Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
As Obama's Support Erodes, the Right is Resurgent
Will Progressives Respond To The Attempt to Overthrow The President?
The tide of public opinion may be turning against the President. Pollsters report growing skepticism about health care reform, and more active hostility on racial matters, thanks to that "uncalibrated" expression of opinion on the arrest of Professor Gates in his own home. That remark turned him, in the eyes of some, from a small b black President into a militant Black Panther, or at least someone who can bashed as such.
These are the new controversial issues with no one right answer, and a noisy debate everywhere, but something else is also going on.
With Democrats fussing among themselves, with Obamacrats forced to rely on corporate media, the right-wing TV and radio stations close ranks behind the most self-righteously-correct ranters having a filed day poking , prodding, pummeling, and peeing into cups of their own resentment, hate and venom.
There is no smear that is beneath them, no inference or insult out of bounds. Lou Dobbs blesses the birthers while that Elmer Gantry of demagoguery, Glenn Beck, meditates on his mountain and pronounces Obama a racist. An Israeli settler refers to our President as "that Arab," and worse.
These are the nattering nabobs of negativity of our times, to resurrect an old canard once aimed at the left. The Yes We Can advocates seem to be taking refuge in the No We Won't center. The next thing you know, the removal of a democratically elected President that worked in Honduras might be attempted here at home.
Some of us are still singing "We Shall Overcome" when our adversaries are chanting "We Shall Overthrow."
If Barack's legitimacy as a citizen won't bring him down, his actions---moderate if not reactionary as they are--- unites the crazies against him and drives them even more beserk. The contentious Congressman who vowed to "break him," should be taken seriously
This relentless riposte is having an effect on a demoralized and economically challenged population that is not well informed in the first place-except perhaps about Michael Jackson's dubious doctor who may have done the dirty deed. Sensing possible victory-whatever that means--- the Angeroid microfactions that lost the election are now seeking to polarize the public to topple the Administration with an electronic coup d'media. It is all that serious.
Only Jon Stewart seems to be calling them on their game, while at the same time despairing about the obvious missteps and mistakes that the White House is making. They may be a garden outside the Oval Office but there is a minefield inside it.
At the same time, another enemy is mounting a counterattack, perhaps in a more stealth manner, not by what it says, but by what it does The banks are deploying regiments of lobbyists and PR firms to defeat proposed new financial rules and an agency to protect consumers. They are escalating the gouging of the public.
Emboldened by billions in bailout monies, and funds from the Treasury and Federal Reserve, the Bankster are in full loot mode. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo reports that extravagant bonuses at some banks now outstrip revenues. The financial elite takes our money--and tells us to shove it.
As a new wave of foreclosures threatens, the banks are not willing to modify most mortgages-even those sold fraudulently, because they make more money forcing families out and reselling their homes.
The pace of regulatory reform, meanwhile is a slow-go, with few calls for more radical measures like a moratorium on foreclosures of the kind declared by FDR during the last Depression.
Are you aware that outside of the government, a not for profit called NACA (The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America) is touring the country mobilizing homeowners to demand financial relief. I was at their original "Save The Deam" event in Washington last summer where members of Congress and officials like FDIC chairman Sheila Bair pledged support, but little happened.
Government help as only reached 200,000 of the more than 12 million families in need. If you are not familiar with this issue or the role of devious mortgage servicers like Litton, owned by Goldman Sachs, see these You Tube videos on the PACFILM Channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVyahxDc5OU and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mov0AVLsvQg
According to FEED News, NACA is doing better-even though they are not getting the national publicity they deserve, perhaps because media outlets don't want to send the few staffers they have to the heartland,
"About 50,000 people attended the second Save the Dream event in Chicago. This is a dramatic increase over the 25,000 people who attended NACA's first two Save the Dream events last year in Columbia, SC, and Washington, DC.
"One of the reasons why turnout has increased this year is NACA's use of optimized press releases, blog outreach, and YouTube videos to let people know that the national non-profit community advocacy and homeownership organization offers unprecedented solutions for homeowners caught up in the current mortgage and economic crisis. During the Save the Dream events, borrowers can get mortgages restructured the same day."
If the Obama Administration is to survive an ongoing assault still building steam, it needs a grass roots action-oriented army like the one NACA is building. They can't just rely on the Netroots activists who prefer emails to organizing. They can't rely on that co-opted in-house DNC arm, Organizing for America either. That is there only to rally support for the White House.
A new movement has to develop outside the Democratic party in the same way that the right acts outside the GOP, and has built a capacity for independent action with echo chambers, message points and personalities. Their ideas may be backward but their dedication can't be denied.
We can defend Obama's ideals, and also press for more action. As Jeff Cohen reminds us, we have a "president whose instinct is toward conciliation and splitting the difference with big business and the right wing. Sure, Obama was a community organizer once. That was decades ago when Russia was still our mortal enemy, Nelson Mandela was still an official State Department terrorist threat and the White House was still funding Islamist fanatics in Afghanistan. For the last dozen years Obama has been a politician -- and a consummate compromiser at that. Have we failed to notice?"
