Derp.
Rush Limbaugh said something ridiculous and racist. Surprise!
After Colin Powell told CBS News “Face The Nation” that he wasn’t sure who he was going to vote for in the 2012 Election, Limbaugh said on his radio show that Powell will vote for President Obama in 2012 because “melanin is thicker than water.”
Look, Rush Limbaugh is an asshole. I know it. You know it. Hell, even he knows it. Writing a post about Rush Limbaugh barely counts as blogging. He’s always going to say something racist, or sexist, or homophobic. It’s who he is and it’s why I don’t bother getting worked up about him.
That’s just what he does.
So why am I writing this, you ask?
Because it is striking that Limbaugh’s comments about Colin Powell are very similar to some of the comments directed at me (and other black people) about our support of President Obama… from the left.
Remember our friend Anthony Noel of New Progressives?1 Remember how he told me to “get over being black and debate like a human”? Remember how he so graciously “accepted my word” that my support of President Obama is not based on our “shared ethnicity”? Remember how he told me that my continued support of President Obama was racist because a white president would have lost my support by now (as if he knows anything about me)?
Sounds fairly Limbaugh-esque, dontcha think?
It’s a sad day for liberals when I can’t differentiate the verbal diarrhea oozing from the likes of Rush Limbaugh from that spewing from the pieholes of some of these so-called “progressives.”
Something to think about.
1 I’ve gone through and highlighted the most offensive statements from Mr. Noel in case you don’t want to read the entire ridiculous exchange.
[via News One]
SMH…….I can’t tell the difference between the firebaggers and teabaggers at all either – they’re all the same.
Hmm.. I happen to note that my skin is distinctly lacking in melanin, and I still support this president. I guess I should get over being white then.
That means that your care is thicker than water at the end we all have red running through our veins, I think the republicans forgot about it.
I forgot he even existed. I’ll just return to forgetting!
Wow is that painful and true.
I’ve decided that I don’t really have any framework for what is or isn’t motivated by racism beyond the most wildly obvious… but I will tell you, the desperation to vilify Obama on the far left is bizarre. ‘Desperation’ is a good word. It’s just not possible to these people that you like Obama because, you know, you honestly think he’s a good president. (I would go with rather stronger compliments.) All support for him must be delegitimized, no matter how screwed-up the reasoning it takes to pretend FinReg and the ACA aren’t major liberal agenda accomplishments.
ABL, always realize that white liberal support of Black people and our liberation (as well as any other oppressed persons of color) always come with the caveat that they (white liberals) must be in charge and will dictate who and how we gain our freedom. I call it the ‘Tarzan method’ of politics — Tarzan can only be amongst the Black natives and fight for their freedom so long as the natives name him king. Tarzan (and his many variant clones) is never shown to be just one of the folks – he’s shot calling the natives.
Look at the great bastion of the Democratic Party, the Clintons. They’re cool with Negroes so long as they’re begging Billary for political access. But the second Obama shows that he doesn’t need and can indeed beat the DLC establishment, the “First Black President” and his Senator Wife go quasi-Bull Connor.
The same kind of condescending attitude that makes Anthony Noel, Glenn Greenwald and other so-called liberals sound like the Pig-Man is because they feel they must dictate who truly leads Black people and what Black people should truly care about. Sorry, its 2011 and life don’t work that way no more.
The White Uber Left likes a certain type of Black person – a loud angry Negro who ultimately “knows their place” or is politically inconsequential, no different than White conservatives. Hence why movies like “The Help” are made – Black people didn’t bravely march and risk their lives for their liberation, they need mighty whitey to save the day.
So, the lefties like Jane Hamsher, Bill Maher and Amy Goodman will laud over a Cornell West or a Tavis Smiley, because they’re more than happy to mug for the cameras. They’ll salute the CBC since those Negroes aren’t going to rock the ‘liberal coalition’ boat too much or put up much of a fight for our people, despite all their yapping. And if they’re really card-carrying Chardonnay Socialists, they’ll prop fools like Cynthia McKinney who are complete embarrassments and pose no threat to their perceived power.
