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 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year 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 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
Hits of the Day
Why Obama is Still a Major Force for Progressive Politics
By Donal on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 8:36am |From a truly progressive point of view, the Obama Presidency has been a failure as most of his policies have, at best, pulled America back to the Clinton years. The 1990′s saw welfare reform, the repeal of Glass Steagal, and the onslaught of neoliberalism at an unprecedented scale. While Obama promised a great deal of change before being elected, he got into office and immediately moderated his rhetoric and did not fight for progressive policy he had advocated.
However, I think you can subscribe to the idea that President Obama has done everything and more that his old Professor accuses him of, and is also the greatest force for progressive politics in America today. Not an easy task, but bear with me.
Every President elected to office in the United States automatically becomes a criminal. They are running a government responsible for decimating the Native American population, enslaving African Americans and then denying them their civil rights, going to war in Vietnam, much of Latin America, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other largely defenseless countries, economically strangling much of the third world (and the American poor) through punitive economic measures, destroying the environment through subsidizing the oil industry and refusing to adhere to carbon emission reduction agreements, enabling the insurance industry to deny people health care, etc etc etc.
To entertain the notion that a President could change all this in 4-8 years is simply ridiculous, particularly given the fact that the structure of the US government is designed to make change extremely difficult.
URL:
http://thedailybanter.com/2012/06/why-obama-is-still-a-major-force-for-progressive-politics/
- Add new comment
- 2692 reads
Comments
I understand they are still trying to sell bridges in NYC and unaccessible swap land in Florida.
by cmaukonen on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 11:18am
by jollyroger on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 11:38am
by jollyroger on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 11:42am
I think the part of essay that immediately follows what you quoted is more to the point.
And then later:
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 11:57am
The question is whether one believes it is possible in the short-term to elect a hardcore progressive president who upon being elected is going to try to turn everything on its head. And by everything, I mean just about everything. A simple example of this is that one cannot take on financial interests without also taking on the military-industrial complex. The two are so intertwined that any attempt to weaken one will be seen by other as an attack on it as well.
If one seeks revolution (or at least quasi-revolution), then Obama isn't a force for progressive politics.
If one seeks incremental reforms that shift the country toward a progressive agenda, then Obama, acting as a transition from conservative to moderate governance, is a force for progressive politics.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 12:08pm
"bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan" - oh get real.
Iraq had an exit schedule signed by Bush before Obama took office, and that's the exit he took.
We had 30,000 troops in Afghanistan - hardly "bogged down" - and Obama decided to boost that to 100,000, now down to 88,000. It was his choice, not foisted on him.
by Anonymous PP (not verified) on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 6:21pm
It may be fair to raise, in counter to my generally vitriolic assessment, (and acknowledging the fundamentals Trope lists,) whether "vigorous Obama" would have survived his first six months...Chris Edley has stated that the inner circle gave serious consideration to the possibility of a coup.
by jollyroger on Tue, 06/19/2012 - 12:33pm
Not only is Obama not a major force for progressive change; he's not even part of the conversation. There is something very strange and inscrutable about the guy. His passions, whatever they are, seem to be buried under several layers of self-control. Personally, I've given up trying to figure him out, or even listening to anything he says. He just seems like a big blank nothing to me.
It's not just Obama. The whole "developed world" is experiencing an astonishing vacuum of progressive ideas and vision, and nothing even close to inspired leadership. The very idea of profound social innovation or revolution through the political channel seems dormant, and we are left with only passive or reactive adaptation to ongoing commercial innovations that seem to have passed entirely outside the sphere of things we can even hope to control politically. The desire for change or liberation seems to have been sublimated entirely into the personal and sub-cultural sphere.
There are no longer democratic communities of any size that aspire to take control of their social destiny. National politics is an increasingly meaningless theatrical appendage to the western system of rule by corporate networks.
by Dan Kervick on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 5:37pm
There is something very strange and inscrutable about the guy. His passions, whatever they are, seem to be buried under several layers of self-control. Personally, I've given up trying to figure him out, or even listening to anything he says. He just seems like a big blank nothing to me.
