EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Rise Up or Die
- Rallying Cry: Citizens Worldwide to Unite in 'March Against Monsanto'
- A 'Nonviolent Army of Love' Rises in North Carolina to Face Down Rightwing's Assault on Progress
- The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives
- Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on Your Rights
Popular content
Today's Top News
Saving the Obama Revolution
The Obama revolution, and there was the hope of one, might still succeed. But only if Barack Obama follows the model of the incredibly successful Reagan revolution and heeds the political base that made his presidency possible.
Love him or not, Ronald Reagan had at least one outstanding political virtue-his respect for the concerns of those who placed their trust in him. And whenever the political vultures that feast on power tried to lead him astray, they were fired at the insistence of Reagan or his remarkably savvy wife, Nancy. Hopefully Obama and his no-less-impressive mate, Michelle, will do the same.
The first obligation of Obama as president is to be a peacemaker, since he as a candidate seized that mantle, successfully exploiting his early opposition to the Iraq war, which his closest rival, Hillary Clinton, had supported. Obama, as opposed to her flirtations with U.S. imperial arrogance, has stuck to a vision of a complex multipolar world in which the military option is to be chosen only as a last resort.
In that regard the president is making some progress, particularly with his decision to stop provoking the Russians with an unneeded and unworkable missile defense on their border. He also seems serious about getting the Israelis and Palestinians to peace negotiations, the one issue in the Mideast that must be solved if the region's religious fanatics are to be neutralized. And he will deserve credit if he backs his attorney general's quest to hold the enablers of a U.S. government torture policy accountable.
The deal breaker in foreign policy so far has been his escalation of the folly of U.S. nation-building in Afghanistan that feeds rather than mitigates terrorist recruitment. That is the unmistakable, if unintended, conclusion of the 66-page declassified report of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal that became public this week. It states: " ... many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating. We face not only a resilient and growing insurgency; there is also a crisis of confidence among Afghans-in both their government and the international community-that undermines our credibility and emboldens the insurgents."
The report makes clear that the insurgents are deeply divided into three camps (one of which previously fought against the Taliban) and are basically homegrown, and provides no evidence that defeating them has anything to do with making us safer from attack by al-Qaida terrorists. Lest we forget, the 9/11 hijackers found it easier to operate from Germany, San Diego and Florida rather than forlorn Afghanistan.
The foreign influence behind the insurgency comes primarily from one of the countries we are allied with; as the report notes, "Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan." And the document goes on to say that the historical India-Pakistan rivalry has now been transferred to Afghanistan, where "the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian." Great, another Kashmir battlefield in the making.
Obama was right during his appearances Sunday on the TV political talk shows to put the emphasis on going after what remains of Osama bin Laden's forces in Pakistan and elsewhere rather than simply throwing more troops into the Afghanistan war. He raised the all-important question of what U.S. troops in Afghanistan are expected to do.
The McChrystal report agrees that the key is the question of mission rather than simply increasing troop numbers: "Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or ‘doubling down' on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way we think and operate."
There is a sobering honesty to McChrystal's report that those who want to "win" in Afghanistan must take into account. The mission the general outlines is one of nation-building with a vengeance by U.S. forces that must forsake the safety of their bases, learn the local languages and enter into the administration of local life without being able to count on the support of the hopelessly corrupt and, after the rigged election, illegitimate Afghan government. "Afghans are frustrated and weary after eight years without evidence of the progress they anticipated," the report says.
It's the old winning-hearts-and-minds strategy that has never worked-as Richard Holbrooke, Obama's point man in the region, should know from his failed efforts to win hearts and minds during the war in Vietnam, where he specialized in "rural pacification." That was a Democrat's war, and the base of the party, which knows better than to repeat that disastrous error, should tell the president so.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
108 Comments so far
Show AllHolder never said he was investigating the enablers of torture in fact he is validating and setting precedent for the enablers by limiting his investigation to CIA agents who went beyond the torture memos.
More drones in Pakistan, which have a 80-90% civilian kill rate, is an ignorant and cruel nonsolution.