But the Angry Militant Faux Left hates Obama because Obama doesn’t need them to be legit. He’s a Black man who came from a lower middle class family to become the most powerful man on earth. He doesn’t need the useless Mau-Mau Left wing yakkers’ approval or help, they need him. And it pisses them off!
Let me reiterate, the wannabe militant wing of White liberalism hate Obama because he doesn’t really need them has accomplished more by ignoring them. And if King or Malcolm were alive, they’d talk about those Negroes like dogs too, for the same reason.
well-said!
What on Earth? ABL, I love your work and I’ve said precisely as much defending you when jackasses on BJ have started trying to chase you off, but “well said”?
There are some issues, but is not Cappa’s statement precisely the reverse of the problems you may (I haven’t really been in the loop lately) be having with some of our more pissed-off liberal brethren?
I think Hamsher and her ilk have gone too far attacking the president, but I really don’t think (most) of them are honestly attacking Obama because he’s black, and I’m surprised you do think that, or are at least high-fiving Cappa’s thoughts on the matter. I think there is plenty on the liberal plate that has been rebuffed or ignored by his administration, and there were a lot of missed opportunities. I think you can honestly Occam’s Razor out the implied racism, and I think that if Hamsher got the liberal attack dog they truly wanted out of Obama, she’d support him just as rabidly as she nows attacks him. These people have reason to be frustrated; where they go wrong is the insanity of refusing to support him in the next election, and attacking him vociferously and damaging our hope of fighting back against the absolutely insane opposition. I think they’ve been real assholes in their attacks on Obama, and I’m seriously worried that the old stalwarts of FDL are just fucking crazy now.
I would also go further and say that they lack no perspective; that health care alone would be enough to make him one of the liberal greats behind FDR and LBJ, and that the myriad battles where he surrendered the left flank don’t remotely add up to the one big win of making sure the country finally has universal health care. Further still, given the insanity of our political system, it’s hard to see how much he might have had a choice in any of those matters.
And so, at the same time you have to defend yourself against unnecessary and terrible attacks by that wing because you still defend him (and fairly so), I, as a white liberal, have to hear you agree with somebody who capitalizes White and Black as though they should only be viewed as some monolithic entity (something of which you’ve been unfairly accused) and who tells me I’m angry at Obama because deep down, it’s cause that uppity negro won’t listen to me?!
I mean, what’s the comeback here for Cappa? “Oh, no, I didn’t mean YOU, I meant all those other White people.” ?_?
You rule ABL, I’m a huge supporter of you and think that any among the left attacking you now are morons, assholes or have been driven truly insane by Guantanamo Stimulus Option Tarps. They have probably trod indefensible ground attacking you, like that Anthony dude did. But take the high ground, don’t get in the dirt with them. You’re better than that.
An addendum: I honestly think what motivates people like Anthony there isn’t racism, not in and of itself. I think they’ve honestly been driven mad by the administration (stay in the “militant liberal” circle of blogs and they’ll whip you up into hate the same way Fox News does for a conservative). So when they hear someone, as a liberal, supports him, OBVIOUSLY it’s not because of what he’s done, because if you’re a true liberal then you’re just as pissed off as them! Thus, coming from essentially the same angle of anger at the president as conservatives (from the other side), they end up looking at his supporters the same way. “You must support him because he’s black too, because if you’re a real liberal you’d hate him just as much as me.”
That’s not to say it’s acceptable or that it’s right, but that I think it’s rather more subtle than the overt racism you’re seeing when you look at it. I would thus suggest that it’s not racism in why Hamsher and company don’t support Obama, but instead indicative of the subset’s overreaction to those who don’t follow them down the rabbit hole. I’m not convinced they wouldn’t do the same shit to a Jewish dude who supported Obamastein.
You do realize that by lecturing ABL about her audacity to cosign Cappadonna’s post (something her and I agree on, by the way) you inadvertently proved Cappadonna’s premise?