There's a chapter from the new Maraniss bio in Vanity Fair, on the NYC years The bipartisanship, the "can't we all get along?" thing, seeing all sides of an issue, the antipathy towards special interest groups, seems all that's real, deep, and important to him, @ page 2:
I also recommend checking out, at the end of page one, a paragraph from a letter to his girlfriend, analyzing Eliot's The Wasteland.. It's a hoot, got all the arrogance of a jaded grad student i.e. "had this essay test already, been there done that, can run through it in my sleep." At the same time, there's some things he says there that the astute will recognize in the current Barack Obama.
by artappraiser on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 11:01pm
The shrinking volume of democratic communities and their diminishing influence upon our polity is a problem we all face as a society that supposes it governs itself.
Against that background, it seems odd that you are surprised by how little Obama has done measured against what you think should be done. I don't say this in anyway as an apology or defense of what Obama has done. It is more of question I am asking about the degrees of freedom available to the Executive to act within the limits you have delineated.
by moat on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 11:30pm
I don't want to get into another round of discussions about whether Obama has done "as well as could be expected.". I just don't think he is a significant part of the progressive conversation. Are there many progressives holding forth Obama-ism as a major progressive alternative?
by Dan Kervick on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 8:30am
When you wait for the majority to embrace gay marriage before changing your mind, you're simply not "progressive" on gay marriage - you're lagging the curve, waiting for it to be okay, "leading from behind".
Is Obama "progressive" on defense spending & war? (i.e. Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iran)
Is Obama "progressive" on unions?
Is he "progressive" on Gitmo, targeted assassinations, drones, medical marijuana, the deficit, Social Security, leaks & government transparency?
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 8:46am
As I just answered below, discussing whether he is a major force in progressive politics is not the same as debating whether is progressive on policies.
Take unions. While Obama is not a hardcore progressive when it comes to unions (i.e. willing to go to the mat for public unions even if means costing him a lot of votes), he does openly support unions. He speaks in general terms of affirmation for unions and collective bargaining. To say this is no different than a president who spoke in affirmation of Scott Walker would be crazy talk.
Take Gitmo. Most Americans support the maintenance of Gitmo. On this front, progressive have totally lost the debate, including during the time Obama tried to deal with it before the Senate stopped him. Progressive politics needs to convince a large number of people they are wrong about Gitmo. One could argue that having Obama in the WH instead of McCain and Romeny makes no difference. Some might argue it is more difficult because a Democrat is the one in charge of Gitmo. But this is a cop out so one does not have to face the reality that the fundamental arguments one makes against Gitmo do not resonate with the majority of Americans.
Obama has taken a middle road on Gitmo. He sustains it, but does not highlight or praise it. McCain's administration would being having the press out there all the time to show off all those who would attack America if they were let out. So which president provides a better climate for progressives to make their case? Just because progressives can't make the case is not Obama's fault.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 9:23am
Excuse me? In 2008 progressives made the case to overturn the bush era.
Obama seizing on the opportunity, spoke eloquently, so smoothly about "Change WE can believe in"
At the first opportunity, in front of the massive crowds in Chicago; Obama started walking back from progressive ideas of taking back our country, for the benefit of Progressive ideals, he turned out to nothing but the Flim- Flam man with the audacity to coopt THE movement TO CHANGE.
The Progressive Movement
Republican- lite is not what we were led to believe was going to occur AFTER Obama's election.
by Resistance on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 10:30am
Excuse me, but Bush made the case for overturning Bush.
In my district, the voters elected Obama and Mike Pence to Washington DC. Do you really think those who voted both for Pence and Obama wanted a progressive agenda coming out of the White House? Maybe he should reward those voters by putting a supreme court judge who wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Obama was elected by people from progressives to conservatives. Everyone thought he was going to bring the change they personally believed in. So there are a lot of people upset with him.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 10:48am
This about sums it up.
by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 10:53am
Only if in a mental institution.
Obama won by <7%. Guaranteed the 53% that voted for him, much less got out door-to-door & raged on Twitter/MySpace/LinkedIn wasn't a band of reconstructed conservatives.
