Author
|
Topic: What principle will Obama sell out today (cont)
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 28 June 2008 07:25 PM
Continued from here. quote: Originally posted by Ken Burch: What I question is the idea that only a third-party or non-party PRESIDENTIAL campaign can express such dissent.
You never quit. No one on babble is promoting any "third-party" candidate that I have seen. You keep stoking this phoney debate because you can't deal with progressive people exposing Obama as a dangerous warmongering hypocritical pandering lying snake-oil salesman. It just seems so fringey-radically to you that you have to situate it in terms you can understand. quote: And unionist, may I assume that you now agree with I.F. Stone's famous 1950's "Vote Ike for Peace" arguement?
Well, as I recall (could be wrong), it wasn't Ike who nuked Japan, started the Cold War, invaded Korea, isolated China, "escalated" Viet Nam, backed Israel in its invasion of Suez (he was instrumental in stopping them as I recall), invaded Cuba (although he would have had he been re-elected), supported McCarthy (who was close to the Kennedy clan) ... need I continue? Yeah, on balance, the world might have been better off with Eisenhower than Truman/Kennedy/Johnson. Since you're askin'. Shocking, eh?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 28 June 2008 07:57 PM
I can accept people having problems with Obama. What I can't accept is being told that I'm OBLIGATED(as some posters there have implied)to work for a hopeless minor party candidate against him just to prove that I'm really on the left. Also, my posts have been about presenting an alternative approach that might yield more actually effective results in terms of progressive gains. I know Obama has limits. He wasn't my first choice. I backed Kucinich twice. I even backed Nader twice. Clearly, his campaigns proved the futility of third-party work. Press the guy, push him towards a more progressive position, fine, I'm all for that. All that I oppose is the hopeless third-party thing.
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 28 June 2008 08:26 PM
quote: Originally posted by 500_Apples: I think there is a universal agreemant on this board that Obama would move to the left if there were a lot of political pressure to do so.
Out of the blue... Well, I disagree, totally, except in the sense that I believe Harper, Bush, Putin, Sarkozy and Olmert would move to the left if there were a lot of political pressure to do so. It's a meaningless proposition designed to set up a straw man. No one is putting, or will put, any pressure whatsoever on Obama to "move to the left". The only pressure is, and will be, to move to the right and stay there if he ever gets elected.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 28 June 2008 08:38 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
Out of the blue... Well, I disagree, totally, except in the sense that I believe Harper, Bush, Putin, Sarkozy and Olmert would move to the left if there were a lot of political pressure to do so. It's a meaningless proposition designed to set up a straw man. No one is putting, or will put, any pressure whatsoever on Obama to "move to the left". The only pressure is, and will be, to move to the right and stay there if he ever gets elected.
I don't understand, Do you believe that political pressure can only point in one direction? Then why do you bother with politics?
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346
|
posted 28 June 2008 09:14 PM
quote: Originally posted by 500_Apples:
I think there is a universal agreemant on this board that Obama would move to the left if there were a lot of political pressure to do so. What strategy do you support to achieve that aim?
Mass protest campaigns, especially on the war(Kerry was given a "no protest" agreement by the left in 2004 and this ended up serving no purpose) A major petitioning effort(either before or after the election)to get Obama voters in particular to go on record in support of a more progressive set of policies. Mass rallies at the Inauguration to push progressive ideas and hold Obama's feet to the fire. Initiative campaigns in towns and states after the election to build further support for progressive ideas. I'd be willing to help with all of those myself. I've NEVER said let the guy off the hook. There are a lot of tactics that can work. BTW, unionist... why was your initial post in this thread so hostile? I wasn't calling third-party work "fringey-radical". I was only saying it was bad tactics at the presidential level. And I mentioned the I.F. Stone thing because I saw parallels between what he was arguing then and the view you were taking now. Yes, JFK and LBJ were excessively hawkish(which is why, had I been old enough, I'd have worked hard for Bobby Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy in '68). Ike was more reasonable, but Nixon, had he been elected in '60, would have been just as bad as JFK on foreign policy and worse on domestic. And you wouldn't extend the argument you were making there to actually argue that it wasn't worth trying to get Reagan out, would you? The only chance there ever was to beat him was by supporting the Democratic ticket in 1984. [ 28 June 2008: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 29 June 2008 04:07 AM
quote: Do you believe that political pressure can only point in one direction?Then why do you bother with politics?
The loudest political pressure always comes from the right. They have more money, thus more exposure and are far harder to ignore. The left is easily ignored. It's that simple. We have to bother with politics if we care about the society we inhabit. We on the left just have to fight 100 times harder for what is thrown to those on the right.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 29 June 2008 04:34 AM
quote: Originally posted by 500_Apples:
I don't understand, Do you believe that political pressure can only point in one direction?
