan hasn't gained traction by 2010, then you'll have something to jump up and down about, but even Reagan's so-called recovery took more than two years to have an effect on unemployment, which generally lags stimulus and investment for obvious reasons.
Enjoy your millenarian nonsense while you still can.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/10/2009 @ 11:22am
Wolf, isn't it a BIT of a coincidence that folks whose political ideology isn't winning in a democracy, are the ones who tell us "the democracy isn't working"?
Posted by Mask at 07/09/2009 @ 6:51pm
mask, are you running for pigeon in chief?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 11:34am
i mean,
were you invited to cheney's energy "task" force?
how about obama's health care "soirιe"?
clinton's meetings with rob rubin?
etc......
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 11:36am
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/10/2009 @ 01:53am |
Nice jam, B...sounds like a precursor to, "Machine Gun" from Band of Gypsies.
Kirn seems like a self-obsessed wannabe from the Atlantic article; spoiled wanker makes good.
"when I think back on all the crap I learned in high-school..."
Posted by snowball777 at 07/10/2009 @ 11:37am
The Right was happy under Dubya and the GOP...because they were winning.
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 07:53am
who the hell are "The Right"?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 11:38am
Again WHAT IF, America is neither as far to the right as Larry is nor as far to the left as you are...
and they're pretty much getting what they want?
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 10:18am
hahahahhahhahhahhhhahahhhahhaaa!
stretch it! STRETCH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 11:41am
Amazing how the leftist still support the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats after the amazing "boondoggle" that everyone said would not work, has not worked! Maybe its just all the Porkulus spending for extremist leftwing ideologies that keeps their heads spinning round and round? 9.5% unemployment, 9,000,000,000. jobless and NO spending to save existing jobs, businesses, or industries that employ those out of work. Jobs that will never return to these shores. "Out of the $787 billion of the stimulus, roughly 60 percent goes to individuals in temporary tax rebates and increased entitlement spending. This will provide little boost to the economy. History says that people will only spend 20 percent to 40 percent of a temporary tax rebate, for the very good reason that they know it's temporary. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, disposable personal income increased at a healthy 1.2 percent in April and 1.6 percent in May. Is this money coursing through the economy? No, it appears most of it is being saved. In April, personal consumption declined 0.10 percent, and in May it ticked up a mere 0.20 percent. Americans refuse to spend their money as heedlessly as Obama's economic gurus hope." You just can't reason with fools or expect intelligent economic choices of them.
Posted by BigPasture at 07/10/2009 @ 10:33am
and god declared the world would begin on january 20, 2009.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 11:45am
C. "My viewpoint is not a majority viewpoint."
Now...why is it ALWAYS "A" or "B"?
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 11:04am
I have only two responses to that. I never said my viewpoint was a majority or minority viewpoint, only that there are folks like myself who don't fit into the cute little molds we are supposed to fit into and don't buy into the either/or scenario we are told we have to buy into.
The other thing I have to say is that we've beaten this dead horse long enough. Wouldn't you agree?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 11:51am
Goldman Sachs Loses Grip on Its Doomsday Machine: Jonathan Weil
"The bank has raised the possibility that there is a danger that somebody who knew how to use this program could use it to manipulate markets in unfair ways." ~Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Facciponti
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aFeyqdzYcizc
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 11:54am
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aFeyqdzYcizc
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 11:54am
Frosty, Thanks for the link. Interesting to say the least. Kind of reminds me of the guy turning the CD over from the UBS with the client list hiding their fortunes from the tax man. Whatever happened to the people on the list? Did any of them half to pay any back taxes or prison time like Wesley Snipes?
The last I heard, one developer out of LA was under investigation but haven't heard a thing about it ever since the story broke months ago.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 12:06pm
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/ 1192-FLASH-Goldman-Code-Thef t-BOMBSHELL.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 12:12pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 11:51am
Sure thing. And please note, it is nothing personal and I'm glad you're idealistic...but I think it's a trap that the ideologues (again, Left or RIGHT) get into whereby they try to come up with excuses for why their viewpoint isn't political dominant.
Look at Larry/antisoc....he's so dismayed by the rejection of Republicans that he's planning on moving to El Salvador ("last bastion of freedom", I suppose)....and eager to see his country destroyed-
"Maybe it will be good to see this country fall..."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 12:47pm
Partisanship Isn't a Dirty Word posted by Ari Berman on 01/27/2009 @ 11:41am
...all because his politics are out of favor.
