I clicked over to the blog that I rail against so much to see what kind of crap they are peddling in the Twilight Zone world they live in over there. The top post read…
It is really a “bizarro” read (Seinfeld reference), I had a hard time following this ramble which is clearly aimed at Firedoglake’s main audience, the Trolls who like to pretend like they are progressive, but when you read more than one comment from them, you tend to notice a similarity to Fox New’s line of the day or week. I’m going to break my own rule and paste from that piece of shit blog for illustration purposes. This is the first paragraph…
Like the Sirens reputed to lure sailors onto rocks, a series of columnists who want President Obama to fail are praising Obama’s capitulation on extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. The motif of these comments has three common characteristics – all designed to destroy the Obama presidency. First, and the chutzpah of this aspect is wondrous, those that hate Obama’s policies are telling Obama he is demonstrating his strength by surrendering on the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy. Second, they claim that Obama “moved to the center” by agreeing to support tax cuts for the wealthy. Third, they claim that Obama’s attacks on his strongest supporters are brilliant politics essential to saving his Presidency.
First off, just like every other Obama-hater (and Firedoglake is the main hater), he makes reference to just the tax cuts for the wealthy, no mention of the tax cuts for me or you, or the unemployment benefits in the package or the EITC for poor people or the myriad of other things bundled in the package. No, if you didn’t know better, the bill was purely tax cuts for the wealthy. Second, who are all these “series of columnists” who want President Obama to fail? He mentions Dana Millbank, someone who has gone off the rail in many liberals minds, thus his stupidity on this issue. The only other “columnist” he mentions is Mark Penn, and I don’t really think Mark is a columnist by trade. He’s a bad political consultant from what I have observed. The author lists 3 common characteristics of these “comments” by this “series of columnists.” I won’t waste time replying to all 3, they are quite a reach. I’ll just take the last one, which made me laugh out loud, seriously. “Third, they claim that Obama’s attacks on his strongest supporters are brilliant politics essential to saving his Presidency.” ROFL….. STRONGEST SUPPORTERS, that is some funny shit. In the President’s press conference the day after the agreement was announced, it wasn’t his “strongest supporters” that he was blasting. It was the assholes like almost every blogger at FDL that he was blasting, hardly his strongest supporters. This fits with their constant reference to themselves as “The Base”…and as I wrote in a previous post, the only thing they are the base of is a big pile of shit.
His attack on Penn has some merit, Mark Penn has said a lot of stupid shit over the years, why should we be surprised by this. I doubt that his motivation is to make the President fail, he really believes the shit he peddles in my opinion. Penn does touch on some truth in his statements though, and anyone who is realistic about winning elections…appealing to independents and moderates…will see some truth in what he says.
By becoming reverse tax protesters (chanting “raise taxes”), the liberals are sending out all the wrong messages to a country that overwhelmingly backs the key elements of the bipartisan deal the president struck.
I know the hard core partisans on the left don’t have a problem with saying “raise taxes”, in fact, I say it myself. But if you are trying to appeal to a majority of voters in the country, you really should keep those thoughts to yourself and your fellow “hard lefters.” This really gets to the heart of what the President said so eloquently in his press conference the other day, that we can all stand on our principles and do absolutely nothing for the American people. Accomplish nothing, not help a single person on unemployment, not a single poor person wondering how they are going to feed their family, not a single business that may be able to hire a few of those unemployed folks….nothing, nada. But goddamn it, we have our principles….oh, and our nice jobs, cars and homes. I don’t think Jane Hamsher is going to wonder about how she is going to pay the rent, or feed her family. But she sure is quick to say fuck people with pre-existing conditions, fuck the unemployed, fuck the poor, fuck those children who now have health care, fuck them all….my principles are more important than real people. Check out this link, courtesy of Nicole at Political Ruminations, if you want to know more about how Hamsher rolls.
Here are the final two paragraphs of this post at FDL, tell me this guy isn’t out of his fucking mind, I dare you. There are more twists and turns in logic, my head was spinning just trying to follow it. I’m sure it made perfect sense to the firebagger trolls who simply look for buzz words and grunt. (emphasis on stupidity contained is mine)
Cumulatively, these questions lead to a disturbing inference. The Milbanks and Penns of the world invest the time to spin these fables because they think that senior members of the administration hate liberals so badly, and are so desperate for compliments, that they will fall for praise from people that hate them and want them to fail. They hope that the administration will take their advice and destroy itself and the Democratic Party by adopting policies that harm the nation (by making already record income inequality even worse) and require Obama to betray his campaign promises. It’s hard to conceive of a nastier insult to the administration – they’re convinced that Obama and his senior staff are uniformly incompetent.
