Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAs 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 AllThis is an interesting essay. Allow me to begin at the beginning.
I worked endless hours to elect Barack Obama. I am a democratic socialists.
I believe that electing Barack was a step forward. In this essay you pose the question of how "progressives" will respond to the current attacks from the right.
I agree with your assertion that the attacks from the right are growing.
First, you need to decide which progressives your are talking about, liberals, barely Democrats, PDA, who?
For my own case, as a democratic socialist, I think the Obama administration has made some good moves, such as the stimulus, initiating the health care debate, and some bad moves, such as turning the economic policy over to the bankers and finance capital, appointing Arne Duncan to Education, etc.
On health care, the critical issue of the moment, by turning the bill drafting over to the Senate, he new fully that a small group of Senators, funded by the insurance industry in Baucus' Senate Finance Committee, would ultimately hold the decision making power. That is, health care for all has been set aside in favor of the insurance companies and the drug companies. A bill is being drawn up that essentially gives them billions more. It is the financial equivalent of bailing out Bank of America and Citi group.
Given these and other serious policy positions taken by the administration, what I will do is support the President when I agree with him - such as the budget, and oppose him when I disagree with him.
I do not owe this president support. I worked hundreds of hours for him. He has collected resources from the Finance industry, from the Summers and the Gheitners. Let them support the President.
I will support the President and the Administration when they are favoring democracy and progress, and oppose them when they are paying off to the plutocracy.
Barack Obama deserves to be analyzed on his own merits. He deserves the best chance possible. And it seems as though he is fully capable of playing multidimensional chess with all of the world’s problems and then having the solution come to light near the end, like when all the pieces in disarray in a rubric’s cube “magically” come into place at the hands of a master. Or in a “CSI” or “The Mentalist” episode, when the crime is solved in the last five minutes.
But more than one or two championship traits are needed in major league baseball. If the Yankees have great hitting and starting pitching, but lack defense or middle relief pitching, they will not be champions. If Mr. Obama—at this tipping point in world history—has great speaking skills and a near genius IQ, but lacks the uncanny ability of FDR to time his fireside chats both in pace and per crisis or lacks the personality traits of an LBJ to play all of his chips—put his foot down, his career on the line—at the right time, he loses—not only a second term, but the lives of hundreds of millions of people worldwide because of the coming climate change crisis and “life as we know it,” as termed by one of the foremost scientists, James Hanson of NASA, who has been predicting climate catastrophe since 1988.
For all of his coolness under pressure and knowledge of the problems at hand, Mr. Obama may be another Herbert Hoover, who, believe it or not—given his infamy as a buffoon—was elected by people who wanted to “let genius have its chance.” Hoover understood the problems of the Great Depression that began early in his term, in October 1929. Nearly all the programs or solutions tried between the Crash of ’29 and FDR’s first term, which didn’t begin until 1932 were copied by Roosevelt, but implemented better and harder. Hoover’s measured IQ likely exceeded that of FDR, but FDR had a sixth sense of how the general populace felt, what the political parties could take, when to use his bully pulpit—which should be Obama’s most potent weapon, and when to get down and dirty behind the scenes.
When Franklin Roosevelt took office, he was only 51, not that much older than Obama. But he had a gravitas to his voice, especially on radio, and a patrician’s air. He manipulated the media, not the corporations. Obama cannot manipulate the corporate media but does have a good command of the Internet. But there is a disconnect. No family sits around its computer to listen to one of Obama’s talks, like they used to when FDR gave a talk on the radio. When that happened, the streets were empty; everyone was listening to Roosevelt and was comforted and inspired by him. I’m sure the topic of his talk was discussed at water coolers the next day. Nothing of the sort is happening with Obama’s many Internet-propelled speeches to the nation. No one knows when they are scheduled. No families await his words. No one speaks of his talk at the coffee machine these days.
And that’s what is needed, if it’s not too late already. Obama has to make HIS speeches as highly watched or listened to as those of Roosevelt. It IS a different time altogether. But Obama’s message got through during the election process. He has to USE his bully pulpit and eloquent words. Or none of us, especially Obama in 2012, will be able to live life as we’ve luxuriated in it since 1980.
http://apocalypse-blues.typepad.com/
Thanks JB and Odoco ------- It has always been divide and conquer.
If one only realizes that we all wish for the same state of happiness we can see our commonalities and realize how to attain our mutual goal of happiness.
THE FIX IS IN, PEOPLE.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DISCREDITS THE LEFT
ALL THE WHILE CARRYING OUT THE GOALS OF THE RIGHT AND THE CORPORATIONS.
IT'S HEADS I WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE.
AND WE'RE NOT ON THE WINNING SIDE OF THAT FLIP.
Schechter's rant is all over the place. But first, is the right wing really going to overthrow Obama? I think Schechter's talking about the social right-wing crazies that listen to Limbaugh, etc. Well, they may be full of hate, but they aren't activists in any sense of the word. They're dittoheads.
If the right-wing crazies take the next step and start picking up guns, they'll end up shooting each other. They'll do a Dick Cheney. We should encourage them to confront the U.S. military that they've always supported over real priorities. Maybe they can test Posse Comitatus head-to-head with Northcom. It's their fascist dream after all.
By all means, let it happen.
Second, what's with this defend Obama thing? Sure, let's organize, but don't waste time doing it to support Obama. The dude doesn't represent our interests - I thought that was clear.
Anyone who felt that old Democratic Party rah-rah spirit on reading this essay - well, just stop it. The Democratic Party may be all you've got, but it's worse than having nothing. You lose over and over again. Take back your mind. Take back your integrity. Stop preemptively surrendering of your principles by hitching your star to the Dem Party. It's just a corporate black hole, sucking in the money, and giving out no light.
Sure, organize, but do it for your interests and that means opposing Obama's policies for the most part. Will things be worse if the Republicans regain power? Well, it's hard to see that now with two Bush wars on the table, single-payer shot down and the Constitution shredded.
-TIA
TIA ------ 8:57 excellent post
Agreed.
Obama like Clinton thinks you can compromise with these people and he'll find out he's wrong wrong wrong!! They play to win and if they make up the rules as they go along that's ok as well. If they can't win they'll hire someone to take him out.
Support is not the issue. We don't live in a democracy. The issue is survival. Our republican/democratic party corporate government is having difficulty surviving because even the police forces and military are looking at government with a jaundiced eye.
It's not about the survival of this government. President Obama was allowed to win this election in order to take the blame for another 9/11-style 'event' that will serve to re-install a vastly more aggressive neocon/repub fascist regime. Remember who's really in charge in all the capitals of the world: the banksters.
Why are we arguing over the good-guy/bad-guy puppets when we know that to change the script, we have to go after the real puppet masters?
Hey Schecter, Obama is the right.
So much has been said here i can't contribute anything new except to shake my fist and regurgitate. But, in hopes that CD or Danny Schechter will read these comments:
Please proofread your articles before sending them out for publication! There are way too many errors in this piece, and as is evidenced by the responses here many people are reading it. I like to think that progressives have a deeper understanding of how they think, the processes involved in developing rational ideas and criticisms, and it pains me to see them delivered so half-assedly to the people who care enough to read them. Let Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin stumble about like uneducated rednecks, you should have more pride than that.
And here it is, Clinton all over again. The right wins because it stands behind its own and fights tooth and nail. It appreciates small gains and blocking small losses.