Can progressives fight a three front war---against the vicious right, against the slippery center, and for a more comprehensive and empowering agenda? Can they finally realize that all politics does not occur in DC, and that being tethered to the denizens on the Hill can be a liability at a time when most political chameleons enjoy so little respect.
Will they ever realize that they have to get into the economic trenches and fight the power of the banks with groups like A New Way Forward? Why is economic justice a priority for so few activists when these issues impact millions?
Knock, Knock, anyone there?
133 Comments so far
Show AllIt's time to take the gloves off against right wingers. 30 years of hegemonous control has made them utterly brash and arrogant. And it's turned liberals into Stockholm syndrome simpering sissies. It's time to hit back hard and strong. It means screaming in their faces just as hard as they seem to think is their right to do to us. If we don't they're going to walk all over us. It’s not about destroying the opposition; it’s about the assertion of an equal balance and sending a message that there really is another opinion that must be considered. If we stay discreet and quiet they’re going to shove mud right down our throats.
odoco
You are exactly on target. I started using more 'aggressive' tactics in my conversations in my home town and most right-wingers have no idea how to respond when people actually stand in front of them and tell them the truth. The most important element in this scenario is to be so well informed before the contact that you can simply make them look STUPID. That is the key - deny them any legitimacy.
odoco 8:08 -- I disagree with making the right feel stupid , you need to empower the right to perceive their true interests and create populist coalitions to overcome the corporate dictatorship.
Good thought Glenn - and I have had this conversation many, many times. I do understand your point. And I think I generalized too much in my previous post. There are some right-of-center folks who will listen, and some who will even respond to factual presentations in an affirmative way - I know that. I guess my point was, and poorly stated, that there are many on the right who will only alter their ACTIONS if directly confronted by equal or greater force. I am not sure many of the die-hard rightwingers would ever be rational enough to actually make objective decisions - their racism, zenophobia, religious self-righteousness all point them in an irretrievable direction from logic. Am I being too narrow-minded here?
Does that make more sense.
And by the way - thanks for all your posts, even when you disagree with me. I think your perspectives are both valuable and timely.
"you need to empower the right to perceive their true interests and create populist coalitions to overcome the corporate dictatorship."
That is so true. In a sense, through unfortunate circumstances, my parents finally got around to understanding the beauty of single payer health care and even though they're conservative, they actually are progressive on the issue of health care. If only I could take them off the war spending and tax cuts mania mode which they've been so used to for so long. Now that you spelled it out, it will be interesting to see how it works from issue to issue.
Are you sure we shouldn't calibrate our words appropriately? Uh...
Here's the problem:
Today's progressives are foul-mouthed Philistines who fight dirty and have a major misogyny problem. I cite Huffington Post and Democratic Underground as proof.
These are the folks who called their fellow Democrats racists, called Hillary's female supporters the C word over and over and over--and waged the dirtiest primary campaign ever.
I will not work with any group, however progressive, that has such people in it.
We can all appreciate your idealism but any group large enough to make a difference will contain a lot of unsavourey characters. Even churches and PTAs are full of backbiting, mean spirited premadonas. Makes it easy to understand hermits.
I've often thought that unrealistic idealism is one of the left's greatest weaknesses and has empowered the right. We are proud of "not voting for the lesser of two evils" while Republicans hold their noses and vote enmass and in lock step. So we got three decades of the minority party in power and the conversation moved far to the right.
Get pragmatic!
"Even churches and PTAs are full of backbiting, mean spirited premadonas. Makes it easy to understand hermits." (I personally would have used backstabbing in place of backbiting!)
Great point. At a previous job I found out the hard way that there is a fairly large section of the population that posses an almost dangerous combination of viciousness, recklessness, and stupidity. They recklessly go behind peoples backs and try to destroy them, never giving the targets of their vicious attacks the chance to defend themselves.
Decent people everywhere need to know these social pariah are very common. They can make the thought of becoming a hermit an almost rational decision. Whenever possible they need to be confronted directly and put back under the slimy rocks that they crawled out from under.
Just take a gander at TV 'reality'. The message seems to be 'take care of numero uno'. The social pariah you talk about are the heros of these shows. It's the new morality (actually recycled Reaganism served up with a little different spice). This morality has spread throughout our most public media like a virus. If you have any contact with kids you will know that the virus is spreading throughout the next generation. And we worry about swine flu!
fpie sez: "Republicans hold their noses and vote enmass (sic) and in lock step."
***
There's no nose-holding involved. Indeed, they eagerly jockey for a spot in the vanguard, where one might join the select few chosen to hoist aloft the swastika-festooned banner.