The ideal result for supporters of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is to get them extended in a manner that allows Republicans to escape from the suicidal bargaining position they were in on holding taxes for 98% of American taxpayers hostage and blocking the extension of unemployment benefits, in a fashion in which the Republicans get to take primary credit for all of the tax cuts, and while causing the President to betray his campaign promises and launch an attack on his strongest supporters – an attack taken word-for-word out of the Republican playbook. That is precisely what they’ve achieved. They did not achieve the result through brilliance and they cannot achieve it without cowardice and ineptitude on the part of the Democrats.
The first paragraph and the highlighted portion in particular, is just pure horseshit. He must have shoveled that from the bottom of the pile that they are at the base of. It speaks for itself really, no need to rip that one apart. My favorite part of the second paragraph is the part where he returns to the idea that the President launched an attack on “his strongest supporters”…ROFL again, every time I read it I can’t help myself.
To me it is just bizarre how these publicity whores have succeeded in convincing the cable news networks that they are “the base.” They aren’t the fucking base, no way no how. The definition of “the base” is people who stick with you through thick and thin. I am part of the base, been donating to Democrats since I had my first job. I know that sometimes I have to plug my nose with some candidates, but that whole “lesser of two evils” really does apply. Anyone who just defaults to “they are all the same” aren’t paying close enough attention. Republicans consistently suck way worse than Democrats. I pick the less sucky, personally.
The media and their overlords, the Republican Party have been attempting with great success to tell a false narrative about President Obama and the popularity of his policies and him. I would also add that they were aided and abetted by the “firebaggers”, Jane Hamsher and her gang, Glenn Greenwald and his hatred and Arianna Huffington and her empire. They seem to be peddling the idea that the President and his policies aren’t very popular and candidates are running away from him. I don’t doubt that some of the candidates have bought into the narrative, they certainly don’t want to be seen as going against anything the big ole’ media says. But the reality is that since the president has been on the stump, the tide is turning for Democrats. And contrary to what Hamsher says, he is firing up the base and progressive voters, what she calls hectoring. This story from The Raw Story shows exactly why this narrative is false, a piece from it below…
Despite negative economic forecasts and all the rue predicted for Democrats in November, President Obama’s approval rating is actually faring better than Presidents Reagan and Clinton at this point in their terms, according to an analysis of data provided by the Gallup polling organization.In a survey of approximately 1,500 adults nation-wide, Gallup said on Oct. 6 that Obama’s approval rating was 48 percent. By comparison, Bill Clinton, the previous Democrat to reside in the White House, had a 42 percent approval rating at the same time in his presidency.
Republican icon Ronald Reagan, similarly, had an approval rating hovering around 42 percent at this time in his presidency, thanks to the country’s languishing economy which was largely credited for a Republican loss of 28 House seats in 1982.
Now if you’ve read my blog before, you know I don’t put a ton of stock in polls in general, especially when they try to predict what voters will do many months out. But shouldn’t that poll be a big story, PRESIDENT OBAMA MORE POPULAR THAN CLINTON AND REAGAN. I’m sure the Huffington Post has that blazing headline across their banner, right? They don’t? You’re kidding me right? I don’t understand.
So if you turn on the cable news channels and just see what meme they are pushing on any given day, it surely doesn’t reflect the reality of what is going on in our country. They have a narrative they have started and they are doing all they can to make it stay around, the truth be damned. Another factoid from that Raw Story piece…
Though Republican victories are largely anticipated in the media, a recent National Journal poll found that public approval ratings of GOP congressional leaders are actually lower than those for Democrats.
Now, how many times are you going to hear that today on MSNBC or CNN or FOX? Zero! Oh, it might get a mention as a throw away line, but chances are that won’t even happen. Instead we will hear how “people are hurting”…”where are the jobs”….”people are angry”….which may all be true, but according to polls, people aren’t blaming it all on President Obama. Sure, you will have a certain percentage of people who will instinctively blame the opposite party of the one they belong to, it’s a natural instinct. But I talk to a lot of people every day, granted they are mostly liberal….college kids and professors….but this is supposedly the group that is so angry at the President if you listen to the likes of Hamsher and Greenwald. I’m not hearing it. These people don’t even know who the fuck Jane Hamsher is. If they do, they usually say something like…”yea, what is her problem.”