The left is to disorganized, too puritanical and too 'all or nothing' to ever taint themselves by standing too close to their figurehead. The American people don't take third parties seriously. Recent history has shown this. The Left truly is its own worst enemy.
If Obama were MLK, Ghandi, Chavez, Morales or Castro the left would fight tooth and nail to retain him; but why waste your energy on a warmongering corporate fascist loser?
Well, there really is no left. You, perhaps, are left. I am left. Many here on CD are left. What we have, really, are two teams jockying for the same "right" position, like King of the Hill. The difference between the two is that when the dems gain the crest of the hill they hold it with one or two people whereas when the repubs storm the hill they do so en masse. Third parties are left sending some unfortunate soul swimming through the waves of soulless bodies in an attempt to weave his way unnoticed to the top, because if either of the two teams catch sight of him he'll be crushed like an ant under a thumb.
Go on HuffPo and you get to see how fractured the left is. I'm getting to the point where I can't post over there anymore. The rapid Obama supporters are vicious. You can't post anything in disagreement with Obama. I posted one comment about my disagreeing with his handling of health reform and I was accused of being knee-jerk anti-Obama, a liar who never voted for him, a loser, and I was accused of bashing his family in another post. It was shocking and upsetting. This was a relatively new poster to HuffPo, having joined in July. He obviously never bothered to read any of my other posts on other threads or he would know that I had never comment anything about the Obama family. My interest is strictly on Obama's performance as President. But this is how bad it's getting out there.
The funny thing is that many Republicans voted for Obama, also, for a variety of reasons, there are also many Republicans for single-payer health care. But the extreme right is just so well organized and they're given way, way too much media coverage by everyone.
What does it take for, let's say, single-payer to be covered. Do we have to tea bag like the right wingnuts?
Wherein the Repub. Party might be stronger behind its elected members, presidential ones anyway, than the Dem. Party is, I'm not sure about this. After all, it's the Dem. Party leadership that prevents reformation of the party; it's them who were silently but nevertheless flagrantly complicit in the outing of Dennis Kucinich from Dem. Party candidate debates during the primaries last year; it's them who select invalid (and worse) nominees for the presidential races; it's them ... who rule the party and keep it corrupt as ... hell. They aren't only a very few people and are behind Obama. If they weren't behind him, then we'd definitely hear and read about it, but we don't hear or read anything significantly or substantially of the like, which means that even if they are not explicit in their words backing him, they nevertheless are rather fully backing him, everything he does.
There'd otherwise be clear, firm, loud, ... opposition from the party's "leadership" members; and there is NONE.
They're "present and all (un)accounted for", accounted or unaccounted depending on how we consider the situation. It's just that their support is very silent, apparently absent, in terms of public visibility. They do interrelate behind closed doors, too; instead of closed doors only being for secret talks with corporate leaders, chiefs, and rich shareholders.
But neither of the two main parties backs their very best candidates. They're Ron Paul for the Repub. Party, and Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel for the Dem. Party; if Mike Gravel is still of the DP, anyway. Dennis Kucinich would be the more prominent of the DP's two good candidates, since he's been "shooting for" the U.S. presidency for a longer period.
Neither of the two main parties backs their best candidates.
So, sure, there's backing, but it's awfully sloppy about who's being backed.
And while the Repub. Party might back their elected members more strongly than the Dem. Party does, I've read from a few people, including John Pilger, that the Dem. Party is guilty of more war crimes than the Repub. Party is. Now that's a peculiar ... situation.
So the Repub. Party seems to back its members more strongly than the Dem. Party does for its members; however, this evidently is only a matter of apparences, what's publicly visible, vs what's hidden from public view. In the latter consdiration, the Dem. Party surely does not back its war criminal, corporatist, ... members less than the Repub. Party does. They just use a different approach when on the public stage.
I really wonder why people write just more bla bla bla articles about what the so- and mis-called right says; both left and right being rather nonsensical references, imo. Instead, people should focus on important information and communicate it, including with links to supporting resources. We don't need journalists to try to mold our thinking; we need them to provide us with the data, after which we [should] be able to do our own analysis. It's okay for journalists to provide some analysis or personal perspective for readers who have difficulty with performing competent analyses, but this should be minimal. We need people to be able to critically think for them-, our-selves, instead of having fishies thrown our way.
Anyway, Danny Schechter evidently could've found something useful to write about, instead of the so-called right is doing bla bla bla nonsense again against the so-called left, which is also full of bla bla bla .... Heck, the left is so full of that bs that its members pretend that voting for lesser evil is less than voting for evil. Duh?!
Oregoncharles
We all know there is a fascist empire behind the curtain, right?
Obama is playing a role. He knows it, many of us know it. Boil away all the empty theatrics and what you have left is the following:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." For those who didn't like it, another Bush adviser explained, "Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read the New York Times or Washington Post or the LA Times.
(top Bush official talking to Ron Suskind.
(Obama, Bush, two sides of the same fascist coin)
We on the far-left tried to get people to set terms for the Demoks to earn the people's vote. Had the people set these terms either the Demoks would have met them or not.
Had the Demoks met the terms the people would now be in control of the Demoks and we'd have no erosion of Demoks and no resurgence of Repuks.
Had the Demoks failed to meet the people's terms, substantial votes for third parties would have shaken the establishment foundation and the people would now be in control of the Demoks and we'd have no erosion of Demoks and no resurgence of Repuks.
In both cases the key element is the people's control achieved by setting terms for the elite parties to earn the people's vote, and denying the vote when they fail to meet the terms. This effectively commandeers the parties, and indentures them to the will of the people. The presence of third party alternatives, and the people's willingness to vote for them, are crucial to this strategy.
The Demoks take abuse from Repuks while enabling Repuk crimes. Out of this the Demoks get to share power and the Repuks get to avoid self-destruction.
By commandering the Demok party in the way outlined above, the people end the Demoks' enabling role. The Repuks thus become extremely vulnerable to their own evil and stupidity. When they buy votes and exploit the power for their evil ends, they will no longer have refuge and their evil energy will tend to dampen itself.
As the Demok party is commandeered by the people, when the the Repuks finish a cycle of evil, power shifts back to the people's commandered Demok party, and the people use that to further raise the battlements against elite oppression, and further weaken the Repuk party and the elite establishment, generally. The key is to commandeer the Demok party, by setting terms for their earning our votes, and denying them votes when they fail. Note that voting third parties into office is another way of commandeering the Demok party, so it doesn't matter if it meet the people's terms or not. All that matters is this simple principled action by the people.
Eh.
True enough, but the right will gain more from 0's failure to follow through on progressive policies that his supporters thought he had.
Obomba the fool. By catering to the banks, big $$$ and the WarMachine, GOP bailiwicks, he is insuring he'll have no base at all soon and will be a one term president.
At least Cheney looked America in the eye when he said eff you.
Teflon Obamba mirages us as he escalates War & Death.
In the fields the bodies burning,
While the War Machine keeps turning,
Death & Hatred to mankind.....Right on Obamba, what God do you say you worship?
"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."