I do not condone bloodshed but if people are intent on it, the Helicoptor raids, as in Somalia, can be the least harmful.
Then again we still do not know what links the neocons and al Qaeda have.
This is another hold Obama's feet to the fire article, as another poster wrote your only going to get charred hands and notice that the feet are cloven.
Yeah, I don't get this article. The Obama "revolution"? It must succeed DESPITE Obama? Obama needs to emulate Ronald Reagan? You got to be kiddin'?
This is not an Obama or a Reagan phenomena...its a Democratic vs. Republican Party Strategy issue.
Reagan, Papa Bush and Dubya pandered to their base and told the people who would never vote for them in a million years to take a hike.
Clinton and Obama abandoned their base and pander to people who would never vote for them in a million years.
The Republicans have a winning strategy, the Democrats a losing strategy.
Don't be deluded into thinking Obama would now be president if the financial meltdown has occurred in Nov. 2008 instead of Sept. 2008. Fortuitous timing and a revolution don't always occur simultaneously.
I respect Robert Scheer. He has been involved in movements for social change most of his life, and has done more than merely offer just another rubber stamp on the long parade of sordid characters falling out of the donkey's backside. That said, I think this article is simply wishful thinking. There never was an "Obama revolution," nor the possibility of one. I think that Scheer knows this, so the only reason I can come up with for this sighing article, is the pain of his having to face up to the fact that even a black mask on business as usual, does nothing to alter the flow of profits and blood.
Obama was, is, and will remain the current representative of war and Wall Street. That's really his story, in a nutshell. The rest is extrapolation--and sighing.
---------------------------------
I would rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get that. -- Eugene V. Debs
Absolutely right. A foolish article like this comes from Obama's hesitation about McChrystal's massive build-up plan. This hesitation does not come out of anything but his political problems involving health care and the budget. You can bet your bottom dollar if he had gotten some sort health care bill through, he would be jumping on the chance to escalate the war. You don't choose Stan McChrystal and hand Afghanistan over to him unless you are nothing less than a warmonger yourself.
Yep. Right on the money.
I remember a debate between Sheer and Nader. Nader said, "Robert, where will you draw the line?"
Sheer's reply: "the war" Obama is using drones to kill innocents, he's escalating the wars.
I seems to me Robert Sheer lacks self awareness, allowing himself to be jerked around and betrayed by his "betters," which is often the plight of sycophants. Does he not know how he contradicts himself? It's very sad to watch. I'm rather embarrassed for him.
Robert Scheer refuses to accept reality. Just like so many other Americans with Stockholm Syndrome.
Never underestimate the power of denial.
Now, I think I'll go throw up.
The problem is that Obama was never aligned with his "base." His base were kidding themselves, allowing themselves to be duped.
This is weird, but not uncommon in recent American politics. For example, the Bush II Administration played the religious right.
One might have hoped progressives would be smarter. Obama represents a really embarrassing chapter in the history of progressivism, not to menton the almost certain demise of the Democratic Party.
These comparisons to the Bush the Infantile terms are growing and they should be elaborated upon.
As to the concept of 'progressivism', that is becoming as repulsive as 'conservatism.' Both are meaningless words in the face of a bankrupt nation which is staggering toward failed state status.
Obama ... has stuck to a vision of a complex multipolar world in which the military option is to be chosen only as a last resort.
----------------------
1) Obama is launching illegal immoral drone attacks in sovereign Palistan
2) Obama last week launched an attack into Somalia
3) Obama gave the nod to built bases in Colombia from which to threaten liberal Latin America
Are these the actions of a peacemaker?
