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.
This is a direct quote of what Obama told Fox
Now, we can fix this in a way that is sensible, that is centrist. I have rejected a whole bunch of provisions that the left wanted that are — you know, they were very adamant about because I thought it would be too disruptive to the system.
Hmm – I guess he never campaigned for “Change” either. We already know about the Pubic Option
Having ditched the soft and mushy left, Obama presents himself as Goldilocks. Too bad the “too big” crowd is screaming hysterically and the “too little” is bending over asking for more.
To make this even more pathetic, the Fox audience wasn’t impressed
Did he think a strong performance would possibly influence some undecided moderate Democrats, many of whom have plenty of constituents who watch Fox regularly? That seems an out-sized ambition, even for a President who maintains unlimited confidence in his ability to speak and persuade. Whatever the case, I think it was a mistake by the President to go on Fox last night and I do not think he helped himself or his cause with the interview.
Bobots were shocked by the “rudeness” of the interviewer
and the White House leaks accusations of Faux for lying yet again
A White House official: “Many of the falsehoods and myths about health reform gained traction with Glenn Beck and others on FOX, so the President is returning to the scene of the crime to make the final sale.
(or was it a sell-out?”)
I guess this is all part of courting the anti-choice crowd. You know, the one Moveon, B0bots are not allowed to attack.
To the shills’ claims that he ran as a centrist
He ran as a man who claimed he could change the way
politics was done. He ran on ‘we are going to change this country, and change the world’. He ran on ‘WE are the ones we have been waiting for’. He ran not just opposed to mandates, but utterly mocking them as larcenous and unneeded.
Show a link, please, to him on the trail saying “I am a centrist and will govern as a centrist.”
Change. He ran on change. Change you can believe in.
Not sure what campaign you were listening to. McCain’s maybe? That tax in the ‘reform’ was his idea, one that Obama claimed to oppose. Until he won.
54. Centrist, my arse!
Corporatist is more likely. I guess Medicare and Social Security are ideals from the extreme left. Now days, anything that doesn’t support big business-but actually helps the people is extreme left. Those wild, wacky lefties-I tell you, what would this country be like without them? The majority of the populace wanted a strong PO–I guess Obama must be placating all those wacky lefties–NOT!!!!Not true. He pushed “the center” even further right (which is what he wanted to do.) nt
In fact some get daring enough to confess
48. And that’s why I voted Uncommitted in my Minnesota caucus in 2008
I couldn’t stand either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, because it was so obvious that they were the two candidates agreed upon by the corporate media.
In early 2007, the corporate media were already acting as if they were the only Dem contenders.
That told me that I could never support either one with any enthusiasm.
I did vote for Obama with great reluctance. But seeing what we got, I wish I had voted third party.
Of course, she missed some important differences in what the corporate media was doing, but got more than most idiots there.
Sorry, F*ing retards, the writing as on the wall. Reagan, Blackwater, stealing the primaries… Now live with it. It’s on you..
Page ones site was late today, so I start with the newsstand image on this dreary day
DC Express gets a cute cover out of the new mail cuts (no Saturdays)
Moonie Times continues to impress me as DC’s better paper: today they follow on that gun rights case based on the 14th amendment
If the trend continues, I’ll start using their actual name
To bad for Paterson he is not GOP! If he were, he would be coddled by Obama&media for bipartisanship sake. As he isn’t, the drumbeat to oust him goes on