You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘postpartisan’ category.
The WTF was brought on by this tweet
Following the link, I got to actually enjoy some of the Will snark
Often in the year before the year before the year divisible by four, a few political people theatrically recoil from partisanship. Recently, this ritual has involved speculation about whether New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg might squander a few of his billions to improve America by failing to be elected president.
But Bloomberg, addressing the No Labels confabulation, spoke truth to powerlessness:
Well, any time someone will take on Bloomberg is going to make my day – and with the amount of media he owns, it’s not happening to often. But this is the first time I write about the No Labels idiocy – if you discount their attempt to derail Hillary in 2008 (“If Ds nominate her, Bloomberg will run).
I find it ironic that I am so annoyed by this effort in a time when the two traditional parties have erased all difference between them and some alternative is needed. But not this. Back to George Will
The perpetrators of this mush purport to speak for people who want to instruct everyone else about how to speak about politics. Granted, there always are people who speak extravagantly, and modern technologies – television, the Internet – have multiplied their megaphones. But blowhards, although unattractive, are easy to avoid. And speaking of the unattractive:
Although the people promising to make No Labels into a national scold are dissatisfied with the tone of politics, they are pleased as punch with themselves.
Well, if this generic party ever gets of the ground, they’d be able to legitimately claim Obama as their first President. Remember “postpartisanship”? It’s what he ran on.
In fact, the thick hypocrisy has been rammed in our heads by the media for decades now.
Especially when there is a legitimate public interest (such as defending social security, opposing tax cuts to the rich or the war), pollsters and the media always pulled out the mythical center to paper all over the subversive ideas – most recently with Obama’s heinous tax deal. George Will again
If self-approval were butter, they could spread it across America, if it were bread. They might cover the country with sanctimony as they “overthrow the tyranny of hyper-partisanship.”
To think Obama called the progressives “sanctimonious”.
No Labels is nothing but a bunch of plutocrats layering a new talking point over the realities of the country.
The only truth in what they say – there is no longer a D party, so only one talking point should be propagandized.
So maybe I don’t buy Will’s title
If there’s money behind it, it will spread.
In the vacuum of representation for anyone on the left, they’ll eventually gravitate towards the new lesser evil after the clear demise of the Ds. In the illustration by Ted Rall, No Labels will be the “moderate Right Wing Rs”. The black part will just get a little larger.
And many of the Os who are already hailing Obama’s trickle down will fit in perfectly.
While doing a search for something different, I have found this remarkable Daily Kos entry (yeah, I have to link to it) which introduces Senator Obama’s diary on the Daily Kos. Yeah, the courtship started THAT early.
The context of Obama starting this diary is the forced vote against Roberts for SCOTUS – only in the very last second did he calculate that it’s better for his career
I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster — a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion;
In the featured entry, B0 waxes rhetorical about compromising and the relativity of principles. Here’s a small sample
A pro-choice Democrat doesn’t become anti-choice because he or she isn’t absolutely convinced that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an operation without a parent being notified. A pro-civil rights Democrat doesn’t become complicit in an anti-civil rights agenda because he or she questions the efficacy of certain affirmative action programs.
It was all there. Gays and women, you have been warned way ahead of the game. B0bots too:
Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more “centrist.” In fact, I think the whole “centrist” versus “liberal” labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark.
Yeah, we know now. The real mark: retards vs Republicans.
To be sure this is a masterpiece of ambivalence: democrats should be “bold” but also “flexible”, he draws no moral equivalence between the right wingers and progressives, but how can we ask the “R”s not to be beholden to theirs when “D”s are to their retards
But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, “true” progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward.
Note that when saying that, Obama uses “We” as he was one of the progressives.
Mind you this diary from 2005 contains exactly 2 entries but then B0 was never accused of having too much staying power. The money did the rest.