But if progressive support in 2008 only counts the same as some fleeting ephemeral conservative crush that fully vanished by 2009 inauguration, screw it - let Obama lose, let him go find his conservative backers for his majority, let people like you try to figure out how to get that reach-across-the-aisle kumbaya moment dreamer-boy's been longing for since childhood without considering the progressives as an essential part of the Democratic base.
The rest of us can work on electing someone progressive to shove progressive policies down his reluctant throat.
[yes - 47% of the country voted for McCain/Palin. Do the math - how many voters are conservative? How many voted for McCain? How many voted for Obama? How many progressives voted for (and campaigned for) Obama?
Supposedly 20% of Americans are progressive, 30% conservative, 40% centrist. That would put progressives at roughly 40% of Obama's base. Conservatives? <5%. Sure, go ahead & equate the 2 blocs.]
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 11:22am
There is a little thing called electoral college. Obama has to win in places like North Carolina and Ohio and give-me-some-more-Walker Wisconsin. The country as whole, progressives are 20% of the population, but in certain regions of the country they are much less than that.
The point is that if a national politician tries to win with just the progressive vote, he will lose. He needs the centerists / moderates as well. And in some cases, a few conservatives willing to jump ship. It is a loose coalition.
I am not equating them. In fact in my example, I am saying that Obama should not listen to the pro-lifers who voted for him. Yet if one looks at the country as whole, it tends to lean towards pro-life than pro-abortion. Many are in the middle grey area where they personally oppose it, but don't think it should be illegal. But abortions do not resonate well with them, so it best not bring it up around them.
Gee, why haven't you done that twenty years ago? fifteen years ago? ten years? Why not in 2010 when his centrist approach wasn't working? What's stopping ya?
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 11:49am
Who's saying to ditch the centrists? Another straw dog.
"Loose coalition" is nonsense - the progressives have been strongly bonded on key issues. That the President thinks they have nowhere to go doesn't change that.
The whole Obama 2008 effort was based on the foundations from Dean 2004.
Do you recall MoveOn's early days? or did all this just arise by your reckoning in 2007?
But do you recall Obama running as a centrist? I recall the claims that Hillary was the sellout centrist, pandering values to conservatives, while Barry rang true.
But no penalty for back-tracking among his devout supporters.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 12:15pm
In a two party system, the two candidates have to bring different-minded folks to the voting booth. Republicans the moderates and conservatives, Democrats the progressives and the moderates. It is this I mean loose coalition. Just as the right wings have been frustrated at times with the R presidents, the left wings have frustrated with the D presidents.
Nixon hit the nail on the head when he said you campaign to the base during the primary and to the center in the general. In doing so, somewhere along the line there are some outright lies and a lot of time wish-washy statements where the politician hopes the base reads into it what it wants to here, and the centerists later will see what they want to see.
And part of the Dean strategy was getting candidates who appealed to the local constituency, rather than to the national agenda - e.g. allowing for pro-lifer candidates.
Do you think Nancy Pelosi would campaign exactly the same if she was running for the Senate in Montana?
And what I recall Obama running as the bi-partisan candidate (no blue state no red state,...)- which meant bringing everyone to the table. I remember people resonating with this change. I remember Obama speaking fondly of America and its free market system. I remember him talking about Afghanistan as being the war of necessity.
I have admitted that Obama has been less progressive than I thought he would be, but not by a whole bunch. There have been plenty of debates here and elsewhere about what he actually said, and what people thought he said, and there was never any resolution.
If you believe Obama was some lying scum who snookered the progressives, I ain't going to change your mind. But I doubt who can change mine given I seen all the arguments for the other side plenty of times.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 12:36pm
Free market system = $2 trillion no strings free money for banks to not loan to people?
Afghanistan 30,000 troop war of necessity 2001 w Osama bin Laden = Afghanistan 100,000 troop war of necessity 2012 w/o Osama bin Laden?
"Transparency" = prosecuting reporters for reporting malfeasance in programs?
"Closing Gitmo" = running a black site in Bagram?
Anti-Patriot Act = FISA support & extension?
"Ending Bush Era Tax Cuts" = "Extending Bush Era Tax Cuts"?
