If I followed that logic, I'd be voting Liberal. Screw that.
You wrote that before I managed to.
In fact, in Alberta these days, if you followed that logic, you could justify voting Conservative.
If Sarah Palin didn't exist, Obama's spin doctors would have to invent her in some lab.
Obama is authorizing torture, kidnapping, the murder of civilians, and assassinations, and that's just overseas. He has happily taken on the Cheney cover-ups at home, so now he owns those, and he is extending multiple violations of U.S. law to betray his fellow citizens and his oath to uphold and defend the constitution.
And just because Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann would be even worse than that, people are prepared to blink and wink?
If I followed that logic, I'd be voting Liberal. Screw that.
Torture is the bottom line. No quarter.
And yet they probably wouldn't be worse than that. Obama is the continuation of the Bush regime with good table manners and excellent oratorical skills.
If I followed that logic, I'd be voting Liberal. Screw that.
You wrote that before I managed to.
In fact, in Alberta these days, if you followed that logic, you could justify voting Conservative.
If Sarah Palin didn't exist, Obama's spin doctors would have to invent her in some lab.
And if Obama didn't exist, political discussion here would be forced to consider the viewpoints of America's most-hated socialist rag, the NYTimes (the tea-partiers take), or at least consider Chomsky's tolerance as a reference point, an example of calmer assessment.
Sorry to interrupt yet another Obama rant with news of Sarah. She's real, just like the whackos around her in the GOP, and they will not disappear as a result of the ostrich stance hereabouts. Although it would be a blessed relief to see the rabid and increasingly dangerous right criticized with something near the vigour and relentlessness of the Obama haters.
I have news for Mr. Paine and Mr. Obama: their country is not the world.Wilf, I may be misreading you, and if so, my apologies. But I think you are being unfair to Tom Paine there.
Paine, who was a fairly recent English immigrant to the U.S., was making an anti-imperialist, anti-nationalist, internationalist statement. It may have been naive in the way that communist internationalism was naive, but it wasn't Ugly American time.
I've read lots of people on babble who are uncomfortable, eg, with Canadian nationalism because they feel there is something wrong with nationalism. And of course there is, but then that feeling can lead people to another extreme, where they are presuming that the rest of the world is going to love them more than it ever will.
Anyway, that's all Tom Paine. I don't think that Obama is anything like Tom Paine, nottattall. Obama is a believer in Merkin power, and I could put it more rudely than that.
I understand the difference between Tom Paine and Barack Obama. I was having a bit of fun with Lawrence Martin equating them.
However, I do see the link. Tom Paine's nice, naive, anti-imperialist statement contains the germ of the idea that Americans can be above country, and save the world from various evils without becoming a national power themselves. An obviously absurd idea, except that many Americans seem to believe it. Furthermore, even those who know better find the rhetoric of the Tom Paines can be faithlessly used to serve their geopolitical ends.
Quoting Lawrence Martin:"More importantly, despite the rabid counter-pressures of the legions on the American right, now led by hillbilly Sarah Palin, he has restored American fair-mindedness and faith in its leadership around the world. The prejudice of his predecessors is replaced by a man of enlightenment, inspiration and global perspective. Barack Obama has put his country back on the high road. He embodies the spirit as expressed in the words of Thomas Paine: "My country is the world and my religion is to do good."
Just had to make sure that Obama did not say that, Wilf. It makes a world of difference in the context of your post.
Martin should have described Sarah as redneck, not hillbilly. The distinction will become clear in 2010, I'm afraid, as we see the depths to which a totally corrupted GOP leadership descend. Good luck to Obama, and to us all!
George, buddy, you live with blinders on. I read an interesting opinion piece, today, about Gaza and the plight of those brutalized and terrorized people. What the author said was quite telling. Rather than offering hope to the besieged people of Gaza, Obama has entrenched the policies of Bush with his state department assisting Egypt in tightening the screws and the worseing the deprivations of a land where more than 50% of the residents are children. You can continue to blame Washington for all of Obama's failings, but it is simplistic and false.