Perry - I understand your point, and if followed to its logical conclusion it would ensure the rightwing's ascendancy in the next election.
The vast majority of true progressives that I deal with are so far above the rightwingers that there is no comparison. Vulgarity and insults are all too common in every arena of life nowadays, but I would rather confront my allies and tell them to mend their ways than see the corporatocracy win every election from now till hell freezes over. Just as we have to confront the lies of the rightwing, we also have to confront the excesses of those we must work with in order to restore democracy to this country.
Decent people are brought up to act decent. The repugs are like three year olds. They rant and rave about everything the democrats try to do. Yet that is their policy. Lies and fear mongering, propagander and B.S. Where is their policy? The only thing they do is try to find other ways to bring this country down.Isant it odd that the repugs have gotten so smart since their war criminal regime has been booted out of destruction control?
Is it just me, or is the point of this article simply to say that no matter how much Progressives hate the Democrats, the Republicans are worse, so be careful not to work against the Democrats if it might help the Republicans - but by all means continue to strive "for a more comprehensive and empowering agenda"? Well, that's some slick propaganda, isn't it?
For example, if you attack Obama for not supporting single payer, then you are only helping the Republicans who won't even agree to the pathetically watered-down public option. We'll wind up getting nothing. So why don't you support Obama now, and then pressure him to do the right thing later?
Support him now, pressure him later. Where have I heard that before?
Once again, remember that Obama and *the scary Republican* McCain endorsed identical political policies during the election. And that since being elected Obama has embraced nearly every one of Bush's policies. So when you look past the marketing, and think about it logically, are Bush and McCain really any scarier than Obama? Are we going to be scared of policy or personality?
Obama's rhetoric has proven to be nothing but callous lies.
Democrats and Republicans = fake opposition.
When Danny writes,
"Can progressives fight a three front war---against the vicious right, against the slippery center, and for a more comprehensive and empowering agenda?"
He's got it wrong. Those "three front" are the same. We need one front, against both the Democrats and Republicans, so we can put an end to their transparently coordinated "good cop bad cop" routine.
By allowing such a clear continuum between the policies of Bush and Obama they clumsily exposed their own con. They let Obama break character too soon. It should now be clear that the duopoly is a conspiracy.
Yes hopedup, you've got it wrong.
You write:
"For example, if you attack Obama for not supporting single payer, then you are only helping the Republicans who won't even agree to the pathetically watered-down public option. We'll wind up getting nothing. So why don't you support Obama now, and then pressure him to do the right thing later?"
Schecter says NO SUCH THING. You are putting arguments in his mouth that he does not make, and then denouncing him for those arguments. "Against the slippery center" is precisely NOT "support Obama now". Standing up to the fascist thugs who are currently mobilizing, while also pushing our own agenda, not Obama's.
Schecter's article speaks for itself - he is calling for us to build and be an independent progressive force in the USA.
"Against the slippery center" is precisely NOT "support Obama now".
Really? Okay, if Obama is the "slippery center" then so was Bush. Same policies = same location on the political spectrum. Can we just call it fascism?
Schecter writes "The next thing you know, the removal of a democratically elected President that worked in Honduras might be attempted here at home."
The article is subtitled "Will Progressives Respond To The Attempt to Overthrow The President?"
He explains what type of response might stop a coup.
"A new movement has to develop outside the Democratic party in the same way that the right acts outside the GOP, and has built a capacity for independent action with echo chambers, message points and personalities. Their ideas may be backward but their dedication can't be denied."
Of course, the "right" that "acts outside the GOP" pretty much reflexively supports everything the GOP does.
"We can defend Obama's ideals, and also press for more action."
So let me get this straight, you are saying that the statement "We can defend Obama's ideals "is precisely NOT "support Obama now" because at the same time we will "also press for more action". Yet the article does seem to imply that if we don't "Respond To The Attempt to Overthrow The President" we'll have a coup.
But if I understand correctly, you don't feel that "respond" means "support Obama".
Even though Schecter writes,
"If the Obama Administration is to survive an ongoing assault still building steam, it needs a grass roots action-oriented army like the one NACA is building."
Of course, if the article ISN'T calling for Progressives to respond by "supporting" Obama like the NACA, then Schecter is predicting that Obama will be removed from power by Republicans because Progressives did NOT support him.
So what "response" do you think he means?
When he says "We can defend Obama's ideals, and also press for more action." What are these "ideals" of Obama's that we should defend? No consideration of single payer? Trillions for Wall Street? Government secrecy? His support for our wars? His support for spying? Torture? False imprisonment? 90% of his ideals are exactly what we should take action against. What is there to defend? That he was born in Hawaii? That he isn't a Muslim?
There are way more registered Democrats than Republicans. Bush was one of the most unpopular presidents in US history. The Democrats control the Presidency, the Congress, and the Senate. The current face of the Republican Party is Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. The Democrats are awash is corporate money. It's hard to paint a better scenario for Democrats. Yet we're supposed to believe that they're threatened by a fringe group of loud mouthed Republicans?