You've seen all the arguments and you can still rationalize them every time
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 6:11pm
The issue here is not whether Obama is a great progressive politician/statesman. That would be another debate and one that would be pretty lopsided. The issue here is whether he is a force in progressive politics, or more specifically a positive force in progressive politics.
Look at from the point of view of the state of progressive conversations in this country. Would the quality and quantity of progressive conversation had been improved in this country had McCain been president or will it be so if Romney becomes president?
Look at the Bush years. For the most part, all the energies went into bashing Bush and Cheney with jokes and witticisms, and very little in terms of discussing the alternatives, especially in terms of discussing the alternatives to those in the middle who might be seduced by the conservative messaging of the day. After 8 years of Bush, Americans were not any more progressive in their outlook in any significant way as compared to where they were in 2000.
I would argue that with Obama as president, it creates more of an opening for conversations about things like the 1% and 99%. It doesn't mean he is fully in favor of those positions coming out something like the Occupy movement. But the people talking about those positions have more legitimacy at the conversation table because he is president and not McCain or Romney. What little affirmation the Obama administration gave the Occupiers would not have been forthcoming from a McCain or Romney administration.
So with Obama, the progressives struggle to be heard at the table. With a McCain or Romney the progressive struggle to get to the table at all.
Now, if all you want is progressives having a discussion with other progressives, who is president doesn't matter much. But if you want the discussion to include those who might become progressive, or more progressive, than it does matter who is president.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 9:11am
Your arguments are cockamamie. "He's a force in progressive politics because he's slightly accomodating of progressives".
Obama created an opening for the 1% vs. 99% conversation? He exacerbated the problem by dumping trillions into the 1%. He certainly didn't invite the 99% to the White House to ask if that was the right thing to do.
Obama was AWOL in Wisconsin as was Biden, but you credit him with warm words for unions (uh, and he just signed a major anti-union bill)
You go from "he's a positive force for progressives" to "it'd be worse under Romney".
As for unions, the workers got slammed as Obama led the companies into bankruptcy - new entry positions now $14-16/hour (and these aren't the grunt jobs - those got outsourced as non-union long ago).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/05/auto-workers-pay-ford-general-motors
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 10:02am
Why didn't Ike, rather than just warning us about the military-industrial complex, just fix the problem. I mean, he was president of the US. Surely, he could have just implementing the necessary solutions. He warned us because it would require the whole nation to work together to change course. Not just the president.
Progressive politics in this country is in a sad state. You can sit around and wait for the one guy or gal to take over the WH and somehow impose the progressive agenda on Congress and the country. I can tell you, you will be waiting a long time.
Or one can do the hard work of getting the country, the nation, to by and large embrace the progressive agenda. When you have private unions squabbling with public unions the road ahead is rough.
Having a president that not openly hostile and at times affirming of your message helps, as opposed to a president that is openly hostile and never affirming. Of course agreeing to this assertion means one also has to admit that in the last forty years, progressive have lost the messaging battle for the most part.
If Romney becomes president that road becomes more difficult. Imagine the president waxing poetic about the re-election of Scott Walker.
Progressives have to openly admit that their progressive agenda as a whole does not resonate with a huge swath of the country. This is in large part because those who are hostile to the progressive agenda control for the most part the media and flow and slant of information. Having a president is slightly accommodating to progressive agenda is an opportunity for progressives. Having a president pushing the country to the center while others try to push it to the right is an opportunity for progressives.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 10:34am
More hand wringing and straw dogs.
Higher taxes on the rich resonates well with progressives and the public, as does a jobs program - Obama just doesn't want to go there, (or waits to the impossible moment to push it, once he's renewed Bush tax cuts & frittered away his Democratic majority)
Getting out of Afghanistan resonates well with progressives and the public - Obama just wants his "smart war" to fade out over 2 1/2 or more years.
Progressives pushed gay rights and the public moved much farther to acceptance - Obama was a luke warm follower the whole way.
As of 2 years ago, 73% of Americans supported medical marijuana, but Obama's DoJ is still raiding state medical marijuana facilities under the Commerce clause.
