dagblog - Comments for "Obama's "Kill List""

Not to speak for the esteemed

jollyroger — Thu, 31 May 2012 19:16:17 +0000

In reply to Quebec? Chiapas? Islington?

Not to speak for the esteemed eskimo but I think he means Langley

He's the one who ruined the

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 31 May 2012 18:47:37 +0000

He's the one who ruined the resurgent Democratic party of 2006 who regained power by standing up to the GOP, standing for change and values and moving the country to the left.

My reading of it was the GOP imploded with a surfeit of corruption. In fact, I was surprised it hung on that long. It should've fallen in 2004. Don't forget, there were quite a few Democratic votes for the two tax cuts and the two wars and even Teddy Kennedy was a proud co-sponsor of NCLB. The first time the Democrats really stood up to Bush was over Social Security. They overreached, and they were loaded down with corruption. Finally, the Democrats just blew them over.

Even so Obama didn't beat the superannuated war monger and daffy running mate by all that much.

Star Chamber redux

jollyroger — Thu, 31 May 2012 18:30:07 +0000

In reply to And then there's

Star Chamber redux

My point was...which

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:42:47 +0000

In reply to Gore won the election - he

My point was...which Democratic/progressive principles do you want to go back to? Have we convinced a large percentage of the American people they are right? I think the record is sketchy, and you're resorting to a whole lotta woulda, coulda, shouldas.

(Plus, you're stuck in this poor, poor pitiful punch a progressive round-about.)

To that end...

Gore should have been a shoo-in coming off the good times of the 1990s. The fact that it was close was a failure. Especially if Clinton-Gore had managed to convince large numbers of people of the rightness of progressive ideas.

Dean was the progressive candidate that year and he crumbled.

Kerry was much more of the compromised, compromising candidate you now decry as a sell-out. All that rot you talk about when you have your cynical hat on. Given Bush's failures at that point, the election shouldn't have been that close.

RFK is a counter-factual. We can argue about that all day if you want. Your argument is weak if you have to go there.

Leaving out JFK was a mistake on my part. Ooops, you must be playing gotcha. It's a bit hard to judge JFK on this. Like Obama, he inspired great hope--but also like Obama he was a bit cautious and inclined to use military power. So was Lyndon.

Judged by today's progressives--heck, judged by progressives back then--LBJ was a war monger. All that Great Society stuff didn't matter to left in the face of Vietnam. They wanted him out. They wanted HHH out, despite his liberal credentials. Kind of like they want Obama out.

But using my counter-factual backwards running time machine, I'm pretty certain both JFK and LBJ would have used drones. After all, what really turned Americans against the war were American casualties. They also had their eyes firmly fixed on all that political PR stuff you dislike.

Carter wasn't particularly progressive if you look at what he did, but his loss demonstrates how losing the second term hurts the brand (that you think doesn't exist) in the public's eye.

I don't forget about the good things Clinton did. I accept that my guy is going to do good and bad things. It is YOU and Dijamo who dismiss the good things Obama has done and would therefore deny him a second term (and what that might bring) because he is no better than his opposition (apparently), maybe worse.

I accept the complexity that is the point of the article above.

God, he's gonna throw a rod

Qbert — Thu, 31 May 2012 17:31:25 +0000

In reply to Gore won the election - he

God, he's gonna throw a rod when you tell him about FDR.

Still, History is a critical subject. Best they learn now.

Gore won the election - he

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 31 May 2012 16:57:19 +0000

In reply to And don't blame me for all

Gore won the election - he just didn't win the counting fight.

If you include illegally disqualified voters, Florida wouldn't have been even close.

Similar in 2004 - Dean wasn't the candidate, Kerry was - and he lost by only 2.4% of the vote - and likely the Ohio vote was stolen with rigged machines and other irregularities, enough electoral votes to give the election to Kerry. (see more on stolen elections). Oh, and here.

But blame it on progressives for losing 2 elections +.1% and -2.4% under crass irregularities. Your heart's in the right place.

BTW, a good chance that if Robert Kennedy (erstwhile liberal) hadn't been shot, he would have won the nomination and the election. But easy to kick a liberal when he's dead, or any other time for that matter.

Also, LBJ did win in 1964, though obviously on the coattails of a fallen president. Oops - you left out JFK as well. Fine editing there, dude. You must be trying to make a point. You do realize Carter won in 1976, right? Made all the papers at the time.

