I’m glad he finally pointed this out:
President Obama deflected heckling by AIDS protesters during a Saturday rally, suggesting they take up their cause with “the other side” that’s opposed to funding.
A group of people interrupted Obama’s speech before 9,000 in Connecticut chanting “Fund Global AIDS.”
The president was quick to respond to the chorus of protesters saying, “You’ve been appearing at every rally we’ve been doing. And we’re funding global AIDS. And the other side is not. So I don’t know why you think this is a useful strategy to take.”
Obama was in Bridgeport as part of a four-state swing during the final days before the midterm elections, stumping for Rep. Jim Himes, who is in a tight re-election race, and the state attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, who is seeking the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Chris Dodd, who is retiring.
“I think it would make a lot more sense for you guys to go to the folks who aren’t interested in funding global AIDS and chant at that rally,” Obama said. “Because we’re trying to focus on figuring out how to finance the things that you want financed, all right?”
That led to chants of “Obama, Obama” as the crowd stirred and the president tried to calm emotions as the protesters were escorted out of the rally.
I’ll never figure out why left-leaning activists spend so much time protesting the people who vote their way while basically ignoring the Republicans.
JPL
John, If they bring down this President the saying goes, they’ll get what they want. Didn’t that work with their support for Nader? Trick or Treat!
Pancake
You and Obama need to check your facts before popping off on aids funding. Bush and the Republicans with bipartisan support substantively increased funding during the closing years of his term; actual funding under Obama has been reduced from those Bush levels.
Svensker
Because the pony delivery is late?
Mike in NC
Because they know that deep down it’s people like Grover Norquist who share their own interests.
What?
Cermet
Simple – their cowards who know that media will only show them if they attack Obama, not when they are attacked (and arrested) if they tried that at a repub-a-thug rally.
Amanda
This same crowd protested @ the Boston rally where Obama spoke on behalf of Deval Patrick, our Governor. After the cops finally escorted them out, there they were standing behind the barrier with the Tea Party protesters. And yet no self awareness that if that’s the case, you might want to rethink your strategy. Do these folks think the situation will improve if the GOP takes over Congress or we have a GOP President again? Unreal…and I’m sure whatever Obama and the Dems have done on this issue has been imperfect — that seems to be their pattern. But the notion that we were better off with GWB who got this one token issue right while destroying the economy and starting 2 wars than we are with Obama, I just don’t get this attitude.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Pancake: And you prove John/Obama’s point: It was bipartisan under Bush because the Democrats didn’t oppose stuff just because he backed it. On the other hand, Republicans don’t mind a few deaths in their quest to regain control of government.
mcd410x
Because when they’re confronted, Democrats often show the space where their spines used to be (in theory!)?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
It’s always easier to protest the person on your side that only needs to give a few percent more than people who won’t listen to you. It’s easier to make the choir sing louder than it is to make atheists sing church songs. Doesn’t mean it helps any, it’s just easier.
EZSmirkzz
First off, dissent is not allowed at conservative rallies, so the idea that they should show up there is ludicrous. The point of the demonstrators is to draw attention to their cause, not the organizers of any particular event. In this case they aided the President by allowing him to point out that the compassionate Christian right was blocking the funding.
Win win.
mcd410x
Also, because freedom of expression in this country is wrong … I won’t have it, Kyle… it’s wrong!
Also, too.
Dr. Squid
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): That also kind of ignores the fact that things have changed a bit in 18 years. Paying for research because no one knows what the fuck is going on is way more expensive than paying for drugs that came out of that research that have a real effect on people’s lives.
marcel
perhaps because, as we recently saw in WV, protesting at a GOP rally can lead to a concussion, but there is no evidence of same at a Democratic rally.
Linda Featheringill
The act of supporting funding for a worthwhile cause does not in itself grant wisdom to the supporter.
Omnes Omnibus
@Amanda: I spent part of a summer almost 20 years ago working with OhioPIRG and I found that the organizers of the campaign on which I worked (fundraising to support lobbying for extension of the Clean Water Act) thought the same way. We were talking about a Democratic Rep who they did not like (it might actually have been Sherrod Brown). They were against him because he had voted against a particular piece of legislation. I pointed out that the guy had a good overall record on environmental issues and that he had a great record overall. I then said, “What kind of liberals are you if you don’t look at the guy’s whole record?” One of them responded, “I am not a liberal. I am an activist.” That exchange really hit home with me. I lasted about another week with the group.
Comrade Javamanphil
I hear they tried to protest at a Sharon Angle rally but the free speech zone set up for them was in Des Moines.
R. Porrofatto
Me neither. However, in this age of well-funded ratfucking, on occasion it may be because the “protesters” are Republicans.
El Cid
I don’t think the logic is at all confusing.
The assumption would be for those who tend to protest at / against Democrats or liberals that it would be useless to protest those who would be 100% against your goal, and that to protest at those who appear to share your goals to whatever degree might somehow pressure them into doing more.
Now, you can analyze and uphold or reject such assumptions in any number of ways — logically, empirically, issue-by-issue, whatever — but it’s not sensible to say that it’s just people being over-excitable or hating Obama or whatever.
You might conclude it’s correct or incorrect or harmful or that at best such assumptions can only apply in situations like X or whatever (i.e., there’s no necessity of seeing the slightest shred of sensibility in following these two assumptions), but it seems very much to me that those are two assumptions working toward such situations.
thalarctos
“I’ll never figure out why left-leaning activists spend so much time protesting the people who vote their way while basically ignoring the Republicans.”
I have a friend who shares custody of their young daughter with her sociopath of an ex-husband. Every time the daughter spends time with her father, she’s intimidated into total silence the whole time she’s there, because her psycho dad will punish her for breathing too loudly if he’s in a particularly pissy mood.
Upon getting her back, like clockwork, my friend can count on 1-2 days of acting out, temper tantrums, and similar behaviors–because her daughter knows she’s safe with her mother, and won’t get destroyed by her for behaving that way.
Make of that analogy what you will.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Omnes Omnibus: “I am not a liberal. I am an activist.”
Exactly. Like the anti-abortion nazis, these are single issue people and they don’t give a shit about anything (or anyone) else. The less they care about other issues the less I care about theirs. The more they yell, the less I listen.
R. Porrofatto
This kind of distortion is a practically a paradigm of Frankfurt’s definition of bullshit.
In 2003, Congress and the Bush administration authorized $15 billion over 5 years for Global Aids Funding. In 2008, the Democratic Congress not only reauthorized this funding, they more than tripled the amount — a bill that was delayed and fought tooth and nail by guess who — Republicans.
The current level of funding is now $7 billion per year, vs. 2.3 billion under the original 2003 plan.
Link
SiubhanDuinne
@Marcel: What happened in WV?
Mnemosyne
Because it’s easy. If the Democrats are already doing what you want but you want them to do more, and you protest them, you get that smug feeling when you get what you want.
Protesting Republicans is hard, because they will never do what you want. You don’t get that feeling of winning like you do when the Democrats “break down” (ie do what they were planning to do the entire time).
When the DADT repeal goes through, we’re going to hear from all kinds of smug activists about how they “forced” Obama to do their bidding against his will … even though he’s been saying for two years that he wants DADT to be repealed.
Omnes Omnibus
@Odie Hugh Manatee: I think the single issue people are important. They focus on their issue and make sure that attention is paid to it. I also think that, by focussing on that one issue to the exclusion of all else, they lose any chance of getting the power to do anything. The generalist who is sympathetic to the the issue is the person likely to be in position to do something. For me personally, I would be willing to compromise a certain amount on most issues to get overall progress toward broad goals. As I said, once I understood the mentality of the group, I did not last much longer working with them.
Alwhite
Daddy-O
“I’ll never figure out why left-leaning activists spend so much time protesting the people who vote their way while basically ignoring the Republicans.”
I can’t figure out why you are so obsessed with lefties who are doing EXACTLY what Obama told them to do–MAKE him do it.
The United States government has a Democratic majority. It has a Democratic President. What Obama says makes NO sense whatsoever–these changes are in THEIR hands, not the Republicans’…
What in the world is so hard to figure out, John Cole? There are times to be loyal to Obama…and then there are times to call him out. And he has given us many more times to call him out than you are willing to admit.
Although, I do admit, when you groan about lefties giving Obama a hard time, I find it charming, in a “You kids get off my lawn!” sort of way…
scarshapedstar
@Daddy-O:
FDR, the original Firebagger, and worst Democrat ever.
Daddy-O
I have read the comments, and have to conclude: You guys are mostly either allergic to ANY kind of criticism of your brand–JUST LIKE TEABAGGERS–or you just don’t care about what someone outside your sphere of political interest has to say or think.
Cah MAHN! Obama has NOT delivered on what millions of people who voted for him want. What should they do? Remain silent? Observe Reagan’s First Law of Republicans–Thou Shalt Not Speak Poorly Of A Fellow Republican?
The ‘damage’ these people are doing by criticizing Obama and demanding more of him is largely in your minds, kids. I can hardly believe what I read in this comments…you’re deriding your fellow Democrats, for standing up for themselves? For doing exactly what Obama told them to do–put his feet to the fire?
Guster
Do you really not no?