By normal presidential standards Obama's "approval rating" (which is a dubious statistic to begin with) is still sky high. Shouldn't we be happy that's it's dropped from the frighteningly cult-like level of 71%?
For the past eight years Democrats have constantly played the victims, while insisting that's why they couldn't accomplish anything but rubberstamping Bush's policies. It was always ridiculous, but now with full control of two out three branches of government, it's beyond absurd.
Glen Beck and Lou Dobbs will not cause a coup. Neither will Sarah Palin or "Bobby" Jindal. Corporate America, the Military industrial complex, AIPAC, Goldman Sachs etc... you know, the only ones powerful enough to make a coup a reality - they all LOVE Obama.
Oregoncharles
Good job hopedup!
Support Obama's ideals? No, I refuse to support fascism, thank you very much.
When will voters finally wake up to the fact that they are being manipulated by an out of control empire? Dem/Repub, two heads of the same monster, researched and developed by experts, savvy and far ahead of most of us.
If they can manipulate mothers into thinking that sugar coated cereal is a good healthy breakfast, they can fool just about anyone. Remember, Obama won the advertiser of the year award for 2008. Go to youtube and watch "Yes I Can." It'll bring tears to your eyes.
We are wasting our time trying to examine it. We should be organizing against this slide into fascism. Obama knows full well what role he is playing in this scam on We the People.
I had to laugh, "Obama's ideals."
Hi,
You quote Schecter:
"If the Obama Administration is to survive an ongoing assault still building steam, it needs a grass roots action-oriented army like the one NACA is building."
And you reply:
"Of course, if the article ISN'T calling for Progressives to respond by "supporting" Obama like the NACA, then Schecter is predicting that Obama will be removed from power by Republicans because Progressives did NOT support him."
But NACA is NOT "supporting Obama". NACA is doing what Schecter is advocating - building a movement INDEPENDENT of Obama or the Democrats, taking action to save people from foreclosure.
And when Schecter refers to "Obama's ideals" he is clear that Obama is violating the STATED ideals that inspired so many people to "hope" and "believe":
"If Barack's legitimacy as a citizen won't bring him down, his actions---moderate if not reactionary as they are--- unites the crazies against him and drives them even more beserk."
Schecter states here that Obama's actions range from moderate to reactionary - that Obama's stated IDEALS are being violated by Obama's ACTIONS.
His quote from Cohen states it clearly as well:
"Obama was a community organizer once. That was decades ago... For the last dozen years Obama has been a politician -- and a consummate compromiser at that. Have we failed to notice?"
And Schecter goes on, about "progressives":
"Will they ever realize that they have to get into the economic trenches and fight the power of the banks with groups like A New Way Forward? Why is economic justice a priority for so few activists when these issues impact millions?"
Finally, to be explicit about "supporting Obama", Schecter writes:
"They can't rely on that co-opted in-house DNC arm, Organizing for America either. That is there only to rally support for the White House." Schecter states that resisting the fanatical right wing does NOT equate to "supporting the White House".
Schechter is clear, over and over, that he is NOT "defending" the Obama regime but thinking about how WE can resist the fanatic right wing, whose intensive work to drum up hatred against Obama (recall Clinton who was also targeted with similar hate even though he succeeded in implementing much of the Reagan platform that Reagan never implemented) is designed to promote their own return to power, whether via election in 2012 or earlier via some kind of coup d'etat. He states over and over that while the mobilization he is urging would be effective at staving off a coup, this would be by effectively mobilizing an INDEPENDENT movement with its OWN AGENDA, and not done to "support Obama" but to effectively mobilize an independent movement with its own agenda.
Your final point, that you think the likelihood of any such coup is remote, actually addresses Schecter's argument.
"But NACA is NOT "supporting Obama". "
Agreed.
But then why does he write that "it needs a grass roots action-oriented army in order for the Obama Administration "to survive". I agree, it's a tad bizarre to use an organization critical of Obama as an example. Certainly, calling Obama a Wall Street sell-out does not help him "survive".
"If the Obama Administration is to survive an ongoing assault still building steam, it needs a grass roots action-oriented army like the one NACA is building. They can't just rely on the Netroots activists who prefer emails to organizing. They can't rely on that co-opted in-house DNC arm, Organizing for America either. That is there only to rally support for the White House."
I interpreted what he was saying as that Obama needs a "grass roots action-oriented army like the one NACA is building" in order to fend off the "ongoing assault" from the right wing. The organization is "like the NACA" structurally, not necessarily politically.
Do you interpret what he was saying as that Obama needs a "grass roots action-oriented army" like NACA to attack his own policies? Could you explain the logic of that? He does indeed want them to be independent, but that seems unnecessary since the point of this new group would be to help Obama "survive an ongoing assault" by the Republicans.
