dagblog - Comments for "PROGRESSIVES FOOLED BY RIGHT WINGERS AGAIN"

"the G.O.P. would blast him

oleeb — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 06:11:45 +0000

In reply to Another great post, Teri.I'm

"the G.O.P. would blast him to kingdom come as being soft on terrorism and national security."

Absolutely and without question the worst possible reason to go along with the kind of thuggery, immoral and illegal activity Obama has agreed to continue. I am mortified every time I see someone declaring themselves somehow wiser and in possession of real political saavy for excusing such inexcusable conduct on the part of our elected officials particularly when they explicitly campaigned against these very things. It is an utter disgrace.

Interesting. So ... even if

kgb999 — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:03:04 +0000

In reply to PROGRESSIVES FOOLED BY RIGHT WINGERS AGAIN

Interesting. So ... even if someone agrees, we shouldn't SAY we agree ... because these people might be Libertarian. So, they aren't necessarily fooling folks into doing/saying something they disagree with ... but you wouldn't want to be caught agreeing with THOSE people! Democrats are funny ... in a catty Jr. High cheerleader sort of way.

Let me just be sure I'm understanding your premise here. Frank is the media contact on this. As a (purported) Libertarian, he dares to write for AntiWar occasionally. Now, at this point you figure if the guy is publishing we could look at HIS work to judge him. But that would be too easy ... instead let's play six degrees of Bacon! So. AntiWar.com is a web site run by this other guy ... since we don't have any legit dirt on the first dude .... look at what this other guy who runs the website the first guy writes for occasionally did! Obviously, by the transitive power of double-associations we should certainly give the first guy FULL CREDIT for having done everything ever contemplated by both Raimondo and Buchanan ... and Richard Nixon. And this argument makes total sense because we all know Greg Sargent should be given full credit for anything Fred Hiatt ever says or does.

The argument given here against this is just lame. Not one word if Frank's own work or point of view was used to make the case against him.

I'd further argue that a better way for Democrats to undermine the ability of their traditional rivals to peel off members would be to do things Democratic voters like so they aren't inclined to sign open letters of protest for what their leadership is doing ... call me crazy. Democrats SUCK right now. That isn't the fault of anyone but Democrats. Of course any politically active person who thinks their point of view has something to offer is going to be trying to attract the disaffected. It's not their fault Obama isn't tending his flock ... and it isn't a voter's fault if they turn away from a party that calls them Fucking Sanctimonious Retards and start to look at those making an effort to attract them.

Now as to this specific campaign. Ultimately the open letter asks more mainstream activists to specifically support a Veterans for Peace rally next Thursday in D.C. I actually think the rally they are promoting looks like a good thing and would encourage anyone in the DC area to attend if they are able. It will be featuring Daniel Ellsberg, Cindy Sheehan and a veritable who's who of the peace activist community. THEY ARE PROMOTING SOMETHING GOOD.

I know for a fact Libertarians are against the wars. So this isn't even promoting something that goes against their own ideology. Likewise with these tax cuts: polls are overwhelmingly against extending them for the wealthy ... you don't get that without Libertarian-leaners agreeing with you. Why the hell would you try and suppress support for an upcoming VFP protests just because the people promoting it don't agree with you 100% on everything else? Are you seriously saying you are against this rally?

Anonymous is correct.

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 20:00:35 +0000

In reply to Apparently it is you that

Anonymous is correct. CounterPunch, Z Magazine, Truthout, and Alternet are all bona fide leftist publications. Joshua Frank does not seem to fit easily into a box, but if you want to put him in one, he's in the Nader corner, a gadfly to the Democrats and the center-left.

TMc, I think that you should admit that you got this one wrong. If you still think he's a fake, you need a lot better evidence than him having associated with a website that has associated with Buchanan.

I gave the max to Obama's

Oxy Mora — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:41:23 +0000

In reply to Question occurs to me: If you

I gave the max to Obama's campaign and maybe the reason I'm hanging in there is not to feel myself a chump for doing so. I give him a few more months.

You are reaching, he actually

Anonymous — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:40:12 +0000

In reply to This guy does a lot of

You are reaching, he actually signed the letter, his site is here: http://www.greenmuckraker.com

Seems to me he's a fair minded environmental journalist. I didn't know conservatives were so green!

Here's also a couple things he wrote that makes me think he didn't think too highly of Republicans:

http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/01/why-bush-wants-to-legalize-the-nuke-tr...

http://www.zcommunications.org/hillary-and-george-two-warmongers-in-a-po...

He writes for some pretty progressive publications: Truthout, Alternet, CounterPunch. Antiwar.com also runs things from the left side of the political spectrum. Take a look at some of their contributors: Chomsky, Tom Englehardt, Kathy Kelly, Norman Solomon and many more.

Again, your conspiracy theory seems to be dead in the water.

Question occurs to me: If you

SleepinJeezus — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:31:08 +0000

In reply to What crap. They opposed the

Question occurs to me: If you cannot support your opponents when they are right on an issue, how do you propose to have any credibility when standing in opposition to them when they are wrong?

Just wunnerin', I guess.

As to your last paragraph, I definitely agree. Obama puts the "D" in "compromised." Gotten pretty good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory - so much so that one wonders who he actually sees as his constituency here. The ones who voted for him, or the ones who paid for the campaign?

This guy does a lot of

Linda Tilsen — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:13:37 +0000

In reply to Yeah; I think you and T are

This guy does a lot of bellyaching about Clinton and Obama but has surprisingly nothing to say about Bush. Plus, excuse me, how does anyone put progressive in the same sentence as righties -- not to mention Pat Buchanan, whose rantings, as Molly Ivins noted, "sounded better in the original German."

I see the guy's Wikipedia page was update just last week. Well, you know if Wikipedia says it, it's the Gospel truth. (Not)

What crap. They opposed the

Decader — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:03:22 +0000

In reply to PROGRESSIVES FOOLED BY RIGHT WINGERS AGAIN

What crap. They opposed the Bosnian War. They opposed the Iraq II War. They oppose the surge in Afghanistan. Consistently against war - what's the problem?

They publish Noam Chomsky. Juan Cole. Alexander Cockburn. Ron Paul. Pat Robertson.

Ron Paul, you might note, is defending WikiLeaks from the tyranny of government secrecy. Most mainstream Democrats are ducking behind guilty-until-proven-innocent rhetoric. As is of course the Democratic president.

Bob Barr, a Republican right-winger, has done very good work with the ACLU.

In these times of Democrats selling out to corporate interests (and I'm far from anti-corporate, but don't need the top oligarchy propped up with trillions stolen), reaching across party lines for reasonable voices is entirely appropriate. Not just hoping they'll turn reasonable, but in response when they do say something reasonable.

Anyway, this post is a dredge.Until Obama starts turning somewhere close to a reasonable direction, all his hedging, conspiring and "compromising" deserves attack from all quarters.

Yeah; I think you and T are

we are stardust — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:46:11 +0000

In reply to Well if he says it, it must

Yeah; I think you and T are right: the dude's trying to pass. 'Course, then there's this:

http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/140988.Joshua_Frank And it's not nice to have mixed politics; then we have to actually judge what the dude writes on its own merits. No fair!

Well if he says it, it must

Linda Tilsen — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 18:27:43 +0000

In reply to Apparently it is you that

Well if he says it, it must be so, huh.