Who among the public favored secretive bailouts to Wall Street?
Did the public rise up and *force* Obama to leave Bradley Manning in solitary?
Obama's not pushing the country to "the center" - he's pushing it to the right, just not as far as Romney or then Santorum.
But you'll make that out to be progressives' BFF.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 11:03am
You just keep avoiding the point I'm making and attempting to prove that Obama is not implementing progressive policies. The article was not about how "Obama is a progressive president." It was about how he is a major force in progressive politics - from this perspective it doesn't matter that he was lukewarm follower of gay rights. What matters was that he eventually implemented the end of DADT. Even if he did so against every fiber in his being, such a move means he is a major force in progressive politics.
You really need to step back and ponder what it means to be a force within a movement. It does not mean one has to agree with the movement. It means that the movement is better off than had one taken a different stance (out of a choice of multiple stances). In your world, a president that stands on the sidelines in Wisconsin and speaks positively in general about unions has equal effect than a president that openly supports Scott Walker and the war on public unions.
Nor does it mean that everything one does positively impacts the progressive movement. One can point to this or that policy and see a step back. If one wants to look only at foreign policy, I wouldn't say Obama is a major force for progressive politics. But if one looks at the totality of his administration, and the totality of American government and politics, then it looks different, at least to me.
Clinton's support of the Communications Act, NAFTA, WTO, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity etc was a step back, for progressives. But I would say his administration was a major force in progressive politics.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 11:21am
So he meekly signs something he didn't want and that makes him a "force". good luck with that logic. "Hey, the kids on the block made me drink my own urine - that makes me a major force!!!"
And that "progressive policies not resonating with the public" - uh, universal health care resonated quite well with the public - until it became Big PhRma's/Big Insurance's bill, with few of the cost savings & simplicity we'd wanted.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 11:27am
At the same time raising people taxes did not resonate well with people. So how do create universal health care without raising taxes, or make it budget neutral? Sure people are all for universal health care, they just don't want to have to make any personal sacrifice in the short-term to make it a reality.
Your urine example is just stupid.
What you are saying is that ending DADT isn't a good thing unless the president who made it happen is totally giddy about doing so (I have no idea and neither do you as to how Obama really felt about doing that). Would McCain had ended DADT - would he have even listened to the gay rights activists? Would Romney? The answer is resounding NO.
Now DADT is history. Gays can openly serve in the military. But because he didn't do it fast enough for you, or with the right amount of enthusiasm and glee, it has no significance to the progressive movement and agenda. Are you trying to sound like an idiot?
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 11:39am
Letting tax cuts for the rich expire in the middle of a recession resonated very well with people. Obama didn't want it to happen, so chose the worst strategy to assure it didn't.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/156852/obama-caves-tax-cuts-endorses-bush-mccain-philosophy#
As for DADT, credit Lieberman & Susan Collins for dragging that one from the ashes. As usual, Obama way out behind the pack, despite his SOTU words Jan 2010 (where he tossed the heavy lifting to Congress to go figure out). DADT was dead in the water after the Nov 2010 elections when Dems lost the House, but Lieberman pushed a standalone bill during lame-duck time that surprisingly succeeded.
But as always, Obama said enough to claim credit when the time came.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 12:27pm
Round and around. Again this is not a particular policy stance or whatever. The Senate could have let the tax cuts expire before the elections, but the conservative Dems had Reid postpone it. There is nothing anyone could say that Obama would have vetoed that had the Senate stepped up. The whole December deal has been hashed out. In this case Obama was not great for the progressives. I doubt you could find anyone who would argue otherwise.
But had the Dems retained the House, if the voters had said - dang you didn't pass a big enough stimulus, go back and give us more, than things might have been different in December.
Moreover - in terms of the long-term issue of progressive politics in America - it doesn't matter that Obama was behind the curve on the DADT. You can keep on saying that over and over and over, and it doesn't change the fact he ended it under his presidency - something McCain would not have done. 5 years from now it won't matter to anyone who is homosexual and wants to join the military what Obama personally thought or didn't do in the first years of his presidency. Just as what Johnson really thought deep down when he saw the Civil Rights Act come into law.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 12:51pm
NO - Joe Lieberman ended it in his Congress. Obama just signed a piece of paper that passed his desk, that they might have overridden a veto on anyway. Great, instead of a firm leader, we get a rubber-stamper.