Anyway, the theme of this is “tone” (read “be nice”) and I’ll close with the paragraph that sounds the funniest today – as I am sure it did in 2008
A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.
and for reality check, here’s WaPo on his comedy routine
Except for a mild joke pegged to his falling approval ratings, Obama mostly spared Obama during his 14-minute stand-up routine. Palin, he said, calls Twitter and Facebook “the socialized media.” He dubbed Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican Party, “the Notorious G.O.P.” The newly enacted health-care law, the president joked, has “hundreds” of secret provisions, such as one covering people in Massachusetts who’ve suffered “short-term memory loss” about the state’s own efforts to reform health care. “So good news, Mitt!” Obama said of Republican critic and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. “Your condition is covered!”
So, I guess, “nice” is for the retards and the rest of the commoners
Oh, and I spare you the reading of the comments at the Orange Cheeto: it’s when B0bots were born! Universal adulation. In case you wonder who are the people OK with 2 wars, Heritage Foundation HCR, NCLB, coastal drilling, conscience rules and Social Security privatization.
h/t my reader cj:
In a sign that elections are coming, Obama is doning the “postpartisan” cloak again, using the Reagan lexicon about the excesses of the 60s and 70s.
Obama Times offers this unsurprising headline
Obama Says Liberal Courts May Have Overreached
WASHINGTON — In a seeming rejection of liberal orthodoxy, President Obama has spoken disparagingly about liberal victories before the Supreme Court in the 1960s and 1970s — suggesting that justices made the “error” of overstepping their bounds and trampling on the role of elected officials.
Here’s the Reaganesque quote
“And in the ’60s and ’70s, the feeling was — is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.”
So, as NY Times reveals – here’s what he’s ceding to conservatives
Mr. Obama’s comments, which came as he prepares to make a Supreme Court nomination, amounted to the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president about the conservative view that the Warren and Burger courts — which expanded criminal defendant rights, required busing to desegregate schools and declared a right to abortion — were dominated by “liberal judicial activists” whose rulings were dubious.
Which makes perfect sense from the Jane Crow president – I have to admire the consistency. Even if Obama Times is trying hard to make believe it didn’t actually happened
Still, Mr. Obama, who formerly taught constitutional law, did not cite any specific decisions. He has long been a supporter of abortion rights, and repeatedly defended the court’s interventionist stance during the civil rights movement because minorities were cut out of the political process, even while saying that such a role would be inappropriate today.
Hey, NY Times – name one instance of “support of abortion rights” from Obama.
I didn’t think so, but nice try.
Still, good on you quoting those who make clear what the difference between the two brands of activism is
his effort to establish a moral equivalency between the Warren court and the Roberts court.”
And the president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, Nan Aron, argued that the Warren and Burger courts had helped make progress on economic and social fronts for people who lacked political power, while the Roberts court is “tilted in favor of those who already have power and influence.”
.Of course, we knew all along what Obama thinks of civil rights and progressive principles. What is surprising is that adopting this “post-partisan” attitude, he thinks people would have any reason to vote for the “D”s in November.
In B0botland they are confused, considering previous awakenings
Most are trying to blame the reporters for misreporting this – didn’t happen so stop saying that
Given how much the reporters mischaracterized his remarks here, I don’t accept their indirect quote.
“….even while saying that such a role would be inappropriate today.”
Sorry, Savage, you’ll have to show me the direct quote and context – I don’t believe for a minute that your interpretation is accurate.
19. The NYT strikes again.
We all know they will whore for the $ client.
or see the multidimensional chess again
16. actually, he didn’t say that
he used purposely vague rhetoric.
Here, he really is playing chess.
.But some do get it
1. That isn’t the hope and change I thought I was going to get.
91. With one comment he legitimized all conservative criticism of Roe v Wade and other landmarks
Does this guy have a CLUE when it comes to politics? The best interpretation is that he doesn’t. I don’t even want to consider the idea that he knows exactly what he’s doing.
.Well, he did that before the comment, with the Jane Crow EO , demanding that contraceptives be taken out of the stimulus, when he said abortion is not a matter of women’s freedom but a moral issue etc. But good on you to notice now.