I guess my irony is lost on you, so I'll be blunt. I believe (no kidding) that we must exercise political pressure on everyone all the time. However, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that progressive pressure on President Obama would produce better results than progressive pressure on President McCain. That's why I have been giving examples of Democratic vs. Republican presidencies, as a guide. Did you notice what happened when Rev. Wright, Obama's pastor for 20 years, tried to exercise pressure on Obama to remember his political roots? Do you think it will be different once Obama becomes president - that he will strip off his right-wing disguise and implement a radical popular agenda? I rest my case.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955
|
posted 29 June 2008 05:36 AM
Unionist: "I rest my case."I don't believe that. Obama is a politician chasing the highest office in the land. He lies, changes positions daily, and attempts to win votes. How any of his actions could surprise anyone is hard to believe. What's the alternative to voting for Obama? Not voting? Spoiling ballots? Formenting revolution? I think enough nails have been driven into Obama's quite dead progressive corpse by now, so why not take a shot at creating solutions instead of sniping from never-never land.
From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 29 June 2008 05:50 AM
quote: Originally posted by Farmpunk: What's the alternative to voting for Obama?
Here is John Pilger's answer to your question: quote: It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionist. He comes from an unbroken Democratic tradition, as the war-making of presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton demonstrates. Obama's difference may be that he feels an even greater need to show how tough he is. However much the colour of his skin draws out both racists and supporters, it is otherwise irrelevant to the great power game. The "truly exciting and historic moment in US history" will only occur when the game itself is challenged.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955
|
posted 29 June 2008 06:01 AM
I couldn't get the rest of the article from the link. I'd like to read it to see if the author suggests anything other than [drum roll please...] CHANGE!Maybe I'm too much of a practical incrementalist. Challenging the system by calling it bogus has an arm chair feel. [ 29 June 2008: Message edited by: Farmpunk ]
From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 29 June 2008 06:15 AM
quote: Originally posted by Farmpunk: I couldn't get the rest of the article from the link.
Here you are. quote: I'd like to read it to see if the author suggests anything other than [drum roll please...] CHANGE!
Pilger is no "arm chair" type. He's an activist with international reach. Just google him, or look at his website. But he is British - and we are Canadian. We don't advise U.S. voters how to vote. Nor can we build a movement in the U.S. to effect real change. But we do know that building a movement is the only way change will happen. That's why it's important to expose charismatic Obama as a media-packaged illusion and fraud. The longer people think that electing characters like Obama will bring about change - the longer they will delay building the necessary movement(s) to bring about change themselves. And those movements will have to include both electoral and (I think primarily) non-electoral components. quote: Maybe I'm too much of a practical incrementalist.
No, incrementalism isn't a bad thing. It means bringing about change in small steps. Promoting Obama doesn't do that.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903
|
posted 29 June 2008 02:01 PM
quote: Originally posted by Ken Burch: Mass protest campaigns, especially on the war(Kerry was given a "no protest" agreement by the left in 2004 and this ended up serving no purpose) ...Yes, JFK and LBJ were excessively hawkish(which is why, had I been old enough, I'd have worked hard for Bobby Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy in '68). Ike was more reasonable, but Nixon, had he been elected in '60, would have been just as bad as JFK on foreign policy and worse on domestic. And you wouldn't extend the argument you were making there to actually argue that it wasn't worth trying to get Reagan out, would you? The only chance there ever was to beat him was by supporting the Democratic ticket in 1984.
Ken, with regard to your first paragraph, can you explain what you refering to? Who made this "agreement", and how was it enforced? As to your later paragraph, perhaps these messages may help: Great Issue - Kennedy
[ 29 June 2008: Message edited by: MCunningBC ]
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 01 July 2008 06:51 AM
The separation of church and state. quote: Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith_2
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 01 July 2008 07:24 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: Good. I hope he says anything to get elected and then reverses himself once he is in power and doesn't need votes from people in the centre right anymore.Meanwhile, he'd be nuts not to say and do anything necessary to get elected.
Ah, you're such an idealist Stockholm.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 01 July 2008 07:39 AM
Obama is not going to "reverse himself". I was reading an online article yesterday (I think on CommonDreams) and the comment section was full of people saying that the politicians are pandering, etc., two-faced, lying, courting the right and bigots. And these people are right. But here is the thing - the PEOPLE of the US are the ones voting these people in. The PEOPLE of the US are the ones who hold these wacky Xian ideals and expect their presidents to. The people of the US are, on the whole, against SSM. The people in the US are fairly racist. The people in the US do see themselves as entitled to venture into other's countries to destroy them. I don't just think that the US problem is one of "bad politicians" because if there were a significant number of Americans who would, on a regular basis, protest what is being done in their names, then they would not have these types of politicians. Let's face it. America is now and always has been a nation that wages war, sends nuclear weapons and arms to other countries, interferes in other democracies, etc. Americans, a majority, have no sense of the world beyond themselves. They traditionally support pro-war, imperialist politicians, and then wonder how their country ended up in such a mess. Obviously there are progressive people in the US. Those who would end the war etc., but on the whole, the American public could care less about the rest of the world and would gladly vote in yet another war monger. Did the system they have now just pop up out of nowhere? I doubt it. The people have determined what kind of a society they wish to live in. This is the tyranny of the majority. The true left in the US does not stand a chance to rectify things without a revolution. And there will be no revolution. They have big screen TV's and big fat, gas guzzling cars and endless reality shows (and Faux and CNN) to keep them aware of their entitlement.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 July 2008 07:55 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stargazer: But here is the thing - the PEOPLE of the US are the ones voting these people in. The PEOPLE of the US are the ones who hold these wacky Xian ideals and expect their presidents to. The people of the US are, on the whole, against SSM. The people in the US are fairly racist. The people in the US do see themselves as entitled to venture into other's countries to destroy them.