cygnus: you have got that right
to say we are nation building is a tired and cynical refrain
that is unless you ar talking about re-building the nation - because we bombed the hell out of them
this old canard was used by the brits for hundreds of years as comaflage for their imperial raping and robbing
same old same old
here's an idea - why don't we get to hell home and let them build their own nation
i know the answer: we are building pipelines through that god forsaken place to transport our stolen gas and oil - ah yes
the cia makes a lot of hard cash for wall street with the afghan heroin they sell
funny how none of that has anything to do with nation building
finally, if nation building is what it is then why is it that obama has put a special ops assassin in charge of the operation
why is that holbrooke - obama's point man for the project can't even define what it is they (we) are doing in that country
holbrooke assures us that when it comes to this undefined success in afghanistan "we'll know it when we see it"
pathetic shit pile of lies and deceit
if this author hasn't figured out that obama is a fraud yet - if he's still waiting for the revolution well i hope he's got a comfortable chair
as for reagan - he brought being a puppet of the nwo to its all time zenith - uninterested in foreign policy, unintersted in domestic policy he was descending into senilty while he snoozed through his entire presidency, literally
this author doesn't understand - it seems - either president
Maybe what Holbrook meant by "we will know it when we see it"
Is a way for him to really say, I am lookin for any plausible excuse to get us the Hell out.
more likely to stay in....
because we are never gonna leave
Agreed Cygnus,
Don't forget that he 'negotiated' and paid twice the ransom demanded by the banksters during the on-going financial crisis. He allowed 'loans' to foreign central banks via a cash export mechanism to the IMF and other non-US entites. He funded the enemy of the people (Goldman Sachs) so that that firm would survive to steal from us again. He gives a blank check to the Fed so that it can print money to re-purchase Treasury borrowing. He quotes fudged unemployment data, admits things will get worse, allows rank amatuers to write the stimulus package that is dribbling in effectiveness, and seems willfully clueless as to propose any economic remedy which would help the population. Rather, he allows the banksters,lobbyists, and corporations to continue their economic predations.
And what does he do in response? He fronts for a sham social program which will further the aims of big money big gubbamint big pharma big Wall St. His betrayal of the people by enabling the banksters is reason enough to NEVER trust him on ANY topic.
Obama does not control the world. Social and biological evolution controls the big and little things beyond our personal life encounters.
The world was in the beginning stage of revolution when little George set it off, and he gets much of the credit for the bloodshed. Obama is making little changes...like hints of the direction he wants to go....
I hope that he will see that negotiating with "terrorists" or the "enemy" is the way to go for real security. If you are talking to them you are getting new names and addresses...new connections... negotiate a pullout with the Taliban and ask for a fair trial of bin laden in a neutral country if he wants a trial... revolutionaries need a trail.
Somebody might even prove he is dead and if we asked around we might find out.
The Taliban did not do 9/11 any more than Iraq did.... As the article says the operation was trained and run here in the states with help from agents in Germany and Pakistan who of course were connected to former "freedom fighters" with the help of the CIA and were being watched by the CIA and military and some FBI.
It is hard for a president to do things like order things get done... it is easy with the military...they will at least want you to think they are following orders.
With events changing so fast it is easier for Obama to react on these events and I think he realizes by now that the world is in a revolution. He is movin real Slow.... but look at all that he is facing.... ya gotta be nuts to want that job.
very sensible post
Obama does not have a political base outside Goldman Sachs. His only attraction as a candidate was that he was the "serious" candidate who was not-Clinton.
As someone said, there was no "Obama revolution," there were masses of hopeful, duped followers with nowhere else to turn for hope, and Obama has proven to be the card carrying corporate capitalist he is. He'll get some crappy healthcare bill passed, hail it as a victory for "the people," but in fact it will be a victory for HMOs and make everything worse.
It's pathetic, another wishful article in the face of the harsh reality of a con-job. It's the second act to the Democrat's grand tragedy--the first act being the 06 election to end these occupations and restore honor(if there is any left) to the USA. Before they were even installed nanny piglously immediately scraps the investigation and probable impeachment of "W" for war monger Bush, by saying that it's off the table--then they all dance around the subject of stopping funding of these illegal and immoral conflicts and try(right) to pass ball-less bills that impede nothing so that the shit continues till the second act--enter stage right change you can believe in O'bomber. The absolute only way that we have any chance to stop this evil which is destroying us and our nation is to rise up and demand with all our collective might and that's right, left , and middle--sort of like the Ross Perot movement, an eclectic group of Americans concerned about our future existence--make it perfectly clear that we will not be moved towards the same crap any longer--that it--if we don't they won't--it will continue till we die.