If the same paper had passed McCain's desk, he might have had no choice but to sign as well, or see his veto overridden. It's always the same with ineffectual leaders.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 2:46pm
After the flim flam man won, it went to his head?
"Look over here, this is the way to the change, I promised.
So while he was going one direction, his base was saying "Whoa thats the wrong way"
That's why the Democrats lost at the mid term. We recognized the misdirection.
AT ..Why is whistling for the folks to come over to where Obama is, and you offering the tired, more right leaning koolaid, is Obama being a major force for progressive politics?
We know we aren't moving in the direction of change we thought we were promised.
We know we have to go west and Obama wants us to go east?
I guess eventually, we will get to the same destination if we circle the world? That gives Obama creds as a major force?
Obama is the plutocratic plant, the safety relief valve to appease the discontented. Delay progressivism. Allow the plutocracy to get a firmer grip.
Obama still saying "follow me, I know the way to change to the promise land, progressive land"
So to get followers, he panders to some folks to get up to come to his standard.
In doing so, he divides the whole army that wanted change, He helps divide and conquer, as he does the will of the plutocracy opposed to progressivism.
Not a major force FOR; but instead an obstructionist.
Serving his masters plan.
Why would the Plutocracy care, if gays fight to preserve their interests. Throw the progressives a bone?
by Resistance on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 1:38pm
If you truly believe its plausible in the near future to get someone who is going to overturn the military-industrial complex into the WH, then all the more power to you. Or if you believe that president can stop the wealthy from being in control like they've always been in control, then all the more power to you. I think you live in la-la land. As I stated in my first post to this blog, it whether you are revolutionary or a reformer. The bible speaks revolution to you, so I can't change that. But I still put my hopes in slow slog of election politics, knowing the playing field is not level, knowing the wealthy control most of the flow of information, etc etc. So in baby steps we go. Sometimes two back for every one forward. Much to the revolutionaries' chagrin.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 2:05pm
Yeah, you really like this bullshit - to not be thrilled with Obama means you expect someone to "overturn the military-industrial complex". Strawman after strawman, you never quit.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 2:43pm
not in the near future or ever; as long as the two capitalist parties can prevent it.
We have this military/industrial complex because of war profiteers. Capitalist interests must be preserved or expanded.
No, it only foretells. just as Marx the atheist foretold.
Just as Debs warned; but the capitalists so smug, thinking they can avert the revolution, the upheaval, the throwing off of the yoke.
The people will tire, of the manipulation, by the two capitalist parties.
Egpyt, Spain, Greece just a few examples of the people rejecting the continuance of an old order; that enriches some by enslaving others.
Foretold..... Not my wish, but the capitalists didn't heed the warnings. They thought to contain the genie in the bottle.
Foretold that the people ("The sea would become agitated")
The people wont stand for an order that enslaves them to serve Capitalism. The people told "Yours is not to reason why, but to do and die"
Order was the capitalists to lose. if they were to be viewed as self serving.
Bringing to mind the Biblically recorded vision of "The ten toes of iron and mixed clay"
The foundation of the Iron rule of the capitalist order; will find the clay(mankind) will not bond and that weakness will bring about it's end.
by Resistance on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 2:57pm
Moreover, I did not say he created the opening for the 1% vs. 99% conversation. I said that with Obama as president, it creates more of an opening for conversations about things like the 1% and 99%. There is a huge difference between the two.
In general, the progressive voice is a weak one in the media that reaches most people. So having a president that affirms on some level the issues raised by the occupiers gives space and media time for progressives that would not be there if all you had was a president who said they should be all arrested, if he said anything at all.
But hey, if you want to just keep squawking among the choir, all the more power to you.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 10:41am
He doesn't "affirm on some level" - he's mute. Where you might think he "affirms" is when he's spreading pixie dust around on all sides, pretending to be all things for all people (and half that time he's bashing the 'extremes' to make his centrist point).