This false narrative started almost immediately when the president was elected. Republicans were very blatant about their tactics to stop anything President Obama tried. The media bought and sold the Republican line like the corporate shills they are. The firebaggers jumped on board very soon too, fueled by their anger over the primaries and the belief that they alone will prove to those 53% who voted for President Obama that they were all wrong. But what keeps me going every day is the knowledge that each one of those media folks has only one vote. Conventional wisdom doesn’t vote. If I ever need to be reminded how the media plays the game, all I have to do is look back at the media’s anointing of President Hillary Clinton back in 2007 and the first part of 2008.
Booman, who ranks up there with Bob Cesca, has this post up about the “Whiny Left” or whatever you want to call them. Go read the whole thing, my favorite part is below…
Here’s what happened:
Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, [progressive activists] say, is the prime obstacle to the changes they thought Mr. Obama’s election would bring.The friction was laid bare in August when Mr. Emanuel showed up at a weekly strategy session featuring liberal groups and White House aides. Some attendees said they were planning to air ads attacking conservative Democrats who were balking at Mr. Obama’s health-care overhaul.
“F—ing retarded,” Mr. Emanuel scolded the group, according to several participants. He warned them not to alienate lawmakers whose votes would be needed on health care and other top legislative items.
Rahm Emanuel didn’t say that progressives were retarded. He said that the decision to target Blue Dog Democrats with campaign ads was retarded. And his reasoning was that it would not convince them to support stronger health care reform, but alienate them and make it harder to pass anything at all. You can disagree with Emanuel’s assessment without walking around with wounded feelings for the rest of your life.
Busy day, lite blogging……
The Obama Derangement Syndrome has reached Stage Four when Jane Hamsher blames the president for not supporting Blanche Lincoln sufficiently.
…Lincoln’s vote for his health care bill cost her dearly, and without Specter’s vote for the stimulus, it never would have happened.Now I don’t feel the least bit sorry for either of them, but it doesn’t say anything good about Obama that he would abandon them in the clinch like that either.
The story is supposed to be that the president hates liberals and loves conservadems like Blanche Lincoln and Arlen Specter. But, when that story doesn’t quite add up, the story shifts to ‘the president doesn’t stick up for his friends’. If you try hard enough, you can criticize the president for taking a crap. If you can read that piece and find a Democrat-supporting author, you have more familiarity than I do with the crack pipe.
You absolutely have to love Booman.
I’ve been in the base of the Democratic Party since I was 10 years old, handing out leaflets and putting stamps on envelopes for George McGovern’s campaign in 1972. I’ve donated many hundreds of dollars over the years and volunteered my time to elect Democratic candidates, I’ve only voted for one Republican in my life and that was because I knew him personally and he was a moderate, decent guy. In the 38 years of being in the base, I know what the base looks like. Hamsher, Greenwald and Uygur…I’ve served with the base, I know the base, the base are friends of mine, firebaggers, you are not the base.
The base of the Democratic party in all seriousness are unions, African Americans, Hispanics, women, younger voters and college educated folks. Here is a great breakdown of who voted in 2008. By definition, the base are your most loyal voters. The ones who always turn out for your party, the ones who work for you, support you and can be counted on. Does that describe the people who are claiming to be or represent the base? I don’t think so.
The definition of “The Base” of the party has been conveniently redefined by those in the blogosphere who are really out for a quick buck, and who are attempting to snatch and wield power by threatening candidates with challengers and by raising money for specific candidates who they feel they can control. I had to laugh when the “professional left” comment came from Robert Gibbs and many of these bloggers ran to jump in front of that bullet. They claimed that title so fast, my head spun. And what exactly did Robert Gibbs say that they were all so incensed about. “I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.” The way I interpreted there outrage over that comment was that they were admitting that they think Obama is like Bush, which is just plain fucking crazy and Robert Gibbs was dead on by saying they need to be drug tested. If you were offended by his comment, you deserved to be and let me tell you, YOU ARE NOT THE BASE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. If you were the base, you would not even entertain the notion that President Obama is like George Bush, it wouldn’t even cross your mind. Go look at this site and tell me this president is like George Bush.
I personally feel like the party I have been loyal to since the time I had an opinion about politics has been hijacked by opportunists. You might notice that they have to keep telling people, mostly the compliant media, that they are the base. They have taken the Republican tactic of repeat, repeat, repeat and used it for their own ends. And I’m pointing fingers squarely at the worst offenders, Jane Hamsher and Arianna Huffington. They both have built networks that raise money for “non-profits” and targeted PAC’s for the candidates of their choosing. They both prey on public outrage and anger, purposely misleading readers with headlines, purposely giving selective information to rile up their followers and often blatantly lying and mischaracterizing facts to bolster their twisted views. They have been playing people on the left for years and getting away with it.
