MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
- artappraiser (106)
- PeraclesPlease (73)
- artappraiser (73)
- artappraiser (56)
- artappraiser (53)
President Obama Richly Deserves To Be Dumped
By A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 10:42pm |As evidence of a failed Obama presidency accumulates, criticism of his administration is mounting from liberal Democrats who have too much moral authority to be ignored.
URL:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/hbc-90008351
- Add new comment
- 1999 reads
Comments
I don't disagree with many of these points, but I would say: Dumping Obama just to let Gingrich or Romney into power is no solution. If it is time to dump Obama, it is clearly time to reform the entire government. Do we have a better shot at reform under Obama or a Republican? I don't know, but I would also say: uncomfortable changes are coming no matter who we elect.
by Donal on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:37am
Yes, Obama deserves to be dumped. I, however, do not want him to be dumped in lieu of somebody worse. (I.e., what he deserves and what's best for us are two different things.) Yes, I know that's the worst campaign slogan ever, but I'm not campaigning for him. I'm just saying that he's better than any viable alternative. (Currently, no third party candidate is viable. If you want to change that, fight for the alternative vote.)
by Verified Atheist on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:06am
I think what needs to be addressed is how Max Baucus -- who is, according to the article, really running the show as one of "corrupt Democratic barons" and "devoted friend of the insurance, pharmaceutical, and banking crowd, and sworn enemy of reform" -- could run unopposed during the 2008 Montana Democratic primary. If Obama is just a "party functionary" who does the bidding of those like Baucus, then lets put liberals into those seats and have Obama do their bidding. The work should be going into getting some actual liberal candidate to oppose Baucus in 2014. Of course that would mean one has to face the difficulty in getting real liberals elected in places like Montana. It's not impossible, but it's not a cake walk.
And it is the existence of Democratic politicians like Baucus that make a GOP president so scary - because there are plenty of Democrats like Baucus who are suddenly willing to become bipartisan and reach across the aisle with a new GOP agenda coming down from the White House. There won't be the general rock solid unity that the Republicans showed in opposing Obama.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:19am
What is interesting, and something I didn't know, Baucus trounced his Republican candidate Robert Kelleher, 73% to 27% - who had opposed Baucus in 2002 as the Green Party candidate, and who was on one hand strong pro-life, but also in favor of single-payer health care. I guess Montanans like corrupt Democratic barons who are a devoted friend of the insurance, pharmaceutical, and banking crowd, and sworn enemy of reform.
And this just in - it appears that Governor Schweitzer might challenge Baucus in 2014.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:36am
Well, hellloooo Another Trope! Don't have the time to go back and find comment-proof, but this one I've been highlighting off and on for a bit. Success here could be closer to realization than you may realize. One Brian Schweitzer is literally the most popular politician in Montana. He is term limited out as Gov. in 2012. Has said he won't be running for any other office until after his term is complete.
I love this guy. He vetoed a *raft* of GOP bills a while back, literally laughed at them and told 'em to come back when they were ready to get serious. Tried some really innovative approaches to helping the poor get access to health care also.
He is perfectly poised to spend two years preparing a solid challenge between leaving office and the 2014 race. Now, if we can just figure out Tester ... although, I think he'd be better without Baucus in the picture.
Just saying. I've got a place to crash in Darby ... already planning on pitching in if he runs. He's a good guy.
by kgb999 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:03pm
The way a party's incumbent standard bearer gets dumped is for some other member of the party to run against him in a primary and defeat him. But no Democratic Party member has dared to do that. Thus while it's all well and good for people to complain about Obama's fear of and subservience to the established party power structure, it appears every other Democrat in the country is equally afraid of or subservient to that power structure.
Did Bill Moyers run against Obama? Did Barbara Ehrenreich run against Obama?
The New Hampshire Primary will take place next month. There has been no presidential primary campaign in New Hampshire. There are no Democratic debates taking place in New Hampshire. There are no signs on lawns for any Democratic candidates in New Hampshire. The Democratic Party as a political force has been thoroughly invisible on the New Hampshire radar screen for at least six months now, and on the national radar screen I think, while even progressive publications spend all of their time talking about Republicans, and about what various Republicans do, say and think.
by Dan Kervick on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:46am
We are talkers, aren't we?