Also do you notice the contradiction in the above paragraph? He is discussing how the Obama administration (the White House) can "survive" but strangely adds that they should not rely on the "co-opted in-house DNC arm, Organizing for America either." - Because - " That is there only to rally support for the White House." But isn't rallying support for the White House the way "to survive (the) ongoing assault"?
An independent "grass roots action-oriented army" dedicated to impeaching Obama for crimes against the peace, wouldn't help him "survive" would it? So be honest, Schechter s clearly suggesting that this new group modeled on the NACA would serve to counter right wing attacks. Otherwise, the article makes no sense.
"Schecter states here that Obama's actions range from moderate to reactionary - that Obama's stated IDEALS are being violated by Obama's ACTIONS."
So if Obama's policies are moderate, then what were Bush's? And how can one be considered moderate and one be considered extreme, when the policies they support (the TARP program, for example) are the same?
As for Obama's ideals, we have no idea what they are. We only know that if he ever had any, he's willing to lie and abandon them. We know his actions, and his actions have violated what people may imagine are his ideals since he became a Senator.
Again, from Wall Street to the Wars to Spying, Obama supports the exact same policies as Bush. Are you willing to describe the War in Iraq as a "moderate policy"? To call them "reactionary" means he is only issuing policies in reaction to our current political climate - it's an apology or a non-statement.
What people "felt" Obama stood for is an ephemeral concept. Did people "feel" he wouldn't escalate the Afghan War? Who knows? But he certainly stated over and over again that he would (both before and after the election).
"His quote from Cohen states it clearly as well:
"Obama was a community organizer once. That was decades ago... For the last dozen years Obama has been a politician -- and a consummate compromiser at that. Have we failed to notice?""
What has he compromised on? What concessions has he secured for progressives? Where are these compromises? He won't even let his own doctor give a speech about single payer. There is a huge difference between settling for a compromise during negotiations, and pro-actively furthering policies you supposedly oppose.
"And Schecter goes on, about "progressives":
"Will they ever realize that they have to get into the economic trenches and fight the power of the banks with groups like A New Way Forward? Why is economic justice a priority for so few activists when these issues impact millions?""
Great idea. Let's start by urging Obama to bring conspiracy charges against one of his largest campaign contributors, Goldman Sachs. Think it'll happen? Who other than Progressives are doing the slightest thing "fight the power of the banks?" David Sirota works for A New Way Forward, who decided he wasn't a Progressive?
"Schechter is clear, over and over, that he is NOT "defending" the Obama regime but thinking about how WE can resist the fanatic right wing, whose intensive work to drum up hatred against Obama"
Let me rephrase that to demonstrate the obvious:
"Schechter is clear, over and over, that he is NOT "defending" the Obama regime but thinking about how WE can ""defend" him against the fanatic right wing, whose intensive work to drum up hatred against Obama"
Right?
It seems obvious that WE have no need to "resist" Glen Beck. He doesn't effect my approval ratings, what about yours?
Lou Dobbs moans about Obama's birth. Why should we care? In reality, they are making fools out of themselves, Dobbs ratings are in the toilet. Butlet's say they succeed in swaying enough people into hating Obama, and since a coup in plainly ridiculous, they manage to make him a one term president. So what? It only matters if the Republican is going to be more extreme. But Obama is just as extreme as Bush or McCain. If you concede that point, then why is the article suggesting we protect Obama from the right? Does it really matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican who enshrines indefinite preemptive detention in the law?
Again, there is no coming coup. So what is the threat? It's just hyperbole from bobbleheads like Glen Beck. Does Schechter believe America will ever have a shortage of loud idiots?
Hopedup, you have it right! The subtitle of this article is "Will progressives respond to the attempt to overthrow the president?"
Although in the article Schechter calls on Progressives to rise, he fails to call attention to Obama's continuation of Bush policies (foreign, domestic spying...). He mentions the slippery center; however, the so called political center has long ago moved to the right (generally a 2 party 1 policy system with sufficient nuanced differences to make it look like a legitimate democracy).
For progressives, perhaps it is a four front war, as Obama campaign rhetoric has not matched his performance. To date, progressive voters that voted for Obama were deceived. Schechter contributed his article to Common Dreams. From his article, it is difficult to see he has read other CD articles or reader comments.
"Will progressives respond to the attempt to overthrow the president?"
"No. The President deceived the people, so i'll stand by and watch while fascist thugs seize power in the USA..."
Again: Schecter is calling on us to build, and be, an INDEPENDENT progressive force. OUTSIDE of any political party. To defend and promote OUR agenda. This is explicit in his article.
AND, he is pointing out that there are some very troubling signs of mobilization by fanatic right-wing demagogues who are dangerous INDEPENDENTLY of whatever anyone thinks about Obama.
I need to learn concision.