I am here to tell you that “The Base” is alive and well and supporting this president. Even with the worst economy since the great depression, according to a recent Quinnipiac Poll, the President gets an 81 – 12 percent approval rating from Democrats. On the Afghanistan War, the issue the firebaggers love to throw at him and say is so unpopular…well, “Despite increased casualties, American voters say 58 – 33 percent that eliminating the threat of terrorists operating from Afghanistan is a goal for which American troops should fight and possibly die”. Sure, some numbers in the poll aren’t very good, and like I said above, considering the state of the economy, this president has some pretty strong support. What I might call, “The Base”.
I really try to avoid anything Jane Hamsher writes, says or does. She has become a sad person who has let her hatred overwhelm what common sense and intelligence she had, which upon looking back at her really wasn’t much to begin with. She is very much like Arianna Huffington in that they both have made careers out of playing on people’s populist outrage, whether it is at George W. Bush…they both launched careers out of attacking the guy with the biggest target on his back or now with the economy in the dumps, inherited by the Obama administration, they are both playing into that anger. It isn’t much different than how so many made money off the 9/11 tragedy. So I click on a link at Booman’s Tribune and end up at a Jane Hamsher post. I start reading her snarky post titled “Axelrod Stabs Rahm, Runs From Wreckage of Health Care Bill” and of course, didn’t get very far before coming across a blatant lie. Here is what I came on…
But it’s also clear that the race is on to unload responsibility for the extremely unpopular health care bill. And Axelrod wants to make sure he doesn’t get the blame:
“Extrememly unpopular” health care bill…..really, maybe in the circle of bloggers that you have surrounded yourself with, but in the general public, let’s look at some numbers. From The Hill, August 3rd…
a new survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows opposition dropping to 35 percent from 41 percent in the last month, and 50 percent of the public had a favorable view of the law, up from 48 percent. Support and opposition tend to be partisan, but the trendline is certainly heading in the Democrats’ direction.
Now wait a minute, I thought Janey said it is “extremely unpopular” and of course Axelrod is running from the wreckage of….a bill that has a 50 favorable and a 35 unfavorable. This is a perfect example of Ole’ Janey preaching to the choir that gather at her blog. She likes to continue feeding the hungry haters at her site with the raw meat they like, whether it is true or not. When I do lose my mind and click over to her blog, I usually get hit right up side the head with a blatant falsehood, outright lie and certainly a lot of negative spin on anything the Obama administration has on its plate. She has become a joke, resorting to the same tactics as the Tea Party folks who she has reached her hand out to on a few occasions. Remember how Ole’ Janey found time to go on Fox News, join hands with Grover Norquist and go skipping off into the horizon. She continues to marginalize herself and there is no coming back from it, she will fade away into the background, screaming out “it should have been Hillary, it should have been Hillary, it should have been Hilla…….”. [Fade to black]
Change has come to America. I want to personally say to Jane Hamsher and the rest of the “Firebaggers”……FUCK YOU!
I went back in the Google archives and found this story from the Guardian about the speech President Obama gave at Fort Lejeune in February of 2009, where he spelled out his plan in Iraq. Last night that promise was fulfilled on schedule and exactly as he laid out. Eat it, critics. Here is a reminder of what was said in that speech, from the Guardian piece…
Obama flew from Washington yesterday morning to Fort Lejeune, North Carolina, to deliver his speech in front of 8,000 marines. He told them it was going to be a speech with far-reaching consequences: “Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end.”
Of the 142,000 US troops in Iraq, between 92,000 and 107,000 are to leave by August next year. The mission at that point will change, from combat to one that deals primarily with training Iraqi forces, supporting the Iraqi government and engaging in counter-terrorism.
So of course I remember how much skepticism there was from people in the “professional left” or as I like to call them “the Obama-haters”, so I did a little googling to find out what these folks were saying back then. Think how they are talking about Afghanistan now….do you see any similarities and will these assholes admit that they were wrong, yea right…
According to Ricks, military brass and foreign policy officials express deep skepticism toward Obama’s withdrawal timeline and “[m]any of those closest to the situation in Iraq expect a full-blown civil war to break out there in the coming years.”