They push Obama and the Dems instead of pushing the Republicans for the same reason that I push the police to uphold the laws, but do not push the Mexican drug cartels to uphold the laws.
Daddy-O
@scarshapedstar: Worst Democrat ever?
What John Birch Society manual did you get THAT sentiment from?
If the commies and socialists HADN’T put FDR’s feet to the fire, we wouldn’t have a minimum wage or overtime pay or Social Security or Great Depression stimulus or an FEC or…
What was your point, again?
Lolis
@Daddy-O:
Heckling at someone does not make them do it. In fact, as you can see in the clip, it tends to turn a whole crowd of people who would be sympathetic to your cause, against you.
Also, lying about what Obama has done for global AIDS isn’t going to make it more likely that people support you either.
Some liberals object to the extreme outrage, hyperbole, and lies from “activists.” That has nothing to do with “making the president do it.” In fact, some of us liberals get frustrated because we think those behaviors actually make it less likely for the president to act.
Daddy-O
@Guster: Exactly! What good would it ever do to try to coerce David Vitter into voting for AIDS funding? To criticize him for voting against it?
What on earth is John Cole drinking? Defending Obama at all costs is not what Democrats should do. It’s what Republicans do for George W. Bush. It’s the BASIC DIFFERENCE between us, and it’s all right there in the First Frickin’ Amendment, baby.
EZSmirkzz
I just want to point out that the frame of the debate was set by the reporter at the Hill.
I think a lot of people are off put by disruptions to order, from whatever source, in many contexts. This is natural. But it is also the essence of life, and in that respect something to be appreciated when it is forked so inconsequentially to everyone involved.
Shawntos
Probably because Left Leaning Rallies are safer to protest, I mean if they tried this at a Right Wing Rally they either would have been arrested by Para-Military Security Forces (which still doesn’t make sense to me, how can security arrest someone, detain yes but arrest) or they might get their heads stomped on but probably only if they are women and the stomper has a bad back.
Democrats, we eat our own.
mk3872
John:
Isn’t it because libs like Hamsher & Huffington, for instance, just don’t know how to work in the system?
The GOP & conservative groups have been busy these past decades learning how to manipulate the system in govt and the courts.
But the lefties are too busy throwing stones at each other and self-pity that all they can do is yell from their blogs and have marches.
All with very little results.
Daddy-O
@Lolis: BS. Don’t tell a protester HOW to protest. That’s lame. That sounds just like Bush supporters moaning about the ‘tone’ of the ‘incivility’, etc.
We have a First Amendment. Bush didn’t destroy that, try as he did. Like I said–the political ‘damage’ done by these protesters is all in yours and Andrew Breitbarts’ head, kids.
Any time somebody bitches about someone else’s use of the First Amendment, I have to wonder about their commitment to it. And that’s just ONE reason among many to disagree with John Cole on this issue.
Faux News
Because they are clueless douchebags. That’s why.
soonergrunt
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Yup.
KCinDC
I think these activists are mistaken to be bashing Obama and spreading the word that Democrats suck immediately before election day, but it’s not hard to understand why they protest Democrats, who theoretically care what they say, as opposed to Republicans, who will completely ignore them or perhaps be even more motivated to oppose them because they enjoy annoying liberals.
Complaining about that reminds me of Republicans complaining about Americans protesting U.S. actions rather than protesting the actions of terrorists, as if the terrorists care about protesters and might back down because of them.
Daddy-O
@Mnemosyne: Truman didn’t wait for Congress to act for two years before he desegregated the military. He just did it.
After the Bush Crime Spree of 2001-2009, Obama could have justified an Executive Order to get rid of DADT any time he wanted to. He does not want to do it. He wants to pass the buck.
This is crystal clear to me…actions, not words, are what speak.
aimai
@Omnes Omnibus:
What are we to make of the NRA? They aren’t liberals. They are single issue. They protest plenty on their own side and even bring them down. The main difference is that they bring the votes–that’s what makes them fearsome.
I think protesting Obama at an election cycle rally is really stupid, but I have no doubt that the AIDS activists (and many activists) protest primarily at a locationwhere they think they can get some media attention. Its not so much that they think Obama matters–though he does–as the time and location matter to what’s left of our media.
Someone up thread joked about how they “would have protested Sharon Angle” but the “free speech Zones were in Ohio”–prezackly. Protest is a public act, meant to influence the public. Since public spaces which attract media attention are few and far between you go and protest when the President shows up in the same way that the guy searches for his lost contact lens under the lampost–because that’s where the light is.
There’s no doubt, however, that protest of this kind (noisy, insulting, distracting) is not nearly as effective as something brilliant, quiet, and viral like Dan Savage’s “It Gets Better.” Pick a topic, humanize it, and work to convert an entire population rather than merely target people you imagine are pivotal.
aimai
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Omnes Omnibus:
I agree that they are important but when the do stupid shit like this they lose me. That and the idiots who want the liberal version of Lil’ Bush.
Such as:
Obama has NOT delivered on what millions of people who voted for him want.”
It’s as if they completely forgot that there is a Congress that he has to deal with. They just want it done and they want it done last year. Never mind the reality, they think it is up to him to give them everything they want and since they haven’t got it yet then it’s all his fault. The more they whine the less I care.
They wanted a king and got a president. Boo hoo.
raeofsunshine
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Yes, exactly right. The comment that it was better under Bush is first of all not even true; overall funding is higher now, and it’s the republicans who want to cut the funding.
What they are protesting is that the funding, while an increase, is not as large as was promised during the campaign.
They are protesting “world leaders” including President Obama, in the apparent belief that this is the best or an effective way to get more funding. It doesn’t matter that his funding is the most any president yet has delivered. It only matters that they still feel more is needed, and perhaps because complaining about it at presidential rallies gets it on the news.
Tea partiers don’t want to fund any AIDS help whatsoever. They openly wish for people with AIDS to die. What good would it do to protest at their rallies? None. However I don’t think protesting Obama is going to get them anything either. Perhaps a better approach would be a public awareness campaign aimed at creating public pressure on pharmaceutical companies to donate more needed drugs to people who can’t afford them and/or live in places where they currently have no access to them. Drug companies make billions of dollars while they let people die. Surely there could be a way to generate enough public shame that the people would demand the pharmaceutical companies do more to help, which they would do if public image demanded it.
Protesting Obama is clearly not going to get them any more money. The budget includes increased funding, but the government will never be able to provide enough funds to buy at current exorbitant prices enough drugs for the entire world’s population to have access to the medications they need. Protesting Obama is a show, but I don’t think it’s an effective tactic.
raeofsunshine
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Yes, exactly right. The comment that it was better under Bush is first of all not even true; overall funding is higher now, and it’s the republicans who want to cut the funding.
What they are protesting is that the funding, while an increase, is not as large as was promised during the campaign.
They are protesting “world leaders” including President Obama, in the apparent belief that this is the best or an effective way to get more funding. It doesn’t matter that his funding is the most any president yet has delivered. It only matters that they still feel more is needed, and perhaps because complaining about it at presidential rallies gets it on the news.
Tea partiers don’t want to fund any AIDS help whatsoever. They openly wish for people with AIDS to die. What good would it do to protest at their rallies? None. However I don’t think protesting Obama is going to get them anything either. Perhaps a better approach would be a public awareness campaign aimed at creating public pressure on pharmaceutical companies to donate more needed drugs to people who can’t afford them and/or live in places where they currently have no access to them. Drug companies make billions of dollars while they let people die. Surely there could be a way to generate enough public shame that the people would demand the pharmaceutical companies do more to help, which they would do if public image demanded it.
Protesting Obama is clearly not going to get them any more money. The budget includes increased funding, but the government will never be able to provide enough funds to buy at current exorbitant prices enough drugs for the entire world’s population to have access to the medications they need. Protesting Obama is a show, but I don’t think it’s an effective tactic.
WyldPirate
@<a href="#comment-2157006">Lolis:
that’s daddy-O’s entire fucking point.
the Rethugs were willing to excuse every single goddamned thing that Bush and Reagan ever did–whether it was illegal or not. They didn’t care. Then they would turn on their own and ostracize them and impose purity tests.
What has that got the Rethugs? The teaparty and the elimination of the old school moderates.
This is the same thing that Obama is doing. It is the same thing that happens here with the mindless lockstep obedience that supports some of Obama’s most egregious acts–like his escalation in Afghanistan, his coddling of the banks, his reffusal to go after people who clearly committed war crimes in the previous administration.
The list is getting fucking long, yet some people here just fall over themselves to be Obama cult worshipers.
Barry
Also, there’s a lot of frustration out there. It’s beginning to look like Obama is largely doing what the GOP would have desired – serve as a cleaner-upper for the GOP mess, but have a limited effect long-term.
Two f*cking g*dd*mn f*cking years, and the GOP is on it’s way back. That’s some serious screwing up there.
Suck It Up!
@EZSmirkzz:
Its a win win IF the Christian right gives a crap. When the right hears the president being heckled, they get giddy that he’s being embarrassed. They don’t pay attention to what’s being said by the protesters.