His delivery may be too blunt and raw for your tastes, but Cappadonna is still correct.
BRAVA, BRAVA!!!
that’s a bunch of white liberals you whitewashed with that first sentence. it’s beyond the pale…
@michael and texasdan- i can’t speak for her, but i’m going to anyway –
i highly doubt that when she said ” white liberals” she meant “all white liberals.” just as when i make proclamations about “white folks” i don’t mean “all white folks.”
maybe her words could have been chosen differently, but perhaps you and other white liberal readers could get past the reflexive defensiveness and read further.
i DO believe that a lot of the criticism of obama is borne of entitlement and privilege, and that the language used to describe him is irresponsible and racially charged.
when it comes to the owner of a blog that makes no apologies for using the term “House Niggers” to describe Democrats, i think i’m better equipped — given my life experience — to make the Racist/Not Racist call. when it comes to folks claiming that black people need to be made to understand that Obama is failing them — as if we cannot think for ourselves and automatically heart obama lol because of our skin color — i’m better equipped to make the call.
moreover, where does this need to strip those labels from people because the racism isn’t racist enough come from? why not try to understand the point being made by Donna and by black folks across the left blogosphere? It’s an uncomfortable subject to wrangle with — I get that — but immediately jumping to “Oh, well I don’t think they’re being racist” isn’t productive.
as for Anthony Noel, give me a break. he told me to get over being black and debate like a human. subtle racism? overt racism? doesn’t really make a difference to me.
FFS, a progressive called me a “typical nigger” on twitter a couple weeks ago. when you have that kind of language lobbed at you, you might see things differently.
as it stands, you don’t get to decide. you just don’t.
Cheers,
ABL
I stripped out some of my “I get why you’re pissed at the racism, I would be too” commentary in my reply, because, well shit, I already wrote a book without it. I’m not trying to strip out your right to be pissed, you have that and you deserve it, and I don’t doubt that a non-trivial of them are racist sons of bitches.
I didn’t write what I said to defend Anthony Noel. Fuck that guy, and anyone who’s acted like him. Further, I may be wrong, maybe more of that firebagger sentiment has some roots in racism than I’m appreciating. I haven’t been there, I’m not taking the abuse, and I would never deny you the right to call it out for racism.
But Cappa’s statement validates that bullshit. It says, “Yeah, you’re right. I support him because he’s a strong black man, and you people only hate him because you’re racist!” Flipping it around on them doesn’t make it better. It only takes you down to their level. And call me crazy, but someone capitalizing White and Black and writing in blanket statements doesn’t sound like someone who only means “some white people”. That anger might be earned, but that doesn’t make it helpful.
ok, i understand your point now.
huzzah for civility!
:)
yeah, no problem with any of that. Actually pretty proud of “beyond the pale” considering how early in the morning it was.
::snort::
i’m embarrassed i didn’t catch it.
Tell the truth and shame the devil. That is all.
Excellent take on things, sir.
I know alot of folks think what I said is off the board, but that has more to do with perspective. As an African American who travels in many a liberal circles in the early 00′s, I can say that politics comes to ahead between Black people’s interests and what white liberals think should be our interests don’t align. This does not include all white progressives. Many have enough sense to realize that African Americans as individuals and a group, have issues and goals that don’t fit into a box. Just as most liberal men realize that the women’s movement have ideals and goals that we may miss or misinterpret.
However, we can’t deny that many white liberals (and many Black progressives as well) put their “angry militant Black man” fetish on Obama and are whining because, well, most Harvard educated Black professionals in the 21st century don’t get far in life being angry and they’re surprised.
It comes with misunderstanding Black people in particular and the political landscape in general. Either way, its all but predictable that many so-called progressives are writing Obama as a “House Negro” – because they haven’t the foggiest idea what that looks like in realpolitik.
A lot of my “I don’t REALLY think it’s racist” was coming from an angle I couldn’t express clearly because I’m too damn verbose, and I was trying to condense it. So here’s my sort of qualified explanation of that angle of my disagreement.