Atleast you've never said THAT, nor do I think you ever would.
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 12:16pm
Look at Larry/antisoc....he's so dismayed by the rejection of Republicans that he's planning on moving to El Salvador ("last bastion of freedom", I suppose)....and eager to see his country destroyed-
"Maybe it will be good to see this country fall..."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/27/2009 @ 12:47pm
Partisanship Isn't a Dirty Word posted by Ari Berman on 01/27/2009 @ 11:41am
...all because his politics are out of favor.
Atleast you've never said THAT, nor do I think you ever would.
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 12:16pm
I realize you think it makes good spin, but that post about the fall of the US is out of context.
As YOU KNOW, I said it in the context of the moral state of the country and that if the country fell, I prayed the people would seek G-d. It wasn't about "I'm on the losing side so I want the country to fail". That wasn't my point at all and it's dishonest of you to post out of context with that inference.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/10/2009 @ 12:22pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 12:16pm </i>
I have a question for you, Mask. It's a hypothetical that I don't think at all, likely, but one that I think is interesting to contemplate.
Suppose that the United States decided to enact a policy that was morally repugnant. Would we not want that effort to fail? In other words, if there is an effort to do something morally repulsive, it seems like the only morally coherent response is to hope that that effort fails.
Of all people, antisocialist should agree with this; what else can "we must obey God rather than men" possibly mean?
Posted by Thrawn at 07/10/2009 @ 12:32pm
Sorry, punctuation correction. I meant "a hypothetical that I don't think at all likely, but one that I think is interesting to contemplate."
Posted by Thrawn at 07/10/2009 @ 12:33pm
Though the more I think about it, the more I wonder this: can anyone possibly suggest that this government is incapable of immoral acts, even grievously immoral ones? No government in history has been immune from them, and whether one thinks this is the greatest country in the world or not, it is extremely difficult to argue that our moral compass always points north.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/10/2009 @ 12:35pm
Of all people, antisocialist should agree with this; what else can "we must obey God rather than men" possibly mean?
Posted by Thrawn at 07/10/2009 @ 12:32pm
yes, I agree. In most instances, we are called as Christians to submit to the authority of govt; unless it directly makes you disobey G-d. That is why the abolition movement and the modern civil rights movement spearheaded by Churches. NT teaching and especially that by Paul whom you disdain stated that in Christ we are all equals.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/10/2009 @ 12:37pm
Actually, Eric Alterman's latest article expresses major disappointment with Obama and Alterman, as you all know I'm sure, is a gutless liberal.
Posted by lnp3 at 07/10/2009 @ 12:53pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/10/2009 @ 12:22pm
Larry,
1. For the "people to seek God"....things have to collapse, right? Same for some radical lefty who wants "the people to rise up and create the worker's paradise"....they need things to get MUCH worse for that to happen.
So in either case, to get their desires, the ideologue needs his/her country to SUFFER...terribly. Or would it be a "pillow landing" "fall" that you were thinking of???
2. How many sheets of paper can you fit between your "morality" and your "politics"?
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 1:31pm
Posted by Thrawn at 07/10/2009 @ 12:32pm
(And so it begins...again...heheh)
Thrawn, are we discussing "policies we hope would fail" or "nations failing". If there is some mention of "It might be good to see 'those policies' fail" by Larry....you might have a point.
But what you have is...another attempt at your "public defender" role trying to change the debate to something less negative to try to get your "client" off the hook for what he ACTUALLY said.
Motion denied....heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 1:34pm
Posted by lnp3 at 07/10/2009 @ 12:53pm
Actually, Altermann's gutless because unlike EVERY OTHER writer here at "The Nation"....even Katrina vanden Heuvel....you have to "log in" to post comments to him and HE gets to decide which ones he wants to post.
What's Eric afraid of???
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 1:35pm
<i>Posted by antisocialist at 07/10/2009 @ 12:37pm </i>
I do not disdain Paul; I simply endorse the bold proposition that as a human being, he can be mistaken. Do you or do you not agree with the claim that all human governments are ordained by God? If they are, how is there not a logical inconsistency in saying "all government are ordained by God...but there are circumstances under which we must disobey them"?
