President Barack Obama has pledged that he would not accept help from “super” political action committees — denouncing them as a “threat to our Democracy.” That pledge, like many of his civil liberties pledges, has now gone into the waste basket. Obama has now called on supporters to load up the Superpac funds — erasing any difference (again) between him and his Republican rivals.
Once again, Obama supporters are blaming the GOP for the flip-flop — arguing that Obama had to lower himself to their level. Two former Obama aides are organizing the effort just as a former aide organized Romney’s controversial SuperPac. For about a week, I have noticed leaks going into the press about how Obama staffers are warning about the expected dirty attacks that will come from the Romney SuperPac. It now appears that those stories may have been placed in anticipation of this flip flop.
What is interesting is that Obama is not lacking funding. He is hauling in huge contributions. Yet, principles seem to be the first to go in this Administration when it is not politically convenient. What they have lost (beyond credibility) is a campaign issue. They could have run on the corporate influence on our political process. What is left is the cult of personality surrounding the President: it is not the principle, just the person.
Source: CNN
Actually, the ‘war on women’, and the many cultural wears this includes, provides a ray of hope for stemming the tide if one looks at Greenwald’s thesis that consensus politics takes many of the most sensitive issues out of play. Except for the Xtian right stepfords, there is a force in women’s issues — take contraception — that transcends the misogynistic bias of the system and the convenient D or R labels. The recent Kormen dust up shows it’s power.
Out on a limb, women seem less afflicted by the moral and ethical laxity of their male counterparts. Maybe, maybe not. But I would count on women to help lead the system out of the self destructive death spiral for our democracy.
AN,
You seem to have a grasp on the issues as a whole….I agree with you in the “What is hidden they do not think we will ever see”….. Anonymous and Wikileaks makes sure we do……
If I recall you said you had some friends or people that you know, who have given you all sorts of “disturbing” information….I appreciate your perspective…
“taking my heart meds and trying to stick to my diabetic low salt diet. Trying being the operative word.”
Bob,
As someone who has been there and back, let me be annoyingly avuncular and stress to you that “trying” is good, but doing is better. I was always the guy who salted his food before I tasted it. When my heart began to fail I switched away from salt and learned to substitute other spices that pleased me as much. When I did so I also learned that too much salt was actually keeping my weight up. Luckily, I have no signs of diabetes now, but I have a strong family history and a side effect of heart transplants is an increase in the possibility of getting diabetes, so I must watch myself.
The meds are a pain in the ass, I well know, but the alternative is much less palatable. I’m happy, nonetheless, to hear that you are doing better and hope that continues for may years to come. Please forgive me for the preachiness of my tone, but having been there I have an interest in others not having their fate left up to “luck of the draw”, as was mine. Especially, those who I respect and like (though often disagree with) as yourself.
Bob, Esq. You never answered the question.
It is difficult for me to believe that a progressive woman would say that “the war on women” is the least of our problems. All I can say is Wow!.
Swarthmore mom 1, February 9, 2012 at 11:25 am
anon nurse, I disagree with you you about the war on women being the least of our problems, and that is okay.
———-
Swarthmore mom,
More often than not, we seem to agree.
I know this:
We have to try to turn things around… We’re in a whole world of trouble…
AY,
Thanks; taking my heart meds and trying to stick to my diabetic low salt diet. Trying being the operative word.
Bob,
Glad to hear…..You like I will do what we will do until we can’t do what we do…What’s that saying…a journey of a 100o miles beings with the first step….
SWM: “You might be right but could you name a president that had integrity?”
SWM,
How many times have you heard of a Democrat posing as a Republican?
Obama has as little integrity as Joe Lieberman did as a Democrat.
Anon Nurse, thanks for bringing the Greenwald piece into the mix; it is certainly apposite. And he answers the question I mused about the lasting impact of our consensus politics (on many crucial issues of Constitutional import) . . . “shielded and entrenched them as standard U.S. policy for at least a generation” says Greenwald. I don’t know where he comes up with that timeframe. My gut tells me we’d be lucky to see a reversal of authoritarian trends in a generation.