I think firebaggers honestly expected certain things out of Obama that don’t necessarily fit to a stereotype. He certainly had the sheen of a “true liberal”, someone whose politics were further left than they really were, and many of us (including me) were stupid enough to ignore guys like Krugman and Daniel Larison pointing out that he isn’t what we were thinking, that his views were more centrist than we realized.
So then he goes out and proves us wrong, and there’s two paths at this point to take. Either you’re livid because he isn’t the liberal fantasy you expected, or you learn to temper your expectations with the reality of his approach to politics, something that can still be frustrating as hell when the random hippie punching occurs.
I’ll qualify that this is coming from me, and I don’t know what’s in the minds of the firebaggers because I never did more than flirt with the concept of giving up on politics, frustrating as it is. But what I see of the firebaggers isn’t “he’s not the angry black gentleman we expected!” What I see is a lot of valid frustration that’s been circle jerked into seething hatred. I think people do stupid things when basking in seething hatred, and personally, I would attribute most of the firebagger insanity to that, including these incidents of racism (and I hope they stay rare enough that I can try to justify them as incidents).
So you have pissed off people because they didn’t get the liberal stalwart they wanted, and those pissed off people go after those who support the president they did get. Seems like John Cole deals with crazy shit in comments and emails all the time, but since they can’t use a racist angle they go with something else. These people want to hate him, and they translate that hate to anyone who supports him in the form of additional hatred and/or disbelief, including, for some, stupid racist shit. That is a very different beast than, “he doesn’t fit the black stereotype I expected! AAARGH!” That’s why I put up a half-hearted defense of them. I think it’s coming from a more innocent place, but the stupid seething rage they’ve frothed themselves into is expressed in ugly ways.
Edit: I promise that, if responses are made, I’ll keep them to a paragraph. I need someone to teach me to stop writing like Greenwald.
You’re probably right about some firebaggers coming from a place of innocence (well, I would call it willful ignorance: In addition to an extensive campaign platform, President Obama wrote a whole damn book about what his policies were, and anyone who read it should not be surprised by how he governs). But the full range of firebagger behavior encompasses many more sinister elements — from irritating assertion of privilege to overt racist shite.
I remember being amazed by the overt racism of the PUMA types during the 2008 primaries. (Who’s being naive now, Kay? Me, that’s who…) It wasn’t just a few fringe players, either. There was Larry Johnson’s “whitey tape” bullshit. There is The New Agenda, a supposedly nonpartisan women’s organization whose founder (Amy Siskind) publishes columns at HuffPo and the Daily Beast and appears on TV a lot despite the fact that one of her co-founders was racist loser Harriet Christian, whose epic, racist rant at the DNC Rules Committee can be viewed on YouTube. Many of the PUMAs who didn’t glom onto Sarah Palin and become overtly racist birthers became firebaggers, even though they obviously supported a centrist Democrat nominee…as long as she was a white lady. I don’t like to assume racist motivations in others, but honestly, there’s no way to account for a lot of this shit.
As for the “privilege-asserting” types, as a white person, I won’t presume to think I can spot it better than people who live with it on a daily basis. But as a woman, I have some experience with a certain type of privileged individual. It usually is a middle-aged white man who has thought of himself as a benevolent liberator since he was a teenager and believes that gives him status and authority to lead liberal causes — and perhaps to ask me to fetch the coffee or make copies.
I am totally not casting aspersions on white, middle-aged liberal men — some of them are wonderful, true comrades, including my husband. But having seen first-hand how so many well-intentioned MEN really don’t get it when it comes to women’s issues, I know there are equal or greater numbers of well-intentioned white people who don’t get black perspectives. Anyway, I’m not trying to refute anything you said — just tossing in my $.02. Interesting discussion as always at ABL.
Betty, exactly. There is a subconscious, but condescending attitude many otherwise liberal people have towards minorities, women, etc. As a guy** I find This doesn’t mean that all Firebaggers are closet Klansmen, or all sensitive new age guys are closet misogynists. But it does mean that we can’t discount the role race and racism play in politics.
oops! i saw “donna” and thought you were a woman. derp.
