Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bill Moyers says Obama Must Fight, Not Finesse
Award-Winning Journalist Disses Dems as 'Spineless'
PBS's Bill Moyers issued a tough critique of the Democratic Party on Friday night on HBO's "Real Time With Bill Maher."
Bill Moyers has been a frequent critic of the Republican Party over the years, making his critique of the Democratic Party on 'Real Time' more exceptional. (Photo: AP)
Moyers, whose comments focused on the recent health care debate, said that "too many Democrats have had their spines surgically removed."
Moyers, a White House press secretary during the Johnson administration who went on to win over 30 Emmys and countless other awards during his subsequent journalism career, has been a frequent critic of the Republican Party over the years, making his critique of the Democratic Party on "Real Time" more exceptional.
"The problem is the Democratic Party," said Moyers. "This is a party that has told its progressives — who are the most outspoken champions of health care reform — to sit down and shut up. That's what Rahm Emanuel, in effect, the chief of staff of the White House, told progressives when they stood up as a unit in Congress and said, no public insurance option, no health care reforms."
Moyers said that, over the years, the Democratic Party "has become like the Republican party — deeply influenced by corporate money."
"I think Rahm Emanuel, who is a clever politician, understands that the money for Obama's reelection would come primarily from the health industry, the drug industry and Wall Street, and so he is a corporate Democrat who is destined, determined that there would be something in this legislation — if we get it — that will turn off those powerful interests."
Moyers had some advice for President Barack Obama, as well.
"There's a fear that Barack Obama will become the Grover Cleveland of this era," said Moyers. Grover Cleveland was a good man, but he became a conservative Democratic president because he didn't fight the interests. ... I would much rather see Barack Obama be Theodore Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt loved to fight. He came into office and railed against the malefactors of great wealth, and he was glad to take them on. ...
"I think if Obama fought, instead of finessed so much, he stood up and declared for what is really the right thing to do and what is really needed instead of negotiating the corners away, instead of talking about bending the curve, and talking about actuarial rates, if he were to stand up and say, 'We need this because we're a decent country', I think it would change the atmosphere."
Moyers said that conservatives have dominated the debate over health care lately. "In the last few weeks, the right wing has been winning the debate. How [Obama] lost control of the narrative, I don't understand. Well, yes, I do. He didn't find the right metaphors, as you were just saying, and he didn't speak in simple powerful moral language. He was speaking like a policy wonk to the world of Washington, not a country of people who are hurting. ...
"Here's the party that lost and the conservative movement that was discredited over the last eight years .... They're setting the agenda for a Democratic Party that controls the White House, the Senate and the House. Something's wrong in that."
120 Comments so far
Show All"Fight, not finesse."
"Here's the party that lost and the conservative movement that was discredited over the last eight years .... They're setting the agenda for a Democratic Party that controls the White House, the Senate and the House. Something's wrong in that."
Simply and honestly stated.
Moyers' approach could be a model for progressive alternatives in electoral politics. He should run for something.
Joe
"Moyers' approach could be a model for progressive alternatives in electoral politics. He should run for something."
What, and leave the media to the pack of wolves that currently occupy it? No, Moyers is needed exactly where he is, doing exactly what he does.
It will be up to us to run for something...and do what we can, where we are.
From Moyers mouth to Obamas ears. I'd only add that Obama has to surround himself with fighters too. Harry Reid has got to go.
Obama has surrounded himself with fighters who fight hard every day to promote the interests of the military industrial media complex and the medical cartel.
Sioux Rose
RAY: So true! Your words should be the mantra that breaks the spell of those who say, "Jeez... the guy's only had 7 months to promote change we can believe in."
Sioux,
What's your point? If you are only trying to rub people's noses in whatever pile you think is there, I guess you've done good. Congratulations!
Please, let's stop with this moral superiority crap. Please. It really serves no other purpose than to further separate mere mortals from those who think they aren't.