Apparently Glen Greenwald who reported this yesterday also had people scolding him for misrepresenting Obama. In his original post he links the actual interview where the quotes come from. Here’s the whole thing:
Well, I mean, here’s what I will say. It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically. And in the ’60s and’70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach.
What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.
and just because I found this great list of logical fallacies, here’s the one applicable to what Obama is doing:
if one does not understand a debate, it must be “fair” to split the difference, and agree on a compromise between the opinions. (But one side is very possibly wrong, and in any case one could simply suspend judgment.) Journalists often invoke this fallacy in the name of “balanced” coverage.
“Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in between.”
Television reporters like balanced coverage so much that they may give half of their report to a view held by a small minority of the people in question.
A week ago, when the secret was let out I speculated that this will be a talking point spread to neutralize the GOP opposition
How do I know this was a talking point just waiting to get out? Because this weekend, one of the operatives in B0botland was whining about pundits on TV saying
Very disappointed in Lawrence O’Donnell tonight…. he’s generally great….
But we’re basically passing the same law they have in Massachusetts… It’s not the onerous thing he describes.
I have been gleaning talking points from operatives deployed there throughout the elections and beyond.
Sure enough, Obama, who until now only told GOP the secret, is letting everyone know
But in an interview this morning on NBC, that’s exactly what Obama did. He said:
“When you actually look at the bill itself, it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas. I mean a lot of commentators have said this is sort of similar to the bill that Mitt Romney, the Republican Governor and now presidential candidate, passed in Massachusetts.
“A lot of the ideas in terms of the exchange, just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market, that originated from the Heritage Foundation…”
See, now that progressives have been reduced to babbling cheerleaders, their shock is irrelevant. Obama is only addressing – again – the GOP.
“Overall, ours is a model that works,’’ Romney said in response to a question after a speech at Iowa State University. “We solved our problem at the state level. Like it or not, it was a state solution. Why is it that President Obama is stepping in and saying ‘one size fits all’ ’’?
Of course, I will say here what most are not: I can’t believe Democrats are happy to enact Heritage Foundation legislation! (OK, I do)
Also, note I couldn’t find many CDS free entries, so for your information on Hillarycare – a post by Post partisan on that first
Unlike Obamacare, Hillarycare ‘93 and Hillaryplan 2.0-’08 were actual healthcare reform bills, not massive transfers of taxpayer wealth to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
Both had some form of a public option and thus real cost control. That’s why the industry colluded with corporate Democrats to kill the ‘93 bill.
Hillary and Bill could have taken the Obama route and compromised their health reform package down to a bailout complete with backroom deals for Big Insurance and Big Pharma. They chose not to.
The hinge of Hillaryplan 2.0-’08 was a mandate (that I thought should have had an opt-out with incentives and penalties) COMBINED with the option for the public to buy into the same government insurance plan held by members of Congress.
Obama stole the mandate and left out the crucial cost control component: the public option
Now, back to the B0bots:
Obama gets his ideas from the Heritage Foundation?
Oh. How nice.
Brilliant: My plan is a crusty old Republican idea we used to reject
24. we just passed nixon’s healthcare..
keep fuckin that chicken!
51. The Nixon plan was to the left of Obamacare. It had no individual mandate, only employer mandates.
The Clintoncare proposal, on the other hand, had both individual and employer mandates, as does Obamacare.
Claiming the plan is like Romneycare, with no mention of Clintoncare, is disingenuous.39. You clearly didn’t get the memo
We LOVE this historic, radical and sweeping single payer, only not really, plan. It’s the most amazing thing since the New Deal. Well, maybe not quite since the New Deal, maybe since NAFTA. Anyway, we fucking love this health insurance bailout, er, I mean, Health Care Reform. Get with it dude, our plan is so much cooler than say, Canada’s.