Mr. Scheer,
Sorry, you must not have received the memo. The Obama Revolution was cancelled before anything was actually implemented. Have a nice day.
Barrak Insane Obama
Somebody always has to cop the scene.... It's our Freakin revolution!
The "Obama Revolution" wass over the minute he lost the trust of the American people. And he has. He and his cohorts in Congress have managed to dissapoint, insult, lie to and anger almost every faction in our country, left, right and dead center.
So far the only intelligent thing this administration has done is cancel the Missle defense program and they even managed to handle that in a ham handed way.
Agreed, but even the missile defense wasn't cancelled. It was moved.
I'm embarrassed for Mr. Scheer. Some simple googling before the election would have removed so many illusions. One thing I learned then was about the extraordinary interests of some in our government in Georgia and Azerbaijan. Seems the Great Game is of much more interest to Biden, Hagel, Obama, Lugar, McCain and Lieberman than the welfare of the United States. I just don't know if they're into it because they like playing with toy soldiers or the money or Israel or Iran... who knows, but it is ambition at our expense.
"Agreed, but even the missile defense wasn't cancelled. It was moved."
Good point! I really don't know why they are doing anything at this point. As you say, who knows?
several years ago -- I stumbled upon a website that placed a photo copy of a Pentagon document...it had since disappeared (long ago also) and i forget the name of that website. maybe it was leaked..who knows.
BUT i recall that it said something to this effect: something concerning the chaos in the former USSR when it was overran by oligarchs with western ties and was then considered a great example of "democratic reform" - BEFORE Vladimir Putin stepped in a kicked out the western interests (including EXXONMobil doing some speculations in eastern russia) .
what the document that was from the midnineties said was something like this:
"the fall of the soviet union has rendered Russia so vulnerable - and her military so weakened that it is NOW POSSIBLE to Contemplate a massive LAND INVASION"
connect this with madeleine Albright's remark in the midnineties - as well as remember the pattern of US Imperial actions through the centuries:
"IT IS SO UNFAIR..........that a single country has ALL those rich resources.....something ought to be done about it"
SHE was of course refering TO Russia which possesses perhaps the world's largest undeveloped Diamond mines, great deposits of copper, steel, many other minerals, perhaps the world's largest deposit of Uranium, oil, large gas untapped fields, the world's largest collection fo RUNNING FRESH WATER resources, freshwater FISHERIES resources, the world's LARGEST northern hemisphere forestry and related bio and other sphere resources...and of course that world's largest REAL ESTATE country . PLUS sitting right smack across parts of Europe, Central Asia, and Asia.
and you get a picture of what I long suspected was an OLD LUST of the USA;
TO INVADE and CONTROL RUSSIA ITSELF as the "great trophy" of RESOURCES and geostrategic control spanning EUROPE and ASIA.
WHY is the USA , under pretext of NATO , in RUSSIA's NEIGHBORHOOD?
even the entire premise of controlling the central asian regions - are PART merely of a greater strategic imperial quest -
TAKE RUSSIA itself , by FIRST encircling russia through Georgia, Estonia, Ukraine, and the various "istans" that were once russian/soviet territory..and then of course try to "isolate" china while controlling all the energy routes and resources...both oil, gas - as well of course as the landmasses and water and other natural resources and real estate.
THAT"s the US imperial plan. there is NO question in my mind about it.
several years ago -- I stumbled upon a website that placed a photo copy of a Pentagon document...it had since disappeared (long ago also) and i forget the name of that website. maybe it was leaked..who knows.