** Not a problem, most people get confused the first time. Cappadonna is a net tag I picked up when I first started going on Message Boards in the 90′s. Its a Wu-Tang reference.
Nicely done, Betty. I too know of the “liberator” mentality. In fact, not that long ago, I went rounds with a couple of white middle-aged lefty men I otherwise quite like and respect when they said that the “war on women” rhetoric being used by Planned Parenthood in response to one anti-choice measure after another being rolled out by the Teabagger Congress was “divisive” and distracted us from uniting behind a common cause.
Well, sorry — but I think the rights of women to bodily integrity is pretty goddamn central to any human rights and progressive movement, and ignoring the fact that women, over and above the screwing they’re getting as union members, working Americans, taxpayers, etc. are being SINGLED OUT for discrimination on the basis of gender and biology isn’t divisive. It’s the truth. And I won’t “reframe” that message just because some armchair activists have a “theory” on how to build a better narrative.
Similarly, as a white woman involved in pro-choice organizations in the 1990s, I had to check my own privilege frequently because the language and narrative of white middle-class suburban people on issues of family size, choice, reproductive health, and the rest of it may not mesh with the lived experiences of other communities. And really, you don’t build alliances by saying “You’re wrong — do it my way.” The president gets that because he’s actually more interested in getting shit done that helps the greatest number of Americans, rather than winning ideological battles that the left has been losing for years through intransigence, apathy, etc.
I am as much a realist as I am a liberal; I believe in politics as the art of the possible. I regard much of this toing and froing by these ‘white progressives’ as so much boiler plate. “Frankly my dear, I do not give a damn”. I see little reason why I should. The only reason that I can see is: “How many divisions do they command?” Do they have any means that compels me to take an interest? I tend to think not.
Obama is about as far ‘left’ as can be elected today. Politics as the art of the possible rears its’ ugly head. Again. That is something that the ‘professional left’ seems to musunderstand. The real left – socialists, etc – of the old days did not misunderstand.
There is nothing that I can do about it, except to tell them: “The train does not stop at that station.”
I’m not a big Obama fan, he is as you state about as far “left” as you can get these days and that’s not very far, but as you point out there isn’t the might to his left to make him change.
What is getting to me is watching the purity battles start up. It’s kind of like watching the Spanish Civil war replay itself. Franco’s win wasn’t inevitable, but when the communists started to kill the folks who weren’t ideologically pure the left didn’t stand much chance.
You are correct the “Firebaggers” don’t have the muscle alone to defeat the right. Neither do the “pragmatists.” Both sides are bound and determined to delegitimize the other.
For the first time in my life the right is divided, I encourage the right to label people RINOs. I want to encourage balkanization on the right. Can we stop ourselves in the center and left? I can promise you that the best the right has to offer is Willard, and he’ll do whatever the loudest voice screams at him, the only good thing there is that the voices aren’t in his head.
“The real left – socialists, etc – of the old days did not misunderstand.”
Hmm…wonder what happened to that ‘real left’? Were they sold out by people playing ‘politics as the art of the possible’?
This is really interesting. I see a thread wherein a subset of persons (‘firebaggers’?) is being accused of playing identity politics. It’s awfully nice of some of the accusers to half-heartedly give these firebaggers credit for noble motives, but still. Aren’t you playing identity politics in your criticisms? If someone is ostensibly to the left of Obama, and they have harsh criticisms of him and his policies, that makes them somehow morally or intellectually deficient? I’ve been to Firedoglake, and I’ve read some insightful criticisms of politicians right and center (there aren’t many ‘left’ politicians in the U.S.; apparently the voting public, who are responsible for building the train stations, are content to not have one there. Shame on that crazy handful of us who keep trying to build one. There must be something really wrong with us.) Not to say that I agree 100% with everything that I read there, but it is often thought-provoking. That site is not alone in its often spirited criticism of Obama. There are quite a few individuals out there making cogent, qualitatively and quantitatively sound arguments against supporting Obama for another term. Must they all be motivated by racism/class privilege/misogyny/insanity? It’s fun to cherry-pick someone who represents such a motivation, at least in that one cherry-picked example, but to tar all opposition to and criticism of Obama with a broad brush fashioned from that one example (one that’s rhetorically linked to Rush Limbaugh!)? If any one of you wants to debate the performance of the Obama administration without resorting to identity politics, even once removed, then I’ll be happy to do so. If you’re willing to defend or support Obama based on what his administration has done, and not based on what you think his opponents feel about him or you, then I’m sure we’ll have an enlightening discussion.