Barack Obama, the US president, whom many hoped would change the vicious anti-Palestinian policies of his predecessor, George Bush, has instead entrenched them as even the pretense of a serious peace effort has vanished.
According to media reports, the US Army Corps of Engineers is assisting Egypt in building an underground wall on its border with Gaza to block the tunnels which act as a lifeline for the besieged territory [resources and efforts that ought to go into rebuilding still hurricane-devastated New Orleans], and American weapons continue to flow to West Bank militias engaged in a US- and Israeli-sponsored civil war against Hamas and anyone else who might resist Israeli occupation and colonisation.
Yours as one with the opinions of Sarah's flock, FM. How would you explain your opinion to the New Left Media?
"Chase Whitestead and Erick Stroll of "New Left Media" set out to determine just what was it about Sarah Palin that impelled her supporters to stand in massive lines for hours for the chance to meet her at book signings.
"They interviewed several of her supporters who were waiting in line at a Borders bookstore in Columbus, Ohio. These fans expressed very strong support for Palin, but it was mostly couched in vague generalities about her being "real" and "strong" and "fair."
"When pressed to cite specific policies that they favored or thought qualified her for the presidency, most of her fans struggled to come up with anything other than generic lines about cutting taxes and spending and the Palin staple: "drill, baby, drill."
"On the other hand, they were all worried that President Obama has been doing enormous damage to the country. However, again, specifics eluded them.
You would write off Sarah but grow very specific in your criticism of Obama, if asked, right?. But as much as you and I abhor evens in Gaza, I'll bet Sarah's minions think that, well, the pres. isn't all bad, but Sarah would be better in putting down those AAArabs, eh? Bring the nuke factor to the fore. Sabre rattle the Bjezus out of them.
Gee, let's see, wasn't Hillary Clinton the only proto-presidential candidate during the latest primaries to call for nuking anyone?
Your "yer either with us or agin us" attitude towards those of us who aren't suckered by Obama is not unlike that of another George, George.
That's just patent nonsense, al. I'm talking about SArah.
Your opening post: "The Prophet Joe Bageant on Obama:" is a combined swat at my use of "the prophet" to describe Sarah's followers (and he certainly does not disagree with that), and the fact that Joe Bageant is also disappointed in Obama. But then, if you bothered to read his work more closely, you'd find his political expectations are about like yours - naive.
Have fun, al, but don't ever put me in the bush camp. That is pure, vicious ignorance on your part and is an example of the limited political vocabulary of the hill folk that I did not expect from you, somehow.
In fact, your attack is such an unexpectedly low blow, I'm going to go right downstairs and pour a double...on the rocks. That ought to ease the sting. Hell, the day had been going just fine, too. Yours not, eh?
George, it's just a discussion board. We're still friends, right? But once you've poured that double, there are some good links in the War President thread that might interest you.
Knew I could count on you not to compare me with Bush, FM. I'll look at the "War Pres" thread directly ( warmed by the double and its successor).
George, it's just a discussion board. We're still friends, right? But once you've poured that double, there are some good links in the War President thread that might interest you.
Just had a peek, FM. Jeez, I'd be afraid to make the usual appeals to reason in that thread. It's all down with Barack Hussein and that's it. Period. No quarter. Heck, I'd be afraid to even ASK for something like "If not Obama, whom?" or "where from here?". You know, some variation on the "he's no damned good" theme.
I'm listening now to CBC 1 where Rick McInnis Rae has interviewed the author of Island of Shame, about the island Diago Garcia(?) in the Indian Ocean that has been taken over by the U.S. military, which expects to rule the eastern hemisphere from there and its base in Guam....and the 1,000 other U.S. military bases around the world. Boy, those guys don't fool around in their assumption of world hegemony. Old Barack has inherited quite the empire.
But why didn't he just wash the U.S.' s hands of the whole rotten works and close them down, reform the U.S., rid it of its anti-democratic, militaristic infrastructure and clean house...of all the rotten accretions deposited there since WW 11 and the Cold War began?
