Photo of the Day – President Obama In Joplin!

Advertisements

Michael Moore Does The Left No Favors

I’ve long thought that Michael Moore harms liberal causes more than he helps them, even though he sometimes says things that are very true and need to be said. This post will attempt to shine some light on his sometimes warped perspectives and fantastical ideas that make liberals look bad and mislead many people who aren’t able to or don’t take the time to investigate the voracity of his statements

Here is just one example of Mr. Moore’s apparent ignorance or willful spreading of bogus information from a year and a half ago. I chose it because it highlights a lot of what is wrong with his thinking. It’s falls into the “betrayal” category with that small group of bloggers and pundits who are best described as the Professional Left. From “An Open Letter To President Obama from Michael Moore” (emphasis mine)…

Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike. I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn’t so.

IT ISN’T SO! What alternate reality are you operating from, Michael? That highlighted portion above is fantasy, based on either ignorance or he is willfully misleading his readers for exactly what reason, I don’t know. The problem with Michael Moore’s hyperbole is that those “multitude of young people who are the backbone of your campaign” actually heard President Obama say the words below many times, unlike Mr. Moore apparently.

Why on earth would Moore imply that President Obama was going against his word and would “destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you.” It just isn’t true, Michael. As a supporter of candidate Obama since the keynote address at the 2004 convention, I’ve listened very carefully to what he said. I listened to his arguments on the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, I studied his responses and knew exactly how he felt about both war fronts. He is doing exactly what he said he would do. I may not have completely agreed with him on all of it, but he did make it quite clear. How can that be said to “destroy” hopes and dreams if those never were their hopes and dreams. There are no real supporters of candidate Obama who thought for a minute that he was going to pull us out of Afghanistan immediately. NONE! Because he repeatedly and consistently told us that he thought the focus needed to shift back to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 were at.

In light of the killing of OBL, I think the American people, including those “millions” who placed their hopes and dreams in the president, know that he fulfilled his campaign promise. They have been reminded of it recently by the media and no amount of Michael Moore’s rewriting of history can change that. It only serves to shine a light on Michael Moore’s shifting outrage and opportunism. He loves being a thorn in the side of power, even when that power is on the same side of the ideological spectrum.

I also challenge his idea that all young people are complete pacifists. I’ve been at the university I currently work at for over 20 years, as an undergrad and grad student and for 15 years as a technician and adjunct professor. I talk to a lot of young people, conservative, liberal and everywhere in between. There are some who are pacifists for sure, but they are a very slim minority. This isn’t the 60’s or 70’s anymore on college campuses. These people didn’t live through the Vietnam War like many of us and they didn’t experience the anti-war protests in the late 60’s and early 70’s.. They’ve barely been taught about the Vietnam War and what followed it. It’s not right, but it is the truth. So, to imply that current young people are all pacifists and there “hopes and dreams would be destroyed” is just stupid and naive. Even if it were true that the president went back on his word, which it is not (see above clip if you are still stuck on that point), but even if he did, would it really destroy their hopes and dreams, Michael? Really? Remember, this group has grown up in a much different world than us older folks. They grew up in the era of the television wars, Iraq twice, Afghanistan and all the other interventions.

And don’t forget, many of them grew up with President Bush and his goons telling them all sorts of wrong information and repeating it ad nauseam on the highest rated cable network, Fox News. I’m sure Micheal will claim to know them because he gives speeches for over $20,000 a pop to them, arriving in his limo, I assume, and flying back to either his multi-million dollar apartment in New York City or his multi-million dollar Lake Michigan beachfront property near Traverse City. But the reality is that college campuses have a wide range of opinions on them and his use of a warped stereotype of young people and a bogus proposition, that the President went back on his word, is just misleading and wrong. What would be his real motivation for this hyperbole? Tien at The People’s View poses a great theory about many of the “critics” on the left, narcissism, but I’ve been told that narcissists are also concerned about their appearance and Michael doesn’t seem to have that problem.

For a recent example of Michael Moore’s fantastical rantings, check out this story about his recent bout with “Twittarrhea” that left a huge mess all over the Twitterverse. It’s another window into the mind of Michael Moore and why he does us liberals no favors.

The Root Of The Problem With The Professional Left – Narcissism

The People’s View, one of my new favorite blogs, introduced a new blogger this weekend with a phenomenal post that explains the motivations behind many of the Obama-haters on the left who seem intent on undermining our democratic president and party. I highly recommend you go read the entire post. I’m pasting a couple of paragraphs I really liked, but go read the whole thing. It sheds a lot of light on this problem and gives great advice on how we as a party and individuals should deal with it. I learned a few things that I will attempt to apply on this blog. From Tien at The People’s View…

To satisfy a need on my part to understand the underlying psychology of people who claim they represent the Progressive Left but who have a singular focus of berating our Democratic President, I embarked on a small research project to learn why this happens.