I agree that it's nonsensical to blame politicians for all these ills, but it's wrong to blame people also. I blame the social and economic system in the U.S., plus the fact that the U.S. exists by oppressing people internally and abroad. I do not believe for one instant, however, that when politicians start up with their "God Bless U.S.A." and "I love Christ" bullshit, that it's a response to "wacky" popular beliefs. The U.S. was founded on eliminating religion from political life, and this trend started being reversed only in the post-World War II period. That's when God was plugged into the Pledge of Allegiance, and when "E Pluribus Unum" started being replaced broadly by "In God We Trust", etc. Before WWII, there was no religion emanating from presidents or others. Why? Because people suddenly were born again? Of course not. It was the Cold War, the attraction of subversive ideas, and the need for the U.S. to rally people behind some alternative ideology, while at the same time justifying its growing foreign expansionist tendencies. This religion is imposed on political life, and it perpetuates itself. Progressives must condemn all this, and they will provide leadership. Do you think anti-discrimination laws and the end of abortion laws and the elimination of sodomy from the Criminal Code and same-sex marriage came from politicians pandering to an enlightened Canadian electorate? Hardly. These (and many others that we could name) were all bold steps, and the leadership came from the top. The same can happen in the U.S. The trouble is, even though Stockholm's views are sort of a deliberate caricature, other should-be progressives think the same way he does. They think that it's ok to sell out every principle to get elected. They never stop and think that the new president owes his (not her) allegiance to the same economic and political forces as the old one. That's how they can keep lauding Obama, while he keeps shouting at them: "You idiots! I'm a reactionary scumbag! But thanks for your support!"
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 01 July 2008 08:03 AM
Unionist, I have to disagree with you there. The US is based upon the need of Xian people to eliminate the First Peoples. They did this based upon their religion. The Christian religion. The Natives were "immoral" and should be killed off and/or quickly assimilated. America was founded on the notion that Christians were the decent ones, all others must be punished a crushed. The Chinese, Africans, Mexicans, FN people, Jews, shit, almost all "outside" groups were subjected to the hatred the people in the US had for them. Yes there are many other things at play here - culture, time and place...but never has America been a peaceful nation. Never. Not since it's inception and not now. Therefore, I blame it on the people. They have a chance to get their shit together and do the right thing. They never (well almost never) do.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 July 2008 08:34 AM
quote: Originally posted by martin dufresne: unionist, can you clarify this? It seems to me that on 2 out of 3 of the struggles you mention, the leasership came from women and gay&lesbians organizing politically against abotion legislation and for the recognition os same-sex marriage, not from "the top".
Exactly my point. These changes came from progressive people in motion, building alliances, putting pressure, raising consciousness - and then (of course) began to be implemented at "the top" long before polls showed that "ordinary" Canadians were massively "demanding" these changes. Do you really think voters were clamouring in large majorities for homosexuality to be decriminalized in 1967? For capital punishment to be outlawed when it was? For discrimination in employment based on disability, religion, race etc. to be banned when it was? For U.S. draft evaders and deserters to be given safe haven in Canada in the 1960s and on? We know where the impetus for change came from. But it is very wrong to believe it came from a majority of citizens being convinced first. Change never happens that way. quote: I have to agree with Stargazer that Xtian politics figured very high on policies implemented and cultures destroyed in North America. Maybe we need a no-holds-barred history of how Xtian religion impacted on human rights in the West during these last five centuries.
Who said any different? Christianity was, and still is, a tool of conquest and subjugation, and not only of the Aboriginal peoples. That doesn't alter the fact that the anti-colonial revolution in the U.S. decreed separation of church and state - that its principles were copied in large part by the French Revolution and others where the power of the Church needed to be destroyed - and that U.S. political society was far more secular before World War II than it is now. I defy you to find any presidential candidates before World War II spouting crap of the nature of George W. Bush or Barack Obama.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 01 July 2008 08:38 AM
quote: I defy you to find any presidential candidates before World War II spouting crap of the nature of George W. Bush or Barack Obama.