Perhaps he does not believe in Alice in Wonderland endings, tooth fairies and overnight miracles ? Is he going to have to do an end run around the whackos (you know, the people never talked about here, the really, really dangerous ones, our enemies) that are close to controlling political events in the U.S.? And so it goes.
You should visit the links, George. Obama isn't who you think he is. Here is an excerpt:
Not only was Obama consolidating Democratic power to serve only him from the top down, he was taking out people and groups that didn't step in to his line.
I have heard from several sources that the Obama campaign is sending out signals to donors, specifically at last weekend's Democracy Alliance convention, to stop giving to outside groups, including America Votes. The campaign also circulated negative press reports about Women's Voices Women's Vote, implying voter suppression. ... He has bypassed Actblue, and will probably end up building in a Congressional slate feature to further party build while keeping control of the data. ... The campaign has also, despite thousands of interviews with a huge number of outlets, refused to have Obama interact on progressive blogs. ... I'm also told, though I can't confirm, that Obama campaign has also subtly encouraged donors to not fund groups like VoteVets and Progressive Media. These groups fall under the 'same old Washington politics' which he wants to avoid, a partisan gunslinging contest he explicitly advocates against.
Oh, and Stoller was/is a supporter.
Give me a couple more months, FM. After the House vote on medicate, maybe by summer. I want to know if he can afford to conform to his manufactured expectations, without causing the Great Unread to go over to Republicans in the mid terms. (and of course, if enough wussy progressives give up on him the rock hard Born Again will have him for breakfast) OK? Oh, and assure al if you see him, that I'm not the enemy....those folk are out there with their squirrel rifles in the woods, beyond right field, and apparently beyond his ken.
I wonder, fellas, if any element of the Democratic Party feels taken in like all these people? Oh to be a fly on the wall in their caucases. There's nothing really evident...nothing I've noticed in print or on CBC radio, anyway. Nancy Pelosi carries on, there is no sign of revolt in Senate or House ranks.
Guess we'll see, soon enough, with mid terms only 11 months away.
The progressives didn't give up on Obama, George. Obama jettisonned the progressives right along with his campaign staff and office furniture. And, yes, there is a tumult rising within the Democratic Party and it is becoming quite public. But no, you won't get that on the CBC. You will get it here in different threads following various links.
Definitely. If you read Daily Kos, Firedoglake or other such sites you'll see there are a lot of disappointed Democrats, though there's much debate on how much blame to apportion to Blue Dog congresspeople or to Obama. That said, it's not obvious how this influences the big picture as the Republicans also have problems with lackluster fundraising and to put it simply, teabaggery.
[url=http://counterpunch.org/nader01012010.html]The Awful Truth[/url]
But hope dims the memory of the awful truth which is that Obama signed on to the Wall Street and military-industrial complex from the get-go. He got their message and is going after their campaign contributions and advisors big time!
the Republicans also have problems with lackluster fundraising and to put it simply, teabaggery.
Note the hat. Man of faith? More like man of fail.
Here is one from the NYT, George:
The party that urged the Supreme Court not to grant the victims’ appeal because the illegality of torture was not “clearly established” was the Obama Justice Department.
Definitely. If you read Daily Kos, Firedoglake or other such sites you'll see there are a lot of disappointed Democrats, though there's much debate on how much blame to apportion to Blue Dog congresspeople or to Obama. That said, it's not obvious how this influences the big picture as the Republicans also have problems with lackluster fundraising and to put it simply, teabaggery.
I think it's tremendously important. One of strenghts of the Obama campaign was getting the vote out. Due to Repugnicant efforts at rigging the election through vote denial, the Democrats had to match any votes successfully challenged and still get more of them. While the work of a number of groups to get the vote out was heroic, it must also be acknowleged that the promise Obama offered through his very effective marketing campaign, also brought voters out from out of the woodwork. When these voters stay home in 2013, Palin is president and the Dick is back.
It is just such outbursts of rational optimism on your part that I find most endearing, FM.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described a superstate, Oceania, whose language of war inverted lies that "passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past'."