I’m quite aware of the faction here, and in most political conversations, that thinks we should not be carping about Obama because job one is getting him reelected to forestall the apocalypse. I understand that. But in the meantime, by not holding Obama’s feet to the fire, we are enabling some of the worst of the worst policies.
To me there is a tremendous inconsistency, and actually a disconnect between giving the administration a pass on all sorts of things because we fear another administration that would install just the same policies. So hammer away at the neanderthals I say, I’m right there with you. But not at the cost of suppressing discussion of fundamental issues of Constitutional import that are indeed being shredded. Surely our system should not intend — and it is arrogant I think to assume — that we are able to engineer favorable outcomes by suppressing forceful discussion.
Call me naive. Say I don’t understand the realities of American politics [I’ll withold my resume out of modesty ; ) ]. It’s my view and it’s as valid or invalid, concrete or speculative as anyone else. By the way, I consider the ’00 to have been the one that sunk the ship: Al Gore’s passivity in the wake of Florida, and the Sup Ct simply playing Caesar (and whatever other ballot manipulation).
Are these your words or Greewald’s …..” Greenwald’s focus is on the war against the Constitution and rule of law, as well as our civil liberties. While significant, the “war against women” is the least of our problems” -AY
Mine and mine alone, AY.
And there’s the non-trivial and related issue of a secret, domestic program which continues to this day. Said program is wholly inconsistent with the things that most Americans treasure and hold dear. My best guess is that most of those who blog here would be horrified. It’s not something that I wish to leave behind for future generations.
Bob,
I have to agree with your assessment of AN….especially today…..
On a side not how is everyone in your life and did the tests come out ok with you?
anon nurse, I disagree with you you about the war on women being the least of our problems, and that is okay. He did not not actually endorse Ron Paul, but is very sympathetic to his candidacy. When someone publishes the kind of newsletters Paul did, it is over for me. My problem with Greenwald is that he overlooks the newsletters and the rest of Paul’s positions. Oh well, Santorum has a better chance than Paul now.
anon nurse, on target as always.
Thanks.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/
I’m not a Paul supporter, but I support a debate of many of the issues which Greenwald highlights in the aforementioned posting
Excerpt:
As Conor Friedersdorf put it in his excellent, and appropriately agonizing, analysis of the Paul candidacy and his newsletters:
What I want Paul detractors to confront is that he alone, among viable candidates, favors reforming certain atrocious policies, including policies that explicitly target ethnic and religious minorities. And that, appalling as it is, every candidate in 2012 who has polled above 10 percent is complicit in some heinous policy or action or association. Paul’s association with racist newsletters is a serious moral failing, and even so, it doesn’t save us from making a fraught moral judgment about whether or not to support his candidacy, even if we’re judging by the single metric of protecting racial or ethnic minority groups, because when it comes to America’s most racist or racially fraught policies, Paul is arguably on the right side of all of them.
His opponents are often on the wrong side, at least if you’re someone who thinks that it’s wrong to lock people up without due process or kill them in drone strikes or destabilize their countries by forcing a war on drug cartels even as American consumers ensure the strength of those cartels.
It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize Paul harshly and point out the horrible aspects of his belief system and past actions. But that’s worthwhile only if it’s accompanied by a similarly candid assessment of all the candidates, including the sitting President. (end of excerpt)
I don’t believe that Greenwald has ever supported Paul. My understanding is that he is embraces a vigorous debate over some of the issues which Paul has brought to the table, as do I. Greenwald’s focus is on the war against the Constitution and rule of law, as well as our civil liberties. While significant, the “war against women” is the least of our problems
To AN,
“anon nurse
1, February 9, 2012 at 11:14 am
I don’t believe that Greenwald has ever supported Paul. My understanding is that he is embraces a vigorous debate over some of the issues which Paul has brought to the table, as do I. Greenwald’s focus is on the war against the Constitution and rule of law, as well as our civil liberties. While significant, the “war against women” is the least of our problems”
Are these your words or Greewald’s …..” Greenwald’s focus is on the war against the Constitution and rule of law, as well as our civil liberties. While significant, the “war against women” is the least of our problems”
In either event…I agree with them….
http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/12/should-glenn-greenwald-have-to-own-the-ron-paul-blue-plate-special/
anon nurse, I wonder if Greenwald is still supporting Paul. He totally ignores the war against women being waged by republicans.