You're probably right. Maybe we won't find anything as blatantly right wing xian, but hell, there can be no doubt the US is a Christian nation and that it barely tolerates things it does not like (or is told not to like). Of course, Canada is not a lot better.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 01 July 2008 08:41 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stargazer: Let's face it. America is now and always has been a nation that wages war, sends nuclear weapons and arms to other countries, interferes in other democracies, etc.
Actually, if you look at the history of the US, the country has, for most of its history, been a relatively isolationist country. That wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing to return to.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 July 2008 09:03 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stargazer: Of course, Canada is not a lot better.
We've seen similar trends in Canada, although not as blatant as in the U.S. "God" forced his way into the Constitution and into the national anthem (English version) only in the 1980s. Harper is the first Prime Minister I know that has actually asked his "God" to "bless" "Canada". Of course, the backdrop is that Christianity (especially of the Roman Catholic and certain acceptable Protestant varieties) were always quasi-official religions in Québec and the rest of Canada respectively. But I don't believe it's people's religious beliefs that makes them racist or colonial or sexist or homophobic etc. Religion is almost always an accomplice, but it's not the source of the evil. In Obama's case, he doesn't believe one single word of the religious crap that he spews. Does anyone think he dumped his pastor and his church because God told him to? His "religion" is for sale to the highest bidder. He is a cynical liar and hypocrite who is merely elaborating more of his program as he goes along. He has not "backtracked" on one single position. He is detailing what he vaguely expressed initially as "Change" and "Hope".
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807
|
posted 01 July 2008 10:04 AM
quote: It wasn't really till after WWII that it began intervening all over the world.
Well the US had been from the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli a few decades before that.
quote: Good. I hope he says anything to get elected and then reverses himself once he is in power and doesn't need votes from people in the centre right anymore.Meanwhile, he'd be nuts not to say and do anything necessary to get elected. The alternative is Republican rule and the end of humanity as we know it.
At the risk of encouraging a loonie-toon to keep chattering, Democrats such as Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright probably have just as much blood on their hands as the Bushniks, even without going to war.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955
|
posted 01 July 2008 02:58 PM
Decent article by Pilger, Unionist.Still, the unanswered question: What options do American voters have? What does challenging the system entail? Armed rebellion? Civil disobedience? Spoiling ballots? To what effect? I suspect that real progress in the US will spring from regional and individual States and not the freak show of the Presidency and the federal government.
From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 01 July 2008 03:48 PM
quote: Originally posted by Farmpunk:
Still, the unanswered question: What options do American voters have?.
Not my country. But if progressive-minded people in the U.S. don't start by at least speakinmg the truth - calling hypocrisy and lies by their true name - then they will always be stuck with crooks like McCain and Obama. They can vote for Obama if they are really foolish enough to believe that he will be less dangerous than McCain. But if they don't dare to criticize Obama when he supports Israel, threatens to attack Iran, says the U.S. Is not a racist society, and introduces some Christian fucking God into their public discourse - then they will be complicit in the atrocities that their government continues to commit against its own people and the people of the entire world. This is truly not rocket science. It's about telling the truth.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
guy cybershy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1021
|
posted 01 July 2008 03:49 PM
quote: Originally posted by Farmpunk: Decent article by Pilger, Unionist.Still, the unanswered question: What options do American voters have? What does challenging the system entail? Armed rebellion? Civil disobedience? Spoiling ballots? To what effect? I suspect that real progress in the US will spring from regional and individual States and not the freak show of the Presidency and the federal government.
Its already happening. Oklahoma has recently decared "sovereignty", Montana and several other states have rejected the national ID card and there is also an independence movement in Hawaii. The US might actually fall apart just like the old Soviet Union.
From: Calgary | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851
|
posted 02 July 2008 06:07 AM
The role of progressive activists here is to keep an eye on Obama, not get swepped up into his tent house revival, especially relevant as we are not even Americans.Wright was right when he said that even if Obama won the presidency, he would go after him, as it is the institution of the presidency itself that grinds people down. And now Obama is tacking right, so doesn't even have a progressive bone to cheer. His cult of personality amongst the youth is also completely unfounded in any significant policy difference between him and Clinton/Bush. Whoever wins, America is still an imperial power. Obama has a great biography and charisma, but his preternatural ambition in the world of politics has made him a particularly slippery character. [ 02 July 2008: Message edited by: ceti ] [ 02 July 2008: Message edited by: ceti ]
From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 02 July 2008 06:19 AM
quote: During the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. But he has switched positions, and now supports a compromise hammered out between the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership. The bill is expected to come to a vote on the Senate floor next Tuesday. That decision, one of a number made by Mr. Obama in recent weeks intended to position him toward the political center as the general election campaign heats up, has brought him into serious conflict for the first time with liberal bloggers and commentators and his young supporters. Many of them have seen the issue of granting immunity to the telecommunications companies as a test of principle in their opposition to Mr. Bush's surveillance program. "I don't think there has been another instance where, in meaningful numbers, his supporters have opposed him like this," said Glenn Greenwald, a Salon.com writer who opposes Mr. Obama's new position. "For him to suddenly turn around and endorse this proposal is really a betrayal of what so many of his supporters believed he believed in." Jane Hamsher, a liberal blogger who also opposes immunity for the phone companies, said she had been flooded with messages from Obama supporters frustrated with his new stance.