“The quiet consensus emerging… is that U.S. soldiers will probably be engaged in combat there until at least 2015 – which would put us at about the midpoint of the conflict now.” In a summary of his book, Ricks concludes: “[T]he events for which the Iraq war will be remembered probably haven’t even happened yet.” (Washington Post, 2/15/09)
Here is some more skepticism from back when the president announced his plan, I wonder how many people are listening to these people and their predictions about Afghanistan today?
Iraq’s Parliamentary elections have not yet been scheduled and don’t even have an electoral law, and according to a number of senior Iraqi politicians probably will not be held until March 2010 (not December 2009). That would then give the U.S. about five months to withdraw the bulk of the dozen combat brigades which would reportedly remain. And then, keep in mind that U.S. officials generally agree (correctly) that the most dangerous period of elections is actually in their aftermath, when disgruntled losers might turn to violence or other destabilizing measures. So the following month will likely not seem a good time either. So that would leave four months to move, what — 9 brigades? Did someone say precipitous? Good luck with that.
Some people are just in denial about it, which shouldn’t be a surprise considering there is a lot of that going around amongst the Obama-haters. Here is a piece from the one and only Obama-hater Glenn Greenwald from October of 2009…
Beyond Afghanistan, Obama continues to preside over another war — in Iraq: remember that? — where no meaningful withdrawal has occurred.
Oh, and another from Glenn Greenwald further down in that post, emphasis is mine…
It’s certainly true that Obama inherited, not started, these conflicts. And it’s possible that he could bring about their end, along with an overall change in how America interacts with the world in terms of actions, not just words. If he does that, he would deserve immense credit – perhaps even a Nobel Peace Prize. But he hasn’t done any of that. And it’s at least as possible that he’ll do the opposite: that he’ll continue to escalate the 8-year occupation of Afghanistan, preside over more conflict in Iraq, end up in a dangerous confrontation with Iran, and continue to preserve many of the core Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies that created such a stain on America’s image and character around the world.
Where is the credit for fulfilling his promise to get combat troops out of Iraq? Hmmmmm, nothing on Glenn’s blog about the Iraq withdrawal at all, nada, nothing. Surprised? Not me. While that small but very vocal minority of Obama-haters keep chattering on, our awesome President keeps doing what he said he would do and delivering on his promises. Washington pundits don’t know how to act when someone actually does what they say and doesn’t let the media push them around with poll results. Keep it up, “Prez”, you’re doing an excellent job.
Robert Gibbs made a clarification of his comments that were reported by The Hill where he, heaven forbid, criticized some people he referred to as the “professional left”. Sam Stein said The Fuckington Post received a statement from Robert Gibbs and prints it with all his snarkiness surrounding it. I won’t link to that piece of shit rag, but I will copy and paste from it…
In a statement to the Huffington Post, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged that his recent broadside against the “professional left” was inartful, and called for renewed unity among the Democratic community.
Referring to statements he made in an interview with The Hill published Tuesday, Gibbs reiterated his belief (which served as the basis of his initial remarks) that the president had achieved a host of legislative accomplishments for which he was not getting proper credit. But he said that Democrats, “me included,” need to “stop fighting each other and arguing about our differences on certain policies, and instead work together to make sure everyone knows what is at stake because we’ve come too far to turn back now.”
Robert, don’t take it back, those assholes like Jane Hamsher, Glenn Greenwald, Cenk Uygur and the rest of the “Firebagger Brigade” don’t ever want to work with President Obama. Just like the asshole Republicans, don’t reach your hand out to those PINO’s “progressive in name only”. They and their rabid followers have an irrational hatred for President Obama, I get their troll comments all the time. Their goal is to help bring down President Obama to “prove” that Hillary or Dennis Kucinich should have been president. I think it just pisses them off more when the president accomplishes something. Nicole473 commented at Bob Cesca’s place that brings this home to me…
These Firebaggers are nuts, IMO.
This fact was brought home to me recently when I posted about a new website. A Firebagger went berserk over it in the comments. A Firebagger whom I know from Twitter, and who seems to be a very reasonable human when not discussing Obama.
There is a hatred that I think started during the election when Hillary and Barack were at the peak of their battle. I had many friends who were very angry and bitter that Obama was beating her, they became irrational. Thankfully most of them came down after the heat of the battle, but some who have the power of the pen like Hamsher, never did. They have clung to this irrational hatred and are still fighting Hillary’s lost battle. Was that Jane Hamsher dodging sniper fire with Hillary on that runway in Bosnia? Back to the Fuckington Post piece…Sam Stein makes a bold statement “The vast majority of the reaction, however, was sharply negative.” He then quotes the one and only Janey Hamsher…
“Spiro Agnew — sorry, Robert Gibbs — says “the professional left is not representative of the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama” emailed Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.com. ” Well, the Obama in the White House is not the Obama who organized, campaigned, raised money and ran for office, so I guess its’ a wash.”