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 4:07pm
It's not just that. People are afraid of the massive rupture a challenge to Obama would cause in the Democratic Party. We're stuck with the guy.
Time to start thinking about how to turn the page politically toward 2016 and get busy getting the dismal "Obama era" over as soon as possible.
by Dan Kervick on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 6:38pm
What is our editorial count up to now? I am pretty sure I've read this particular editorial more than once. Let's count:
1. Drew Weston
2. This MacArthur dude
3. Pat Cadell and Doug Schoen (but to be fair they write that dump Obama missive once a year)
4. Roger Simon
5. Jim Rogers
6. Sahit Muja No I don't know who the hell this. But his stuff is comical none-the-less
7. Julian Assange
8. Steve Chapman
9. TBags
10. Andrew Breitbart
Wow this list is heavily laden with testosterone isn't it, how utterly shocking.
by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 10:47am
Though most of those articles seem to be calling for his resignation. MacArthur wants a primary challenger. It'd be nice to have a choice.
by Michael Maiello on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 11:12am
You had a choice in 2008, unless you are Republican. Don't think the party will make another mistake like they made in 1980, that just will not happen.
My larger point was, I've read this before, and MacArthur would have had more page hits had he done this months ago. The shouts of "he should resign", "there should be a primary challenger", "Failed", "coward", all that stuff, the sting has worn out of the same lame analysis from the "I could do better", "I would fight harder" crowd on the sidelines.
by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 5:28pm
You know, you've just succeeded in re-pissing me off again.
by Dan Kervick on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 6:26pm
You know what? I hate Hilary Clinton.
But I'd take her in a second if she ran against Obama.
"Hilary 2012."
by Qnonymous (not verified) on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:26pm
Hillary, Hillary, where on earth did you go?
by Richard Day on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:20pm
Lots of things come to mind in a discussion like this. The first, and most obvious, is the thought expressed by so many that it would be worse if any current Republican candidate were to gain the Presidency. I agree and I doubt anyone here will disagree. To continue to make that 'truth' a talking point for defending the Obama administration and Obama
hmself, is, imo, to go beyond pointless traveling in the wrong direction.
Will anyone here suggest that there are no fundamental values we hold as being part of the essence of "America" at its best? Values which, if denied or ignored should disqualify a President from maintaining his office.
Will anyone here deny that the country has moved away from some of those values and is continuing to do so? Has Obama done anything of substance to halt that slip-sliding away? Conversely has he personally taken any actions that violate your conception of those values?
Are there lines which a leader cannot cross if he is to maintain your allegiance? Does his party affiliation determine where that line is drawn? Should it?
Will anyone here suggest that they like the direction that Obama has gone in regards to civil liberties?
Who defends the way he is currently using our military?
Who defends Obama's claimed right to deal with "claimed' terrorists of any nationality based on his own decision of what constitutes terrorism, regardless where they are located, regardless the quality of the information he has about them, ignoring any traditional rights to due process? And who agrees that he should have the unquestioned 'right' to decide to kill anyone anywhere, and too bad about anyone in their vicinity, who he decides is a terrorist.
Who here would deny that the word 'evil' sometimes is justified? How about the word 'hypocracy'?[hypocrisy - that's why it is hypocrite, not hypocrat]
Who believes that torture which our country is responsible for and could prevent does not still happen?
Who defends his actual or attempted imprisonment of persons who have tried to expose gross crimes or ineptitude by our leaders, leaders who demonstrate a want to be our rulers? Is doing that a small enough infraction to ignore? Is it not a direct attack on a protection deemed necessary by our founders whom Obama and virtually everyone else claim to revere?
Who will try to convince me that some of the actions I have listed or alluded to can not be fairly described as evil?
Is there anyone here who did not believe that Bush did not take any action which warranted at least his impeachment and removal from office and, if we were to take a consistent view of "the rule of law", would not have put him in prison? If you ever claimed that Bush was guilty of such offenses, can you name such an offense that Obama has not been guilty of?
Did I already allude to hypocrisy?