Barack Obama is the leader of a contemporary Oceania. In two speeches at the close of the decade, the Nobel Peace Prize-winner affirmed that peace was no longer peace, but rather a permanent war that "extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan" to "disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies". He called this "global security" and invited our gratitude. To the people of Afghanistan, which the US has invaded and occupied, he said wittily: "We have no interest in occupying your country."
Bring on Sarah...anything to end the innuendo. :D
If it was wrong for Bush to bail out Wall Street with virtually no controls, then it's wrong for Obama. If indefinite "preventative detention" was wrong under Bush, then it's wrong under Obama. If military occupation and deepening troop deployments were wrong under Bush, then they're wrong under Obama.
Imagine if McCain had defeated Obama in 2008 and soon tripled the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. I have little doubt that activists would have mobilized major opposition, denouncing the reality of more U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq combined than even Bush had deployed.
But as Obama goes about tripling the troops in Afghanistan, with more U.S. soldiers in war zones that Bush ever had - and proposes the biggest military budget in world history - many activists have lost their voices.
Re al-Q's link to Pilger above: Every time Obama declares, as he often does, that his first responsibility is to protect the American people or the Homeland or however he puts it, he is betraying his oath of office. He did not swear to "protect" Americans. He swore to uphold and defend the constitution, as every public servant does and should, and as his justice department clearly is not doing.
Harper is sliding into using the same security-oriented language, and we should be challenging it at every opportunity. This is a thinly veiled attempt to militarize North America, and it's important that citizens understand how much it will cost us if we give in to it.
"In Oceania, truth and lies are indivisible. According to Obama, the American attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was authorised by the United Nations Security Council. There was no UN authority. He said that "the world" supported the invasion in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks. In truth, all but three of 37 countries surveyed by Gallup expressed overwhelming opposition. He said that America invaded Afghanistan "only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden". In 2001, the Taliban tried three times to hand over Bin Laden for trial, Pakistan's military regime reported, and they were ignored" John Pilger
This is a phony "global war on terror", and the leftwing anti-war movement should be more productive if we were to focus on exposing the lies of the American/Canadian inquisition. I think those of us who lived during some period or another of the cold war era have a better understanding what is going on since 1991.
"Obama Has Kept the Machine Set on Kill"-Journalist and Activist Allan Nairn Reviews Obama's First Year in Office
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/6/obama_has_kept_the_machine_set
In an extended interview, award-winning journalist and activist Allan Nairn looks back over the Obama administration's foreign policy and national security decisions over the last twelve months. "I think Obama should be remembered as a great man because of the blow he struck against white racism," Nairn says. "But once he became president...Obama became a murderer and a terrorist, because the US has a machine that spans the globe, that has the capacity to kill, and Obama has kept it set on kill. He could have flipped the switch and turned it off...but he chose not to do so." He continues, "In fact, as far as one can tell, Obama seems to have killed more civilians during his first year than Bush did in his first year, and maybe even than Bush killed in his final year."
Although Obama has blasted "fat cat bankers on Wall Street," it is time for those who elected him to ask for more than rhetoric. And to ask that of the Democratic leaders of the House, who refused to allow a vote on Hinchey's amendment to include the restoration of Glass-Steagall in their so-called Wall Street Reform Act. Introducing it as a separate bill, Hinchey stated:
"The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was done to help large banks become enormous and to line the pockets of banking executives with more money than most Americans could ever dream of earning in their lifetime. ... This bill would help right the ship and return our country to the days when banks either participated in commercial lending activities or investment activities, but not both."
There is much logic in preventing commercial banks, which carry the hard-earned savings of depositors and a federal guarantee of their worth, from engaging in the high-roller risk-taking of investment banks.
If McCain now gets it, why doesn't Obama?
Fidel will enjoy this entire column:
So the next time you’re faced with a boy wonder from Harvard, try to keep your adulation in check no matter what office the man attains, even — oh, just choosing a position at random — the presidency of the United States. Keep your eyes focused not on these “liberal” … “best and brightest” who come and go, but on US foreign policy which remains the same decade after decade. There are dozens of Brazils and Lincoln Gordons in America’s past. In its present. In its future. They’re the diplomatic equivalent of the guys who ran Enron, AIG and Goldman Sachs.