By the way, I normally give my name and a link to my tiny little blog when I leave a comment. This time, I figured I’d leave out any concrete evidence of my gender, ethnicity, and class. If you’re going to attack me, do so based on the ideas I present, not on an assumption of my motives based on your perception of my identity. Also by the way, I voted for the embarrassment– Cynthia McKinney– in 2008. I preferred a candidate who stood up for what she believed in, even if it cost her corporate donations and the support of her own party. She lacked polish and a seasoned p.r. team, but she was and is genuine. I don’t agree with everything that comes out of her mouth, but she was the best available.
I’ll take part of your “challenge” right here and now.
To summarize, you prefer “losing pure” to winning. More, you prefer doing so in a way that leads to statistical irrelevance.
Well played. Here’s your cookie, good-bye.
I’ve said it here before and I’ll say it again here now: The object of the game is to win.
Losing pure doesn’t help us. Not me, not you, not anyone on our side. It helps the people we’re actively opposing in our long, slow, difficult fight. The people who want to gut Social Security, eliminate the minimum wage, remove environmental regulation entirely, and let billionaires (and even those piker multimillionaires) get away with paying no taxes whatsoever.
Guaranteed losers like McKinney and Nader have at times been actively bankrolled by the Republican donor base specifically for the purpose of splitting gullible, ideologically “pure” voters such as you from candidates who might win, and thus derail their hellbound train, just so you can feel good about yourself by casting a meaningless vote for someone who was never really “in” things to begin with.
Are we going to get everything we want all at once?
No.
Are we going to get everything we want?
Probably not.
Are we trying to?
No.
We’re trying to do things by steps, actively building structural solutions that will show real results down the road. Building Rome and all that…
Even a cursory reading of history will reveal the superior strength of evolutionary progress when compared to the inevitable failure of revolutionary overthrow. If you fail to understand this, and from your quoted comment it appears to elude your grasp, then you are doomed to failure.
Fine. Go to your doom. Just have the barest measure of human decency and good sense needed to adopt a strategy that doesn’t guarantee that the rest of us are damaged by your petulance and delusion.
“The people who want to gut Social Security, eliminate the minimum wage, remove environmental regulation entirely, and let billionaires (and even those piker multimillionaires) get away with paying no taxes whatsoever.”
That would be Obama and most of the Democrats, if we’re looking at actions and not at intentions that we impute to their supposed character or the ostensible ideology of the party. Playing ‘the teabaggers made me do it’ isn’t sufficient. Obama consistently negotiates from a position of weakness, capitulating before the GOP has a chance to vote him down. He was even worse when he had congressional majorities on his side.
“We’re trying to do things by steps, actively building structural solutions that will show real results down the road.”
Really? Do backward steps count? I hope so. When you’re consistently voting for corporate-approved politicians such as Obama– who raised record amounts of cash from the entrenched financial interests– and other corporatist Democrats, you’re not building anything. You’re connecting the dots that have been laid out for you.
I suppose if you are willing to take a faith-based look down the road, you know, far beyond the likely effects of what your current voting habits are going to reap, then, well, okay, I can see that maybe you might be able to say that you’ll get results other than what you’re getting now.
“Even a cursory reading of history will reveal the superior strength of evolutionary progress when compared to the inevitable failure of revolutionary overthrow.”
Yeah, that whole rebelling against King George and the East India Company didn’t work out so well. What were those uppity colonists thinking? Hail to the Queen!