How clever, Jane. Is that like a twist on words that you thought up all by yourself. Wow, I wish I were that clever. Jane Hamsher does not represent very many people on the left…if you go to her site and read the comments, which can lower your IQ so be careful, but if you read her commenters, not very many are progressive. They use the exact same talking points as Fox News. Firebaglake does not represent the progressives. There may be a few sane people there who are progressive but most of them are with the hate Obama crowd and consumed with an irrational hatred for President Obama. I don’t want to call them racist, but man, that irrational hatred they have smells very much like the same stench that comes from racism.
Update Courtesy of Staci…
Via John Cole over at Ballon Juice:
Here’s a better question for you all. Name one time the “professional left” has had the administration’s back on… anything.
Since the inauguration, it has nothing but attacking from the left, calling them failures, adding to the cacophony of outrage to the right, all while pretending they were moving the overton window. We’ve heard calls for every administration member’s head, from the left, since day one. All the while, the same folks pretend to be the base (they weren’t- the ones I have in mind were in large part Hillary supporters) and babble about the Overton Window.
Christ- Ed Schultz and the usual poutrage crew spent the last five months of HCR trying to kill it dead, with Ed switching at the last moment when it was clear it would pass. If you were Robert Gibbs, you’d tell these people to shut the fuck up, too.
Dead on, thanks Staci……
The Aweseome Bob Cesca found this comment on Balloon Juice that I have to share with you. It sums up a lot of my feelings towards those on the left who seem to want to cut off their noses to spite their face. I have to wonder if they really long for the days of Bush when they could make a cottage industry out of bitching and whining. Bush certainly gave them a lot to bitch about and folks like Jane Hamsher an Cenk Uygur have made a career out of bitching. Without a big target like Bush, they are turning their guns on the current administration and undermining the principles they claim to be fighting for. From Bob’s post from a commenter on Balloon Juice…
I think the frustration that supporters of the president have (at least it is for me) is that his critics give him credit for nothing. NOTHING.He gets a health care reform bill passed that is sweeping in scope and more than anyone has done in decades. And the left-wing critics say “Not enough.”
He gets a stimulus bill passed that pretty much kept a massive recession from getting worse and all the left-wing critics said was “Not enough.”
He’s on the verge of getting DADT repealed through law as opposed to using a reversible executive order and all the left-wing critics say is “Not enough.”
He gives a speech that talks about peak oil, points out how government corruption played a role and begins to lay out the way forward towards an alternative energy future and all the left-wing critics say is “Not enough” while having orgasms to Rachael Maddow’s satisfying-but-completely unrealistic “Fake President” speech.
Never mind Lily Leadbetter, killing the F-22 (something BUSH couldn’t do), expanding SCHIP, credit card reform, tobacco regulation…but no, it’s not enough. It’s NEVER enough with some people.
There is legit criticism to be made when it comes to President Obama, especially in the civil rights arena. But to hear the WATBs on the left tell it, he hasn’t done a damn thing. And that is simply not true.
Bob sums up the craziness with this…
And this kind of thing achieves… what? Hipster cred? Probably. But I assure you, taking down this president and his supporters with exclusively critical screeds every day will not elect more liberals. Certainly not more liberal presidents. If a Republican is elected next time around, even the most centrist policies of this administration will be rolled back and destroyed within the first 100 days. Guaranteed.
But at least some of these firebaggers and PUMAs have vented their self-defeating rage.
Lite blogging this weekend, traveling to Chicago for a premiere of my latest documentary. We’re going in style, so it should be fun. I’ll be checking in via iPhone, so don’t make me type my thumb off you trolls out there. :)
I have to confess that even though I’m not a fan of Blanche Lincoln and wish she were more liberal, I was happy to see her beat Jane Hamsher and her gang of thugs. And even though Jane is progressive on many of the same issues I am, her tactics and attitude completely turn me off and I won’t personally give her any clicks, unless I’m writing about her and doing research. Here is a blast from the past where Jane started her attack against another democrat and says “I dare Blanche Lincoln to join a filibuster….”