For Clinton, you forgot about cutting black poverty by 2/3 and implementing an integrated administration in both top level exec and ordinary positions and passing SCHIP. Guess those don't fit the script. Oh, he also fought a war that wasn't about oil, but was only about rescuing a threatened minority - that's a first. And last.

So lesson learned is we must all shift far to the right to be electable, and tell those hippies to stop complaining because they're losers.

And don't blame me for all

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 31 May 2012 16:31:45 +0000

In reply to I don't believe in supporting

And don't blame me for all the shitty policies YOUR guy, Romney, puts into place with the help of YOUR party, the Republicans, whose ascension you are helping. Directly. Hey, maybe you'll help give them 8 years. Who knows?

See Dijamo? This works both ways.

(And WTF happened to your CFTO scruples? I guess they melt away under the mildest of questioning.)

Seems to me "true progressives" have a lot of soul searching to do. Oh, not the kind where you wonder how you ever supported a Quisling like Obama or Hillary.

I'm talking about that looooong desert of loss after loss where "true progressives" just seemed unable to convince the American people--forget about labels for the moment-- to support your ideas. Sure, you've got polls, but they don't seem to materialize at the polls. You also have a basket-full of excuses about how you were kept out, shut out, shut up, ignored by the press and on and on.

Ultimately, these "conversations" tend to end up in one place: With you or Quinn or somebody telling people "like me" how bad and immoral and stupid we are. (Even when I tell you that you have convinced me on point X.)

So right off the bat, your first act at "rebuilding the Democratic Party" is to narrow your base of support. And your second act will be to support a candidate who in NO WAY supports your views. Seems like you're already going backwards. But as Quinn might say, I'm just a clueless moron with no moral compass--so what do I know?

When "true progressives" talk about going back to "true Democratic principles," I often wonder how far back they mean.

Generally, FDR is a safe landing spot. Unfortunately, that leaves out 60-70 years of history: Adlai Stevenson (loser), LBJ (war monger and self-defenestrater), Hubert Humphrey (war monger hand-maiden and also loser), McGovern (loser), Jimmy Carter (loser), Walter Mondale (loser), Dukakis (loser)...until we finally come to Clinton (Quinn's man) whose big accomplishment was to end big government, reform welfare, and balance the budget. Oh, and deregulation and welcoming big corporate, Wall Street money into the Democratic Party, not to mention the bowels of the WH.

Sound a little bit Republican to you?

Then "true progressives" went back to losing with Dean and Gore...until we come to Obama who did get health care (a base hit) and FinReg (another base hit). But because you strongly disagree with him on some important issues, you're hoping he loses, too, and you're going to vote for the Republican and help that party because at least he believes in the shitty policies you say you abhor.

None of our individual votes

Flavius — Thu, 31 May 2012 16:29:15 +0000

In reply to Because Obama's idea of

None of our individual votes are likely to matter if Romney floats into office on a flood of Citizens' United cash.

But hey, you never know. On the off chance we get lucky why wouldn't you hold your nose and vote against the real and present danger of another Sam Alito on the Court.

If you desire a vibrant democratic party at some point in the future you ought to desire a Supreme Court that will let it fuction.

Because Obama's idea of

Dijamo * — Thu, 31 May 2012 16:03:43 +0000

In reply to I'm willing to accept your

Because Obama's idea of growing the Democratic party is by becoming the Republican party (how many GOP folks can we recruit to run with a (D) after their name and throw the democratic party machine behind)? He's the one who ruined the resurgent Democratic party of 2006 who regained power by standing up to the GOP, standing for change and values and moving the country to the left. There will be no rebuilding of the democratic party under the Obama regime.

Besides, my vote won't matter anyway because the economy is still in the crapper (silly Obnama hating Krugman, the stimulus was perfect and awesome!!1!!!!) he'll lose based on his failed economic policies, failed response to foreclosures etc and the sad thing is the country will think liberal policies failed when it was really Republican policies that failed. That will be his sorry legacy. Time to cancel the Mount Rushmore expansion plans. Not gonna happen.

I'm willing to accept your

Flavius — Thu, 31 May 2012 15:54:36 +0000

In reply to Obama doesn't care about my

I'm willing to accept your statement that you want to rebuild the democratic party . Why not ? But to me it follows that it would be vital for that rebuilt party to have a president during the next 4 years who'll replace Justice the soon- to- retire Justice Ginsberg with someone like Justice Kagan rather than someone like Justice Alioto .

What's wrong with my thinking?