If it is only "To defend and promote OUR agenda" why is it framed in terms of responding to right wing attacks against Obama that lower his approval ratings?
"AND, he is pointing out that there are some very troubling signs of mobilization by fanatic right-wing demagogues who are dangerous INDEPENDENTLY of whatever anyone thinks about Obama."
Specifically, who are you talking about (Glen Beck?) and what are you afraid of happening? (a coup?)
What are you Schecter's girlfriend or something?
If he didn't want folks to read the article the way some are, he could have avoided all the language about "circling the wagons" and "saving" Obama from the "right".
He didn't do so because he caught in the same trap as so many others, the Two-Party Trap.
As has been said, Obama's continuation of Bush policies has revealed the supposed split between the Dems and Repubs as a lie. All this worry over what the "right" might do to Obama is a sad attempt to trick people into forgeting that they have seen this.
Unfortunately grass roots action has been genetically modified.
The notion that Obama is losing support seems ginned up to me.
odoco
I regret to have to say that I think you are mistaken. Obama is actually hated by many more on the right than before the actual election - the smear campaigns have worked. Those in the middle are becoming more and more concerned about the economy and the health care debacle and sense little movement there because of the inability of the president and his party to play hardball politics and actually push through what the majority of the people want. And many progressives are very disillusioned with Obama's continuation of Bush's policies on state secrets, signing statements, the continuation of the wars, and the unbelievable efforts aimed to protect the Bush administration for obvious crimes it committed.
I don't wish it to happen - but I believe Obama is losing ground in all these sectors - and it is precisly because he has compromised so much. You compromise with a bully and he sees you as weak - the rightwing. You compromise with the conservatives in your own party and you are seen as a politician instead of a true leader. And if you compromise on human rights and the rule of law - well, you know the answer to that one.
To a certain extent Obama is handcuffed (pardon the expression) by the lies of the Right and the subterfuge of the conservatives of his own party. He must reach a point, if he is genuine, to do what the majority of the populace wants - true health care reform, true regulation of the economy. If he does not chart his own course (if he has one), he will be defeated in 2012 and the country will move further to the right than we can now imagine.
odoco 8:26 ------ Very correct summation. You failed to mention all the continuing imperial slaughter.
Obama was not true to his base, he obviously is a phony as reflected by his appointments which were his own free choice at the moment of his greatest power.
I will not support anyone who validates the destruction of the Constitution.
I think you are right. Obama has two dangerous options.
1. Go along as he is and risk the disaffection of the long term unemployed, evicted homeowners and those without healthcare, for instance. They might not vote for him next time. Harpers magazine had an interesting article recently comparing Obama's tepid performance on behalf of the populace with the idealistic, intellectualized and ineffective Herbert Hoover. Many parallels. One big difference is that there is currently no organized left that is an electoral factor, so instead of a Roosevelt, we could get a Mussolini next time.
2. Stand up for those who voted and worked for him and risk the wrath of the right, the banksters, the war profiteers and their completely shameless lies and attacks. Obviously he cannot count on his own party. Honoring his supporters (not the moneyed ones, but the voters) would require rallying the people, creating an informed voter base that would keep some of the Democrats in line. I do not see any inclination toward firmness by Obama on issues of financial accountability or war crimes, etc. Instead his Secretary of State is out peddling war planes to poor nations from the tired old imperialist pushcart.
I despair.
Joe
waiguoren, I would agree with you. I consider myself a moderate/centrist/independent, and I've voted both Republican and Democrat in the past. However, I voted Democrat since 2000, and I don't see anything in the GOP to make me vote for them or donate to their politicians (except possibly Ron Paul because he's anti-war).
The key for Obama is to make sure the middle grounders, those who will shift to Republican voters if he radicalizes his agenda, stay with him. I don't know how typical I am, but I feel he's doing a pretty decent job. To be honest, I'm pleased to see the radical left-wing fringe is upset with him, it means he's keeping his agenda right where it should be to make sure the Democrats have an actionable majority in Congress.
Regarding Health Care, I'm hoping that by year end he'll maneuver changes into law. The nation does need a national health insurance system. And I see they are making moves to take the troops out of Iraq. And if by year end he changes his cockamamie Afghanistan war stance, and manages to challenge the Israel lobby, I'll give him an A+
I would hope Danny gets a proofreader or goes over his copy before he submits it. Aside from that...the right wing are zealots...just like in the Bible. Their eyes are on the "prize" (of the moment), they are out to win the "fight". Their faces are "set like a flint."
What I see from the Democrats and Obama is so pathetic. They are weak-kneed, overly conciliatory and they will be a grease spot after the Republicans roll over them with this zeal.If the Republicans act like bad little boys, with their ranting and raving, the Democrats are like too polite little boys who are sitting in a corner spinning the propellers on their model airplanes.