Such audacity
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 02 July 2008 06:23 AM
I love this: quote: "For him to suddenly turn around and endorse this proposal is really a betrayal of what so many of his supporters believed he believed in."
Silly supporters. Obama believed in "change" and "hope". They should have listened to him. Instead, they hoped he wouldn't change. I don't think he did.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921
|
posted 02 July 2008 08:02 AM
quote: Originally posted by josh: Alaska was purchased from the Russians. Up till the Spanish-American war, the U.S. was content to use force only in its own hemisphere. It wasn't really till after WWII that it began intervening all over the world.
Oh, only in "its own" hemisphere? Well, that's alright then. It's perfectly ok to impose whatever best serves the interests of your ruling class in your "own" hemisphere.... [ 02 July 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299
|
posted 02 July 2008 09:13 AM
Glenn Greenwalf at Salon.com offers a useful summary of Obama's recent policy moves, as well as this analysis of why they stink quote: That's quite a two weeks. One of the primary reasons that blogs emerged over the last seven years was as a reaction to, an attempt to battle against, exactly this narrative which the media propagated and Democratic institutions embraced -- that it is the duty of every Democrat to repudiate and attack their own base; that the truly pernicious elements are on the "Far Left", whose values must be rejected, while the Far Right is entitled to profound respect and accommodation; that "Strength" in National Security is determined by agreement with GOP policies, which is where "the Center" is found; that Seriousness is demonstrated by contempt for the liberal masses; that every Democrat must apologize for any statement over which Republicans feign offense. Plenty of Beltway institutions already existed for the purpose of cheering on any and all Democrats no matter what they do. If that's all that blogs are supposed to do, then there is no need for them. From the beginning, blogs have been devoted to opposing Democratic complicity and capitulation -- to protesting the lack of Democratic responsiveness to their supporters -- every bit as much as opposing GOP corruption and media malfeasance. That role is at least as important as the others. A presidential election is a unique time when Americans are engaged in a discussion over our collective political values (at least more engaged than any other time). Why would anyone watch the Obama campaign use this opportunity to perpetuate and reinforce this narrative, and watch Obama embrace polices that are the precise antithesis of the values he espoused in the past, and not criticize or object to that? Criticisms of that sort aren't unhealthy or counter-productive. They're the opposite. Of course one ought to object if a political candidate -- even Barack Obama -- is advocating policies that trample on one's core political values or promulgating toxic narratives. That's particularly true since his doing so isn't necessary to win; it's actually more likely to have the opposite effect. There is no question, at least to me, that having Obama beat McCain is vitally important. But so, too, is the way that victory is achieved and what Obama advocates and espouses along the way. Feeding distortions against someone like Wesley Clark in order to please Joe Klein and his fact-free media friends, or legalizing warrantless eavesdropping and protecting joint Bush/telecom lawbreaking, or basing his campaign on demonizing MoveOn.org and 1960s anti-war hippies, is quite harmful in many long-lasting ways. Electing Barack Obama is a very important political priority but it isn't the only one there is, and his election is less likely, not more likely, the more homage he pays to these these tired, status-quo-perpetuating Beltway pieties.
Keep scrolling down to Update II to watch a great YouTube clip of Russ Feingold.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732
|
posted 02 July 2008 09:35 AM
I am calling on a true progressive ticket.Elect Obama and Rice in 2008. They appear to be cut from the same elitist clothe and willing and able to ensure that America controls the world because after all only American democracy is important all other citizens of democratic nations are second class because the only lens to see the world through is an America First one. If it affects American interest then the President needs to be willing to bomb the shit out of any country because America is the Light On the Hill. Read Congressional reports from 1812. It was simple in Washington in those far of days. All the Congress war hawks agreed that if they invaded Upper and Lower Canada the people would greet them in the streets as liberators. This is not a joke it is the historic record. Mind you when the Governor of Mass. had the Acadians ethnically cleansed in the 1750's and replaced by New England "planters" they didn't hide their true intent. So no the history goes back a lot further than WWII. OBAMA and RICE in 2008
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 02 July 2008 09:36 AM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
Does he say why?