Seriously, though: ‘evolutionary progress’? Is that what you call supporting a candidate who has co-opted and furthered many of the most loathsome policies of his deservedly despised predecessor? Newsflash: the bloodshed in Iraq continues, and that giant ‘embassy’ we built ain’t going anywhere. The imperial hubris has been stepped up in Afghanistan, and spread into Pakistan.
That jumbled mess called the Affordable Care Act was a handout to the insurance industry before it was even ‘negotiated.’ Just because the teabagging GOP opposed it without principle doesn’t mean it isn’t a reprehensible boondoggle. Where was support for the public option (never mind single payer) when the President had majorities in both houses of Congress? Was the rallying cry “the object of the game is to win”? Or was it ‘we musn’t piss off our corporate donors with anything that will cut into their outrageous, ill-gotten profits’? As I recall, even the weak-ass public option was ‘off the table’ before the table was even set up.
Need I mention the Obama Justice Department’s dogged persecution of whistle-blowers (e.g. Bradley Manning) who followed their conscience and attempted to expose the depth and breadth of our government’s crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe they’ve just got their wires crossed, and they really mean to pursue the torturers and murderers of the Bush administration. Maybe when Obama says ‘we’re looking forward, not backward,’ he doesn’t really mean ‘I’m not going to waste time prosecuting the Bushies for stuff that I want to do in my own way.’
Hey, at least you’ve got the ostensible repeal of DADT. I’ll admit that’s a major policy triumph. Now gay and lesbian soldiers can openly serve overseas killing, maiming, and terrorizing thousands of innocent Muslims, and if they make it home alive they, too, will have the equal right to be neglected by the underfunded VA.
“Just have the barest measure of human decency and good sense needed to adopt a strategy that doesn’t guarantee that the rest of us are damaged by your petulance and delusion.”
ZOMG. The projection is blinding. You’re vociferously defending the slightly slower path to destruction, and you’re calling me delusional. Good luck in 2012 and beyond. You may not deserve it, but you’re going to need it.
You are, of course, prepared to show specific examples of where they’ve done this? You know, since you refer to “actions” and all.
And here is where you truly reveal yourself. You’re a Greenbeck, full stop.
Newsflash, Zorro, I don’t give a Good Rat’s fuck what happens to Baby Jesus Manning, because he either betrayed his country (there is that inconvenient bit about breaking laws relative to revealing classified information) or he’s the biggest fall-guy dupe in modern American history. Either way, he doesn’t come off particularly well. Neither do you, if he’s what you base your “argument” on.
And not too many non-Greenbecks really care, either.
And one more bit before I leave: If Greenwald really gave a good goddamn about “civil liberties” he’d be doing the grunt work for people who need representation but don’t generate headlines.
I’ll ignore, for the moment, the rest of your “BushHitlerObama” diatribe, because it’s all been thoroughly, even exhaustively debunked before.
Now, put an egg in your shoe and beat it.
Pathetic debater is pathetic.
Not one reasonable response to Human Being’s numerous examples of the administrations lack of anything resembling working for “structural solutions that will show real results down the road.” If those results are more wars, further consolidation of corporate/wall street power and fewer freedoms for the average citizen then things are going swimmingly. But I don’t think those are the results you’re looking for. That’s why it’s perplexing too many why people such as yourself, I guess, continue to blindingly support Obama just because he’s a Democrat. And when someone points out that the administration is actively working against your interests you call them names. Greenbeck? Really?
So instead of making an actual arguement defending Obama from the corporatist/no-diferrent-than-Bush label you simply cherry pick one thing, Bradley Manning, and point out he commited a crime so fuck him.
You took up Human Being’s challenge (not really) and failed miserably.
I think each of us in turn has missed something.
You missed this: You are, of course, prepared to show specific examples of where they’ve done this? You know, since you refer to “actions” and all.
And your complete lack of response to it.
I, on the other hand, clearly missed the memo. You know, the one where (a) ABL died and left you in charge, and (b) I’m somehow obligated to reply to you in the manner of your choosing.