The public will believe anything. And, frankly, I'm beginning to think they enjoy being scared or appalled as it takes thier minds off of unpleasantries in their personal lives. The public hungrily devours the ranting and raving and lies and scare tactics. It has become a national addiction
President Bush used to smirk at the public and lecture us and threaten to veto whatever he did not like. We were held hostage. Now we are held hostage by a president and Demorats who are just too damn cool or polite or scared to do something.
What the Democrats need is less "nice" and alot more zeal.
Democrats claim to have idealism, but they are really greedy ass-holes. That's what I see, mxyzptik, not cool, polite or scared little boys. They will never be grease spots, unless you make grease spots out of Republicans too. Why is it so hard to see Democrats as the same animal as their conservative counterparts? If you want liberal zeal, you will have to look elsewhere than the Democratic Party.
Obama should of told us the truth from the beginning, he is caught up in his lies because he compromised in the first place.
He has the Bully Pulpit! Use it!
He might go the way of the Kennedys or Dr. King, but his legacy would be stronger with time.
My opinion is he played right into the hands of POWER.
He should of educated the right-wing about what's going on in the world. That would of moved the country up out of their arrogance.
I believe you forget he has to have 60 senators vote for a bill so it'll pass. So the key is to have their support. And it's going to take a lot of massaging to get them aboard.
IF,IF and I dont see it happening obama were to push single payer, congress could not stand in his way.It would be the perfect storm.Tony
Sioux Rose
NMBILL: Reminds me more of the MAFIA attorney who ends up knowing too much, and is in too deep to get out.
Good parallel!
This has almost — almost — renewed my hope in Common Dreams.
For a long time I've been wondering where all the intelligent people went who used to comment back when CD was young.
Environmental posts still generate intelligent, knowledgible comment, but ever since the election the attacks on Obama at CD have been about like what you'd expect on hate radio.
Suddenly lots of new names showed up here, bringing lots of hate and an agenda of stopping change in it's tracks. Once they would have been chased off as trolls, but now they pretty much have the run of the place.
Again (It needs to be said over and over.) Obama's grip on power has always been tenuous, based on popular support and the building of consensus.
Given the entrenched forces he is up against, that elderly millionaires club, the Senate, an uttlerly corrupt House, a Republican-picked Supreme Court, the criminal corporate and financial interests with limitless wealth, the media propoganda machine and a generally clueless population...well it don't look good.
Everyone with a stake in the monumental con game the U.S. has become — and this means virturally every Republican and Democratic politician, is scared shitless of Obama. They'd destroy him in a heartbeat, along with anyone else who would try to change things.
The slime machine is doing its job, here at CD and everywhere else, and once his popularity slips,Obama's going to be given the Jimmy Carter treatment and everything will go back to Democratic Republican normal
Nope, it don't look good.
There are various reasons for the change at CD...
The Pentagon and the IDF have tens of thousands of paid bloggers to monitor chatrooms and comment boards and pollute them...
They use ad hominem attacks against other commentors, and try to either encourage violence themselves, or make unsubstantiated claims that they are victims of violence from Obama supporters... They hijack threads and play goodcop/badcop with each other...
and many folks have abandoned CD as a result of the pentagon goons... Or get drawn into a spiral of arguing into nowhere...
Then there are the legions of long time posters that have been banned from CD for one reason or another... Many folks who were critical of Obama were purged prior to the election, for being to controversial by mentioning Obama's senate voting record and campaign advisors and heavy donor lists...
Then there are folks who get banned for mentioning too many times about controversial topics like the false-flag attack of Nine-Eleven...
It must be tough to have Craig Brown's job of monitoring these comment boards... A thankless and tiresome job if there ever was one...
So here is a big "Thank You, Craig" for providing this forum, despite it's limitations, this forum is an asset to the global community...
"The Pentagon and the IDF have tens of thousands of paid bloggers to monitor chatrooms and comment boards and pollute them..."
Do you have even the least bit of evidence to support this charge?
Here you go Jake:
http://www.ynetnews.com/
articles/0,7340,L-3744516,00.html
"Here you go Jake:"
Thanks for trying but that is a very lame article. No where does Rona Kuperboim cite an original source for the claim, and other than stating a dollar figure of $150K *total*, provides no detail. If there were 10,000 such bloggers at a minimum that GoldenMean claimed, that adds up to $15 each.
The problem with the original claim is that if you look at it and think, you will never be able to come up with a viable *business plan* that would justify such expenditures.
Where have you been for the last 8 years...?
Even CD has run at least a dozen articles on the subject...
And why do I need to prove my claim to you...?
I am simply restating what is common knowledge on CD...
Google it yourself if you don't believe me...
GoldenMean August 1st, 2009 8:09 pm
"Even CD has run at least a dozen articles on the subject..."
You didn't reference a single one.
"And why do I need to prove my claim to you...?"
Because it's *your* responsibility to do so when you make a claim. Logical Discourse 101.
"Google it yourself if you don't believe me..."