Let me put it this way: I think Paul is partially correct and partially mistaken (and I think it's telling that in some parts of his letters, he seeks to ARGUE for his conclusions rather than simply ASSERT that they're true; he recognizes that his own perception is likely imperfect). Government has an extremely valuable function: to maintain order and protect citizens. Now if Paul means nothing more than this, I have no problem, but I don't think that's the case. A plain reading of Paul's statement seems to be that, in fact, for any government X, X is ordained by God. Classic examples such as the Nazis appear to falsify that premise. Jesus did not call for the overthrow of Rome, and included a tax collector among his followers, but note that he never insisted that the Roman government deserved unconditional obedience. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" does not mean "give to Caesar whatever Caesar demands" or "give to Caesar whatever Caesar demands that doesn't EXPLICITLY contradict commandments I've given."
Yet again, inerrancy is put to the test and appears to fail. If you want other examples, ask yourself whether genocide can be permissible; some texts explicitly say that God commanded it. Or whether God ordered children who talked back to their parents to be stoned.
Posted by Thrawn at 07/10/2009 @ 1:37pm
Posted by Thrawn at 07/10/2009 @ 12:32pm |
"Suppose that the United States decided to enact a policy that was morally repugnant. Would we not want that effort to fail?"
You mean other than Abu Graib and Gitmo?
Posted by snowball777 at 07/10/2009 @ 1:46pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/10/2009 @ 12:12pm | Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 12:06pm |
A little kool-aid antidote...
http://www.softwarereality.com/ soapbox/autotrading.jsp
Automated trading is neither new nor exclusive to GS, but it does offer advantages that make E-trade plunkers like myself and Happy ripe for the plucking.
There's nothing special about stock manip with bogus info either...a tried and true tradition on Wall St that doesn't require programs as much as wads of capital.
The only real danger of this program's escape would be that many investors will know what GS would do, given specific market conditions.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/10/2009 @ 1:52pm
The only real danger of this program's escape would be that many investors will know what GS would do, given specific market conditions.
Posted by snowball777 at 07/10/2009 @ 1:52pm Oh no, you mean GS would have to share their profits with outsiders on their insider moves? I guess that would be a new crime for the SEC to cover....outsider trading based on stolen insider stock manipulation software.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 2:06pm
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 12:16pm
Thanks Mask. Hey, the guy I voted for is the president and I'm not giving him a free pass. I don't blindly agree with everything he does unlike the right wingers posting here in lockstep like a bunch of non-thinking Rush Limbaugh clones.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 2:09pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 2:06pm | Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 2:09pm |
The automated trading software isn't "insider" information, just a tool for doing big blocks of trades in response to stimuli defined by GS.
Bumper sticker: "Don't blame me: I voted for the black half!"
Posted by snowball777 at 07/10/2009 @ 2:19pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 07/10/2009 @ 2:09pm
That's true...despite their post-2006 protestations, almost NONE of these right-wingers had any problem with deficits under Dubya and the GOP Congress...as long as it kept them their "permanent majority".
NOW, of course, they're all "fiscal conservatives" again. And we're supposed to believe them!
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 2:49pm
So in either case, to get their desires, the ideologue needs his/her country to SUFFER...terribly. Or would it be a "pillow landing" "fall" that you were thinking of???
2. How many sheets of paper can you fit between your "morality" and your "politics"?
Posted by Mask at 07/10/2009 @ 1:31pm
I don't think people make dramatic changes unless they experience a hard fall. I think history proves that out. Look at 9/11 as a example. Church attendance among all the major faiths in the US climbed dramatically in the weeks following 9/11. But given human nature and that most did not directly suffer from 9/11, people went back to their old ways within 2 months.
2. I have no idea what you are asking? If you are suggesting that there is no difference, you are partly right and partly wrong. Everyone has their political views shaped at least in part to their religious and/or moral views (or lack of).
But there are a number of areas where I prefer as a citizen to let my libertarian political views as a citizen dictate; Such as decriminalizing drugs, not attempting to change the law on abortion, being against a theocracy in the US, not seeking to restore prayer in schools, just to name a few.
Posted by antisocialist at 07/10/2009 @ 3:06pm
...is a gutless liberal.
Posted by lnp3 at 07/10/2009 @ 12:53pm
Gutless?
How so?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/10/2009 @ 3:27pm
Parsing here. Gutless BECAUSE of his liberality, l, or some other reason?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/10/2009 @ 3:29pm