Wednesday, Feb 8, 2012
Repulsive progressive hypocrisy
by Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/singleton/#comments
Excerpt:
As this post demonstrates, long before Barack Obama achieved any significance on the political scene, I considered blind leader loyalty one of the worst toxins in our political culture: it’s the very antithesis of what a healthy political system requires (and what a healthy mind would produce). One of the reasons I’ve written so much about the complete reversal of progressives on these issues (from pretending to be horrified by them when done under Bush to tolerating them or even supporting them when done by Obama) is precisely because it’s so remarkable to see these authoritarian follower traits manifest so vibrantly in the very same political movement — sophisticated, independent-minded, reality-based progressives — that believes it is above that, and that only primitive conservatives are plagued by such follower-mindlessness.
The Democratic Party owes a sincere apology to George Bush, Dick Cheney and company for enthusiastically embracing many of the very Terrorism policies which caused them to hurl such vehement invective at the GOP for all those years. And progressives who support the views of the majority as expressed by this poll should never be listened to again the next time they want to pretend to oppose civilian slaughter and civil liberties assaults when perpetrated by the next Republican President (it should be noted that roughly 35% of liberals, a non-trivial amount, say they oppose these Obama policies).
One final point: I’ve often made the case that one of the most consequential aspects of the Obama legacy is that he has transformed what was once known as “right-wing shredding of the Constitution” into bipartisan consensus, and this is exactly what I mean. When one of the two major parties supports a certain policy and the other party pretends to oppose it — as happened with these radical War on Terror policies during the Bush years — then public opinion is divisive on the question, sharply split. But once the policy becomes the hallmark of both political parties, then public opinion becomes robust in support of it. That’s because people assume that if both political parties support a certain policy that it must be wise, and because policies that enjoy the status of bipartisan consensus are removed from the realm of mainstream challenge. That’s what Barack Obama has done to these Bush/Cheney policies: he has, as Jack Goldsmith predicted he would back in 2009, shielded and entrenched them as standard U.S. policy for at least a generation, and (by leading his supporters to embrace these policies as their own) has done so with far more success than any GOP President ever could have dreamed of achieving.
UPDATE: The Advocacy Center for Equality and Democracy documents how much public opinion has changed on these issues under (and as a result of) the Obama presidency: “under the leadership of a President who campaigned with the promise to close the facility, . . . support for the detention center may be at its highest level ever.” (end of excerpt)
Don S, I agree, and when W became “born again” it sealed the deal. People in Texas still sport Bush Cheney bumper stickers believe it or not. Blouise, they like Laura but I heard that some think she is a little too pro-choice for their taste.
Blousie, my 2 cents on boy Bush’ “appeal”, or lack thereof in the South where I’ve lived for 40 years five or take.. He’s a New Englander who did the full prep route but hated it, especially Yale. He found a niche he could wallow in in Texas, continually with poppies support. As a “Southerner” he’s as phony as a 2$ bill, beginning with the put on drawl. But when you take a kid who liked to pull the legs off frogs for kicks, it’s no wonder he’s a maladjusted adult.
But back to his appeal in the South. That particular ilk is still wallowing in the Dixie days and applaud anyone or anything who panders to the code. A massive insecurity, which mirrors Bush’ own, and comes out as strong regional identification and “pride” based on self congratulation. Not so different from other identifications, but they take it to the limit. Slowly changing with influx.