from the same link, near the end: Update IV: For those who grab every criticism of Obama and leap to the opposite "no-difference-between-him-and-McCain" extreme: Obama -- in addition to supporting the Boumediene/habeas decision which McCain called "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country" -- announced this week that he opposes the Constitutional amendment in California to ban gay marriage (which McCain supports). and: The ways in which Obama is superior to the Bush-following McCain are both numerous and substantial (unless you're excited to have Joe Lieberman and Bill Kristol running U.S. foreign policy and Ted Olson appointing more executive-power-worshiping, privacy-eroding Justices to the Supreme Court -- and if that's not enough, see this ), and that's true no matter how many justifiable criticisms are voiced towards Obama. What Obama has done over the last two weeks will drain the enthusiasm away from many of his most intense supporters (as it has even with the intensely pro-Obama Markos Moulitsas), but that isn't the same -- not even close to the same -- as deciding that it's irrelevant if he wins. [ 02 July 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
wwSwimming
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12538
|
posted 02 July 2008 10:43 AM
quote: Originally posted by unionist: You keep stoking this phoney debate because you can't deal with progressive people exposing Obama as a dangerous warmongering hypocritical pandering lying snake-oil salesman
I don't think we will be able to judge Obama accurately until he's in office. As much as I would like to see a President Kucinich, it is almost impossible for a candidate to make it into the White House without solid "national security" credentials, which includes appeasing the Israel Lobby and doing some of what Mearsheimer describes in his book of the same name (talking tough on Iran, for example.) I think Obama has some compassion in him. Whether he is worthy of the hope that so many young Americans are investing in him, we won't find out until he's been in office for about a year (or until he does something conclusive either way.)
From: LASIKdecision.com ~ Website By & For Injured LASIK Patients | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 04 July 2008 04:09 AM
quote: a new commercial plays up his "values straight from the Kansas heartland"
Great. Guess Obama never read "What's the Matter With Kansas?" What a sell-out, lying snake Oabama has turned out to be. BTW, the Star is especially nauseating today. Read it and hold your nose: Thank you Obama - Love, The Star.... [ 04 July 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 04 July 2008 09:54 AM
quote: Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
I have no idea what she means by that.
What she means is revealed in the first paragraph: quote: The question isn't whether he is a sellout or not — it's about what demands are made by grass-roots social movements of those who would represent them. The question is, who are these candidates responding to, answering to?
In other words - hold your nose, campaign and vote for Obama, but keep making demands on power through him, otherwise he'll respond to other constituencies. It's a typical U.S. progressive position of desperation and defeatism. The "concrete" part is, vote for Obama. The rest (the "movement" bit) is left vague. No hope for change here.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 04 July 2008 11:39 AM
quote: That such a gutting of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution even made it out of committee is yet another stain on the gutless and seemingly powerless Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. That a majority on both sides of the aisle - not least of them the presumptive nominees for president of both political parties - intend to vote for such a violation of Americans' right to privacy and of the sanctity of their personal communications is a stunning surrender to those who want us to live in fear forever. We are living in a time when the right of habeas corpus - which simply put is your right to be brought before a proper court of law where the government is made to prove that there is good and legal reason to detain you - recently survived by a margin of only one vote at the U.S. Supreme Court. Now these bad actors are prepared to set aside your right to privacy - written into the Constitution as a key part of our Bill of Rights - with hardly a nod in the direction of the true patriots who rebelled against an English king and his army to guarantee those rights. That they will do this while the last empty phrases of the political windbags at the Fourth of July celebrations are still echoing across a thousand city parks and the bright red, white and blue bunting and blizzard of American flags still flap in the breeze is little short of breath-taking. How dare they?
Finally an American rises in defence of the consititution. Maybe they all should have been indocrinated to swear an oath to that rather than the flag.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 04 July 2008 04:05 PM
The next betrayal - Iraq.Obama denies shift on Iraq policy quote: Barack Obama denied Thursday that he was changing his promise to immediately begin withdrawing troops from Iraq after earlier saying he could "refine" his policy, blaming his Republican opponents for twisting his words.
Those damned Republicans putting words in his mouth again... quote: He said he intends to stick to his plans to have all troops out within 16 months but that if the safety of American troops dictated a slower pace, "of course we would take that into account.""I have always said … I would always reserve the right to do what's best," Obama said.
Well that certainly is reassuring. Where do I sign!?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44
|
posted 05 July 2008 01:15 PM
Let's keep Obama in context, as observed here: quote: Barack Obama has shown him self to be well within the current view points of Democratic Senators - and I ain't talking Bayh, the Nelsons, Conrad, Pryor or .. [edited] one of the more conservative Democratic Senators, Jim Webb as the markers for where Obama ends up in the political spectrum. [Webb is not a liberal, folks.]Every thing Obama has done to [gasp!] "shift his position" has still placed him well within the group of Harkin, Feingold, Leahy, Levin, Schumer, Cantwell, Reed, Democratic centrists all ..
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/5/141534/5991/564/525227 He's where his party is. Why should this be so surprising? The American political environment is more progressive-friendly than it's been in thirty years, but that's like noting that a desert that has collected dew overnight is wetter than it was the last day. Technically true, but it doesn't make it a rain forest yet.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 05 July 2008 02:16 PM
From the above link: quote:
So why am I not screaming bloody murder that 'Obama has abandoned me'?Maybe it's because I came to support for Obama without expectations of some sort of progressive agenda.