Of course, not all of our foreign policy officials are like that. Some are worse.
And remember the words of convicted spy Alger Hiss: Prison was “a good corrective to three years at Harvard.”
This tells you something about American politics and why Obama seems loathe to depart the political center. Conservatives come with a built-in 2-to-1 advantage over liberals in the United States before moderates decide which way they're going.
As much valid criticisms of Obama as there are (except those whose original intent was to throw criticism of anything Obama), consider two things:
1) You'd still choose Obama over McCain;
2) All those polls and analysis between November 2008 and January 2009 discussing if Obama can live up to the expectations addressing the massive problems he would inherit.
I'd choose herpes over AIDs too, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to choose to be healthy?
This tells you something about American politics and why Obama seems loathe to depart the political center. Conservatives come with a built-in 2-to-1 advantage over liberals in the United States before moderates decide which way they're going.
Doug, if the sentiment among "progressives" in the U.S. is anything like that hereabouts, Sarah is in like Flynn, next time out. Those statistics represent a strong racist element together with a "bag of hair" dumbness (Bageant) south of the 49th.
That all depends on if the moderates go for her - and she may well prove to be too loony right-wing for that.
The moderates won't "go for her" Doug. They'll just stay home and sulk. She'll come in on a cakewalk. :D
You're right George, they will stay home and it will be because Obama lured them in then kicked them aside to pander to Wall Street, the insurers, and the military. One more time: The progressives did not abandon Obama. Obama gave the moderates a great big, fat middle finger as soon as it was clear he no longer needed them.
And we all lived happily ever after in Sarahland.
How DO you separate your position from nihilism, FM? Or the petulant child?
George, that's not the question to ask me when your argument is that Obama must violate his stated positions, promises, and betray his base, and govern like Sarah Palin to prevent Sarah Palin from governing. Surely you must recognize how absurd that is.
The reality, George:
Adam Green is one of many ardent Obama supporters who have had their enthusiasm challenged this year. He runs an organization called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which among other things operates a Web site called YesWeStillCan.org.
Green says that those who campaigned and voted for Obama in 2008 thought they were supporting a candidate who would "fight special interests on behalf of the little guy."
But now, a year into his term, his core supporters are jaded.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122366587
Even if I accepted your contention that Obama is really a weak president in a hostile Washington, and I don't, it would be much different if Obama at least fought for the things he claims he believes in and supported. He doesn't and he didn't. He turned his back without so much as wrinkling his brow. And that, George, is becasuse, as his appointments prove (deeds not words), he wasn't a progressive to start with. He just pretended to be one to get elected. As one commentator recently pointed out, even McCain is now more progressive on the banks and finance reform than is Obama.
Obama promised change, in his campaign and in Cairo. So far as the Islamic world is concerned – he’s betrayed that promise. That’s the systemic failure.
Obama is a slogan, Obama is a brand. Strip away the progressive colourful label and you'll find the same bottle of neoliberalism that was sold by political pitchman Ronald Reagan.
Obama is no more effective at curing the ills of US politics than he is at curing the heartbreak of psoriasis. He's a snake oil salesman, and he's the product he's selling.
I suppose it's comforting to have faith in something, and hope that this mirage will protect you from the witchcraft of Sarah Palin, but wouldn't it be more productive to pressure Obama and the Democrats to actually do what they've promised? Either that or create a real alternative to the corporatist parties.
Far from failures or mistakes, these episodes illustrate how Team Obama, which surfed a tsunami of corporate money and savvy branding to victory, is doing exactly what it was elected to do: redistribute money upwards. It's hard to think of a decision by this White House that would have not elicited cackling glee from the Bush administration. The number of horrendous policies] enacted by the Obama administration in barely a year boggles the imagination. What follows is by no means an exhaustive list, just a few dozen of the worst:
George, I give you a totally different thought about the Republicans in 2012. Petraeus.
Sarah is not going to happen. But Petraeus well might, and he is a much more serious threat.