Speaking of that, as AGG and others on this site have correctly pointed out, the Obama PR trolls that are being sent to infiltrate as many progressive/liberal sites are at it in full force and we're not even into 2010 yet. Already, I've witnessed massive trolling on some of the other progressive sites despite some of the good people myself included trying to make our points. I know I shouldn't go there but sometimes I feel like reaching out to those few who share our thoughts. I have been able to invite a lot of them to this site so that as time goes on we might be able to come up with ways to counter-infiltrate the Obamabots both online and in the real world.
Another thing I wanted to point out was about Obama and the Democratic Party in general. Again, having revisited George Lakoff's writings on Strict Father Morality vs Nurturent Parenting Model and Sioux Rose's Mars vs Venus writings and life in 2020 and beyond, here's what I find very disturbing about the Democratic Party and especially Obama's supporters. It appears that after getting very desperate and feeling powerless from 2004, this party decided not to go genuinely populist but instead find a sneakier way to fake populism but retain the status quo. This fits right in to Mars playing tricks or for that matter conservatives pretending nurturence for window dressing purposes and sadly it has worked. The Obamabots pretend hope, love, peace, etc ... but the minute you question their contradictory moves, they turn out to be even more vicious than Dubya's followers. Even worse, I have encountered random acts of violence from Obama's supporters. The Obamabots are very jealous and are going out of their ways to outdo the Republicans in the worst ways possible. Obama may very well go down like Carter but unlike Carter, Obama is very cunning like Raygun and Dubya and I already fear that like last year, he and his gang and followers will use every weapon at their disposal. I don't think Obama will win a second term ala Nixon in 1972 and Raygun in 1984 but he could pull a Dubya 2004 by 2012. He did it last year with small donations. And even though this time he has to run as an incumbent, Dubya used his tricks of pretending he was running in 2004 for his first term and not his second and Obama could very well expand on that trick. This does not look good. If last year's surprising primary and general election results taught me any lessons, it was to not underestimate Obama. He's even more politically armed than even most of us could imagine.
I have to admit, it's hard to put Carter and Obama in the same camp. Carter is the real deal. And post-Presidency he's never stopped working for the common good. Even now when he speaks his mind he gets excoriated for it by certain parties. I've only recently read some of his speeches regarding the environment and energy. He was just so right and far more eloquent than Obama has ever been.
One of the best articles that nailed my increasing unease with Obama was Chris Hedges' article on Truthdig on "Buying Brand Obama." It just said it all. And you're right about Obamabots, they are far worse than Bushies, as I just noted in my latest unfortunate experience on HuffPo.
- One of your sentences here caught my eye: "...It appears that after getting very desperate and feeling powerless from 2004, this party [ie, the Democrats] decided not to go genuinely populist but instead find a sneakier way to fake populism but retain the status quo..."
- That's basically right, but it's not just something that developed since 2004. Rather, that's the role the Democrats ALWAYS play in the 2-party system. They're ALWAYS selling fake populism. Their standard operating procedure is to pretend to be the "party of the common man," while the Republicans appeal more directly to authoritarians, religious fanatics, & people who admire bullies.
In this way, the role of the Republicans is to frighten naive & decent people towards the more soft-spoken Democrats. Then the role of the Dems is to fool & betray those people.
The "genius" of this 2-party system is that no matter which party you pick, the basic economic & military policies are virtually identical. But liberals feel so much more comfortable when the softer-speaking Dems are in power, that they don't really notice that the policies are virtually the same.
Rich M 3:22 excellent analysis.
Almost every mainstream party has begun as a third party, the Repugs and Demo even switched roles, , both left and right need to unite in a populist third party --- The Green Constitutionalists?
Ah, thanks RichM for the correction. I forgot to mention that Clinton also faked populism before he won only to sell us out on NAFTA, Telecom Act of 1996, Freedom to Farm Act of 1996, DOMA, China PNTR, etc ... I don't know about Carter and the previous Democrats as far as populism campaigning is concerned. I can remember after I voted Nader in 2000 when I foolishly thought that maybe the Democrats would come around and pull an Andrew Jackson on Dubya by 2004. Boy was I wrong. The minute I saw Democrats agreeing to Bush's tax cuts plan in 2001, I asked my parents about it and my parents teased and humiliated me because they voted for Dubya and blindly bought into his ideology hook, line, and sinker and thought I was losing my faculties by voting for Ralph Nader. I tried to ask them about who will pay for our local budgets without the money and where the money will come from. My dad once yelled at me "Hush little girl. We're paying too much in taxes and we need more money to take home instead of give to the government in wasteful spending ! If Carnahan doesn't vote yes, we're voting Republican for senator and hope you'll do it too !" I tried to find people who voted Democrat in my small town. The few who did didn't even sound liberal but told me that we just have to concede and go along or we'll lose. The same thing happened later that year on the vote for the Patriot Act and the year after that on the Iraq War resolution. My parents and their friends and neighbors, most of them staunch Republicans would forever tease and humiliate me for thinking independently and even the ones who voted Democrat would act as if I had a mental case. Last year, at work after the phony presidential debate, I was cast aside for saying that I thought both of them were the same. When I look at what you say and recollect a lot of those upsetting moments in life when I felt shackled every time I tried to discuss politics, what you said appears to fit in rather well. I don't know if the liberals in power don't notice or notice but want to fool us into believing that they don't notice so that they can slip away with the cash. Thank you again, RichM. It's sweet to hear from a variety of angles. I've also met some here on the forum who share the same pain they were put through for thinking independently. I will keep this point in mind the next time someone out there wonders what's with the Dems and libs.
Sioux Rose
J.B. Thank you for the referal in your tireless postings (!), however allow me to please clarify: my concept of the pervasiveness of what I term "Mars rules" is seen in the growth of the military-industrial complex and its worldwide web of bases. BOTH parties embrace this monster; and although one hoped to have in Obama or any Democrat a kinder, gentler foreign & domestic set of policies, the unholy marriage of "Mars rules and Mammon (bankers) says" is largely what's gutting what's left of this nation's resources, sanity, and founding principles. It's a spiritual disease!
Every human being is born with a birth map, and two of its key "signatures" include actual placements for Mars (which represents the human ego and RAW self-interest) and Venus (an interest in being closer to this Essence we term Love, and developing social, as well as creative skills). Thus it can be argued that every human being, along with every entity created (the nation-state, political parties) by them reflects these qualitative principles. The key comes down to balance. The American diet--from what it digests as "food for thought" in the form of media, movies, news, advertising, to what it actually ingests (faux fake filler packaged AS food) builds up an appetite for Mars, Mars, and more Mars! As the young fellow I date put it, movies are trying to find bigger, badder, blast scenes to up the ante on what the public has come to expect. There just is not the same INVESTMENT in those things that build up our collective VENUS "account," which due to a faulty over-zealous identification with the god of War has led to an imbalance in favor of Mars. All around us lie the results: from dead ecosystems to war made as easily as a business decision, from torture validated by heads of "free" nation, to children sold into sexual bondage, from a national budget bled for aggression, to citizens begging for remotely humane health care. And the list goes on...
Sioux, what you said in the second paragraph fascinates me. Time and again when we're faced with life's problems, our minds will conflict between solving the problem(s) nice and easy or hard and rough. There is a lot that's going through my mind as I read this so I think I will have to figure this out slow and easy. You gave me another homework assignment on understanding more about balances. Thank you. :)
PS: I just love this site for another reason. Unlike school, homework assignments can be so challenging and fascinating. :)
If Obama doesn't stand against the Honduran coup, how does he expect to avoid the same fate at home? Fascism is rampant but only wins when the center gives it the keys to the palace, which it usually does to avoid revolution on the Left.