All that said, all those rhetorical questions asked, yes, I too would choose the lesser of two evils. If the only choice that will be available to the American public was put in my hands I would vote against the Republican nominee. To say that I would vote against the Republican is the only way I could justify what would technically be a vote 'for' Obama. What I will not do is pretend that the lesser evil somehow becomes 'good'.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:44pm
On the other hand to place one's criticism at this particular moment in time within the "dump Obama" framework is also an exercise in pointlessness. There is no one out there who is suddenly going to emerge and defeat Obama within the Democratic process (at least not one who isn't compelled to take the elite money to compete with Obama's war chest). And since as you say, it almost a truism that folks will try to avoid seeing the GOP in the White House, whether one believes he has not earned a second term is sort of irrelevant.
Which is not to say one should criticize the Afghan War or big money donations to the candidate. But rather than discussing realistic avenues to achieve objectives in areas such as this, people are squabbling about primary challengers etc. But those kind of things don't create the headlines that have pop like "richly deserves to be dumped."
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 5:14pm
There have been schemes proposed for enabling people to vote AGAINST someone while NOT voting for someone else--which is what we are required to do now.
As long as the choice is binary, we're pretty much stuck, as I see it, unless someone emerges in a primary. Too late for that--and who?
The article's mention of Eugene McCarthy strikes me as misguided. The Democratic Party completely imploded in 1968. It was good getting LBJ not to run, but the revolt against Humphrey was misguided and ushered in Nixon.
As someone said above, we have to see the political landscape as much broader than just the president, as important as he is. The campaign has to be waged at all the levels of government at the same time. We can't put all our chips on R7 every four years.
Moving the country means constant engagement at every level of government all the time--and in your spare time. It also means changing the common wisdom on things like the meaning of "the debt," "global warming."
I dunno...getting very discouraged...which we can't afford to be.
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 4:05pm
The other piece of this--and it's been said many times--is getting money out of politics. I think this accounts for a huge number of problems with Obama, if not all.
The question is, how?
The right person with the right message at the right time can maybe prevail if he's totally outspent, but you can't count on it at all.
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 4:10pm
The Democrats had the opportunity to replace Obama as the standard bearer.
They did not. A missed opportunity.
Suffer the consequences for taking the electorate for granted.
The choice is clear enough; predatory capitalism in the hands of the ruling class of the republicans or in the hands of the Democrats.
When the republicans take control and the US goes to hell in a hand basket.
Then and only then, will the status quo realize they blew it.
The year of the protestors will bring down the house of cards
Burn baby Burn. Misery loves company
Empty promises by both parties will cease, as civility is replaced with anger, the likes the world has never seen.
It'll make the French Revolution look like a picnic.
Will history record; It could have been prevented, if only the peasants had voted for the lesser of the two capitalists? Or will it read..... the elites thought they were safe?
The elites forgot, Rome fell
To the elites "Reap what you have sown" the peasant class has nothing to lose for we've lost most everything already, except; the yoke put upon us
Lawful conduct will be replaced with lawlessness.
by Resistance on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 6:02pm
I just hit some other blog with this thought.
Skewer your antipathy toward the American People.
We vote 60% in the Presidential Elections.
We bot 45% on the 'off elections'.
The idiots in Wisc went:
WHAT THE FUCK? In 2010 following a vote for a fascist idiot.
Oh well now we need a recall.
Well where in the fuck were the wisc unionists in 2010?
The fact is those folks hated Negroes or they hated Hispanics or they hated 'elitists' or they....
The fact is those union voters cut off their own dicks.
They deserved it!
Oh Barry should have given better speeches.
SHITE!
I don't buy this crap at all.
Be mad at Americans as a whole.
They deserve the governments they vote for!
by Richard Day on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 6:38pm
"They deserve the governments they vote for!"
To say they deserve it is a strong implication that they got something bad. In some general sense, and over a long period covering many elections, I guess what you say is inarguable. But, the essay in question talks about the result of one particular election of one particular person. It says that now that the evidence has become abundant, many liberal voices with liberal credibility, and who once supported Obama, have changed their minds about him. The evidence for them, and for me, is his actions.
I gave some of my own reasons for changing my mind. If you think the points I made in my comment above are wrong, that is one thing. If you think he did the things I accuse him of and approve, that is your right, but if you think that that is what I was intending to vote for and I deserve getting it, then you are very mistaken.