I voted for Obama but now see what a disappointment he is. Not that I thought he'd be our savior (let's also give up on that notion), I just hoped (yes, hoped) he would have more moral fiber and strength than he does. My hope has not been repaid. Now I am struggling with my own disappointment and trying to get a clearer view of how I need to adjust going forward. What is not helpful is the incessant yammer from the peanut gallery on how wrong and myopic I was. In some ways I was, in others, I wasn't (we could have done much worse than Sonya Sotomayor). Either way, I don't need you to tell me.
Now, what are your suggestions going forward?
What's your problem, Ted? Sioux Rose wasn't talking about anyone who realizes they made a mistake, but about people who still think Obama somehow will change and do the right thing. He won't. He's too attached to corporate money. He's stuck between a rock and a hard place, trying to convince the public he's on their side while keeping his corporate masters happy and rich, "standing between them and the pitchforks". That won't be a comfortable place to be when the pitchforks come out.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
My problem is the divisiveness that is tying the progressive movement up and making it impotent - as if we need any help.
"He's stuck between a rock and a hard place..."
In more ways than one. I wish to gawd he would "grow a pair," but that doesn't seem to be in the offing. The harsh reality is that we no longer have a representative republic nor anything approaching the ideals of a democracy, and Christ on a pony hisself couldn't do much were he president.
I was harsh with Sioux - Sioux Rose, I apologize. I am just fed up with the left continuously and ruthlessly shooting each other. We may be looking to our "leaders", but our children are looking to us. We are the leaders, so let's start helping each other out of this mess.
I don't think Obama cares about reelection. He got what he wanted - the legacy of being the first AA pretzeldent. That's all he wants. Now he can sit back and just coast.
He seems to not give a rat's ass about any issue confronting this nation. His speeches these days are lackluster, phony, and often contradictory. It's like he realizes nobody is listening to him except the willfully ignorant and the stupid. The intelligent voters are onto his game and have tuned him out.
He just doesn't care one way or the other about any of it. This is just one cynical bastard we are talking about. I'd go so far as to say Ob has sociopathic tendencies; he's really that bad.
"I am just fed up with the left continuously and ruthlessly shooting each other."
I don't think it's completely that alone. We need to find our progressive identity and sometime tough purging is needed. The moderates, independents, and even former conservative minded folks getting ready to look towards liberalism are already not only disappointed with Obama but are also outraged and the current trends in both gubernatorial races in NJ and VA are showing the reds in those two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_gubernatorial_election,_2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_gubernatorial_election,_2009
This could be a very very bad omen for the Democrats for 2010 and 2012.
"We may be looking to our "leaders", but our children are looking to us. We are the leaders, so let's start helping each other out of this mess."
That may be true but we cannot afford to ignore all levels.
"We need to find our progressive identity and sometime tough purging is needed."
LOL! Brother, you haven't been a progressive very long, have you?
Purging is what we do best. Purging R Us! We purge the bad and the good and the imperfect and the notgoodenough. We purge more than Romans in vomitoriums. Nothing is pure enough, virtuous enough, or "left" enough for us.
You are right, we need to find a progressive identity. We can start by not being so goddamned judgmental and weeding out those who don't fit our illusory visions of what "progressive" is. It would also help if we didn't purge all those with "imperfect" histories. If you don't have some shit in your past, you ain't lived! And, we've all come here from different roads.
As they say, "All roads lead to Rome." In progressives' case, right to the vomitorium.
Purge away, my fellow Romans.
I've been more of a liberal than a progressive but through the years, I'm slowly getting it. I realize that simply being a bleeding heart liberal will only make me a rabid conservative sooner or later as I would lose focus. I'm still falling into the vengeance trap in politics such as on the gubernatorial race. I don't mind moderates but those current "moderates" are not real moderates in the Democratic Party. They're backdoor trojan horses for the Republicans and must be held accountable by getting the purging.