She’s so tough, loves to threaten people who don’t believe the way she does and has no qualms about attacking democrats. Watch the clip and notice the look in her eyes, the revenge, the hatred and the sense that she has soooo much power that you better not cross her. Turns out that even with unions helping her, she couldn’t help pull it out in Arkansas, and I’m sorry, but Jane owns this loss after the above statement on Rachel’s show. Now I said above that I wish Blanche Lincoln were more liberal but over the years I’ve come to the realization that the Democratic Party is a big tent and the reason we are the best political party is because we welcome people of all races, beliefs, sexual orientation and people with diverse views. Now Jane seems to want to exclude people, push away people that don’t pass her purity test, run liberals in areas where a liberal can’t possibly win and weaken the president that has the best chance of passing a progressive agenda since…..well, the Johnson administration. She is a disease within the on the “progressive” movement and needs to be shunned.
I went over to her website, which I won’t link to, and read her excuse/positive spin – lame ass attempt to justify taking all that money from her mindless followers. It was pretty pathetic, which she kind of admits with her update linking to Greg Sargent, who spins the same thing.
The polls were wrong, they all showed Blanche Lincoln losing. Whaaaaaa, I thought polls were always right, that they should dictate public policy because they are always so accurate. Spit!
Al Giordano over at The Field has an excellent piece that I HAVE to share with you even if you are growing tired of me bitching about Glenn Greenwald and Janey Hamsher, two opportunistic “self-labeled” progressives who really just have a joint hatred for Barack Obama that binds them together. The topic, of course, is the appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Al gives us this excellent paragraph to chew on….
Now, it has been entirely predictable that the board members of Poutrage, Inc. – those self-proclaimed “progressive” pundits who have never been community organizers and resent Obama and all the rest of us that have actually done that work and won political battles because they keep failing at it – are caught up in their cyclical careerist protagonism over the Kagan nomination. I won’t mention any names, but of course Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher are up to their Johnny-one-note tricks of getting their faces on the cable talk shows and in the media by proclaiming themselves “progressives against an Obama proposal” on any particular policy. They are as predictable as they are unconvincing, and although they always lose, they never change their bumbling tactics, I conclude that they are not interested in winning the issues they claim to care about. They are only interested in their own careers and egos and in fooling the gullible to send donations to their projects of self-enrichment. The issues are merely the means to try to make themselves relevant to the national discourse.
Did you see Glenn Greenwald on “Press the Meat” Sunday? You could see the foam coming out of his rabid mouth, I swear. His kind, and I include Hamsher and Uygur in that grouping, are using the same tactics as the Republicans and Tea Partiers, taking a sliver of truth and misrepresenting, exaggerating and twisting it to fit their own narrow interpretation. The most glaring example of his exaggerations came when he made the comment something to the effect…”The Obama Administration wants to take away Miranda rights” “wanting to rewrite our core protections of Miranda and being brought before a judge” or some sort of horseshit like that. They have taken what Attorney General Eric Holder alluded to in an interview and twisted it to fit with their warped world view. They seem to enjoy attacking people based on what they think might happen and of course when it doesn’t happen as they set it up, they move on to the next “poutrage”. How many true progressives are still falling for their crap? It’s no wonder they made a blatant appeal to the Tea Partiers, they are simply in it for their own egos and self-interest. As the awesome Kay in Maine pointed to in a comment on her blog, White Noise Insanity, Jane Hamsher is trying to use the Senate’s vote to audit the Fed – to raise money. No shit, she’s claiming credit for it and trying to raise money from her knuckle-dragging followers. Check out this link, but please don’t give to that opportunistic (insert your choice word here).
Al Giorgano goes on to take on Cenk Uygur, one of the Hamsher gang and VP of Poutrage Inc.
The other “Progressives Against Obama” member I’ll take to the woodshed today is radio and TV host Cenk Uygur, for whom the Kagan nomination likewise is not really about Kagan but about Obama himself. He writes:
“My problem with her is my problem with Obama. Cheney and Bush moved the ball 80 yards down-field (sic, as anyone who knows the NFL spells it downfield, without hyphen), whether that was on executive power, warrantless wiretapping, pre-emptive wars or just about any other issue you can think of. And Obama’s bold and brilliant response is to move the ball 10 yards in the opposite direction. Not good enough. Not remotely good enough…
“He is never going to throw the ball down the field. If you like two yard pick-ups by a running-back going straight up the middle, you’ll love Obama. It’s the Eddie George presidency. What he doesn’t seem to get is that the other side is eventually going to get the ball back and then it won’t seem like a major accomplishment that we went from our own two-yard line to our own twelve-yard line. It’ll be viewed as a tremendous disappointment.”