Wow, this is the way an Empire dies, or becomes even scarier danger to the world in its death throws.
Well the U.S. did recently revoke the visas of four leading members of the Honduran coup. Maybe they're actually trying to deliver a firmer message. But Obama's problems with domestic issues are mild compared to his foreign policy dilemma.
In the latter area he's facing something like mutiny in the ranks of his own chosen cabinet. In particular, both Hillary "Reckless Zelaya" Clinton and Joe "Israel Green Light" Biden are cutting him off at the knees on several issues, with no little assistance from Rahm Emanuel and the Israeli lobby of course.
Looks like O's not the only one delivering a message. But I should hastily add that he has little sympathy from me. He made his own bed.
Six months into Obama's presidency and the democratically controlled congress, its strikingly clear they're already going down in flames--and going down fast.
By the end of the 2012 election cycle, the republicans will control the white house and congress will again be split--at best.
A huge waste of a wonderful opportunity to really do some great things.
Simply incredible.
"Will Progressives Respond To The Attempt to Overthrow The President?"
Obama is not a progressive in any sense. That became clear after only three months in office. His lack of any ideals or willingness to fight for them may finish him off by '012. He will have no one blame but himself. And if the lazy, gullible, uninformed American people want to bring back the Republicans to finish off this nation, so be it. Couldn't happen to a dumber bunch. "Yeah", Joe Sicks Pack says, "my ambition in life was always to commit suicide."
"Will Progressives Respond To The Attempt to Overthrow The President?"
It seems respondents may be replying mostly to the sub-head of the article, not to the substance of Schecter's full argument.
i can only say again: Schecter is explicitly NOT calling on us to uncritically "support" Obama. He is calling on us to mobilize ourselves as a movement to counter the visible threat of a fanatical recidivist movement seizing power.
i like RV's reply about the ensuing Dark Age.
It is precisely in times of economic depression, social turmoil and political hopelessness that fascism is most likely to take root.
Are the fascists and liberals really just two heads of the same beast? Why historically have fascists who achieve power, violently smashed the liberals?
They violently smash the left as well.
If you want to argue that the fascist threat in the USA today is nothing but a paper tiger, you are free to do so.
Webwalk 1:03 ----- of course we will oppose fascism that is exactly why we cannot support the fascist imperial criminal O.
Quote: ""Will Progressives Respond To The Attempt to Overthrow The President?"
It seems respondents may be replying mostly to the sub-head of the article, not to the substance of Schecter's full argument."
Then he should've properly sub-titled the article! The title and subtitle, together, should already tell a reader enough about what the article's about, instead of being misleading!
And what's the nonsense about "liberals", as if being "liberal" is good and conservative is bad? Hell is liberal. Is that what you promote for humanity; hell?
Too many people badly and poorly use the terms of "liberal", "conservative" and "progressive", and "leftist" and "rightist" are also used in bs ways. People should, instead, learn to communicate [clearly], precisely, correctly.
F.e., many people refer to the Repub. Party as conservative, but never say what the party's members are conserving, for it's clearly not the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the USA's obligations regarding international laws, etcetera. And many refer to the Dem. Party as liberal, but don't say what the liberalism is about, while also never mentioning that the party is guilty of more war crimes over the past five, six, or more decades than the Repub. Party is, and while also pretending that their so-called "lesser" evil is really lesser without providing any kind of evidence to support this claim. Well, the latter is an example of liberalism alright; to make claims that the claimants refuse to support with proof all while pretending that they're supposedly to be believed. Yep, that's definitely "liberal". Meanwhile, the conservative will require the proof.
Similarly, the "conservative" clergy in the Roman Catholic Church; no one says what these idiots are conserving, for it's clearly NOT the teachings and ways of Jesus. We have the heads of the RCC in Honduras, presently, for such an example. They are hellbent with the oligarchy, all sleeping and ... doing whatever they all do in bed together, together, they're doing; and that is all hellbent bs clergical conduct Jesus would treat more harshly than he did the usurers, the money exchangers in the temple, synagogue, whatever the payer or house of worship place, building was called.
Etcetera.
I'm neither liberal nor conservative, that is, not when it comes to the way these terms or qualifiers are bogusly or very badly misused by MANY people in the USA. It also applies in Canada, but to a much lesser extent. 300mn vs 33mn population; yah, to a much lesser extent. Metro-NYC alone is around 23mn for population, human, albeit probably little else can live there.
People need to stop the bad habit of incorrectly, inaccurately employing the terms "liberal", "conservative" and "progressive". According to my idea of "progress", what I'd like to see for this, we ain't got none to speak of; we're DESTROYERS, polluters, consumer pigs, etcetera. And I don't know what the hell's being conserved, but nothing good, evidently. Meanwhile, people liberally use these terms in inaccurate ways.
Ha.
Mike Corbeil,
Thanks. i always appreciate your carefully argued and well-referenced posts here.
i agree about the misuse of terms. i hoped my distinction between "liberals" and "the left" was some sort of useful distinction, and i recognize that both terms are effectively meaningless if not carefully contextualized, which i did not do. i certainly was not intending to equate "liberal" with "good". i hoped that was clear. i'm sorry it was not.
My point was that historically fascists explicitly see clear distinction between themselves and those they name "liberals", whether economic liberals ("free" trade, capitalism, etc), political liberals (democracy, republicanism, etc), social liberals (tolerance, bohemianism etc), or social welfare liberals (welfare state, etc), and that part of the strategic practice of fascism toward attaining state power is the demonization of liberals and liberalism.
And that while there are strong "left" critiques of "liberalism", that does not mean liberalism equals fascism, nor should be treated equivalently by people on "the left" (socialists, anarchists, communists, etc - "progressives" too in some uses of the term).
That said, i am not unaware that the historical record of liberalism, in the lived experience of much of the world, includes genocide, colonialism, imperialism, neo-colonialism, "liberal interventionism", etc, thus the "left critiques" of liberalism. i am not advocating or defending liberalism, just asserting (with Schecter i believe) that "our" response to the fanatic "right-wing" demagoguery he is calling to our attention, is not dependent on our interpretation of the Obama administration.
And finally i concede the point that the Schecter argument i am painfully extracting from his article is buried under references to "defending" this presidency, without extensive elaboration. Nonetheless, i think the quotes from the article that i've cited in my posts stand. i'd love to see Schecter's response to my interpretations...
Good points, Mike. I, for one, wish MSM would stop pretending that health care reform is conservative vs. liberal/Repubs vs. Dems. I am not seeing the Democrats unanimously support what's best for their constituents- and that includes other major issues, not just health care reform.
You've already written this same exact post 4 or 5 times on this thread. I don't think there's any justification for that. Be that as it may, you do raise the question, "Are the fascists and liberals really just two heads of the same beast? Why historically have fascists who achieve power, violently smashed the liberals?...They violently smash the left as well..."
- I'm not convinced it's true that fascists have historically gone after liberals with anything like the same zeal with which they've gone after leftists. To the extent that it might be true, the fascists may simply have decided that a few choice liberals were troublesome, & decided to make examples of them.