BUT i recall that it said something to this effect: something concerning the chaos in the former USSR when it was overran by oligarchs with western ties and was then considered a great example of "democratic reform" - BEFORE Vladimir Putin stepped in a kicked out the western interests (including EXXONMobil doing some speculations in eastern russia) .
what the document that was from the midnineties said was something like this:
"the fall of the soviet union has rendered Russia so vulnerable - and her military so weakened that it is NOW POSSIBLE to Contemplate a massive LAND INVASION"
connect this with madeleine Albright's remark in the midnineties - as well as remember the pattern of US Imperial actions through the centuries:
"IT IS SO UNFAIR..........that a single country has ALL those rich resources.....something ought to be done about it"
SHE was of course refering TO Russia which possesses perhaps the world's largest undeveloped Diamond mines, great deposits of copper, steel, many other minerals, perhaps the world's largest deposit of Uranium, oil, large gas untapped fields, the world's largest collection fo RUNNING FRESH WATER resources, freshwater FISHERIES resources, the world's LARGEST northern hemisphere forestry and related bio and other sphere resources...and of course that world's largest REAL ESTATE country . PLUS sitting right smack across parts of Europe, Central Asia, and Asia.
and you get a picture of what I long suspected was an OLD LUST of the USA;
TO INVADE and CONTROL RUSSIA ITSELF as the "great trophy" of RESOURCES and geostrategic control spanning EUROPE and ASIA.
WHY is the USA , under pretext of NATO , in RUSSIA's NEIGHBORHOOD?
even the entire premise of controlling the central asian regions - is PART merely of a greater strategic imperial quest -
TAKE RUSSIA itself , by FIRST encircling russia through Georgia, Estonia, Ukraine, and the various "istans" that were once russian/soviet territory..and then of course try to "isolate" china while controlling all the energy routes and resources...both oil, gas - as well of course as the landmasses and water and other natural resources and real estate.
THAT"s the US imperial plan. there is NO question in my mind about it.
I want to know who paid off Scheer to write this crap.
Really, I think the pundit class is just looking for an in at all the cocktail parties in D.C. so they can rub elbows with ObSavior. Why all the fawning?
Ob never intended to engage a "revolution." Well, I guess his version of a revolution would be one that would exploit the workers and entrench even further the ruling class. With Obama as their bagman.
Honestly, Scheer, this is an embarrassment.
There was never really an Obama Revolution to begin with. All it was was a pretend to "change" and blissfully ignorant false "hope" package only to whither the minute the election was over. Those of us who cried and warned voters about Obama and Mccain were ignored. If you look at everything politically, you'll still think that the Obama Revolution is still there and must be salvaged. Otherwise, those of you who are non-political, independent, moderate, or a combination thereof would figure that this was just a placeholder designed to "bail out" the morally bankrupt status quo. Well, the Obama Revolution is already doing one hell of a job bailing out the morally bankrupted status quo ! The Obama Revolution is also doing one hell of a job of preparing to crush the lives of those sweetheart civilians in Af/Pak who have nothing to do with terrorism. They and their subsequent generations will HATE US for this. If this author wants us to "save" this kind of a revolution, I'm not buying it. A real counter-Raygun revolution would have involved real and bold leadership from people ala Nader, Mckinney, Kucinch, etc ... Even Paul and Gravel despite some of their controversial economic stands would have been a good start.
Jennifer: I agree with your post!
I usually read Robert Sheer's articles on his website, truthdig.com, and comment, if I have comments. This morning, my reaction to his writing was similar to your reaction, and the responses on truthdig reflect similar reasoned replies.
“The Obama revolution, and there was the hope of one, might still succeed.”—Robert Sheer
Does anyone really think Obama has been, or will, lead a revolution?
By now, his “health insurance reform”—instead of health care reform—is a mandate for another upwards shift of wealth to the already massively wealthy health industry executives, and Obama has made backdoor deals with PhRMA’s Billy Tauzin to NOT negotiate the price of prescription drugs—along with other deals.
The mantra of our fearful leaders is always about national security and keeping us safe. However, what does being and feeling safe really mean? If 45,000 U.S. citizens, and others living in the U.S., die every year due to lack of health care, how safe are we?
Certainly, our elected officials, along with others in power, know how to distract us, obfuscate, and to change the subject, don’t they?
As far as I am concerned, the thought of revolution is nothing less than laughable—if only we had real leadership from our own government, our elected officials, a government, BTW, that “we the people” fund.