27. And All THIS after the voters gave the “Democratic Party”
*The White House
*A veto-roof MAJORITY in the Senate
*A LARGE MAJORITY in The House
*(Most Importantly) A HUGE MANDATE for “CHANGE”
….and The Very BEST The Democrats can do is National Romney Care “incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas.”
Ahhh, Mr President….WE voted The Republicans OUT because we were SICK of “Republican Ideas.”
I can’t count how many times I’ve been attacked for pointing out how many “Republican Ideas” are in this HCR Bill.
AND, after throwing OUT good “Democratic Ideas”, and replacing them with “Republican Ideas”, Obama gained Absolutely NOTHING.
Well, next time, be careful what you wish for!.
remember during the campaign when your beloved candidate said he loved some Republican ideas? Hillary called him on it and you wanted the ABC debate moderators fired for asking.
I remember now – thanks to Riverdaughter’s blog what he loved so much from his Fox interview
Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans
in some cases may have a better idea.
WALLACE: Such as?
OBAMA: Well, on issues of regulation. I think that back in the ’60s
and ’70s a lot of the way we regulated industry was top-down command
and control, we’re going to tell businesses exactly how to do things.
And you know, I think that the Republican Party and people who thought
about the markets came up with the notion that, “You know what? If you
simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives, for businesses
— let them figure out how they’re going to, for example, reduce
pollution,” and a cap and trade system, for example is a smarter way
of doing it, controlling pollution, than dictating every single rule
that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and
red tape and oftentimes is less efficient
But you preferred, then and recently, to put your fingers in your ears and go la-la-la. And now, he pulled a fast one on you (not even that fast) and he doesn’t care what you think anymore any more than Bush did.
And you’ll go vote for the Heritage Foundation proponents because somehow, you hate the other guys more. Same way you voted this guy in because…BROS BEFORE HOS.
The latest development in this circus: The Heritage Foundation defends itself
While he doesn’t exactly refute that the health exchanges are based on the conservative think tank’s market-based ideas, Feulner contends that they go too far in regulations and federal standards.
After that, they all went to a party with insurance CEOs and gave each other high fives.
9. it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas
We Dems just made them better you twit!Ohhh…sometimes the truth hurts!
“True exchanges are simply a market mechanism to enable families to choose their health insurance”
We would rather you bend over and just take it, while we and our crooked corporate croonies take all your money.
1. The Heritage foundation is a fucking RW propaganda organization………….
…………..Everyone that has posted so far has forgotten one simple thing while praising the bill. You are defending a “republican” bill, for christ sake. It’s like any one of us getting involved in a tea party, what do you think they would say to you and how would you be treated? Answer: Just like the Heritage foundations statement. We can say the sky is blue and it’s not raining and ALL the RW would fucking disagree with us using bullshit “technicalities” and shouting longer and louder than us. Fuck all these people.
Some even find an “in” to claim racism:
“he ought to learn before he speaks”
I guess President Obama is just too darn ‘uppity’.
although a few still get it
12. They polished turds up nice and shiny, they did
But most of them will love their GOP bill now, because Heritage disowned it.
The reason The Heritage Foundaton couldn’t come up with a convincing difference is, what Robert Reich was quoted as saying
Obama’s health bill is a very conservative piece of legislation, building on a Republican (a private market approach) rather than a New Deal foundation. The New Deal foundation would have offered Medicare to all Americans or, at the very least, featured a public insurance option.”
In short, it is FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG..
I made two new entries in the Obama Lexicon today: Ideology (lack thereof) and pragmatism. They are now both newspeak for Republican It’s my way of saluting the continuing drumbeat that “Obama is above it all”
Because when I hear “lack of ideology” it’s the same message as “unbiased media” – it always means Republican.
Only Nixon could go to China. Only Obama can trash progressive ideals and principles and be praised for not having any
I chronicled this throughout this blog, most notably here about Obama’s base
n Jones, as in the slang word ‘jonesing,’ or craving, and as in a generation that’s lost in the shuffle.Jonesers are idealistic, Pontell says, but not ideological like boomers. “Boomers were flower children out changing the world. We Jonesers were wide-eyed, not tie-dyed.”