Ted,
I support, and am proud of, your brave response and apology to Sioux Rose. I think we can all feel your pain. The problem is that we've been forced to wholly reconsider how we are actually going to get this change we so desperately need. As the options seem to become fewer, we become more frustrated. But yes, we do need to stick together.
Sioux Rose
TED: NO offense taken. And I SURELY DO understand the frustration. Compared to Ted's words, other contenders hae hit balls right out of the park! This forum should be therapeutic. Any sentient soul who gives a damn has ample reason to be mad as hell. Naturally we vent occasionally at one another, like members of any extended family.
And being in the field I am in, I'm accustomed to the rants, raves, and rabid attacks of those who understand little. I must admit that I generally expect these events to come from the right side of the spectrum; however when they emerge from the left, they force me to hone my arguments and tighten my serve. It all serves the greater good. Love, anyone?
I'm glad you accepted my apology, SIOUX...even though there was plenty of backhand spin to it.
Deuce!
I voted for Obama too; I even sent him some of what little money I have, and I would do it again in the same situation.
Suggestions for the future? Obama should grow a pair, that is if he hasn't already sold his soul to the devil. He could be the hero of this century if he pushed hard for single payer health care, even if he lost. He has given up before the fight even started. This makes no sense unless Obama of the people has become Obama of the big boy's club. Did it really feel that good to have rich white boys kiss your ass?
Never have so few given up so much on behalf of so many in the face of so little resistance.
p.s. don't pick on my girl friend.
p.p.s I'd rather die than believe I was not morally superior to dick cheney.
Obama may or may not grow a pair. I always knew he would disappoint, but I also knew anyone one else would as well. The system is rigged to disappoint, so I believed Obama would be the better of the disappointments. I still see it that way.
I agree that he would serve us much better to lose on health care while trying to do good. He has sold his soul, but that is a requirement in politics. The question in my mind isn't what he is going to do, but what I and the rest of the progressive movement is going to do. I strongly believe that much/all of our sniping at each other is our collective feeling of impotence and disempowerment. We have good reason to feel this way, but we shouldn't drag each other down while we wallow in it.
p.s. Sorry 'bout your GF. I apologized and hope we can kiss and make up. Well, make up - I'll leave the kissing to the two of you.
p.p.s. I wonder if he feels that way about us...
Sioux Rose
NIETZSCHE: You're so subtle your name should be "Moon behind Clouds." Thank you for another covert rose. As per "the other," I can't DO pragmatics... or the programs they require.
I voted for Obama too; I even sent him some of what little money I have, and I would do it again in the same situation.
You're joking, right?
Why would you give money to a corporate backed candidate? That makes absolutely NO sense.
I have to ask you, though. Did it not bother you that Obama planned to escalate in the Middle East? Did those people's lives who would be at the receiving end of our weaponry simply not mean anything to you? Why would you vote for such a hawk?
I get that a lot of liberals are imperialists. I'm just trying to understand the mindset.
I voted for Obama because he seemed the lesser of two evils. However, my vote didn't put him in. He was the media favorite and that carries quite a bit more weight. The candidate I preferred didn't have a snowball's chance in hell. If you ask me, voting is an exercise in futility. The odds are stacked against the more ethically-minded candidates as the media either ridicules or totally ignores them.
"If you ask me, voting is an exercise in futility. The odds are stacked against the more ethically-minded candidates as the media either ridicules or totally ignores them."
Self defeatist thinking. When you vote, your goal is to pick someone who identifies more with the type of leadership you are looking for. Yes, the system is stacked against ethically-minded candidates but giving up is not the answer. Open your heart and mind to the issues and see the beauty of picking that candidate who best identifies. Yes, it's most likely bound to be an Independent one and it can feel lonely at first but at least you can be proud that you did what's right, win or lose, and build the courage and confidence to convince more to do likewise and help them spread the word. Wouldn't you agree that it sure beats letting the corporate media bait and switch you?
I voted for Obama for two reasons: One - many young people were getting energized by him and I saw it as an opportunity to get badly needed new blood involved. Two - Obama was the lesser of two evils, just as you said. He has already made one choice who will at least not make things worse for women, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for what the greater of the two evils would have done.