SiubhanDuinne
@Daddy-O #39:
Prior to HST’s executive order desegregating the military, were there actual *laws* mandating that the armed services be segregated — or was it simply the deeply ingrained Jim Crow tradition that his EO overturned? I think it’s an important distinction from the DADT situation, but I’m certainly no expert and would welcome clarification.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Guster: Yes, but you’re going after the cop who is following the rules because he’s an easier target than the ones who won’t follow them.
When it requires a majority to pass a law, and a large group has declared that they will not pass anything, then going after those who are trying to pass it is really the wrong group to go after.
@Daddy-O: I forget, which law existed that prevented the military from integrating?
General Stuck
I tend to give people who show in person to protest a break, even if I think it is ill advised to timing and content. It’s the wankers who sit in the basement pecking out self important horseshit, sending it out through the ethers anonymously, that I don’t have time for.
lawnorder
…
Can’t you see this is all a show put in to scare us into voting Corporate ?
Our public discourse has been reduced to:
“The other side is evil and scary now stfu and vote for us”
Ya I will vote for Obama and Dems. But I won’t stfu. I am not as far gone into the fear mongering as you guys are.
Besides, I lived in a dictatorship of the right (Brazil). It is not as bad. All you have to do is stfu and vote for the party in power. Sounds familiar ?
Mnemosyne
@Daddy-O:
Because he could legally do it at the time. Obama is not legally allowed to do the same thing that Truman did because of a Supreme Court decision that came after Truman’s desegregation order.
What Truman with desegregating the armed forces did was legal at the time. It is no longer legal because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Youngstown v. Sawyer.
I don’t know why I have to explain this over and over and over again, except that apparently people don’t like facts and would rather live in their lovely fantasy world where Youngstown never happened and Obama could get rid of legislation passed by Congress by waving his magic wand.
Silver Owl
The only person they can be seen and heard with is Obama. Obama hears far better than any republican. He’s far more approachable than Bush could ever dream to be.
So many issues have been ignored for so long that even though Obama is accomplishing things if everyone shuts up or gets shut up issues will get buried again.
It’s not like people can get anywhere near a republican these days that is not a sycophant. Republicans only listen to religious nuts and rich people. They act more medieval royalty than elected officials.
How do you tell if you’re an Obama cultist or a crazy liberal? If you like him, you’re a cultist. If you keep your issues out front with him, you’re a crazy liberal. If you criticize him on an issue you’re a crazy liberal, but if you don’t criticize him on the “right” issues, you’re a cultist.
WyldPirate
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
You’re making excuses for him. He had fucking majorities.
Bush got shit through and he didn’t have majorities in both his the entire time. About the only thing the Dems stopped was the privitazation of Social Security. Bush rammed the tax cuts through with less than 60 votes. He rammed the Medicare Drug bill through with less than 60. He made no cuts to fund any of them. He kept the funding off the books on the annual deficit numbers for Iraq and Afghanistan by funding them through supplementals.
Your horseshit excuse won’t flush down the toliet. Obama capitulated on tons of stuff and gave in to the Rethugs. His messaging sucked big hairy balls on the healthcare. The Dems allowed the TeaParty to suck all of the oxygen out of the room.
Those kind of excuses aren’t floating with the American people and that is why the Democrats are going to get creamed on Tuesday. Moreover, if Obama doesn’t pull his head out of his ass and quit acting like he is above it all, he will be a one term President.
The Dems and Obama have shit their own bed top a large extent. Now they are going to get their shitty bed and their asses thrown out of the corner offices on Capitol Hill. If they don’t straighten the fuck up and grow a spine, they will get thrown the fuck out of the White House in ’12 and we will be listening to Preznit Snowbilly.
General Stuck
@Mnemosyne:
Because the libtard skull is sometimes thick as George Bush’s, and unfortunately, to often, when you finally break through to the other side, the mush you find is only different in flavor.
Oscar Leroy
Why do protesters target people who have power? I just don’t get it! ! ! ! ! !
Suck It Up!
No one is telling anyone to shut the fuck up! Gah! I get so tired of every argument devolving into this same shit. Speak up but do it effectively. Why is that so fucking hard to understand? EFFECTIVELY!!!
There’s your answer John. They have a listening problem.
Suck It Up!
@Oscar Leroy:
yeah ’cause Republicans have no power whatsoever.
gwangung
@Daddy-O:
um, no.
Since you can’t master basic facts, I can’t take you seriously.
Mnemosyne
@WyldPirate:
He also didn’t have the opposition party blocking every single vote using procedural tricks. Democrats actually let votes happen.
It’s funny how you go ballistic and claim it’s an “excuse” when people point out that Democrats weren’t total assholes with Bush, but Republicans are being total assholes with Obama. You’re pissed off because Democrats didn’t game the system during the Bush years the way the Republicans are doing now.
Mnemosyne
(deleted duplicate)
WyldPirate
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
This is horseshit. Obama had the numbers. He didn’t knock heads in his own goddamned caucus.
That is how Bush got things done–that and fear and smear.
fucking politics isn’t a nice game of patty cake. It’s nasty and dirty. Dems suck at it and look weak and spineless in the process. That is why independents are abandoning them in droves.
JPL
@WyldPirate: During the Bush years, anytime there was disagreement, Bush played the terrorism card. I agree that the Democratic Party does not toot it’s own horn but they don’t have the liberal media behind them.
The tax cut was passed early on and you’re definitely correct that it should have been filibustered.
Mnemosyne
@WyldPirate:
Shorter WyldPirate: Obama isn’t breaking the law like Bush did! He sucks!
Seriously, dude, when your complaint is that the president is not breaking the law and is not acting like a dictator, you’ve gotten seriously fucked up somewhere.
Davis X. Machina
I”ve been reading about the Chartists lately, and about the beginning of European social democracy, and there are lots and lots of echos.
It’s the age-old dream of a politics without politicians.
gwangung
Ignoring cloture, are we?
Lolis
@WyldPirate:
WTF? So your saying Obama not increasing funding AIDS funding enough to satisfy activists is the same as an illegal war.
You guys are morans. If anybody disagrees with you, we are Obots. Whatever. I just have never seen heckling work as an effective political strategy. I am pretty sure that is not what FDR was talking about.
As someone who has been an activist, I simply disagree that this is an effective way to build support for their cause. A lot of people who were at that rally waited in line 12 hours or more to get in. Ruining everyone else’s chance to hear the president is certainly within their legal right, nobody here has claimed otherwise, they just look like assholes.
So what did their heckling accomplish? Nobody is even talking about their organization in any helpful way. If you are so impressed them have you given them money or offered up your time?
Suck It Up!
@WyldPirate:
So when Feingold didn’t vote for financial reform and when Kucinich said he wasn’t going to vote for HCR, Obama should have used fear and smear to get their votes? That’s Okay with you or does that only apply to blue dogs?
I’d like to know where this generic and lame talking point originated – “knock heads” and all that nonsense.
EZSmirkzz
@Suck It Up!:
Suck it up!
Oscar Leroy
@Mike in NC:
“Because they know that deep down it’s people like Grover Norquist who share their own interests.”
Haha! Yes, leftists deep down want to destroy the government’s ability to help people.
@Amanda:
“After the cops finally escorted them out, there they were standing behind the barrier with the Tea Party ”
Haha! They were standing geographically near the Teabaggers, so they must have agreed with them.
@marcel:
“protesting at a GOP rally can lead to a concussion, but there is no evidence of same at a Democratic rally. ”
Yes, nothing bad happens to people who protest Democrats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE
WyldPirate
@Mnemosyne:
I’m pissed because it was clear from fucking day one that this is what the Rethugs were going to do, yet Obama came out with all of the namby-pamby bipartisanship.
Either the Dems want their agenda passed or not. It was clear what the Rethugs were going to do from day one. The Dems didn’t play hardball and they got punked like spineless bitches on a lot of stuff.
It isn’t like cloture use just skyrocketed under Obama. It jumped up years ago. Dems have done it too when they were in the majority. Remember what happened when they did? The Rethugs threatened to use the “nuclear option” during the confirmation process for the Supremes.
The Rethugs play hardball and won when they were in the majority and they played hardball and won when they were in the minority, too.
I’m not saying that this is right and that it is the way things should run, but goddamn, that is the reality we are working with now. The Dems are going to keep getting punked if they keep bringing a flyswatter to a knife fight.
General Stuck
@JPL:
This is correct. Much of what Bush got passed was due to the long reach he was given from a stunned and grieving country in the throes of hyperpatriotism after 9-11. And Obama has actually gotten more of his agenda passed than Bush did, without 9-11, and without any cooperation from the wingers and media.
Wyldpirate and his fellow firebaggers are simply full of shit.
Suck It Up!
@EZSmirkzz:
Piss Off!!
gwangung
I’ll note that this is a rather authoritarian mindset; not that I necessarily disagree with it, but I think it might be a tactic more effective in the Republican party, which is more homogenous, than the democratic side.
Suck It Up!
@WyldPirate:
Uhm, that’s exactly what you are saying.
Dirty Fucking Hypocrites!
Mnemosyne
@WyldPirate:
So, again, you wanted Obama to do the same illegal stuff that Bush did, and now you’re pissed off because he didn’t break the law.
