You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘post-partisan’ tag.
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.
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.
I either do better since my local chanels now require switching wires to receive them, or, considering I am on the internet a lot, the cult is less far reaching.
It took reading a Politico piece about the wearing off the cult for me to find out
starting with the hastily scheduled Friday address. But its first event might have backfired a bit. Its main consequence was proving that the magnetism of Obama’s personal appearances has worn off, as it drew little media attention and a dismissive tweet from the key Senate Republican, Chuck Grassley of Iowa: “Waste of time.”
Wow! maybe it’s because it was “hastily scheduled”
After all, the article is full of
“No one gets rich betting against Barack Obama.”
from his cronies. Which is an interesting choice of words, considering Rezko & al who got rich betting on him. But the article does tell us that the famous cool is gone . In favt, the theme or the article is that Mr Change is changing agenda
TOTUS has changed tone:
Even Obama’s scripted speeches are deliberately more forceful, aggressive and direct in taking on critics, aides say.
Well, if TOTUS changed gear, can Obama be far behind? It appears that Mr Post-partisan shed yet another skin
Obama’s political operation has dispensed with its post-inauguration cocktails for Republicans – or more often, ignoring them outright — in favor of the old politics of engage, attack and cajole. Obama’s even engaging in a little Democrat-on-Democrat politics, as his ex-campaign arm is beaming TV ads into the home states of moderate fence-sitters on health care.
Democrat on Democrat? Why does this have an incestuous sound to it? It’s definitely as far of principles as Obama ever was. On second thought, it’s more cannibalistic than incestuous.
I for one am grateful that I manage to have – so far – an Obama-less summer – and notice the rumblings from afar. yet another sign there is a Jr.jr out there.
President Barack Obama got the $825 (or $1.2 trillion over a decade) stimulus package through the House of Representatives but the 244 to 188 vote is a hollow victory indeed. Without a single Republican voting for the bill, his high-profile visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday came to exactly naught – at least on the House side.
Why? Fineman gave me a clue in what was – the first positive mention of Clinton’s presidency in the media
In the end it may not matter that much. In 1993, Bill Clinton passed his first and most important — and successful — tax bill without a single GOP vote in the House. The legislation is generally credited with having helped spur the Long Boom of the 1990s.
Generally credited? Not by Fineman and all of them – not then or since, but yeah, I agree.
Of course he gets condescending in the next paragraph
But in 1993, times weren’t as tough, and Clinton wasn’t proposing to change the way Washington worked. He just wanted to win, and he did.
Riight. Clinton didn’t change anything that Reagan/Poppy did…..So, now, the post-partisan billion dollar candidate, got his stimulus through the house with more tax cuts and without family planning – and also without a GOP vote. It’s nice to see the revisionism on Clinton finally getting the truth though.
So much for “post-partisan”. And…why couldn’t we have Hillary again?
And once again, Krugman seems to me stalking me
Aren’t you glad that Obama watered it down and added ineffective tax cuts, so as to win bipartisan support?
Pages and pages of gushing over this from Politico. They loved Rick Warren. The dinner at George Will. But wait, there’s more!
It’s no secret Barack Obama is trying to seduce Republicans these days. But his conservative courting runs much deeper and wider than is publicly known
I bet! And there’s another bit I knew of:
“It has certainly helped the president-elect to get more of a hearing from evangelicals when he invited Rick Warren,” said Richard Land, a well-known social conservative and chief of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm. “I don’t think that would have happened had Hillary Clinton been elected.”
It’s what we told them during the primaries. And why? remember not being so much into the fights of the 60’s and 70’s? Civil rights? Feminism?
And Obama, unlike the Clintons and President Bush, is somebody who is neither shaped nor scarred by baby boomer battles, noted Land, 62, himself a product of the era.
Of course. he is untouched by them ugly times. Fresh from the greenhouses of…Chicago?