Pathetic sockpuppet is truly pathetic.
“…actions…”
That specific response, with hyperlinked examples, is currently held up in the moderation queue. Though in the post previous to that one, I listed several examples, none of which you addressed (except with an Argument by Dismissal).
“…(a) ABL died and left you in charge, and (b) I’m somehow obligated to reply to you in the manner of your choosing.”
So (a) she died and left you in charge, apparently. My condolences to ABL’s family. Regarding (b), you are most certainly correct. You may continue to reply with ad hominem and other specious rhetorical devices, and continue to evade substance.
I, for one, agree 87% with the original blog post as it is written. I’m not at all surprised, though, that the comment thread quickly devolved into a verbal rampage against all criticism of Obama from the ostensible left. Such is the nature of these things.
Just in case it is lost in limbo, I will reiterate one thing from my previous comment:
“Baby Jesus Manning…” (and so forth…)
If Daniel Ellsberg had released the Pentagon Papers into this political environment, he’d have been put in prison for life and to this day we’d still have troops burning down villages and slaughtering families in Southeast Asia.
Alas, we’ve moved on to rockier and sandier pastures, and today’s whistleblowers are unlucky enough that today’s ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ are more fond of today’s War President than they were of his predecessors.
It’s just sad that in addition to his expansion of war in Afghanistan (and into unstable and nuclear-armed Pakistan), Obama has done other things that many of his supporters would have (and often did) give Bush hell about. Now some are defending similar, if not worse, behavior (again, ‘the teabaggers made him do it’ is not a defense). We can debate whether those moral inconsistencies make Obama’s supporters any more or less reprehensible than Obama’s critics from the ostensible left, but let’s not pretend they don’t exist.
“…actions…”
Obama’s Catfood Commission
Krugman: “…the light-touch approach to the financial industry further entrenched the power of the very institutions that caused the crisis, even as it failed to revive lending: bailed-out banks have been reducing, not increasing, their loan balances. And it has had disastrous political consequences: the administration has placed itself on the wrong side of popular rage over bailouts and bonuses.”
“Greenbeck.” That’s a good one. It’s nice to see that catchy but baseless invective and name-calling isn’t limited to teabaggers and other right-wing Obama opponents. Equal opportunity, yo.
Nice dodge. Don’t debate the facts, just pretend that the point is already decided.
“Baby Jesus Manning”
Another bit of thoughtful nuance. With supporters like you, I can see how Obama is going to triumph and bring us the next New Deal! A man’s basic human rights are being violated because he attempted to expose his own government’s misdeeds, and this is the thanks he gets from you? If Daniel Ellsberg had to contend with this environment, he’d have gotten life in prison and the Vietnam War would have lasted another fifteen years.
If this moral crevasse is representative of Obama’s base, then as a person of conscience I have no choice but to take my vote elsewhere. However, I’ll gladly entertain myself a little longer by continuing to ‘debate’ with you folks. Maybe I can turn one of you away from your predilection for turd sandwiches. There’s plenty of room in the Green Party.
One last thing, regarding those “major liberal agenda accomplishments” heralded near the top of this thread.
First, FinReg:
Too little, no teeth, no stamina.
Finreg heralds a Great Escape for bankers
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a1c6958-9112-11df-b297-00144feab49a.html#axzz1WtJVBVEQ
Second, ACA:
Labyrinthine, expensive, gives even more leverage to corrosive and costly insurance and pharmaceutical interests.
It remains to be seen if the ACA is an opening to single-payer, or a Rube Goldberg dodge designed to placate the stressed-out working masses. Given that it was negotiated from a position of weakness while Obama had majorities in both houses of Congress, I’m not optimistic. As I said before, the failure to even fight for a public option was a huge tell regarding Obama’s and the Democrats’ priorities.
In sum, if these are “major liberal agenda accomplishments,” I’d hate to see what a major liberal failure looks like. Perhaps we’ll see that shortly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a little bit later in Libya.