For instance, the Bush admin probably found Paul Krugman troublesome. But he's no leftist. He's a liberal -- completely devoted to capitalism & the 2-party system, etc. It is conceivable that Bush-style fascists would want to eliminate voices like his. Several journalists who are also distinctly not radicals -- like Phil Donahue & Robt Scheer -- were fired during the Bush admin, for similar reasons.
This can't be compared to what right-wingers do to serious leftists, though. I'd estimate that liberals themselves exercise more repression against leftists than right-wingers do against liberals. In other words, there are only limited differences between righties and liberals, compared to what separates both of them from leftists. Righties & libs both defend the same system, albeit slightly different colorations of it. But lefties oppose that entire system. For most practical purposes, fascists & liberals are indeed "two heads of the same beast." That beast may appear "liberal" during calm times, but may easily turn to an extreme right-wing orientation, when times are more difficult.
If it were mere suicide, it might be tolerable and even welcome, and the destructive death throes of the imperium itself might possibly be endurable. The ensuing Dark Age, however, could turn out to be a real downer.
"Will Progressives Respond To The Attempt to Overthrow The President?"
I don't see why progressives should defend the president who doesn't represent them.
Obama made his own bed. His "bipartisan" agenda, designed to gain the support of the right totally backfired - it cost him the support of the left, and the right wingers will always hate him no matter what. It is so simple a child can understand it.
Obama needs to decide which side he is on, although I believe it is too late now for any "change we can believe in". In other words, he blew it.
Oregoncharles
He didn't blow it. Obama is playing a role and he knows what it entails. We are being further divided and confused. They really have rolled up their shirt sleeves for this one!
The empire's "research and developers" know full well that We the People have much more in common with one another than we do with the top 1%. Hence, the theatrics to divide us. What we need to do is turn our backs to both parties and stop this nonsense. Aren't we grown ups? Can't we call a spade a spade?
So what if Obama is "taken down." Let him go. What has he done for you? for anyone but the very richest among us? Had he actually been a friend to the workers, the unemployed, the sick, the uninsured, the helpless victims of war, he would have been enormously popular. But that is not what he was hired to do. His role is to continue the theatrics until the job is done, until We the People are desperate enough to do anything just to eat and have a roof over our heads. (He and his kids will make out just fine.)
You are witnessing manipulative theater. We are being led down this dark path, unable/unwilling to fight back. Why can't we fight back? Answer: Obama.
Heck of a job, Obama! Strut your stuff!
In the meantime, can we have an opposition movement yet? no? As I've been saying for over 20 years, if not now, when?
Damnit, I could not have said it better myself. Let Obama's ass go. If the right wingers want to take him down in a coup, the only legitimacy they'll have at that point is in the barrel of a gun. Why can't we see this and just stand up to the lot of them, right wingers and democraps? If I got anything from this article, the idea that WE will have to build social structures, that meet the needs of the people, OUTSIDE the confines of the Demopublicans and Republicrats. BTW, anarchists have been saying this exact same thing for almost 200 years now and no one seems to be listening. We don't need a government; we need each other and we need each other right now!
Oregon 5:58 ----- EXCELLENT POST --------- Obama is nothing but a tool to divide the open eyed left from the desperately clinging Liberals.
I propose destroying the wedges and unite all the commoners in a populist PARTY.
i can only say again: Schecter is explicitly NOT calling on us to uncritically "defend" Obama. He is calling on us to mobilize ourselves as a movement to counter the visible threat of a fanatical recidivist movement seizing power.
It is precisely in times of economic depression, social turmoil and political hopelessness that fascism is most likely to take root. As others on this thread have pointed out, exploiting every political division is explicitly in the fascist tool box.
And if you think the fascists and liberals are really just two heads of the same beast, why historically have fascists who achieve power, violently smashed the liberals? The right wingers will not hate Obama after they have destroyed him.
They violently smash the left as well.
If you want to argue that the fascist threat in the USA today is nothing but a paper tiger, you are free to do so.
The "bipartisan" agenda isn't decided upon by any of the politicians. It comes bundled with their paid sponsorship packages.
There's no doubt that Obama richly deserves to be overthrown, but if it stops there, don't expect any other "bipartisan" substitution to be an improvement.
Personally, I am not buying all the "Obama is slipping/failing" hype. The Regressive agenda would poison all hope through indoctrination and propaganda. Even if there was a grain of truth (all good propaganda has a grain of truth), it is still a lie of omission.
I agree with those who criticize Obama for acomodating the imperial agenda and that the Imperialist-regressives would play him like J.C. (Jimmy Carter), but wouldn't they need another Reagan and a massive expansion of credit and debt to make that happen?
I think that "Plan B", at best. Possible, but not likely.
Bring America Back !!!!........!....Danny Schecter needs to take Democracy 101. It is not the job of the Lefties or of Progressives to fight against the overthrow of Obama from the Right Radicals. That is the job of the FBI !!!
**I concur with most posts below from associate progressives, who clearly believe this President has embraced the third term of King Bush !
**We know, in 6 short months, Obama has gone against every campaign promise he made to the Nation, of Change, of Hope, of Promise, of Inspiration. He has thrown the lefty progressive movement under the proverbial Bus !...along with his Minister and his Grandmother !
**Obama has abandoned us so badly that it is extremely obvious those campaign rhetoric had to be outright lies. Almost too numerous to reiterate here !
**If we have to answer Schecter's virtual question, the answer is NO, we lefties will not fight a 3-fold campaign to defend a Prez who has embraced the very right-wing imbiciles we elected him to defeat! His agenda is outright NeoCon ! DemCon !
**We are much too busy. After the momentus struggle to get elected the first black American President, we just have to be looking for a Progressive candidate to oppose Him and the Right radicals in 2012 !!
Team Obama is a one term trick pony which already has demonstrated it does not deserve another term in the highest Office in the Nation. NO !!!
*********And, NO, Hillary, it is NOT your turn, either !!!!
"Schecter needs to take Democracy 101. It is not the job of the Lefties or of Progressives to fight against the overthrow of Obama from the Right Radicals. That is the job of the FBI !!!"
What i learned in Democracy 101 is that the instruments of the state cannot be relied on to protect against fascism. Instead it is an engaged and active public that must be relied upon. And relying on hopes of a future candidate who will realize our agenda is naive - we need to be mobilized as an active movement exercising our own power.
It's tough. Historically, liberals have repeatedly sold out the left, communists have betrayed anarchists, etc etc etc, and it is incredibly distasteful for many of us to stand, metaphorically and really, shoulder to shoulder with liberals, given the history and current reality of betrayal.
The only reason would be, if we recognize a threat to all of us that justifies the shared effort. To my reading, and based on his lifetime of writing about politics and movements, Schecter knows this.
i can only say again: Schecter is explicitly NOT calling on us to uncritically "support" Obama. He is calling on us to mobilize ourselves as a movement to counter the visible threat of a fanatical recidivist movement seizing power.
Maybe it was Democracy 102 where we learned that it is precisely in times of economic depression, social turmoil and political hopelessness that fascism is most likely to take root. As others on this thread have pointed out, exploiting every political division is explicitly in the fascist tool box.
And if you think the fascists and liberals are really just two heads of the same beast, why historically have fascists who achieve power, violently smashed the liberals?
They violently smash the left as well.
If you want to argue that the fascist threat in the USA today is nothing but a paper tiger, you are free to do so.
Bring America Back !!!!.........!...Thank you-- webwalk--- for these additional comments.