“Obama has this awareness that other presidents haven’t had. He’s white, and he’s black. He’s an elitist, and he’s regular folk. He’s not pinned down to a perspective.”
His approach is like a weak version of the most unkind caricature of Big Dog, too afraid of offending the Serious People, too much wanting love and approval to be decisive, to make hard choices,to draw lines in the sand, etc.
Obama Transcends Ideology by Riling Both Flanks: Albert R. Hunt
and fluffs away that
- Barack Obama, charges former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, is “the most liberal president” in modern times, pursuing “an agenda that really is foreign to mainstream America.” Other Republicans routinely talk about the president’s “socialist” agenda. Simultaneously, the left wing says he’s a traitor to their cause. Liberal bloggers regularly accuse him of selling out to corporate interests, claiming that he has failed to keep his campaign commitments
By using the clueless fight over a GOP law as a straw man. Hunt is trying to make Obama into the “Goldilocks president
Maybe it’s time we define this “ideology” they think is such a dirty thing.
According to Merriam Webster, ideology is
2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
and since we are talking about politics, I shall take C and try to sum up how it translate to the two major parties:
For Democrats, FDR spelled out most of it quite well
“In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-
evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under
which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all
—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops
or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return
which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an
atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by
monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and
enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age,
sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must
be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to
new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon
how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for
I’d add a woman’s right to choice, the exclusion of discrimination based on sex and lifestyle, separation of church and state.
Then we have the GOP ideology which is centered on opposition to the government interfering in economy but clamoring it’s full force in social affairs such as keeping gays and women in their place and waging wars – as we are number one.
There is only one right in the GOP ideology: freedom. It can be applied to any of the above.
There are no civil rights, only entitlements and they have to be stopped.
Corporations are to be protected at any cost to people.
Free market .
In accordance with the hatred of government, everything must be privatized and sold to the highest bidder.
These are – the way I see them the major political ideologies in this country. To be above them is to believe in neither.
So what does Obama believe in?
In his apotheosis, Al Hunt gives Healthcare as example of “above it all”
The health-care bill he signed last week isn’t socialism and doesn’t create a government-run health system. It leaves intact an employer-provided system and private, if more regulated, insurance.
Yeah, Al Hunt of Wall Street, of course you’d love it. Unfortunately David Frum let the cat out of the bag: your non-ideological healthcare came from the very ideological Heritage foundation.
right-wing policy analysts proposed an individual mandate to purchase health coverage as a respectable, market-oriented, responsibility-based alternative to either government-provided health care (the nanny state) or mandated employer-provided health care (the boss state).
Anglachael mistakenly thought it was
Simply put, it is a lack of a political purpose for wanting to be president. He doesn’t have any specific use for power so he doesn’t value it.
But there are some very clear political goals here, only “Republican” is now “above ideology”. Here’s Al Hunt gushing again
At the same time, the president is transcending the old argument of whether the priority in elementary and secondary education should be more money or more reform; he says both, rewarding schools and teachers that show results and punishing those that don’t through the Race to the Top program. This increased accountability has infuriated some of the teachers’ unions that were Obama backers, and an important Democratic Party constituency.
I wasn’t aware of the money or reform argument. Silli ideologue me I thought it was always about public education vs privatization. About that right to an education FDR was talking about vs making it a privilege for the wealthy, like healthcare.
And in that, postpartisan Obama by putting a profit incentive and competition in education is making big strides in killing public education. And teachers unions too.
Mind you, the Wall Street media is in accord with Obama when they push the “above ideology” thinghy. It’s how Obama himself pushed his Republican healthcare
“Blanche is right that we sometimes get bogged down in ideology.”
Or what Thomas Paine said
A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.”
So, who would be shocked that operatives in B0botland are pushing exactly this talking point, praising Obama for not having principles