No expectations = no disappointment. Well golly gee. What is particularly amusing is how Democratic supporters have adopted the word "centrist" and "center" for when they mean "right". Suddenly Dick and George are centrists.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 05 July 2008 04:36 PM
Constitutional law expert bombs Obama on FISA. quote: Obama says: But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.Expert says: This is just false. The new FISA bill that Obama supports vests new categories of warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President (.pdf), and allows the Government, for the first time, to tap physically into U.S. telecommunications networks inside our country with no individual warrant requirement. To claim that this new bill creates "an independent monitor [to] watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people" is truly misleading, since the new FISA bill actually does the opposite -- it frees the Government from exactly that monitoring in all sorts of broad categories. Why else would Bush and Cheney be so eager to have this bill if it didn't substantially expand the Government's ability to eavesdrop without warrants?
Audaciously spinning hope into cynicism.[ 05 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44
|
posted 05 July 2008 05:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
What is particularly amusing is how Democratic supporters have adopted the word "centrist" and "center" for when they mean "right".Suddenly Dick and George are centrists.
George W was elected as a Republican centrist, hard as that is to believe. US politics are Bizarro-world. A moderate social democrat like Bernie Sanders, center-left anywhere else, is on the far-left, bare edge of electability. People like the not-so-dearly departed Jesse Helms, who would find himself a nice neofascist party on the fringe in Europe was part of the bedrock of the Republican Party in the US.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 05 July 2008 06:30 PM
See, I don't believe the argument.Barack Obama came from nowhere to seize the Democratic primaries because he campaigned from the Left. He won the primaries because he dared to speak from the Left and people believed him. Poll after poll show the Left issues are the popular issues. The Left, as we might define it in a conservative, rather than radical, perspective is where Americans are today. The Democrats kicked ass in Congressional elections because they campaigned as an opposition to the executive branch adopting Left positions. And then they betrayed that Left, which is to say the majority of Americans who voted for them, by moving to "the centre" which means to the establishment which is a rightward direction. They moved right. It isn't smart politics. It isn't good strategy or tactics. It isn't winning and it wasn't inevitable. It was a betrayal of Americans who put their trust in them to end the war and move America back toward the left. The Left isn't abandoning Obama. Obama is abandoning the Left. He is smashing his own base and betraying the legions of active, motivated, believers in favour of the party machine of policy wonks, and careerists. He is an idiot. Its too bad, too. I just don't think McCain will be a good president.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44
|
posted 06 July 2008 07:41 AM
At least the food at the convention will be nutritious and colourful - if they can find someone to prepare it: quote: And then there is the food: A 28-page contract requested by Denver organizers that caterers provide food in “at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple and white.” Garnishes could not be counted toward the colors. No fried foods would be allowed. Organic and locally grown foods were mandated, and each plate had to be 50 percent fruits and vegetables. As a result, caterers are shying away.
Delays and rising costs a problem for Democratic convention organizers
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 08 July 2008 09:28 AM
Oh good! So, here's my question: if you are one of those who thinks Obama is rotten to the core, or "evil" as one fellow put it, tell us in what way you propose to enact a progressive agenda in the United States.Bitching about Obama as imperfect, or "evil" when there is no other mechanism available for even the slighest progressive change, is a good strategy for theologians. But people living in the real world need change they can believe in, not pie-in-the-sky Marxism.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130
|
posted 08 July 2008 09:45 AM
Obama is a product of the current US political system, as is his opponent, has risen far in that system, and has broad mainstream support to rise to the top. This means of course, that he is horribly compromised. This is reality. I'd still rather have him by a long shot, than the other horribly compromised dude, for reasons I've stated earlier but won't bother repeating 'cause no one reads it anyway.If the binary system whithin which you operate is perfection vs: reality, then criticizing Obama and McCain as basically being two buttocks of the same bum is rational. I however, am operating within the binary system which is either going to see President Obama, or President McCain. In my world, 60 years from now the name Ralph Nader will be the answer to a trivia question no one will get. I really really don't want to see President McCain. I would like to see perfection. I try to hold a picture of perfection in my heart. It serves as a distant beacon which I will never see, but at least keeps me I hope in the right direction. Sometimes I even talk about it. I also can maintain a distinction between fantasy and reality. If Obama wins the election, I will greet this event with enthusiastic cheer.