**I do understand the distinctions you are making.
**You seem to have roots grounded back in the day !! That was when Nixon failed
to end Vietnam, as promised, we blocked Key Bridge, campuses nationwide raged, and we were gased and shot and killed at Kent State.
**But you seem to be tip-toeing into the realms of autocracy there, with
some violence bent solutions, and undertones. Not good.
**No matter what we do, the Right will come up with their wolf in sheeps
clothing for 2012====Romney, Jeb Bush, Michael Strong,,,waiting in the wings.
**Meantime their fascist shouting shills=====Rove, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity,
O'Reilly, Cheney will be tearing up the battlefield as best they can.
They are not Paper Tigers by any means, due to the vast audiences they have,
but they are not SS Troops either.
Unfortunately, we Progs must seek our strong candidate, also to oppose both Obama and whatever Right Winger the NeoCons come up with ! It is already clear that Obama is not up to the tasks we hired him for !!
*And when I say strong Progressive, I do not mean Hillary Clinton !
Thanks for the reply.
i do not intend to give violent undertones. i support Schecter's call for mobilization and action around economic issues, real demonstrations to people that progressive's have an agenda that is about real people's lives, and that we are not all talk or political strategy but we are in streets and neighborhoods working to change lives. As Schecter states:
"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?"
i believe such mobilization IS resistance to fascism, refusing to leave a vacuum that demagogues can fill unchallenged with bloviation and hate-mongering.
i do admit to being old enough to recall Kent State...
Commondreamers,
This essay is a pretty good example of the toxic nature of American culture and politics. Don't be fooled good people, all the ranting and name-calling does not quaalify as valid discussion nor debate of the issues. I suspect the poison has to do with America's competitive culture which foolishly pits man against man, man against woman, man against nature, man against himself.
Something to ponder ...
The politics of the United States of America are liberal, liberal, liberal. For the most part, the "classic" liberals are the Libertarians. Mostly, the "progressives" are liberal socialists. The conservatives / neo-consevatives are liberal corporatists by degree.
Generally, American liberalism strongly believes in representative democracy, open-trade with other nations (free or fair), higher education (public or private) for all, trial by jury, etc.
In the main, classic liberals want a society based on individualism, capitalism and non-interventionism. Progressive liberals seem to want a society based on collectivism and the welfare state. Conservative / neo-conservative liberals want a society controlled by corprorate interests (which comes the closest to an American-style fascism) of the US of A.
Folks, I have traveled world-wide a great deal. In my experience, despite all the dumb things we do as a people, the United States of America is the most tolerant and generous nation on earth. Perhaps, ever. Most foreigners, esp. 3rd Worlders, would do anything for a chance to live and work here.
Have a GREAT day!
"... despite all the dumb things we do as a people, the United States of America is the most tolerant and generous nation on earth."
Wow. Have you got that backwards. It's the people (at least some of them) who are tolerant and generous. It's the nation and its imperial leadership that does the dumb things.
As for all those "3rd Worlders" wanting to live and work in the "1st World", who could blame them? On the other hand, who and what is most reponsible for creating most of the global disparities in the first place? Imperial generosity?!
Response to: "Folks, I have traveled world-wide a great deal. In my experience, despite all the dumb things we do as a people, the United States of America is the most tolerant and generous nation on earth. Perhaps, ever. Most foreigners, esp. 3rd Worlders, would do anything for a chance to live and work here."
I've traveled too. Most of the world is strongly against our foreign policies. My friends in Europe generally think a visit to the US is sufficient. They don't have desire to live here. Of course people from undeveloped countries would rather live here, because in many of those countries, resources such as food, energy, water are scarce. In many cases, it is because the "generous" US has supported governments in those countries that have ignored their own people so that the US can achieve foreign policy goals, such as military and oil related. If those countries governents (elected or not) don't fall in line with US policy, the "generous" US not only withdraws support for those countries (which usually causes the populace to suffer but not the government), but the US strong-arms other countries into harsh sanctions against the countries, including even stopping the importing of adequate food and medicine causing millions to suffer.
Frankly I am very frustrated with the wishy-washy, namby-pamby way Democrats have been acting. For the most part they are all a bunch of spineless sissy's. The Right is very aggressive and demanding and the Democrats respond by being "oh so understanding" and trying to find a compromise or water down legislation just so the wingnuts on the other side don't get mad. Idiots! We are going to lose everything if we don't get up and fight for what is right!
Obama is NOT the progressive some people make him out to be. Face facts, he is a center-right Democrat. But at least he is 100 times better than the alternative which would be a hard-right Republican. I have conservative friends who are convinced that Obama is the new Stalin! It's insane. It really is. I try to tell them that Obama is not the hard core leftist they think he is but logic and facts mean nothing to them. After all, Rush said Obama is a commie so by God he must be!
We really do have a major uphill battle. We have to fight the right-wing spin machine and the corporate media. God help us if we fail. We could end up a right-wing theocracy!
You are right, it is totally crazy how distorted views of political leanings are. I have friends who are diehard Obama supporters who refuse to see that he does NOT represent our interests, that it's just more of the same. They use the lame excuses about what a mess Bush left him, how he's been in office "only 6 months" and how some of these changes I expect (single payer health care) are "too radical" (even though Obama publicly supported single payer at one time). Or, they blame any lack of real progress and change on the blue dogs and few Republicans in power. On the other hand, the conservatives think Obama is, depending on the day and which rightwing idiot they're listening to or watching, a Socialist, Communist, or Nazi. Meanwhile, the country continues to go downhill (except, of course, for the very wealthy who can still afford to do whatever they want), and 22,000 people- and increasing- will die every year while we wait and hope for a fix to health care.
It's never easy to reconcile all the multiple fantasies of the American Dream and, for those whose actual goal is to sustain the corporatist nightmare that is the current reality, the desirability of any such reconciliation is doubtful at best. They know very well that their own agenda can prevail aginst any isolated opposing faction. So, on any particular issue, they're free to cater exclusively to their natural allies and ignore the rest.
Their only real fear is that the peasantry may find common ground in some of the key areas of concern such as military adventurism and the extraordinary influences of corporate power in every area of human existence. Fortunately for them, counteracting that possibility is quite simple. They just focus on as many of the most divisive issues as they can find or invent and the purists of every hue and stripe fall for it every time. The team rallying cries and the fear factor are also useful tools of course.
Sioux
RV: Wise post.
BE FOR KIDS: If you read this, I suggest you contact Mr. Schechter about your "Main Street Party" plans and goals. Perhaps he can be of assistance in spreading the word!
Hi,
Schecter is NOT calling on us to support Obama in the sense of "support his health care plan" or "support the war in Afghanistan".
Schecter is calling on us to recognize the rabid fascist thugs who are massing and talking quite openly about overthrowing the government.
Schecter is asking us to mobilize, by numerous means, around OUR agenda, in order to counter the rabid right AND to counter the "slippery center", with our own STRENGTH.
Did some of us read a different article? Schecter explicitly does NOT say "You must all support the Obama agenda".
Yes, the right is maneuvering Obama into some untenable positions, ripe for failure. The Obama machine seems to be losing energy.
As an independent I wish him the best of luck, but he lost what moral standing he MIGHT have had by going along with the Bush crimes and continuing Bush policies relative to the fraud known as the Global War On Terror, no matter that Obama has renamed it.