I will not play this game with you. The Burden of Proof rests with the one who makes a claim. The above statement merely translates "I may have just been caught lying". Besides, you misunderstand the severe limitations of search engines in these matters.
I don't need to reference CD's articles... That is what the Archives are for...
Logical Discourse is such that the burden of proof is on the one who made the claim...
Unless it is common knowledge... I don't need to prove to you that the Pentagon exists any more than I need to prove that they ate monitoring and posting on blogs and comment boards of progressive websites...
Besides... This is not an academic setting... This is not a peer reviewed journal...
The only burden is on yourself to do your own research... Why would you rely on an anonymous stranger to do your research for you...?
So you won't play my "game"... Fine then... Call me a liar... Just have the courage to do your own research...
I know how hard it is to type key words into a search engine and sift through the Internet to find what you are looking for...
I totally misunderstand... It took me a whole five minutes to find these three articles... Of which you will probably find something wrong with them, since they won't hold up to your own journalistic standards... Here you go anyway...
1/27/09 kurt nimmo infowars
Www.truthnews.us/?p=2635
M.digg.com/world_news/army_of_
bloggers_to_fight_Zionist_propaganda_war
Haaretz.com/hasen/pages/1056648.html
"I don't need to reference CD's articles... That is what the Archives are for..."
That's just stupid. Claiming that there are areticles that support your position is way different from simply pointing out that the archives exist. It's notable that you don't link to them, *again*.
"Unless it is common knowledge..."
So you claim. But lets see below.
*Fine then... Call me a liar...*
Well, it's not looking good for you, I can't see what is in your heart to call you a liar though.
"Just have the courage to do your own research..."
Part of research is the ability to interpret what you read as to what it does and does not say, amd not "shoehorning" the data to neatly fit with your defective preconceived worldview.
"I totally misunderstand... "
Yes you do.
"It took me a whole five minutes to find these three articles... Of which you will probably find something wrong with them,"
The idea is for you to correctly interpret the information on the pages returned to you by your Google query, and in this case, see to it that they somehow can support your previous claim.
"1/27/09 kurt nimmo infowars
Www.truthnews.us/?p=2635"
Nowhere does this article detail the operational status of any such program, nor detail the numbers you suggested elswhere, "tens of thousands". At best is a recent increase of the staff of a particular officer from 2 to 16. In fact, the gist of one of the articles this links to has much more to do with guidelines as to how Air Force personnel would keep sensitive data off of their Facebook pages and other similar things.
"M.digg.com/world_news/army_of_bloggers_to_fight_Zionist_propaganda_war"
Absolutely no reference back to an original source or any detail that would back your original claim.
"Haaretz.com/hasen/pages/1056648.html"
This link returns a "404 Not Found" error message from the Haaretz website.
This is why I usually don't waste my time doing research for other people...
I have nothing to prove to you... And have no interest in pursuing any further discourse with you...
You argue for your own limitations... Your ad hominem attacks are unnecessary...
Prove to me that Love exists...
Sioux Rose
GOLDEN MEAN: Love that last line!
BLACK ANARCH: Gracias
JENNIFER B: Thank you, too.
(I'm on a time crunch, apologies for short posted responses.)
Siouxrose: The problem with trying to prove that love exists is due to it's very subjective and philosophical nature, and therefore it's not at all in the space of logical discourse where we usually prove things. Asking to prove that love exists is like trying to dance about architecture.
"This is why I usually don't waste my time doing research for other people..."
I demonstrated those articles don't support your original claim.
"I have nothing"
We agree on that.
"Your ad hominem attacks "
Ad Hominem means to attack who or what the arguer is, while ignoring the argument. I have not done that, I have focused directly on your argument and said nothing about who or what *you* are. Anyone knowing the basics of Critical Thinking knows what Ad Hominem means. Read it yourself by placing the foollowing query into Google:
"wikipedia ad hominem"
And then read the wikipedia article that comes up. There are many other good sources about logical fallacies as well, such as Nizkor Project.
"Prove to me that Love exists"
In this very post I prove my love for you specifically and for mankind in general. I beleive in you GoldenMean. I beleive if you just take a second look at your original charge, and that if you were honest about that, you would realize that it isn't true. By going through this exercise I know that you will come around, because I love you and beleive in you. You will learn through the skills of Critical Thinking how to quickly see truth and untruth, and therefore stop wasting your valuable life's energy on fruitless pursuits.
Jake...
You don't know me and you don't know anything about me or what I do...
Yet you presume to seem my energy wasted on fruitless pursuits...
I prefer to engage with other people In a conversational style...
Where folks use " I " statements and asking about the other viewpoints...
instead of the combative debate style of focusing on the faults of others...
Or the objective philosophical approach of "what can one do that isn't fruitless...?
So, thanks for caring... May I ask you what you do for a living and what activism or volunteering have you done...?