Sorry, I cannot get on board with that. If it’s wrong for Republicans to circumvent the law, it’s wrong for Democrats to do it. I don’t want a dictator of any stripe, even if that dictator is going to do what I want. If people are too stupid to understand that letting the president break the law willy-nilly is a bad thing no matter what party he belongs to and they blame Obama for not doing the same illegal things that Bush did, then we deserve every bit of punishment that the Republicans bring down on us.
Oscar Leroy
@thalarctos:
“Make of that analogy what you will. ”
I sure will.
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Bad analogy.
@Mnemosyne:
“Shorter WyldPirate: Obama isn’t breaking the law like Bush did! He sucks!”
That’s just silly. Nothing WyldPirate mentioned required breaking any laws. NOTHING.
WyldPirate
@Suck It Up!:
If your agenda is important to you and you want to get it passed then yes, you do what you have to do. Otherwise, you get watered down, weak, ineffectual legislation or none at all.
Just don’t make a bunch of fucking excuses for Obama because he had some recalcitrant members in his own caucus. Bush rammed through almost every goddamned thing he wanted.
I’m not saying it is right or that it is the ideal way to govern. However, people notice results and they can smell weakness and ineffectualness like they can smell fear. It is especially easy when they are fed a steady stream of propaganda reinforcing what they are seeing or perceiving.
Mnemosyne
@Oscar Leroy:
So it was perfectly legal for Bush to only fund the wars through supplementals and not put them in the defense budget?
I think you may find some lawyers who disagree with you on that.
WyldPirate
@Mnemosyne:
Nice strawman. I said nothing about breaking laws.
Omnes Omnibus
@aimai: I was really speaking of my experiences on our side of the aisle. I think my point largely holds true on the left.
Oscar Leroy
@gwangung:
“I’ll note that this is a rather authoritarian mindset”
No, there is nothing authoritarian about horse-trading, arm-twisting, favor-calling, and call-making to influence Congressmen.
@Mnemosyne:
“So, again, you wanted Obama to do the same illegal stuff that Bush did”
Again, there is a difference between “playing hardball” and “breaking the law”.
Playing hardball is “hey Lieberman, I saved your career, now stop derailing health care reform”.
ccdemuth
Himes’ spending spree included hundreds of billions of dollars of stimulus spending that has, to date, netted zero new private sector jobs. Remember him whenever you pass by one of these signs – there are thousands of them and they each cost thousands of dollars. They serve no purpose other than to brag about how much of your money he and his colleagues are spending.
Short Bus Bully
Because they know that Republicans will get curb stomp them. Literally. They are physically afraid. Cowards.
Oscar Leroy
One thing is for sure: if someone protests Democrats, and not Republicans, it’s because they are a limp-wristed sissy who knows there will be no danger to them at the Democratic function.
Democratic National Convention…100 protesters arrested
Mnemosyne
@WyldPirate:
No, you just wanted Obama to do all of the same borderline-illegal stuff we ripped Bush to pieces for doing while he was in charge because suddenly it was okay to do it if it benefited our side.
Sorry. Not going along with it. If your neighbor steals your lawnmower, it’s not right and good for you to go over and steal his bicycle.
WyldPirate
@Mnemosyne:
Oh, please. all sorts of stuff can be funded through supplementals. The aid for Katrina was funded that way.
It was Bushes sly way of acting like he wasn’t a crazy spendthrift and lowering the shock of the number each year.
Hell, Obama has even used it for Afghanistan escalation expenses, but he did put the costs before the escalation for Iraq and Afghanistan on the DOD budget. It was honorable and made his budget deficit higher which he got pilloried for even though his FY’10 budget is less than Bushes FY 09.
General Stuck
@WyldPirate:
Your scorched earth commenting here is getting stale. It is nothing that can’t be read in the comments and front pagers of nearly any and all of the netroot swamp things in the liberal blogosphere, and is just as bereft of perspective and fact as can be found on any right wing blog, albeit on a different ideological pole.
Moses2317
Yes, great response!
Look, constructive criticism is necessary and useful, so that we can continue to push President Obama to continue to advance the progressive agenda. But the almost constant focus of many on the left on disappointments, rather than proudly supporting the victories we’ve had and doing battle with the wingnut Republicans who are trying to tear the country down, is part of the reason we are in this dangerously close election battle right now.
Winning Progressive
Mnemosyne
@Oscar Leroy:
Yeah, it’s too bad Lieberman voted against the healthcare bill and prevented it from passing, or we’d have health insurance reform legislation today.
ETA: Also, when Republicans threatened to de-fund that Congressman’s son’s campaign if he didn’t vote for Medicare Part D, that was illegal. So much for “playing hardball” always being legal.
Oscar Leroy
@Mnemosyne:
Then shame on WyldPirate for saying Obama should use supplementals to fund the war like Bush! Oh wait, he never even came close to saying that. Oops.
Oscar Leroy
@Mnemosyne:
I was referring to Lieberman’s resistance to the public option, the Medicare buy-in, etc.
WyldPirate
@Mnemosyne:
More strawmen. Nice.
No, that’s not what I wanted. I think it sucks that Obama has ok’d the assassination of US citizens without trial or hearing. I think that is fucking illegal. I think his wiretapping and surveillence policies suck and are borderline.
He needs to put some fear into the assholes in the senate, though, that have caused him so much problems that are in the Dem caucus. He also needs to quit wasting his time trying to win Repukes over–NAGAHNAHAPPEN.
Davis X. Machina
Oscar Leroy is waiting for Franklin Delano Napoleon.
Oscar Leroy
Why don’t people protest Democrats? Because they are cowards who know that it’s one kind of protest that is totally safe.
Los Angeles police attack protesters at Democratic convention
Oscar Leroy
@WyldPirate:
“I think it sucks that Obama has ok’d the assassination of US citizens without trial or hearing. ”
Most of the people here don’t mind that. You will have to try something else.
Beauzeaux
“I’ll never figure out why left-leaning activists spend so much time protesting the people who vote their way while basically ignoring the Republicans.”
Because if they go to Rethuglican rallies, they’ll get beaten up. Much safer to heckle Obama than to go to the real enemy.
WyldPirate
@General Stuck:
Here’s something else that is getting stale–all of the excuses Obama has from his cultists about why he can’t get this or that done.
Those “frontpagers” in the “liberal blogosphere” are pissed and I think a lot of them have a right to be pissed.
No one is making you read what I write, Stuck. Sorry if I’m not showing the correct amount of excuse-making for the failures of this administration so far. You’re free to go bow down in front of your little Obama shrine all you like, though.
Me, I think I have the right to raise hell when Obama does insane shit like waste time thinking Rethugs will cooperate on setting the national agenda when they have done nothing but obstruct. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity.
Oscar Leroy
Maybe this is why people are protesting?
Before World AIDS Day, Obama Administration Scores D+ from Global AIDS Groups
WyldPirate
@Oscar Leroy:
Yep, I know. they’re the same as the Bushbots were. They’re also too damned blinded by the same cult of personality worship that the Bushbots were as well.
(Stuck, mneomysne–i’m looking at you.)
Oscar Leroy
@Beauzeaux:
“Because if they go to Rethuglican rallies, they’ll get beaten up. Much safer to heckle Obama”
Read much?
Mnemosyne
@WyldPirate:
Okay, I have to go, but here’s the thing: ever since the election of Scott Brown, the problem in the Senate has NOT been the Democrats. It’s not the Democrats who have insisted on a cloture vote for every single piece of legislation that they will always lose because you need 60 votes to break cloture and the Democrats have only 59. There’s only one Democrat who’s put a hold on a nominee for unrelated reasons. There are no Democrats who are blocking judicial nominees.
And yet, for some reason, you’re blaming every bit of Republican obstructionism on the Democrats. Why?
JPL
@Oscar Leroy: He’s the President and he’s the one to hold accountable.
Unfortunately, for the Global Aids Group, he is not a witch and can’t just twitch his nose. Maybe O’Donnell should run for President.
WyldPirate
@Mnemosyne:
He wasn’t getting 59 on a lot of things BEFORE Scott Brown was elected.
I’m not blaming ALL of the obstructionism on the Dems, although some has surely occurred at the hands of the Blue Dogs. What I’m saying is that if your opposition is going to go all scorched earth on you–which the Rethugs have done from day one–playing nice isn’t a way to get your agenda through.
It’s about to get a lot worse, too.
Jody
John: Because don’t you see he is EXACTLY AS BAD AS BUSH AND THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES???/*&$*($&_#thhppppth.
Most of the assholes attacking him on the left firmly believe this.
Anya
It’s amazing how some on our side, long for what they’ve most despised in Bush. Did Bush recondition the American phsychy into believing that an effective leader is one who plays tough and bullies everyone into submission or is this only expected from Obama because he was expected to go gangsta on everyone’s ass?
EZSmirkzz
@Suck It Up! No need to get pissy. Your assertion that the Christian right wasn’t going to listen to the protesters overlooks the fact that they aren’t going to listen to the President either.
The President was given an opportunity to point this out to the protesters and the crowd at large. The fact that the “Hill” made an issue of that brought to our attention as well as many others. In short the President got more coverage of his speech than he would have, and the protesters got some.
Win win.
kay
@Pancake:
Wrong again, Pancake.
Public health is complicated! There’s prevention, and then there’s treatment.
Read it and weep:
Former President Bush, in this as in all things, followed the demands of his religious conservative base.