The U.S. continues to occupy Iraq with 130,000 troops. What happened to getting out of that country? In addition, Obama, currently, is considering sending more troops, again, to Afghanistan. But now, with the new polls showing that “we the people,” 57% of us, oppose that decision, he is back to posturing and acting with caution, while drones continue to kill innocent civilians in Pakistan. Then, there are the 7 military bases he wants to build in Columbia. And, for these acts, he is called a peacemaker? In what dictionary?
The way I see it, Obama is fighting for the other side—the corporations and the IMC, not for “we the people,” or in the public interest. As Bill Moyers so eloquently stated, he'd rather see Obama go down fighting, than to watch him capitulate to the powers that be. Sadly, the status quo keeps ticking on -- as so many critical issues are literally battered by well-paid lobbyists working for the corporations.
Yesterday, the big news on the electronic ticker tape in Times Square was that the F.D.I.C. is going to borrow money from the “HEALTHY” banks.
Since Mr. Sheer is so very good at unraveling financial issues, I was hoping, this morning, to find his column addressing this new revelation which seems rather circular to me—the way the money keeps passing through the hands of the same men on Wall Street. There must be money to be made, or they wouldn’t be doing it!
I’d be ecstatic to give Obama credit, if and when he deserves credit, but I’m not nearly as hopeful, or optimistic, as Mr. Sheer appears to be. With his experience, too, I find it impossible to believe that he is as naive as this column makes him seem.
Hi Kay,
This thought occurred to me this morning after I got into a political vs non-political fight with someone yesterday who thought I was one of those conspiring to push for third parties to give Republican conservatives power and fulfill their agenda. After he argued with me that I have no intention for political success and that I would rather throw away my hope to what he called "third party foolhardiness", that's when I put foot down and admitted that yes, I don't care for political success of one party or another but that I cared to see leaders and representatives get some things done right where they can find common ground. I was finally able to get him to answer why he was hooked on to thinking in terms of party after I admitted to being and Eugene Debs addict of voting for something that most of us want even if none of us get it vs voting for what most of us don't really want and getting it. He thought it was dangerous and gave the typical lecture on being "practical" by trying to push the Democrat Party to the left. I told him that I don't trust all this "compromising" stuff since it's nothing but concessions in the end. He finally made a dumb joke that I'm getting too tight about everything and joked about my being dressed to tight. Bleh ! So what? I think I'm finally realizing why I just can't say yes to running for office.
That mean sexist joke wasn't very nice. Where you wearing like jeans or what? And then what did he say after you said Bleh? Gosh, I can just picture that political vs non-political fight you had with someone who thought you were one of those conspiring to push for third parties to give Republican conservatives power.
I didn't say bleh in front of him. I was just tired after trying to knock some sense into him. And stop saying that I'm blindly supporting third parties. I am not. I vote with my heart and mind on the issues. That may result in my voting third parties but so what? Maybe if more Democrats acted like Kucinich and took the issues as seriously as him I might take the party as a whole seriously but you see I cannot and will not.
"I think I'm finally realizing why I just can't say yes to running for office." -- Jennifer
Ditto!
Yesterday, as I recall, and I don't remember the thread, but someone lumped you and I together -- our style of writing intertwined with our belief in third parties, and our use of subversive tactics to defeat the Democrats by promoting those third parties. Suddenly, I realized that the blogger was accusing me -- and you -- in an off-handed way of being Republican plants. If they were to read it, my close friends would get a big hoot out of that commentary.
Last night, I went to hear Andrew Cockburn (counterpunch.org) speak at the Cuny Graduate Center here in NYC. Laura Flanders moderated the conversations between writer and professor David Harvey and Mr. Cockburn. I was uplifted that the auditorium was nearly filled. Lately, I have attended several events and found few people sitting in the audience with me, and few people marching with me in the streets.
Andrew Cockburn offered one suggestion about debt repudiation that was interesting -- hiring a truck that makes its way across the country, and at each stop along the way, "we the people" load up the truck with our credit card bills instead of paying them. Eventually, the truck rolls into D.C. with a load delivered to our elected officials.