If he had taken the moral high ground when coming in, if Holder were credible about prosecuting high crimes and misdemeanors, then he might have some moral capital to work with.
Unfortunately, he has none because he actively condones and protects the immoral policies of Bush.
Sioux Rose
CHUPA: I agree with your post. The chilling thing is he's being set up as the hang man ANYWAY. If it was his fate to be the fall guy, there to assume the impact for the domino effect of not only Bush's policies of naked resource acquisition in a war of blunt conquest; but also the fallout from NAFTA, the deregulation of media, and the "tearing down of that wall" between investment banks & Wall ST (as virtually constructed in the form of the Glass-Steagall Act)... he might have decided to go down fighting for the principles that ultimately count, that define one as a leader, as opposed to the latest shill and CEO for "brand" America.
Just as the Neocons had a specific agenda planned for Iraq that led to many unforeseen consequences, if Obama had been initially prepared to follow the bidding of his fiscal masters (and that's not us, the taxpayers) then perhaps the law of unintended consequences heading his way like a tsunami might compel him to change course. A lawyer I dated years back told me whether in life or a courtroom, the surprise element was always the thing that threw the deal or made it. Can Obama surprise us this late in the game to save his own skin, and the way history will ultimately define his presidency? (This of course presumes there IS a history to be written about this era.)
NMBill, thanks.
I think you're being funny, but I'm not sure. Still, a perfect example (parody?) of how the level of comments here at CD have sunk.
A real masterpiece of disjointed, incoherent, moronic thinking.
"He should of educated the right-wing about what's going on in the world."
By Godfrey, Yes! That's the answer! Why didn't anyone else ever thing of that?
Yes, truly a masterpiece. Thanks again.
I have never been more frustrated and serious! NOBODY seems to get before the camera and talk about what WE talk about on Common Dreams. The truth will conquer all.
Obama should just speak truth to power!
Hold on now--Obismal brought all this upon himself--he has sucked-up to thoes who we dispise--kept W's policies of war, and secrecy--he's not even Bush lite--he's more clever, thus more dangerous. When Kennedy became pres. he took control away from the previous admin. (nixed the Bay of Pigs deal)the CIA payed him back with lead poison to the brain--JFK was a real leader and not just a politician like BHO--that his pastor told us he was--is. Give me a real leader or give me back anarcy so I can fully rebel against it.
I totally agree with you. Obama has given the proverbial finger to his progressive Democratic and Independent supporters too many times. Obama will never be able to run in the same league with the two Kennedys -- Jack and Bobby -- or Lincoln, for that matter, who supposedly he idolizes. And, of course, he'll never come close to MLK.
PaulfromGA August 1st, 2009 9:35 am
Totally agree.
I usually like Danny as he gets to the bottom of some good stories. But he falls quite short on this one. His only good point is to point out that the left has got to start doing instead of mouthing.
It is not the lefts fault that Obama is another slick willie. He spoke to the dumbed down american people with illusions that he was going to move the country to the left. If you had a brain you could see the turning away from his illusions right from the beginning.
As he chose his advisers one by one he climbed into bed with corporate slime balls that paved the way in his campaign.
I think the people he is loosing are those not smart enough to see through O's BS.They are starting to see through his illusions.To me the repugs are thugs their time in office is creul and unusual punishment but Rahm Emmanual as head of the democratic party and holding dual citizenship with Israel and the moneyed class says it all about the democrats.
We are way beyond re-educating the public about the crap that reigns down on us from both parties and if we want change and hope must start to create and support a third.
Hey Danny I see you spell as bad as I do but I spend the time to use spell check.
He should've brought both the Iraq and Afghan wars -- the whole "global war on terror", in fact -- to a swift and complete end, no matter how much the right screamed, ranted and raved. If anything wrecks Obama's presidency, it'll be his running as a peace candidate and then governing as anything but.
Commenter mxyzptlk attributes Mr. Schechter's bad spelling and grammar to not having a proof reader. I think that being published by CommonDreams should point the finger to its own proofreaders.
Mr. Schechter's alliterations and fireworks vocabulary does not adequately compensate for his terrible violations of the conventions of Good English. CommonDreams editors must be better than this.
No doubt the clicking keyboard syndrome of "Netroots activists who prefer emails to organizing is part of the cause" is part of the problem. Writers should be more careful even in their electronic local newspaper comments.
In my opinion, what Progressives need is to carefully focus on and study the rise of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly, distasteful as that might be. We need a figurehead like the mirror image of Limbaugh to take on the multifaceted current issues on a daily basis--a person who won't be fired for thought crime like Phil Donahue or Peter Arnett or Keith Olbermann were by [MS]NBC. A person like Amy Goodman but less eclectic and objective. An _American Dream Machine_ Archie Bunker (without the canned laughs). A Dixie Chick who'll never apologize. A Michael Moore with blazer and tie appeal. An uncowable liberal.
All we have to do is get around Rupert Murdoch's total control of media--and bad proofreading. We need a brand new Phil Donahue Show.
Getting around Rupert Murdoch might be a little harder than you think.
Amy Goodman is who I thought of as I read your comment. Then you said 'someone less objective and eclectic'. I think she is doing just fine considering 'Ropert Murdoch's total control of media'. The only problem with Amy is her health. Sometimes I worry that she is giving too much of herself.
I think using Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh as a criteria is a mistake, as is your repugnance of bad English. Those who give Bill and Rush any creditability do so because of their personality type, not their education or lack thereof. We have to cut them loose and learn to protect ourselves from their innane tirades. Also we have to embrace those of a liberal bent who's education is not up to our standards. Some of the most effective liberals were labor organizers who came up from the ranks and had very little education.
As for Phil Donahue, I don't think he'd do any better than Amy in todays United States. Fighting the Rupert Murdoch thought control empire is impossibly difficult--the example of Gore Vidal comes to mind.
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.
Golly Gee 9:25 --------- I guess you have not noticed but the some federal court judges and a few in congress are the only people in government oppossing O attacks on the constitution.
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...
GoldenMean is absolutely right. I was one of those banned for my open and vehement opposition against Snobama. At the time, I had been a part of CD for almost a year. Before the election, you couldn't find an article on here that didn't speak about Snobama in nothing less than glowing terms. Perhaps, CD's editors have come to see just what a letdown the new Pres has really been for 'progressives'. There were people like Ardee who was against Obama from the beginning and people like me, who had no real horse in the race. As it stands, I'm beginning to hate having been proved right about Obama. My thanks to Siouxrose (other than her obvious mystical bent, I agree with her in bunches), Thomas More (who could argue his viewpoints until you were enraged and yet remained a gentleman) and others who stay here to give opinions other than the DLC party line. And thanks to CD for not having banned me again.
"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?
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...
"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...?
"Yet you presume to seem my energy wasted on fruitless pursuits..."
Critical Thinking is a basic and important skill that anyone can learn, transcends politics, yet so many don't have. This leads to people beleiving that there are tens of thousands of paid bloggers out there to propagandize, or that there are hundreds of FEMA detention camps ready for citizens who might be rounded up, or that the towers came down by controlled demolition. Careful application of Critical Thinking prevents harmful beleifs such as these, instead we have the extreme waste and destruction brought on by the many that are so sidetracked.
"So, thanks for caring..."
Tou are welcome.