But none of this is real. The only part of it that gets real is when he finds himself in trouble, and he needs to bribe his way out - oops, need gay or Hispanic financial or electoral support? Here's a dollop of love for some fav policy. Don't ask for more - we're just doing token gestures here - sincerity's so 90's.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 11:07am
Go look up the word "mute." To affirm means to declare positively or firmly. From just one speech quickly found using those intertubes:
But in your world that is the same as
And now to avoid the issue I brought up, you now resort to the process by which politicians do their politician thing and give various constituents a bone in hopes to get their vote.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 11:32am
Labor Day speech at a GM labor picnic in Detroit. Color me amazed.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 12:13pm
You're the one who used the word mute, not me.
But here is another
Read more: http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/national/Copy_of_USObama_67210323#ixzz1yRg4IMDi
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 12:21pm
Okay, Obama's willing to stand with the UAW in photo-ops to get some love & credit.
Of course he was also the one telling the UAW that workers had to share the pain (while Wall Street wasn't), getting their drastic cuts from pay & benefits.
And he's been nowhere when the big union fighrts break out (or taking the anti-union side in Arkansas).
I think Trnka's just throwing out election year jizz, but who knows, maybe there's an ounce of truth.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 12:36pm
You want the president to put out his rhetoric in Wisconsin (where he can't actually make anything happen, so he can only offer words) because this is a big deal, but then when he does put out some words in favor of unions and collective bargaining, it means nothing.
So go ahead and equate Romney's anti-union stance with that of Obama's.
Again this isn't about whether Obama is the greatest president the pro-union movement has ever seen. I just don't know how to get this through to you. This is whether it would be bettter for the pro-union movement to have Obama in the WH rather than Romney. If it is better than that means there is a benefit to unions that have some kind of PR problem with a number of Democrats and Independents, not mention Republicans.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 1:01pm
In Wisconsin, they were fighting for union support - Obama backing would have been great.
In Carolina, they were trying to back gay marriage - Obama backing would have been great.
Speeches on Labor Day or Memorial Day are so ho-hum, sorry.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 2:49pm
There may have been more he could have done, but they did have his backing.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 2:57pm
So you union members need to adjust?
Try kneeling, or bending over and touching your toes you'll get used to it. Consider it physical therapy.
Obama "You'll still get the recognition, you just wont have the income or the perks........ but you'll get recognition?
Send me $5.00 and I'll buy you a cup of coffee and give you recognition.
by Resistance on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 3:18pm
Unless of course you want to slam liberals, for spitting on soldiers?
by Resistance on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 3:06pm
Stirring the hornet's nest, ain't ya, bud?
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 3:21pm
Shucks,.... maybe just a little?
That speech wasn't boring though, it generated a lot of opinions.
by Resistance on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 3:25pm
Technically it produced 2 - for & against.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 3:52pm
just the kind of pathetic response I have come to expect.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 3:44pm
And I purposively included the quote from Trumka
in order to point out that the Obama administration has been far from perfect when it comes to its support of the labor movement.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 1:03pm
I think we should just trust the Republicans. For those who can't figure out Obama, Romney has a PAC called Restore Our Future funded by billionaires and millionaires who know who he is and they want us to know they don't like him.
The billionaires are using their millions just to tell us who Obama is, and how electing him won't be good for us, people who aren't rich. And Obama won't be good for them too, the rich. Because they said 'our future' not just 'your future'. I didn't know billionaires and me were in the same boat, that their futures were at risk also. Wow. They are going to do it through the election, in 30 second increments on TV. Over and over again. Spend millions. To save our future, and theirs too, they are nice guys looking out for everybody.
I'm really not sure who stole our future or when, or how Romney and the Republicans will get it back, but restoring it sounds good.
by NCD on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 11:08pm
I happen to know that Donal, for one, ain't falling for that.
by artappraiser on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 11:22pm
Well Mitt could fire him. And enjoy doing it. I just think we should all wait and watch all the political commercials the billionaires are buying because they are really really nice guys who think we deserve a leader like Mitt subjugating us and our futures.
by NCD on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 5:37pm