On your first paragraph about the lumping together of people and falsely accusing them of being the same person, this appears to be common on most progressive/liberal blogs from the Obama die-hards. It is completely childish, cowardly, and means that they don't want to talk about the issues especially where Obama is failing miserably. They keep insisting on some lame conspiracy theory that it's being to bring Republicans to power. They have no credibility doing this and I wonder if they realize just how much more damage they are doing to Obama in the process. On Alternet, there was a flame war almost every day on all this association and lumping people together and the Independent folks have been fighting back and challenging the Obama die-hards.
I have to get back to counterpunch.org. It's been a while since I was last there.
Kay: "Eventually the truck roll into DC with a load delivered..."
There's a load being delivered all right, but it's here on CD haha!
"Whenever we compromised, we lost." Arch Druid, David Brower.
John McPhee wrote a book about Brower entitled, "Encounters With the Arch Druid. Historically, Brower was the Sierra Club's first president. He left the organization in the 70s because the board had decided to support nuclear power. They were after corportate support - all that money! Brower knew that nuclear power was a big mistake and refused to compromise on it. He went on to found Friends of the Earth, which became what an environmental organization should be - stalwart defenders of the earth's natural systems. (Sierra Club since changed their position, I believe.)
Brower died a few days after casting his vote for Ralph Nader. We're losing many of our great leaders and who will replace them? It's sad.
I always thought that there was a major difference between compromising and conceding and I still do. It's just that politics allows any word to be fudged just like that. It's not wonder "compromise" = conceding. But then again, even in my life time, I ran into those difficult moments of deciding whether to look at a choice as compromising or actually conceding. Three times, I avoided conceding to be what I thought would amount to being a slave wife. Being single isn't always easy either but just like voting, I still think that when it comes to picking between getting nothing vs getting what I don't want, I'll take the former.
Obama . . . heeds the political base that made his presidency possible.
He is heeding it. That base is the obscenity of Big Money and the steam roller of the lives of ordinary people.
Obama is the devil. Dems are evildoers. Vote Repub...oops I mean third party.
Just another day at Karl Rove's day camp.
RichM:
Well said!
YES ! Thank you RichM !
P.S.: Alternet could use tough cookies like you to combat the Obamabots there. That site would have a lot of great articles and people but the Obamabots are sooooo irritating to everyone. I wonder how we all could counter-infiltrate the Obamabots on huffpost. They give Obama and even worse name than he already has.
C'mon guys, let's all go over to Huff post and tell stories. Like how sometimes we walk up Broadway in New York where we're from and our parents are conservative but we don't like labels and stuff. And how people are mean to us when we speak from our hearts in rural Missouri where we're from but we're tough cookies and we don't care.
This is a false dichotomy to serve your purposes. Defending Obama is not the issue. Rather, the issue is whether the Repub PR machine should be unchallenged in its effort to demonize Obama and encourage third party votes to help Repubs win elections. The issue is also whether the writing styles, with engaging personal tales and careful mispellings to evoke the working class, should go un-laughed-at.
You make no sense at all, except to yourself. "The issue" is whatever you say it is. So you think every criticism of Obama, no matter WHAT he does, is ipso facto a way to "demonize" him and help Republicans get elected? Can you possibly get more one-dimensional? And if you're going to evoke writing styles and "careful mispellings", maybe you could at least spell *misspellings* correctly. Your working class credentials are threadbare.
dang you got me. me make misssstake. ipso facto, you win. Fox Channel's one-dimensional war on Obama is nothing to be concerned about. I'm the only one who considers Beck and his legions to be an issue.
Go Rich!
Yeah, go Team Rove! Go Fight Win! Gosh, college Repubs are fun.
Gosh, I would say its more like fol-de-rol that has suddenly come up against the lower portion of the upper valve header on the steam fitting that suddenly got beytter from its original malfunction when the fuel changed from gas to coal crushed slurry.
RichM (September 23rd, 2009 12:17 pm) -- Right. And don't leave out "he will deserve credit if he backs his attorney general's quest to hold the enablers of a U.S. government torture policy accountable." Even Holder supporters know he's doing nothing of the kind. [After writing the above I found glenn ford's apt comment on this at 9:05]
Maybe not a revolution exactly, but it could've been a refutation of Bush. Instead, it was a passing fad.