While I think it’s wonderful that neoconservatives and fundamentalist religious deigned to treat women and children who contracted the disease, I think the better public health approach is to prevent infection.
Jason In the Peg
Franklin D. Roosevelt?????
But that said, I agree they need to have a cup of stfu and gotv.
Jewish Steel
@Davis X. Machina:
That’s absurd! First off, no such person ever existed. Second, if there was such person he would actually turn out to be…
Oh, hold on.
General Stuck
@WyldPirate:
It isn’t the fact that you are unhappy with Obama, and that extends to the rest of your fellow firebaggers. The problem is, you are simply intellectually lazy and overtly emo, and quite probably dumb as a sack of hammers. It is embarrassing to read you nonsense, and not point these things out, and I will read and respond to what I choose on this blog. If supporting the dem president that has the highest degree of legislative success since LBJ, and before that FDR, short of solid evidence he is fucking up in a big way, and not following his campaign promises, makes me a cultist in your dim eyes, then so be it. But of course it doesn’t, it just means i support the president of my party from idiots that do not know they are idiots.
General Stuck
Head to desk. Then maybe you and Leroy should get a room and act out this Obama bad as Bush fantasy. It is Halloween after all. And we could use the timeout.
Cain
@WyldPirate:
He can only do what is possible. Your problem is with Congress. Democrats have not been together at all. He can’t magically make that happen either. There is also the fact that some of those Democratic people think he “didn’t wait his turn” so it makes it even harder. You want Obama to not capitulate or go to the middle? Go and help elect better congress people. The democratic party went to the right since the 90s. It’s just too goddam bad. I don’t think they even believe in their own platform. Instead we waste our time going after Obama. Go and kick your congressman and representatives.
BTW – Oregon has been doing a pretty good job of providing access. Phone roundtables, coming over to help phone banking etc. I had a chance to meet Kitzhaber, but instead worked. Which was too bad.. I really wanted him to have a plan to get rid of the kicker law. Which admittedly will be hard.
cain
kay
@Pancake:
Demonstrably false statement, Pancake, see: @raeofsunshine:
Where’d Pancake go? When I stopped laughing at the spectacle of Pancake spouting something even vaguely humanitarian, I read the comments and saw (as usual) that he’s been completely discredited.
I guess he ran off to work at the soup kitchen.
angler
Nice way to close out the cycle. More on the irrationality of liberals. The same logic could be applied to this post. Why are you wasting space on a demoralizing story about fringe hecklers? One expects a Nov. 3 post on how if only some Democrats who criticized Obama had not done so the results would have been better. Instead, please consider a moratorium on this stuff until 2013.
If the GOP wins big, it is about white racial resentment plus Citizens United plus the relentlessness of the GOP minus the full mobilization that Democrats benefitted from in 2008.
If every Dem who voted in 08 votes Tuesday we win. Obama said so yesterday. Lets do what we can to make it so, but if turnout drops it’s primarily because turnout drops in midterms. What more could be done to mobilize those Dems is a good question, one worth solving. If anyone on this thread thinks lowered turnout has something to do with the Global Aids protesters at Obama rallies–an issue that was nowhere in the intraparty policy fights of 2009-10–well if you think that lets hope you’re not a paid strategist for the DNC.
I have to admit I enjoyed the snark battles over HCR and then the phantom firebagger outrage threads that followed. They were fun because the debate, at least at Balloon Juice, turned a generation’s old argument about the center and the left, the practical and the ideal into a parody. It was a parody because it assumed one side was made up Clean Gene McCarthy supporters ready to sit out the 1968 general election to punish LBJ’s proxy, Hubert Humphrey, and the other side was made up of realist Cold War liberals pursuing a version of the JFK-Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. vital center. Hilarious!
Every Dem activist votes and does activism. They do it here and at FDL. Furthermore, no side in the HCR debate had moral high ground or low ground available during the Vietnam War. It was healthcare policy after all no matter how many sob sister tales of a dying family who would either get coverage or not get coverage if a particular version of the bill passed. The sick and the poor were going to get marginal benefits either way, yet neither the public option, nor the insurance mandate could cure cancer much less bring the boys home from ‘nam (or the Middle East). So it was fun to ride the nostalgia train, if a bit irresponsible to do so.
But really, it’s high past time to be acting on US politics through frameworks that no longer fit the balance of power or the issues at stake. The challenge for liberals is to find an organizational means for counteracting the institutional leverage held by conservatives. Leverage significantly strengthened by Citizens United. We’ll find a way but it will have nothing to do with the combatting the effrontery of the AIDS protesters (they ay well be Democrats but for them the issue is beyond party and they weren’t players over HCR, the stimulus, fin. reg. or the other policy divides within the party). Nor will much be gained by teaching an imaginary hippie/straight a lesson. Time to move on folks.
Meanwhile if you really have to scratch the itch of the holier than thou left sold us out, or conversely, center-loving Obama was a sellout understand how much aid and comfort you give to the GOP. The idealist/realist debate over Democratic policy fits hand in glove with the inevitable “Dems divided” stories that will run hard after Nov. 2. That narrative as we knew during the early Bush years abets the Republicans in their p.r. campaign to look like the “natural majority party” and fuel doubts in the uncommitted voters’ minds about Dems’ toughness.
Worse it’s not what decides the outcome. 2008 stay at homes likely weren’t tapped into the debate over the public option. One thing they do notice: unemployment 9.6. One thing they don’t see: outreach for the midterms matching outreach in 2008. I don’t think either of those had much to do with the public option, much less AIDS protesters at Obama rallies.
Maybe the first post on Wed should be why did the corporate cash that backed Dems in 2008 switch sides in 2010? Perhaps it’s the moneybaggers who sold us out.
Davis X. Machina
If its name is ‘pancake’, why does it post about nothing but pie?
Just sayin’.
General Stuck
@Davis X. Machina:
It’s too late for breakfast, but if someone brought the maple syrup, maybe we can eat his lunch.
edit — and with that I have to go, and depart this mindless, “how has Obama failed us today” thread number 2,476. This soap opera will not be canceled just yet.
cat48
WyldPirate
@General Stuck:
So who made you the arbiter of the proper fucking amount of “emo” to show here? On top of that, I specifically pointed out earlier that you were free to skip reading anything I wrote.
on top of that, who the fuck are you to sensor what the fuck I say here? I’m not telling you what to say or not to say. I didn’t even do that in my initial post.
And you want to talk about “dumb as a bag of hammers”? 99% of the BS you post is a bunch of dumbass one-liners that are simply nonsense, not funny and usually totally disconnected from the topics at hand.
Now run the fuck along, sit down in front of your life-sized cutout of Obama, break out your industrial size bottle of Jergan’s hand lotion and have a nice wank. Maybe you can tell us all another stupid one-liner later about your experience.
Larv
Maybe that’s because you insist on seeing explanations as excuses. You continue to ignore political realities and engage in magical thinking. You apparently don’t think that the economy constrains Obama in any way (hint: it does). AIDS funding is a good example of this: with the economy in the crapper, sacrifices are going to have to be made. I have trouble seeing keeping AIDS funding levels stable for a while as a transgression warranting protesting. That doesn’t mean I think protesting is unwarranted across the board. Just that it’s probably not too helpful on this particulay issue.
Larv
Hmm, blockquote fail.
Roger Moore
@raeofsunshine:
It might help to protest at Tea Party rallies by highlighting what a bunch of noxious, unreconstructed bigots they are. There are still a lot of low information voters out there who believe the teabagger propaganda about being something other than the knuckledragging wing of the Republican Party. Protesting at one of their rallies and getting threatened, shouted down, or beaten up would be a good- if less pleasant- way of letting those low information voters see just how awful the teabaggers are. That way you can actually help elect more people who want to help you, rather than just trying to get more out of the ones who are already in office.
300baud
Isn’t this obvious? It’s because Democrats might actually listen to them. The Republicans are the party dedicated to marginalizing gay people at home, at work, and in the schools. Why would any rational AIDS activist, especially one focused on the third world, think that it’s worth one second to protest at a Republican speech? Shouldn’t they expect that they’d be immediately dismissed as crazy diseased lie-brul perverts?
On the other hand, as your quote demonstrates, Obama listened to them and responded. And the press reported it. And now you’re talking about it. From their perspective this is pure success.
James K. Polk, Esq.
@WyldPirate:
..
You claim out of one side of your mouth that Obama is imposing purity tests. A few posts late you say he should be knocking heads together to force Blue Dogs to vote with him.
Should he impose purity tests or not? It doesn’t sound like you know yourself.
300baud
I basically agree with you perspective here, Larv. However:
@Larv:
AIDS funding is a good example of this: with the economy in the crapper, sacrifices are going to have to be made.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
Dr. Squid
Goodbye, cracker.
Dr. Squid
Yes, cracker, we do.
Telling you that you’re a fucking idiot cracker is not “sensoring” you. Why the fuck do you idiot firebaggers go with the “Your sensoring my free speach” card whenever someone criticizes you lily livered fart lighters?