Actually, Mr. Uygur, you ought to get to know the games of football and of politics before nominating yourself as head coach or quarterback. You should at least know the rules of the game. In football, moving the ball ten yards downfield is precisely good enough. It is called gaining a first down, that which allows your team to remain in possession of the ball and keep battling downfield toward touchdowns and field goals, while denying the opposing team time on the clock to do so.
The name-dropping of running back Eddie George is also revealing as to just how greatly Uygur’s comparison fails epicly: Eddie George, at Ohio State University, won the Heisman Trophy in 1995, and he rushed for more than 10,000 yards in only eight years in the NFL (presidents, by law, can’t last more than eight) and George helped bring his middling team to the Super Bowl in just four years, one first down at a time. In his first season with the Houston Oilers-cum-Tennessee Titans franchise (when George earned the NFL’s Rookie of the Year title), the team won just eight games to eight losses. By 1999, the Titans had 13 wins to three losses and went to the Super Bowl.
What got them there? First downs and ball possession, largely thanks to Eddie George: That team won by running the ball up the field three or four yards per play.
Guys like Solomon and probably Uygur (the jury is still out on the latter) are a bit distinct from pond scum like Greenwald and Hamsher, who are only in it for their own protagonist careers. The former are more akin to those fans in the bleachers always screaming at the quarterback to throw the long ball even against teams skilled at interceptions.
The football metaphor gets a little tiring, but the idea that President Obama needs to go for the long ball instead of chipping away at the opposition to me is short-sighted. The health care reform package is a great analogy for this. Had Obama gone for the public option or single payer, we would have gotten “jack shit” out of the whole process. I’m glad he took the tactful route and made some incremental change which can be built upon in the future. Kind of like getting a first down or running a screen pass that gets you 40 yards. We still have the ball and we’re heading down field. Ugh, enough of the football metaphor.
I think it is incumbent upon us true progressives (I’m a liberal, damn it) to drive these posers from our party. There is nothing worse than someone who claims to be on your team but wants everything done the way they want it done – or else. These assholes are doing nothing but helping Republicans take control of our government again, I guess so they have something to raise money off. If we go back and see how they used Bush/Cheney to further their own self interests, it looks like they’ve just changed their target and are now shooting at their own, kind of a “friendly fire” incident. It’s at this point that I would love to launch into a tirade of expletives, but I’ll keep it family friendly.
From CNN and NBC, we now have the votes to pass the bill, wooooooo hoooooooo. What a proud day for America and I hope a lot of Republican heads explode because of it. Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake and all the other haters……..BITE ME!
I saw this live the other morning and my love for Anthony Weiner grew even more, he is so good at ripping Republican talking points and batting down the bullshit. I’ve watched it several times, I love it so much. And I’m glad Howard Dean came to his senses and is now helping to promote the bill, even though it isn’t perfect, he understands the politics of it…..if if fails, the democrats lose any mandate that might be left and more than likely lose control of one or both of the houses of congress in November. ANY TRUE LIBERAL OR PROGRESSIVE MUST SUPPORT THIS BILL IF THEY CARE AT ALL ABOUT THE PROGRESSIVE AGENDA! Roll tape……(there is some commentary from whoever posted this, it’s good though).
In the longer version, it’s pretty funny that Peggy Noonan and Scarborough whine about Anthony yelling or raising his voice. Joe S. never does that, no, he never talks over people in a loud voice, he never cuts anyone off or changes topic when he’s losing…….
Bob Cesca posts about this exchange too, go see it here. Joe Scarborough is the most hypocritical person on television, he’s also very slippery in how he pretends to be moderate, concedes a few points to make himself look reasonable and then spews his propoganda. I can’t remember who it was the other morning, it might have been Anthony Weiner, but he brought him on and introduced him and then turned to his right (both literally and figuratively) and asked someone else a question about Obama’s ratings in the polls, the old change the subject routine.
Morning Joe is the worst kind of propoganda on television, it’s a platform for Joe and his Republican buddies and so called moderate buddies like Harold Ford Jr., Mort Zuckerman, Mike Barnicle, and those Politico guys who seem to show up every morning with the Obama smear of the day….the list can go on. But what is so bad about it is the amount of time that is given to just repeating the same meme over and over and over again and that type of technique basically brainwashes any viewers who aren’t tuned into the reality of the topic or just kind of listening with it in the background. Dangerous stuff in a democracy.