Which choice won't make things worse for women?
Are you talking about Sotomayor? She's a corporate Catholic. I'm not sure she'd be a great ally for women, the working class, or the poor. She will certainly be pro-business, and the majority of cases heard by the S.Ct. are business-related.
Oh my God, not a...Catholic...
Obama was the media favorite. Nightly, Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman of MSNBC would pound Hillary Clinton. Even Rachel Maddow didn't speak up for her. Couldn't expect help from the other networks, but I am still disappointed with media's attacks against Hillary. Why do you think everyone's afraid of her?
"Now, what are your suggestions going forward?"
Here's one. Take revenge politically. I got a "beautifully written letter" from Democrat Creigh Deeds running for governor of Virginia explaining why he thinks it's a childish idea. He says there "too much governmental control" involved. I'm gonna pay him back by voting for his opponent and since there's no Independent running, I'm taking revenge by voting Republican just to punish Deeds, not because I support Republicans and I don't.
"Harry Reid has got to go."
Can you convince him tyo take Nancy with him....Please!
Perhaps Moyers could replace Emmanuel as Chief advisor.
"Republican" and "Democrat" have devolved into little more than slang expressions for corporate whores. The distinction is functionally meaningless.
Sioux Rose
Many in the forum note parallels between Obama and Clinton. Both were effective orators who evidenced natural charisma; and both have acted as centrists. The rationale for their political strategy was supposedly to build consensus between both parties, when in actuality, they both sell out to the same influences "that brung them." As Nader related more than a decade ago, due to the corporate influence ($) over DC (lobbies), differences between the parties no longer exist as both must bow to the interests of big business for the obscene sums necessary to run for--and win a major office.
On another note, astrology consigns to Leo the realm of show business. As Hollywood notables have related, "there's no business like show business," and Leo makes for a natural actor. Obama and Bill Clinton are both Leos, while Ronald Reagan, also a show-man came from the polar sign, the one that is celestially fated to dance with Leo. Is it surprising that a nation where most persons spend at least 20% of their lives (time) in front of a television (or movie screen), that "an actor's life" would be exalted to that of the central office? Arnold is probably drooling for his chance these days. And incidentally, mr. muscles is another Leo.
There ARE higher Leos around: Hugo Chavez, for one.
Although, for complete disclosure, he DOES have a stellium of Moon conjunct Uranus and Mercury conjunct Jupiter in Cancer.
I think the tooth fairy has a second house under the third moon of the eighth solar system.
Sioux Rose
BLAIR: You may not realize it, but you just played Chopsticks on a Maestro's piano.
Sioux Rose
NATIVE: I have not seen his chart. The Cancer planets would make him a parent-like figure to his people, much like Fidel Castro, who was also a Leo. He definitely seems to radiate the sense that his nation is HOME to all its citizens, very much in keeping with the mandate of Cancer. I like the guy, admire much about him.
It's interesting to me that Mary Madalin, a Scorpio, is married to James Carvelle, a Leo. Hillary Clinton is also a Scorpio married to Leo Bill; and Maria Shriver is also a Scorpio married to Leo Arnold. My college roommate was a Scorpio who generally dated Leo men. As a Leo woman, Scorpio is not my "pick of the litter," however; and I notice the combination works much better when the male party is the Leo. I recall you stating you were a Sag with several planets (like Uranus?) opposing from Gemini. I dated a lawyer with that combination. In my view those who incarnate under dualistic signs had to hide a portion of their identity for fear of earlier church/state purges in former lifetimes. As a result, they are still seeking to reconcile their outer personality with their inner beliefs in this lifetime. Natural chameleons, they can adapt to a variety of circumstances; however, personal truth can get misplaced amid such dazzling dances.
I put up Chavez' chart myself in 2000.
Your memory of my chart is not quite right, but that's fine: I have one planet, Uranus, in Gemini.