It turns out the answer is fairly simple. The cause of this phenomenon is narcissism. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) has quite an array of symptoms and behaviors that easily match those demonstrated by a host of pundits, professional demonstrators and keyboard warriors all claiming to represent the ‘base’ of the liberal population in this country.

Given a list of symptoms from any one source, the dominant symptom is a pathological need for attention that far surpasses that of ordinary people. Secondary symptoms include extreme envy of others or belief that others envy them; inability to recognize boundaries or experience empathy; hypersensitivity to insults and criticism; an over-inflated sense of self-importance; unrealistic expectations and a preoccupation with success and power.

Jane Hamsher Is A Petty Person Who Should Not Be Representing Liberals!

The incredible Shoq at Shoq Value has written extensively about Jane Hamsher, the woman who seems to be the leader of the hateful left these days. Her vitriol and irrational hatred for President Obama oozes from every pore of her body. When she appears on MSNBC, she can’t even look like a nice person anymore, the sneer on her face overwhelms any fake smile she tries to flash. In catching up on my Shoq reading, I came across this piece of “niceness” from ole Jane that in my opinion, shows precisely why she should be ignored, shunned and never put on television to represent anything but her petty self.  From Shoq Value

Her lowest moment, after the “GOP operative” ploy flopped, was her confusing a true story of me moving 1000 miles from Washington, to live nearer to my mother, who, approaching 84, lived alone in Florida. She characterized this as “living with your mother.”  Even if that were true, which it isn’t, or I’d be eating a lot better, no one was grasping why this 51 year old woman was casting aspersion on a desire to care for one’s aging parent. Had she no sense of proportion, if not decency? Was any criticism of her work so unbearable that it was worth unleashing such a comment, likely to achieve little beyond making her about 3 feet tall, even in the eyes of her most loyal supporters?  Was this the formidable “pro-left” leader,” as the media, and even the White House has called her? If so, the professional part was not in evidence this day.

Apparently, it was worth it to her, as she made no attempt to apologize or soften it before thousands of people. Her failure to do that was another sign that her judgment has been grossly overrated by a lot of people over the years. But then, it is that very same judgment that led me to post my criticism in the first place.  If she wasn’t considered an important voice on the left, I’d be giddy over someone making such an atomic asshat of themselves in public. But since she still does have that reputation in many quarters, I don’t think it helpful to progressivism that any leading liberal’s reputation be dashed to pieces in front of thousands—and potentially—even millions of people.

Republicans Playing With America’s Future Like They’re Children (Updated)

The current Republican Party has proven in many ways that they don’t have the maturity to lead this country. They cavalierly play around with important issues to many people as if they are children on a playground. Just this week, they have proven there adolescence in many ways.

The Republican’s defense authorization bill, Deaniac83 from The People’s View breaks down this little game of the GOP…

The White House is threatening a veto of the House committee version of the defense authorization bill over Republican attempts to launch a worldwide war without specific targets or reasons, block detainee transfer from Guantanamo, and mess with the president’s efforts to reduce active nuclear warheads under the new START treaty. It is also warning Congress against complicating the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Not that you would have heard about this if you read Glenn Greenwald, self-proclaimed Constitutional hero of the anti-war movement.

So once again, Republicans are playing games and purposely adding provisions to bills that they know the President will not support. It’s all one big fucking game to these people. For the last two and a half years, they (mostly white men) have been playing all sorts of games with women’s reproductive rights, even though Roe vs. Wade is “established law” and the federal government already doesn’t allow federal funding for abortions. But that hasn’t stopped them from introducing countless bills almost daily since the children were handed the keys to the car. Rachel Maddow has a great clip that spells out the priorities of these children…

Vodpod videos no longer available.

And for all those victims and families in Joplin Missouri, well they have a game for them too, it’s called “Screw You, Unless We Can Screw Someone Else Too”. Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) showed just how caring he is towards the people who just had nearly their entire town blown away by a tornado. Here’s a little bit from ThinkProgress…

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), however, said that before Congress approved federal funds for disaster relief, it had to offset the spending with cuts to other programs. The Washington Times reports:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Monday that if Congress passes an emergency spending bill to help Missouri’s tornado victims, the extra money will have to be cut from somewhere else.

If there is support for a supplemental, it would be accompanied by support for having pay-fors to that supplemental,” Mr. Cantor, Virginia Republican, told reporters at the Capitol. The term “pay-fors” is used by lawmakers to signal cuts or tax increases used to pay for new spending.

Continue reading