"May I ask you what you do for a living"
I am an IT contractor.
"and what activism or volunteering have you done...?"
Youth sports. I also try to be helpful to people on an individual basis, such as with my neighbor who recently broke his foot.
It is presumptuous and condescending to assume that you have developed critical thinking skills and others haven't...
What is your proof that there are NOT tens of thousands of Pentagon, IDF, and paid third-party hackers and bloggers...?
There are FEMA camps, many were built by Haliburton during the previous administration. Do you have any evidence that they don't exist?
Critical Thinking is what leads people to question the offiicial story of 9-11... Since the 9-11 commission report and NIST were predicated on selective evidence, most of which has been removed from the scene of the crime... What about traces of nanothermite...?
So you think jet fuel caused the towers to fall...? What about WTC building 7...? And the Pentagon strike...?
Or the Fact that Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset, or why the Carlyle group were meeting that day, or why the Bin Laden family were whisked out of the country when all air traffic was grounded, or why PNAC needed a new pearl harbor, or why the patriot act was ore-written and ready to go prior to the false flag event of 9-11...
What say you apply your critical thinking skills to understanding the mysteries of 9-11 instead of silencing independent thought...?
You sound like a troll, whether paid or volunteer, someone conditioned to believe the state sanctioned spin of what is happening...
Otherwise you wouldn't waste your time replying to the ravings of a lunatic... Just ignore my stupid lying rants in the future...
Good luck with little league...
"It is presumptuous and condescending to assume that you have developed critical thinking skills and others haven't..."
I will admit that my own skills are not perfect. But let's look at what you say here:
"What is your proof that there are NOT tens of thousands of Pentagon, IDF, and paid third-party hackers and bloggers...?"
You are asking for me to prove a negative. The fact I can't prove the existance of God is not a reason to beleive in God. If you beleive in God and I don't, you can't demand evidence from me that God does not exist to prove your case. This idea is well established in logical discourse, therefore you should not ask such a question. Please google "logical fallacies".
Regarding the FEMA rumour specifically, all the links go back to a single anonymous article, with no original sources cited. I could have written that myself.
All of your references to 911 have been debunked as well. Which explains the recent need to postulate the role of nanothermite.
"What say you apply your critical thinking skills to understanding the mysteries of 9-11 instead of silencing independent thought...?"
I have, I am quite up on the subject. The latest "study" regarding "nanothermite" is unproven, unduplicated, and was not accepted for publication in any more appropriate journals.
"You sound like a troll, "
I don't think you know what a troll is.
"Otherwise you wouldn't waste your time replying to the ravings of a lunatic... "
I don't think you are a lunatic. I think you are ignorant and ingnorance is no shame and usually easily cured. In your case I suggest that you take just an hour or so over the next couple weeks and read up on logical fallacies, it would be a great start and I am sure you would ramp right up. There are several dozen formal logical fallacies that have been understood for centuries. Will you do it? If you did even a half hour, I would feel as though I had not wasted my time, and I don't think I have anyway.
"Good luck with little league..."
Rock climbers actually. Thank you.
Can you cite your sources for your claim that everything has been debunked regarding 9-11...?
Or the link between Osama and the CIA...? What about Full Spectrum Dominance...?
Just because you can't prove the existence of God or Love doesn't mean they don't exist either...
Sounds like you have already come to your own conclusions about the national security state, private military contractors, the CIA, false flag/ psyops events, and the benevolence of corporatist hegemony, so there is no point in discussing this any further with you...
You think I am ignorant, and you are here to enlighten me, and from that vantage point and dynamic, there is nothing to gain...
google & Read EP Heidner's Collateral Damage of I & II
Including the footnotes... A well cited analysis of the historical and current relations between Banksters, the CIA, and the MIC...
And how they relate to the end of WWII, cold war, afghan wars, and 9-11...
Then we can discuss the premises and details of these "conspiracy theories"...
"Can you cite your sources for your claim that everything has been debunked regarding 9-11...?"
Given sufficient time, yes. There are hundreds of points that are commonly argued about. If you are up on it, you already know all of the debunking sites and have arguments prepared against that. Tell you what, we'll do that if you can support that original claim of yours about paid bloggers.
"You think I am ignorant,"
I *know* you are ignorant about Critical Thinking, but you can start fixing that today. Please read about logical fallacies as a start, you should want to do that anyway.
Nice dodge...
I guess you don't hold yourself to the same standards that you expect of me in providing links and references...
But instead defer it to be contingent on me to provide more sources for you before you provide any yourself...
How hypocritical...
You also ignore all the other points that I have brought up, like the CIA/Bin Laden/Carlyle connection or Haliburton no-bid contract to build the detention centers (which are currently being used to "process" the illegal workers rounded up by ICE before deportation)...
Rather you are choosing to hyperfocus on and argue over one or two points instead of talking about the "big picture"...
This is why you are a waste of my time...
I am replying to you in this thread for the other folks reading this comment board, not to prove anything to you individually...
If Erroll or namaste were here, they could articulate the arguments better than I can, and explain how the debunkers arguments have been debunked... Point by point... I have no interest rehashing those dialogues in this thread to convince the skeptics...
Here is where we agree to disagree, and I wish you luck in transcending your own "logical" limitations...
I don't mean you any disrespect, I merely disagree with your world view...
I dare you to Read " Collateral Damage I & II" by EP Heidner
GoldenMean: The subject was your claim that there are tens of thousands of paid bloggers. You offered articles that you thought supported that view. I demonstrated *clearly* that they did not. You have done nothing on that since. You have, however, accused me of making an ad homenem article, demonstrationg that you don't know what it is. You asked me tor prove a negative, not knoing that you can't do that. Ergo, I diagnosed your need to read up on Critical Thinking. I am spending my valuable time, trying to *help* you. I wonder if getting people to learn about Critical Thinking is part of the business plan that justifies paying tens of thousands of bloggers. No way they are getting their money's worth.
"Nice dodge..."
I only brought up 911 conspiracy as an example of the damage caused by faulty thinking, and I had no intention of discussing it, thus there is no dodge. I suggest you read a couple of the sites that address it, such as debunking911 or screwloosechange just to get you up to speed on that side, but then you would have to take the additional effort in trying to see why you think they may be wrong. But the prerequisite for all that is Crtical Thinking, starting with Logical Fallacies.
"If Erroll or namaste were here, they could articulate the arguments better than I can, "
Maybe you have missed the many hundreds of posts I have exchanged with them on the subject. They can "articulate" alright, but the problem they have is that they suspend whatever Critical Thinking skills they have when that subject comes up, I don't know if it's from some morbid sense of wishful thinking or what, but IMNSHO, I haved crushed every single point they ever made, and they always give up, but not without resorting to "Ad Hominem" (jakenewton must be paid by the neocons) or appeals to my motives.
" I have no interest rehashing those dialogues in this thread to convince the skeptics..."
It's only you and me here now.
"transcending your own "logical" limitations..."
Where the issue is within the space of facts, reasoning, and the formulation of theories and opinions, logic is not a "limitation", it's a "liberation". I hope you eventually come around to this.
"I don't mean you any disrespect"
Very well then. Nor I you.
"I dare you to Read " Collateral Damage I & II" by EP Heidner"
David Ray Griffin will have to be ahead, in this category, but he's way low on the priority list as it is.
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.)