Joe Buck
The purpose of putting pressure on Obama to do the right thing is to get him to do the right thing. Yes, it’s true that the Republicans are worse, but the election of Obama is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
When people protest against Obama for going back on his promises, the purpose isn’t to toss him out and replace him with Republicans, it’s to get him to keep more of his promises (and it simply isn’t true that keeping promises that helped him get elected would contribute to his defeat, if anything the reverse is true).
FlipYrWhig
This point about how Bush got things done when Republicans didn’t have a majority and Obama hasn’t gotten things done (to certain people’s satisfaction) even with a Democratic majority is… not all that difficult to explain.
There are like 20 or do Democratic senators who are conservative, who basically align with the kinds of people who used to be Republicans, and who run scared from anything that can be tagged as “liberal.” Under Bush, that was “soft on defense” stuff; under Obama, it’s “big spending” stuff. So Bush’s war, security, anti-terror measures, and things purporting to be linked to those, got buy-in from a swath of Democrats. Obama’s Keynesian and social-welfare efforts don’t get buy-in from those same Democrats, or only do so after an arduous and soul-sucking process.
In other words, Bush had Republicans in lockstep _and_ a number of Democrats he could peel off, by framing the issue at hand as a litmus test of strength and patriotism. Obama has no Republicans he can peel off–and, much more importantly, he has to corral wavering Democrats who are pretty much fundamentally opposed to everything he wants to do.
The stuff that Bush got done was stuff that conservative Democrats backed. The stuff that Obama has gotten done is… stuff that conservative Democrats backed. That’s it. Yell at them.
Shade Tail
@WyldPirate #54:
Oh for fuck’s sake, not this nonsense again. First, Bush didn’t get nearly as much through as you folks like to pretend. Second, when he did get stuff through, Bush didn’t have an extremist minority who fought tooth and nail against allowing the government to actually govern.
Obama *is* fighting an extremist minority. And yet he *has* gotten a lot through in spite of that. So stop making excuses for your Obama Derangement Syndrome.
chaseyourtail
Cowards. Their antics do nothing to help stop AIDS.
goatchowder
For the same reason that outraged black folks burned and looted in their own neighborhood in South-Central L.A. after the Rodney King verdict, instead of looting and burning Simi Valley (or Beverly Hills, or wherever, someplace with racist white folks): it’s an easy target, it’s unguarded, and it’s available.
It’s stupid too. But when people are outraged and frustrated, they strike out at whatever is closest to hand.
You’re a gay activist? Just TRY to get into a Repug rally? Go on, I dare you, try it. They have high security and purity tests to get in.
But not Democratic events and rallies. So, activists can get into the events, mainly BECAUSE we all agree with them. We’re on the same side. And so that’s where they do the protests.
ruemara
@Daddy-O:
Now I know you’re a spoof. DougJ, cut that out.
Mnemosyne
@angler:
I have no idea what any of this means. Seriously. I wasn’t even born until 1969, so you may as well be speaking Hindi to me.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
Because balloonbaggers are quite satisfied with President Obama and Democrats being just one percent better than Bush and the Republicans. They call it the “One Percent Doctrine”: By golly, if it’s one percent better, let’s call it Good and go watch some sports with our pets!
Uncle Clarence Thomas
@soonergrunt:
@Odie Hugh Manatee
I hate to point this out to a sea mammal and a war hero, but this is a very immoral – as well as easily manipulable – way to conduct your affairs. Can’t you just care about all the issues based on the facts?
Jared
Because left-leaning politicians will actually listen and might actually improve. Focusing on Republicans does nothing to address the issues.
The “We Suck Less” mantra isn’t going to keep liberal politicians in office.
General Stuck
@Jared:
I think it’s cool when trolls create their own reality to fight against here of Balloon Juice. It has a self contained quality to it, that is both breathtaking in it’s dishonesty and winsome in it’s stupidity.
Daddy-O
@SiubhanDuinne: I would like more information, too, but if I had to guess, I’d say that segregation was the law of the land in Southern states, but certainly not in the military, a federal dominion.
My point was that if we had to watch George W. Bush commit war crime after war crime and in the end he gets to throw the first pitch at the World Series instead of huddling with his lawyers at the Hague, Obama can get rid of DADT, Congressional action or not.
Also: If Obama insists on passing the buck to Congress and not taking action on his own, if he insists it must be a DIFFERENT branch of government, why NOT the judiciary? Why ONLY Congress? The judiciary’s main job is to find laws constitutional or otherwise.
Maybe he’s afraid Bush’s SCOTUS will refuse to uphold lower court rulings, but if you ask me, I think Obama is a closet homophobe–period. Actions speak loudly.
Daddy-O
@Mnemosyne: Good for you, Mnemosyne, for having the facts at your disposal. Thank you. Sorry I don’t hang on your every golden word of wisdom and information, but this is news to me.
If Obama insists on operating by the book to give his own citizens and military subordinates the civil rights they already possess in all but law, I insist he is dead wrong. And my right to say so is crucial.
Homosexuality is legal, right? This should all be completely moot. But Obama sticks to the laws he wishes, and breaks the laws he wants to break.
No way I’m gonna stfu about THAT. Not after the last ‘President’.
Suffern ACE
O.K. we need a little movement regroup here. Can we agree on some sort of common enemy who 1) isn’t one of ourselves and 2) isn’t a former ally who hasn’t gone so irretrievably astray that they did fundraising for the Tea Party and 3) actually would be worth defeating because they mean to do us harm? Obama doesn’t work as there are just too many of us who are going to support him, even tepidly, from attacks that we think are unfair. And it is just going to be a tough sell for me personally that he is a bigger threat than, say, swine flu. We’ve spent the better part of a year or longer for some arguing about what the meaning of Obama is and all it is doing is fracturing feelings. I’m not saying that people should stop criticizing Obama, but for the sake of the continued existence of the struggle, can we choose to just agree to disagree on how we feel about him and point the arrow at someone else since we are not going to be able to agree that he should be a target or not?
Daddy-O
@General Stuck: Nice.
I’ve been put in my place by the best…best over-generalizing bigot on the blog.
Daddy-O
@gwangung: Then don’t.
You have complete mastery of all political facts…or maybe, you just know something I don’t know, about this particular issue?
Correct me if I’m wrong. Mnemosyne was kind enough, outside of his general contempt and snark, to explain how I was wrong. But as far as I know, Truman issued an Executive Order desegregating the military.
I can’t take someone seriously who tosses aside someone so cavalierly, someone like me who is honestly able to be corrected. You have missed an opportunity to elucidate.
Daddy-O
@Lolis: “So your saying Obama not increasing funding AIDS funding enough to satisfy activists is the same as an illegal war.”
No, YOU said that.
Daddy-O
@gwangung: In the history of our United States of America, there have been myriad cases of heads being knocked BEHIND closed doors.
Obama hasn’t even done that. He is weak. He is reluctant on certain issues. And he is continuing the same Bush policies I was horrified by for eight long years.
No. We won’t stfu. He’s lucky, at this point, to have my vote, and he sure acts like he takes it for granted. That does not please me, but it bothers me much less than the continuing war crimes, domestic spying, drone bombing and bank bailouts–not to mention the refusal to investigate the Bush administration.
Deal with it, because you won’t win without us, and neither will he. And if the Republicans, by some miracle, happen to nominate Lincoln Chafee…
General Stuck
@Daddy-O:
bigot? WTF you blathering about dipshit. Are you saying that now criticizing idiotic left wingers qualifies as bigotry?
Mnemosyne
@Daddy-O:
You can insist until you’re blue in the face that the president should be allowed to overturn legislation that was passed by Congress whenever he pleases, but I’m not going to agree with you.
It is currently against the law to be gay and serve in the military. It is part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. You want the president to declare by fiat that the law is invalid because you don’t agree with it. That scares me.
It is legal in the civilian world. Currently, it is illegal to be gay in the military under the UCMJ. US law prohibits it.
Again, you want the president to be able to overturn the law anytime he disagrees with it. And this would make him different from Bush … how, again? It’s okay for the president to overturn laws he doesn’t like as long as you don’t like them, either?
And when the next Republican president comes in, he or she can make it illegal to be gay in the military again and you’ll be fine with that because, hey, the president can overrule Congress anytime s/he pleases?
Daddy-O
@Mnemosyne: If the news reports are to be believed, Obama is guilty of PLENTY of illegal acts! He still wiretaps warrantlessly, en masse! He still bombs Pakistan civilians! He still insists on the right to ‘terrorism’ assassination–completely illegal! Guantanamo still open–completely outside the law!
And…if it isn’t illegal for the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute the Bush war crimes, it sure as hell should be.
You can’t tell me Obama plays everything by the book. He does not. Not after Little Boots stretched the boundaries of belief in Presidential lawbreaking…
Suffern ACE
@General Stuck: Maybe not, but “libtard” and “thick skull” could be interpreted as pointing in that direction.
themann1086
Don’t really want to get involved in this, but I do have 3 words to those who argue that Bush got Everything He Wanted through Congress.
Social
Security
Privatization
55 GOP Senators, 230-232 Reps during the 109th Congress
General Stuck
@Suffern ACE:
Oh man, I got to hear this. Okay then, pointing in what direction? Who, or what group is the target of this alleged bigotry? There has to be a victim. So cough it up.
edit = and btw, I call myself libtard as often as others.