Some people talk as though I am an Obama fan. Of course he was only relief from the insanity of Bush, and he won ONLY because of the recession teetering on the brink of depression, and Iraq. Consider that... coming ahead of McCain and his dipsy-doodle choice for running mate by a hair.
I believe, skdadl, you understand this. It is a picture of the abject state of politics and political understanding in America. The ignorance of an electorate given over to Jesus and greed (see the combination explained in the last issue of Atlantic Monthly), and a media that is committed to maintenance of bedlam.
Nowhere, here, do I see an attempt to explain why social reform like a comprehensive public medical bill was fought down to the last member of a Congress where members were terrified of what the folks back home insisted on, the crazy stories that circulated about the administration's intentions, the depth of dumbness that ruled. Meaningful analysis demands a structural understanding of the American political scene, not the simple one-sided caricature of a "failed leader" that appears hereabouts.
It may well be Petraeus who heads the charge a couple of years down the line, skdadl, with Sarah the sentimental favourite for vice. A replay of Eisenhower's entry onto the stage in '52. It would be the entry of a general to a scene fully developed along the lines that the predecessor, WW 11 general warned of, a military industrial complex so fully entrenched that a "progressive-left" audience does not even consider it as an American given.
I'm just not ready to pin my hopes on a marginalized third choice that calls for a thought and reasoning, while leaving environmental questions to be answered by an American electorate gone fey.
Again, George, you work hard a painting a false picture. Let's say I agree with you. Let's say I agree it's difficult to push through legislation in the USA, that doesn't excuse the betrayals, the capitulations, the entire lack of a fight. It doesn't explain the appointments and the total complicity with US corporate piracy. It doesn't explain the expanded wars, increased violence against indigenous peoples, and the growing threat against popular movements in the south. It doesn't explain the rank hypocrisy with regard to "the rule of law" as it applies to Islamic and non-white peoples and nations and the "look forwards not backwards" approach when the rule of law applies to white nations and in particular the US nor the complete betrayal of the rule of law when it comes to Israel. It doesn't explain his broken promises and betrayals with regard to accounatbility and transparency in the Whitehouse.
In all of those areas Obama either has wide latitude or complete descretion and in every case he has proven to be as right wing and reactionary as any Republican including Bush and Cheney.
I don't know if you support Obama, George, but you'd make a great Excuser in Chief.
Of course the state of the electorate and the structure of political economy in the U.S. explains "all that" FM. Your own sense of apocalyptic urgency just does not allow you to believe it...not while bravely trying maintain a picture of humanity just waiting to follow a leader true to your convictions...somewhat removed from the Homo sapiens of your corner biologist. More a picture of the cowboy in the white hat from your earliest imaginings.
George, I think that FM has the numbers on his side. As far as I know, the really rabid paranoid xenophobes are down to about 20 per cent in the U.S. I recognize that they are really rabid, but there aren't that many of them. And yet, eg, Obama and Holder are tailoring their entire approach to Guantanamo and the trials, civilian or military, in response to those people. Their very refusal to fight has moved the Overton window, I think -- if they had stood up to the xenophobes fast and hard at the beginning, they could have marginalized them, but now a much larger chunk of the pop have become used to worrying that dangerous former prisoners could be let loose on American soil. The only way to stop that kind of thinking -- which Obama and Holder must know is wrong -- is to step on it hard from the get-go; instead, they caved, and they're still caving.
I'm sure any possible Republican would be worse, but Obama is failing, and thus paving the way for worse.
Well, skdadl, I'm not in a position to argue whether his fellow Democrats see him as failing them in their chances at the mid-terms this year, but reading the NY Times, I know that they are very, very worried about maintaining a hold on Congress.
Perhaps Obama's role in this continuing dicey state of electoral affairs will be revealed by someone quoting from polls...I'd be glad to concede that FM has (bless him) "the numbers" in that way, and not just quotations from the pundocracy. You'll have to show me where the Democratic main stream was not caving to poll results in their own states on the health bill, and that it was Obama's influence causing the sag in poll results. Very complex pattern of tea leaves at the moment.