I have enough antipathy for enough of the American electorate to satisfy you on your worst day, but that does not change my opinion of were the blame lies for the wrong things that Obama has done.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 7:00pm
All I got is: BULLSHITE!
Blame. SHITE.
You are arguing in another dimension; you are in some parallel universe.
Damn.
Let me enlighten you!
The repubs will arrest innocent folks and send them to oblivion per some immigrant status crap.
The repubs will end unemployment insurance as we know it.
The repubs will diminish SS benefits. PERIOD.
The repubs will end any hope of health insurance benefits including those benefits that just came into force involving children's coverage, involving pre-existing conditions, involving....well you look it up.
The repubs will end any regulation concerning Wall Street and blame it upon 'fags' like our outgoing Mass Congressman...
The repubs will end any hope for SS as concerns the young and will screw me personally following 40 years of 'service'.
The repubs will end the food stamp programs.
The repubs will end all environmental barriers for international corporations attempting to steal our natural resources whilst at the same time refusing to pay taxes and refusing to take responsibility for killing local residents in the attempt to make more monies.
The repubs will do everything they can to stop national virus and bacterial assaults upon our populace per their destructions of the FDA.
The repubs will do everything they can do to close the courthouse doors with regard to any attempt of the individual to assault the corporate felons who destroyed their environments as well as the lives of their children.
The repubs will keep us at war against all comers, without even thinking of the consequences: witness McCain's recent fascist crap as well as Mitt's.
I can go on and on.
If you fail to see the ugly and destructive elements that will destroy our social network or what is left of it; it is on you, not me.
by Richard Day on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 7:16pm
Thanks, Dick, for condescending to drop into my alternate universe and offer me enlightenment. I'll take it wherever I can get it.
I know.
I believe that being satisfied with putting all the blame on the Republicans out of a knee-jerk reaction to criticism of Obama will not be sufficient to slow the destructive elements that are destroying what is left of our "social network", as you put it. I believe that demonizing the Republicans where they deserve it but apologizing for, or if a vestige of conscience prohibits that, just ignoring the same actions by the Democrats, is a way of thinking that belongs in bizzaro universe and I will be happy to be in another one if that is actually the case.
Bullshite? I am pretty sure that the word you were looking for was bullSHIT. In this case, it is on you as much as on anybody.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 7:45pm
Well good luck with that attitude.
It will matter not anyway.
The American People will decide.
And as usual, they will pick on the basis of advertising.
I give up.
I don't think you get my message.
It is over.
If Wall Street is even given a chance; well good luck America.
I had nothing to do with it!
the end
by Richard Day on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 7:59pm
Obama's not a bulwark against anything. The barbarians have overrun the gate already. There's not much left to be scared of.
by kgb999 on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:25pm
YUP! HAHAHAHAHAH
by Richard Day on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 8:27pm
Here is some analysis of more destruction of our 'social network' that I thought I had good reason to believe Obama would resist rather than reinforce when I voted for him. Does he have any personal responsibility for the nature of this bill of for signing it and do you think it is a good or necessary thing ?
http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/
by Anonymous LULU (not verified) on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:32am
Just for the sake of accuracy McCarthur is wrong as describing Gene McCarthy as little known in 1967. His 1960 convention speech for Stevenson made him(McCarthy) the talk of that convention. No one confused Gene McCarthy with Joe.
Perhaps McCathur's better informed about current politics
by Flavius on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 7:40am
They were describing Obama in the same terms through the 2008 presidential campaign and Obama did a convention speech in 2004 ... three years fresher than McCarthy. Maybe it isn't "accurate" but it is certainly not uncommon practice in the art to discount a convention speech as determinate of how widely-known a politician it.
I think you maybe think the rest of the nation pays more attention to the speakers at partisan events than they actually do. Schweitzer ... also gave a well-discussed convention speech, yet currently he can only be described as little-known as far as national politics goes. (this is also true of most congresspeople and many of those in the senate, BTW).
by kgb999 on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:27am
In this op-ed by Charles Blow, (which is worth a read), he links to Pew Research poll that found among other things that by the summer of 2010, only 62% of Democrats knew Joe Biden was our VP. So what it means to say someone is widely known is something that might need to be more clearly define when we're talking politics.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:47am