Daddy-O
@Oscar Leroy: To partially quote our most admirable host of this blog: “I’ll never figure out why” Mnemosyne, et al, don’t understand what you’ve said here.
It strikes me as knee-jerk loyalty to our ‘side’, but after a while you can only take so many betrayals. Not prosecuting Bush is huge, among several others.
I will vote a straight Democratic ticket in two days. No problem. I support the Democrats in the most important way they could ever ask. But refrain from honest and real criticism?
I will never understand someone having a problem with THAT.
Mnemosyne
@Daddy-O:
An order that was legal at the time but would be illegal today because of subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court.
At this point, you’re arguing that segregation in the schools must still be perfectly legal — after all, it was perfectly legal up until the 1950s and the only difference between now and 1953 is Brown v Board of Education, so what difference does some stupid Supreme Court decision make in deciding what’s legal and what isn’t?
Mnemosyne
@Daddy-O:
Hate to tell you, but the bombings of Pakistani civilians, warrantless wiretapping, and terrorism assassinations are perfectly legal right now, thanks to the Bush administration and the Supreme Court. You can argue that they’re wrong and they shouldn’t be legal but, at present, they actually are legal under US law.
Obama tried to close Guantanamo and was blocked by Congress. Their home countries are refusing to accept the current prisoners. What’s your plan, opening the gates and letting them flood out into Cuba?
Daddy-O
@Mnemosyne: “No, you just…”
Mind-reader, eh? Come on, Mnemosyne, you are a reasonable man. We’re not changing your mind, and vice versa.
But to insist on Democrats marching in lockstep is absurd. It isn’t going to happen. Too much diversity. And to tell us there’s something wrong, even politically or with the public at large, with criticizing our leaders, is abhorrent. Complaining about it is…useless…and it makes you and our illustrious host sound much worse than any honest Democratic critics ever could.
It bothers YOU much more than it will ever bother Obama or any other President, or even their political operatives. I promise.
Daddy-O
@Moses2317: I disagree.
We’re in a close political battle because the Teabaggers scream louder than we do, and not because we scream at Obama once in a great while–and nobody notices those screams but folks like the good John Cole. It just bothers him, and I can understand that. But criticism of Obama is NOT why we are in a close battle–it’s because change didn’t come quickly enough. Whether or not that is Obama’s fault is another debate entirely.
BTW, I am not taking John Cole down here. I disagree with him on this issue, and it’s the only one I can think of. This issue of Obama criticism bothers him, and the fact that he complains about it bothers me enough to speak up about it.
I hope everyone can treat me civilly even though I feel strongly about this, as does John.
Nick
Because then the Democrats will lose, their issues won’t be addressed and they could go on whining.
The scariest thing to a member of the professional left is the possibility their issue will be addressed. Then what would they whine about?
Daddy-O
@General Stuck: Damn, dude, this is an honest and open discussion…but your pehchant for insult and put-down is a distinct turn-off. You don’t know it all, and you can’t decide for anyone else what to think. Just yourself.
Obama MAY have the most legislative success since LBJ in terms of QUANTITY, but most certainly not quality. LBJ would have blanched at the giveaways and loopholes in our ‘health care reform’.
I wanted Obama to be another FDR, but he’s turning into an LBJ, all right–an a la Vietnam LBJ…
Suffern ACE
@General Stuck: Oh, my bad. I didn’t realize that those terms had become owned. I didn’t realize in the context who you were trying to empower. I thought you were just putting down people who weren’t in the group using unnecessarily harsh terms for people you have come to hold in contempt.
General Stuck
@Daddy-O:
Congrats!, you have just made BJ’s number one asshole troll. I suspect you may well be a ratfucking spoof, but for those who have nothing good to say about Obama, and spend every goddamn second of their time here pointing out things that haven’t been done, and none of the things that have been done by Obama, leaves yourself much more open to charges of bigotry than the Obama supporters you hate. I haven’t leveled that specific charge against Obama opponents because they call themselves democrats and liberals, even though in some cases I believe it to be the cases.
Let’s change that here tonight. I think you and maybe suffrenass are projecting the bigotry card, because that is in fact what lies in your heart concerning Obama. You may wish it weren’t so, and possibly hate yourself for such bigotry, being dems and all, but you just can’t help yourselves vomiting any Obama fail meme you can come up with. And even at times borrowing them from the wingnuts to sate your compulsion. At least the wingnuts are honest about their hatred for Obama, you and your ilk are spineless worms who hide behind nonsense of being honest brokers and wanting Obama to do better, ad nauseum./ I have more respect for the wingers than your pathetic imitations.
Now who’s your Daddy-O?
Daddy-O
@cat48: Got link? I’m happy to be proven wrong. De-lighted, in fact! Bring me the REAL story, don’t insult me.
Seven years, eh? Long after he was gone, the military was desegregated? Hard to believe…hard to believe.
General Stuck
@Suffern ACE:
You mean like you do with Obama? or obots? or centrists? I think you are the bigot here.
General Stuck
@Daddy-O:
Idiot, you have no idea what a fucked up deal medicare was when it was passed, and needed many facelifts to make it what it is today. You are a fucking fool with a big mouth and keyboard.
And you sure can dish out the insults but cannot take them. Figures.
angler
@Mnemosyne:
It means you’re beating a dead horse here and recycling old intraparty culture wars that serve only to feed the GOP beast. The narrative goes back well before ’68 but since we live in the shadow of the boomers that’s probably where this particular debate started.
But, hey, you wanted to take the point literally to say that because you didn’t live then you are absolved from knowing anything about history rather than ask yourself if you’re helping the Republicas here or not. It’s Hindi. Awesome! Score two.
We’ve all read what witty mean barbs the lifers here have to say to each other with the same back and forth of insults. I spent some time in the winter-summer parody-trolling this stuff but really the election is Tuesday.
Are you five years old? If so, this is really an accomplishment. You are precocious and highly literate. If not, be the bigger person and say my fellow Democrats and I will support our fellow Democrats. Not that hard. Food fights are good at a safe distance from election day. Still Hindi?
Daddy-O
@ruemara: Nice cutdown. Seriously. Good one.
Got anything else to share? Maybe information? Facts and links? Or are you insisting what I claimed about Truman is incorrect?
Anyone who can’t show me where I’m wrong is a spoof, as far as I’m concerned. Takes work. Not much, but some.
Daddy-O
@General Stuck: “Because the libtard skull is sometimes thick as George Bush’s, and unfortunately, to often, when you finally break through to the other side, the mush you find is only different in flavor.”
Okay, you don’t like being called a bigot? When you smear an entire group of people like me like that?
Your insult was worthy of any Teabagger, whether you like that claim or not. It belongs on FreeRepublic–not here.
Then again, far be it from me to tell YOU what to say, so…rave on, my man.
Suffern ACE
@General Stuck: I am an obot or obamatron or whatever.
General Stuck
@angler:
What, you think these fights are brought by Obama supporters? they are not of course, and actually, we are in a lull right now. Most of the usual suspect Obama haters are taking a break until Tuesday night, and the all out idjit fest will resume. Not a bad idea, a little practice session right now, you know, like a starting picture keeping sharp with a little bullpen work. I simply do not believe those who only criticize are on my side, and if you aren’t then you are on the other one. Things are really fucked up right now, but the more fucked up they get, the simpler the equation becomes. Now it is one plus one equals 2 and you can’t simpler than that.
Daddy-O
@General Stuck: This is utter nonsense. You don’t know me. And you don’t know much, if you’re gonna jump to this conclusion.
What kind of man/woman ARE you? Is there any room for discussion? Criticism? Can you possibly talk about this without insulting me and claiming I’m a troll?
I don’t know who is who here, besides the front-pagers. I don’t comment often, and not much in ‘controversial’ issues. But I disagree with John Cole, and simply spoke up. That’s what comments are FOR, right? Can we agree on THAT MUCH?
If you insist on bringing up Obama’s accomplishments, you’re just changing the subject. I had enough of that arguing with Bush supporters for eight long years. Grow up, dude, or just ignore me, and I’ll do the same for you.
General Stuck
@Daddy-O:
I been here about every day for coming up on four years, and I can assure you that the term “thick skull” is a love poem compared to when this blog was really a hurt locker. But I am quite certain now that you are a spoof of some sort, and being an idiot with a big mouth has always provided a refuge for that sort on Bj. But I got to admit, claiming bigotry for punching hippies was one I didn’t see coming.
General Stuck
@Daddy-O:
spoof
FlipYrWhig
Why does every dumbass who comes around here full of criticism for Obama and whatever think he’s being _brave_ to do so? I will not be silenced! I will sing it loud and long from the height of the highest imaginary treetops in my most stentorian imaginary voice! Come and stop me, if you dare, world full of people who have no fucking idea who I am or what I think! If I’m still here in the morning, I have triumphed over all of mine mortal enemies! Fear my silent wrath!
For that matter, the same goes for coming around here full of praise for Obama. It’s not brave. It’s just fucking talking.
Jeff Fecke
@themann1086:
Thank you. Also, remember when Congress passed Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform proposal? No? That’s because it never fucking happened.
Legislating is hard. The American government is designed not to do very much. And despite that, Obama managed to get through health reform, which has only been a top-three priority for the Democrats since Truman.