It is opposite Sun/Mars (which is trine Pluto) and trine Neptune/Chiron.
I have a grand trine of Moon, Jupiter (square mercury in late Sag) and Venus (opposite Saturn in Cancer)in the earth signs, and Scorpio ascending.
I am definitely not a chameleon--what you see is what you get. And that has been the case in all my lifetimes that I am aware of--including the one where I took on the Church of Rome during the Albigensian Crusade.
PSSST, this is the 21st Century, not the 13th.
Sioux Rose
STRUGGLE: But those Crusades never go out of style, do they? Now there's a cause worthy of our blood and treasure! Keep throwing rocks at those of us who have learned to look higher to a plan that inspires us to transcend our former earth-bound (lower natured) selves!
Sioux Rose,
I loved the first paragraph of your post, and I love your politics. However, someone who loves science and is appalled by the lack of rigorous scientific thinking in our society, I have to disagree with the second. Astrology is not only bad astronomy, it's a pseudoscience, and I have about as much respect for it as "scientists" who want to teach creationism in public school.
The following excerpts are from astronomer Phil Plait's website www.badastronomy.com
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html
For just a moment, let's say that there is some force from the planets that can affect us here on Earth. What could it be?
Our choices are limited. Planets are big balls of ice, rock, metal, and other stuff. Their ability to affect us is weak because they are pretty far away. As far as we can tell in science, there are only four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, and two forces called the strong and weak force. Those last two only work (more or less) on the nuclei of atoms and subatomic particles. It's hard to see how they could affect us on a macroscopic scale (the strong force weakens so rapidly with distance that it's essentially gone by the time you're a few billionths of a meter from the source!).
So we're stuck with either gravity or electromagnetism.
Gravity depends on mass and distance. Electromagnetism (or just EM) depends on electric charge and distance. The problem here is that most large objects don't have an electric charge! Electric charges come from charged particles like electrons and protons. But opposite charges attract each other so well that it's very rare to find one without the other nearby, which means that a planet is electrically neutral overall.
Some planets, for other reasons, do have magnetic fields. But these fields are only strong near their home planet. Jupiter's field is immense, but Jupiter is so far away it has no real effect on us. Furthermore, the Sun is far and away the largest EM source in the solar system. Its magnetic field directly affects us; when there is a gigantic flare, or other explosions on the surface of the Sun, vast streams of charged particles are sent sleeting out. These can interact with the Earth's own magnetic field, causing havoc (in 1989, such an event caused a blackout in Quebec). So if anything, the Sun should be the only source of astrological effects. However, astrologers tend to ignore it or still give the planets the lion's share of the astrological effect on us. Either way, the planets' combined force is miniscule compared to the Sun's. If EM is the force behind astrology, the planets could be safely ignored.
If gravity were the driving force of astrology, the Moon would dominate, but it doesn't. If EM were the driving force, the Sun would dominate, but it doesn't. We've run out of forces!
But this cannot be right! What about asteroids? These are chunks of rock and metal that also orbit the Sun along with planets. Most asteroids are closer to Earth than the outer planets (not that distance matters to astrologers, remember?), so they should have some effect. The problem is that there are many, many asteroids.So why don't astrologers include them in their horoscopes?
And it gets worse for astrology. Astronomers have now found about 150 planets orbiting other stars. These are very distant, certainly, but hey! Distance is no issue. So therefore these planets must affect us too. Now, these are only the planets we've discovered so far. Given how many we've found, and what kind of stars they tend to orbit, it's reasonable to assume that there are billions (billions!) of such planets in our galaxy alone. They're everywhere! Why don't astrologers include them in their horoscopes?
I think it's possible to balance out astrology with science.
I dunno much about astrology but I do know a lot about science. That said, science ain't perfect either. It takes a lot to prove something true and even then disputes are always abound.
Both are cool in their own ways.