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 08 July 2008 09:48 AM
He attacked people here with redbaiting, and it's not going to keep happening without consequences. And yes, it would be great if you could take your analysis of every other moderating post of mine to the appropriate forum, Caissa, thanks.To answer your question, Jeff, ignoring your hostile and rude tone, I don't think Obama is "evil". And I know that no one is perfect. But there are certain progressive principles that a lot of us would like to see a presidential candidate uphold. Commitment to choice for women is one of them. Commitment to denouncing racism against Muslims is another. Commitment to ending war is another. Commitment to ending NAFTA and having progressive fiscal policies is another. He is backtracking on these issues depending on who he talks to. Change we can believe in? A lot of people believed him when he said he was going to do all sorts of great stuff during the nomination race. And now he's backtracking on much of it. The only "change" I see is Obama changing his mind on what he stands for. So when you were representing the War Resisters, Jeff, did you tell them that opposition to unjust wars is "pie-in-the-sky Marxism"? Since when is wanting women's rights to be protected "pie-in-the-sky Marxism"? All you're doing here is swearing at us. "Commie" is your curse-word. Boring, Jeff, really boring. And beneath you. Except that it's become such a pattern that it's no longer beneath you. It's just everyday ordinary now.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 08 July 2008 09:53 AM
quote: Originally posted by oldgoat: I really really don't want to see President McCain..
... because? (Aside from speculation about Supreme Court justice nominees.)
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 08 July 2008 10:05 AM
The Supreme Court and DoJ thing is enough reason for me to want Obama and not McCain.In November, I'm sure I'll be watching the election returns with chewed fingernails, hoping Obama wins. In the meantime, however, it sure would be nice to be able to criticize Obama's policies without being called a commie, a hater, etc. Only stupid people blindly and uncritically follow a leader out of a sense of loyalty. I like to think that babble is one of those places where Dear Leaders can be criticized when they don't adhere to progressive principles, instead of being filled with a bunch of yes-men who shout down and insult anyone who dares to voice any criticism.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 08 July 2008 10:11 AM
For Jesus fuck sakes, Caissa, that's the goddamned point. We're not all coming from a Marxist worldview here. Some of us who are critical of Obama are just regular, ordinary social democrats who want him to stand for progressive principles. We're not all fucking commies! Yes, I know, I need a break. Don't worry, I'm going to take one. Wreck the boards all you like with your nasty insinuations about the progressives who wish they had a voice when it comes to abortion rights for women, civil rights for Muslims, and world peace. Call those people rude names, shame them, ridicule them, redbait them. Go for it. It's now a free for all, as far as I'm concerned. (Edited to remove all-caps, as they really are hard on the eyes...) [ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312
|
posted 08 July 2008 10:13 AM
One problem is that Jeff routinely misrepresents what people have said. quote:
Oh good! So, here's my question: if you are one of those who thinks Obama is rotten to the core, or "evil" as one fellow put it
No one in this thread used the word evil. Another poster in another thread used the term "lesser evil" which does not have the same meaning, and, indeed, is the way many in the Democratic Party have been characterizing Obama's campaign. "Yes," they say, "he is moving to the right but he is still better than McCain." That is even how House himself has put it, essentially.Second he never actually reads anyone's comments: quote:
tell us in what way you propose to enact a progressive agenda in the United States.
Easy. Stick to the progressive agenda that won the primary.Then he applies the right wing tactic of inevitability: quote:
Bitching about Obama as imperfect, or "evil" when there is no other mechanism available for even the slighest progressive change, is a good strategy for theologians.
In that passage he even acknowledges American democracy is a failure as there is "no other mechanism available for even the slighest progressive change" and the current mechanism is busily rejecting progressive change.And then he appeals to fantasy: quote:
But people living in the real world need change they can believe in
A change he just said there exists no mechanism to implement.Finally he dismissed all critics as communists, the red bait: quote:
not pie-in-the-sky Marxism.
But what does House offer? A failed democracy with no mechanism for change and a candidate who is offering more war, more occupation, a complete betrayal of Palestinians to pander to the Israel lobby, a betrayal of his NAFTA pledge, and a betrayal of his civil rights position vis-a-vis FISA. Keep watching under the bus for more casualties. However, I would argue the Obama campaign can be salvaged. Unlike, Jeff House, who apparently will support a candidate who drops values like Hollywood gossips drop names, I prefer a candidate who actually stands for what he claims to stand for. All Obama needs to do, in view, is take a time out, reacquaint himself with his own words in his own books and his own speeched, and start again as a progressive with a progressive agenda. Only a reactionary in progressive clothing would support the Obama campaign as it now stands. [ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 08 July 2008 10:15 AM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
... because?
I can see where progressives have major beefs with Obama. But, to look at Obama and McCain as being functionally equivalent is silly. Will Obama be perfect? Obviously not. But, is he a carbon copy of McCain? No.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921
|
posted 08 July 2008 10:22 AM
quote: Originally posted by Frustrated Mess: In that passage he even acknowledges American democracy is a failure is there is "no other mechanism available for even the slighest progressive change" and the current mechanism is busily rejecting progressive change.
In fact, this shows that American democracy is succeeding! (But I know what FM meant: it's not really democracy.) Yes, I am a marxist (though I eschew celestial pastry). But what I've been trying to say is, not that Obama isn't perfect, but that support for Obama amounts to acceptance of this non-democracy masquerading as democracy. It acquiesces to the impossibility of significant "change". [ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|