Am I thrilled with everything Obama does? No. His education policy sucks. I am frustrated he hasn’t gotten DADT through by hook or by crook. I’m definitely leery of his positions on civil liberties.
That said, I’m under no illusion that Obama is the biggest threat to gay rights, civil liberties, or education right now. All things considered, if I’m going to put my energy into protesting, I’m going to protest the party that is uniformly against me, rather than the party that is almost uniformly on my side. But then, I am more concerned with those who are working to keep things I want from happening than those who are generally trying to do the things I want, albeit imperfectly.
Suffern ACE
@FlipYrWhig: I don’t know. Maybe its cause everybody who has an opinion one way or the other gets called a “dumbass.”
The net: Providing a steady stream of threats to the ego since 1987. No wonder Al Gore lost when people thought he had claimed to invent this thing.
Shade Tail
@Suffern ACE #174:
Oh dear. I’m risking being called *bad names* by *someone on the internet*! I’m so courageous!
Please, make me laugh and gag at the same time.
angler
@General Stuck:
Ahh, they are not real Democrats! I sometimes wonder if we aren’t all GOP trolls.
On the one hand we could all work to try and make the other side not Democrats, on the other we could get some perspective and say how do I make a stronger Democratic party via my exertions in blog comment threads?
If that’s the objective then the lead post and what followed, about a thrice weekly affair at BJ isn’t it.
Your own reply says what this is about “a little practice session right now, you know, like a starting picture keeping sharp with a little bullpen work.” Sharp for what?
I assume you’re taking pleasure and pride in the above zingers.
“intellectually lazy and overtly emo, and quite probably dumb as a sack of hammers”
” the libtard skull is sometimes thick as George Bush’s”
“firebaggers are simply full of shit”
“both breathtaking in it’s dishonesty and winsome in it’s stupidity”
” WTF you blathering about dipshit”
” you and your ilk are spineless worms ”
And the best of all: “wankers who sit in the basement pecking out self important horseshit.”
It’s fun! It’s a food fight. We can’t pretend it’s anything else. We can only call names, and Cole encourages it. It’s part of the brand at BJ, the occasional firebagger thread and today’s seemed more egregious than others.
I ask if we haven’t had too much fun with this now, through 2010? The logic of adversarial debate says push all adversarial comments into one corner–maybe I’m not really a Democrat. Still, worth considering if we have had our fun for the this cycle and might think, next cycle, about a different way to be an engaged Democrat.
General Stuck
@Suffern ACE:
Yea, but what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. Though pulling the bigot card for punching hippies is a little out of bounds, imho.
mouth
@Pancake:
One-third of the funding Bush gave went to big American pharma, and any country who refused to pay the elevated cost ofthe drugs of big American pharma was promptly cut off.
One third of the funding Bush promised was simply never given.
And the remaining third was, as Bush insisted spent on abstinence education – rather than sex education – resulting in more infections – according to Stephen Lewis, an expert and activist on AIDS in Africa.
Thanks for playing.
General Stuck
@angler:
Blush, you are listing my most recent greatest hits.
This has been going on for two years now, and I have moved past trying to treat it with good intent and effort to help folks look at facts, rather than viral memes produced by the netroots. It is a hopeless cause, and quit simply, we just don’t have time to muddle around with this bullshit. And It really isn’t fun, though with right wingers it is. And the reason I confront this crap day in and out has nothing to do with the outside world. It comes under blog maintenance, in my estimation, and without somebody doing it, and there are others besides me, this blog would look and be a cesspool of nuts running the asylum. I have never shied away, or turned away anyone with a complaint about Obama that is willing to build an argument for that complaint. And have had one or two complaints myself, especially on economic matters. Nor do I treat them poorly and am willing to engage in good faith debate. But the smug mind numbing repetitive bullshit trollery is different and must be called what it is, I think. And will continue to do so, and be as nice as possible.
Jared
@General Stuck:
While I’m flattered that you’d call me a troll, I’m curious as to why you didn’t address the meat of my post. John’s entry seemed to focus more on criticizing Republicans for not doing things that Democrats will do. That seems unproductive to me. Saying “if you think we’re bad, look at the other side” is nice anecdotally, but I’d prefer improving our side’s strengths rather than pointing out the other side’s weaknesses.
General Stuck
@Jared:
When you start out suggesting Obama supporters embrace a “we suck less” as a campaign mantra, then the rest of what you have to say probably isn’t worth addressing. I don’t think Obama sucks less, I think, all and all, he has done a decent job presidenting while black and opposed completely by republicans. And I dare say, that is the sentiment among most regulars on this blog. So you create a false meme right off the bat to frame your argument, which really is an argument in your own head.
angler
@General Stuck:
I applaud your investment in thread trolling. Perhaps victory can be declared. Call it a win. Nov. 3 is a new day.
For perspective check the Kos archives for 2004 and the Dean v. Kerry threads. No new news here.
FlipYrWhig
@Suffern ACE: Well, sure, people say not-all-that-nice things to each other over the intert00bz. But to hear some people tell it, they’re just _so_ dissatisfied with the president that they _must_ speak out, and no one’s gonna stop ’em, because, dammit, they’re MAD! Yes, that’s correct, no one is gonna stop you, because what you’re saying is not brave and does not come at a cost. It’s just talk, like everyone else’s. We’re all dumbasses to somebody. That’s how it works. Talk is cheap. Talk about your unrelenting hardcore political radicalism is even cheaper than that. It never has to be tested and it never has to be verified, so, wtf is it even worth? It’s a pastime. It’s living on the Holodeck.
Gotwolfy
Shorter John Cole : “I don’t know why people would protest to the people in power instead of protesting to the people without power”
John Cole win the stupid for the day
People Protest to People in power because they are the one with the power to give them what they want! What should those lefty do start protesting Homeless people?
I don’t think that a human being can actually be that stupid so i’l go with John Cole is trying to get is page view up
Socraticsilence
@Mnemosyne:
If and when that happens I’m probably going to have to take some time off of this site and others otherwise I might just lose it- because a slow and steady approach has basically been what Obama has endorsed the entire freaking time- so if a slow and steady approach gets DADT repealed then guess what- Obama was fucking right.
Socraticsilence
@Daddy-O:
Good to know that for a significant portion of the left it was never Bush’s authoritarian overreach that was a problem- it was the fact that said overreach wasn’t in the service of there policy preferences.
Socraticsilence
@WyldPirate:
You’re totally right- heck, smacking heads that would have done it- after all it worked for Bush on Immigration- wait no, well it worked on Social Security privatization– huh, what’s that he couldn’t even get his own party to send representatives to make appearances with him? Oh wait you mean the Foreign Policy stuff? Yeah go figure you know something that congress backs almost unquestionably for either party worked pretty well- hey guess what FDR got the declaration of war on Germany through easily, and LBJ did the same with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
Socraticsilence
@WyldPirate:
See, here’s the thing a lot of this think that Obama has accomplished things.
Socraticsilence
@Daddy-O:
Actually, no- homosexuality isn’t legal not under the UCMJ, then again neither is adultery or sodomy (regardless of orientation)- I don’t know why you people fail to get this- the military is governed by a different set of laws than the rest of the country- namely the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Socraticsilence
@Mnemosyne:
Gitmo is perhaps the single best issue for illustrating Obama’s dilemma- he’s done the right thing- hell he’s done exactly what he said he would do at considerable political cost- and despite this he’s held as a liar since Gitmo isn’t closed- now you ask what should been about the prisoners there and the response from many on the left “let them go”- okay, personally I think that’s a bit shortsighted (without screening them first) but hey let’s go with that- where? As you said for a large number of these prisoners their home countries wont take them back, should we re-settle them in the US (that was facetitious- because seriously, that would be a impeachable offense if just one re-settled prisoner went jihadi- of course if that happened some portion of the people arguing for re-settlement would say said attack was “reaping what we sowed” but I digress) . All of the congressmen people put forth as champions of progressive values were strangley silent when Obama broached transfering the re-repatriatable detainee’s to locations in their districts (funny that, its almost like they didn’t give a crap about Gitmo and it was just a talking point).
Socraticsilence
@General Stuck:
Is there any doubt that the people who argued against HCR would have chanted “Kill the bill” about Social Security- think about it: racist, classist, etc and with much bigger majorities than Obama ever had.
John Bird
Please regale us, John Cole, with more stories about how the left-wing activists you don’t know, you don’t follow, and you don’t know anything about are “ignoring” the Republicans.
That simply isn’t true.
Jared
@General Stuck:
Actually, I started out with this:
You ignored that. Then came the “we suck less” comment. I thought about a segment from the Daily Show in which Stewart relayed a similar message to his viewing audience. It was in response to this quote from Mr. Cole:
That, to me, suggests that Democrats should not hold their leaders accountable since they can point at Republicans and say “they’re worse!” And simply because I hold a viewpoint that isn’t accepted by “most regulars on this blog” doesn’t mean I’m a troll.
I’m an Obama supporter too. I think he can be a great president. However, for all his soaring rhetoric during the ’08 campaign, he’s been surprisingly restrained in his support of liberal policies. But while people may protest and critique, it isn’t because they all want him to fail. Many, like me, want him to succeed.