Astrology is essentially religion, which is fine. The problem comes when it is used as though it's science. In any case, it's generally as pointless to try and explain to a believer why astrology can have no scientific validity, as it is to try and convince a Catholic of the impossibility of an immaculate conception. Save your breath.
To tell you the truth, I don't know much about astrology so I don't think I have the authority to say that astrology is bad compared to science. I'm willing to look at the overall picture on Ms Rose's statements and learn what I can out of it.
Sioux Rose
MAX: I don't know if it's your wife's curry, or exposure to the spectrum of ideas relayed in this forum; but you are growing. And I salute that.
ANNABELLE: Thank you for the support in an earlier comment.
Ms. Rose, thanks. I'll say it's more of the latter.
Sioux Rose
FARMGIRL: I am on end of the month magazine deadlines, just got back from a trip, have a final book editing due. I cannot take on YOUR need for answers at this time. I am paid by the hour to teach what I know. You are deeply influenced by a way of looking at the world that precludes the value of the mystical, or that to which I have devoted my life studies. A day with a shaman would cure you of your blindspots. What I know cannot conform to the parameters you wish to see validated. Apples and oranges? Perhaps. Maybe at a more opportune time I'll take on some of your questions/arguments with more patience.
The long debated conundrum regarding planetary influence on human behavior is reflected in the fractal dislocation of the rotational wobble exemplified in numerous obtuse transmorphographic reflections that have been measured by infrared tiangulations. Transcendental gravitation, known as TG's, reveled recently by observations of solar darting and halographic pentards, can affect pituitary secretions of b-sub amalase inhibitors which will directly modify comprehension of visual hallucinations. TG's, measured during conjunctions of Neptune and the moon, have shown a decrease in septomyoanluary serotonin prior to the angular refraction of lunar prizolotopothay. These decreases in sml-serotonin have been known to induce powerful reflectatory beta waves which when focused by practitioners of the Sautronorian Theoballifernarian Menard, can in turn impact TG measurements on Neptune. The mechanism by which these influences are created has yet to be determined.
Sioux Rose
SWAMI: You get an "A" for effort in the category of seeking to disprove what doesn't necessarily conform to those measuring devices engineered by the logical portion of the brain. You may well have been among those who tried to stomp on electricity when first it appeared as an alien force, thrust out of no where.
I don't need a shaman. I love the mystical, I practice yoga, and I have read all of the holy books. I pray for 10 minutes every morning and include the humanities in my philanthropy.
You see, I'm a convert. I used to believe in astrology, but after learning more about astronomy, I realized that what I believed in was bunk.
There is harm, real harm, in astrology. It weakens further people's ability to rationally look at the world, an ability we need now more than ever. Astrology takes away from the real grandeur of the Universe. We live in an amazing place, this Universe of ours, and it's quite fantastic enough without needing people to make up things about it. Astrology dims the beauty of nature, cheapens it.
I have friends who are mainline Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims. I do believe that religion can have a positive effect if religious texts are not taken literally and if they are used to empower people in need. But saying that people are certain way because they were born because of a "scientific" way that cannot be scientifically proven seems to be disrespectful of the scientific process.
Don't get me started on the dismal state of scientific education in K-12 schools. . . .
As for the argument "science doesn't answer everything," well, that's the same argument I hear from creationists who dispute evolution. Liberals are to astrology as fundamentalist Christians are to intelligent design.
We need to love the natural world as it is -- not as we want to be.
Farmgirl, when science grows up it too will understand the nature of Spirit.
Isn't it interesting that from day one, the primary motive of Washington politicians is to work to get re-elected?
In Maine, we have term limits on all elected officials to the State House, just as there is with the Governor. If the chief executives of the states and the nation have term limits, so too should the legislators of the nation.
Next, should come public financing and strict limits on private money to campaigns. Of course, since the halls of power are now the denizens of lawyers, for every law that is passed a loop-hole can be found.
I guess I'd settle for term limits to begin with. Next, as Shakespeare suggested in King Henry VI, we kill all the lawyers.