home

TPM Cafe: STFU You Obama Hating Fifth Column!

Jonathan Taplin today:

The fifth column of progressive blogs is libertarians pretending they are liberals. . . . Barack is a man of good will who is as smart a President as we have had the privilege to be served by in the last half century.

(Emphasis supplied.) Andrew Sullivan in 2001:

The middle part of the country—the great red zone that voted for Bush—is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.

(Emphasis supplied.) In 8 years, some of us have now been called "traitor" by adulators of a Republican President and now a Democratic President. Jersey colored issue "analysis" from both spectrums.

Speaking for me only

< TARP To Be Extended To Life Insurance Companies | And Now For Something Completely Different . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Ha! (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 09:56:26 AM EST
    Barack is a man of good will who is as smart a President as we have had the privilege to be served by in the last half century

    Yes, because Bill Clinton (Rhodes scholar) was stupid.  And many other presidents, while I may not have agreed with their policies, were not stupid people either.  But Barack, he..... transcends. (Blech! Give me an f'in break).

    What's interesting is this is the same philosophy so-called progressive bloggers such as Taplin hated for the last 8 years. ("The fifth column of progressive blogs is libertarians pretending they are liberals" vs. "You're either with us or against us.")  Sounds a lot like die-hard Bush supporters to me.

    I'm wondering what is being used as (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:49:42 AM EST
    the basis for the statement

    Barack is a man of good will who is as smart a President as we have had the privilege to be served by in the last half century

    Generally speaking, people who are good and smart get that across through actions. POTUS is such a high profile position that those characteristics would not need to be defended if they were being displayed.


    Parent

    Average intelligent (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by koshembos on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:50:43 PM EST
    Bill Clinton is way more intelligent than Obama; Nixon and Johnson were too. Obama is an average "intelligent" guy, which you had 3-5 of in your average high school.

    Parent
    Some of the very dumbest people I've (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:42:06 PM EST
    known since my early days were straight A students. And, some of the smartest never graduated from high school.

    Parent
    I see.... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 09:57:12 AM EST
    The president is smart...ok then.

    So was Lex Luther.

    Yes- (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by talesoftwokitties on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    and we are privileged.

    Just shoot me now.

    Parent

    Privileged to get SERVED ... BOOYAH! (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:10:01 PM EST
    You just posted this (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:03:40 AM EST
    to get another dig at Sully, didn't you?

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:05:01 AM EST
    I admit the chance to post Sully's Fifth Column remarks again was too easy to pass up.

    Parent
    And I give much thanks to BTD for doing so. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by AX10 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:23:18 PM EST
    Any chance to point out the ugliness of Andy S. should never be wasted.

    Parent
    in 6 months (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:03:53 AM EST
    enough people will have been laid off, enough businesses will have shuttered the doors and enough bankruptcies will have hit both business and people for Obama to start to catch any flack.

    Our economy is getting worse.  There are those who feel it is bottomed or near bottom.  I heard that last November, this January, March and again this week.  

    For those who believe that the 300 bn job stimulus and the 400 bn tax stimulus that puts an extra 20 bucks in the pockets of "working" americans is going to have a dramatic effect on the economy and that "their jobs are safe", criticizing O's policy is demagoguery.

    For those of us who believe that the economy is going to get worse this year, criticizing the policies is an obligation.

    In 6 months one group is going to be right, and truth be told I hope to be called a chicken little idiot who simply was too stupid to see how "intelligent" the policy was.  I have never hoped so dearly to be so wrong.

    Yet each step of the way since September I have called out the next steps of the economic turmoil and have been close or "under" estimates.

    This is why I like predictions and forecasting as opposed to "what ifs" that rely on SUTA (sunshine up the arse) outlooks.    

    Imagine a trillion or two at job creation to outfit every gov't bldg with solar panels.  Imagine people having effing jobs to pay their mortgages and prevent foreclosure and bankruptcy.

    Intellect does not produce big or creative ideas, necessity and desperation do.  Unfortunately, our representatives are not in need, nor are they desperate.  If they had to go without staff or without compensation, would they be interested in fixing the banks or creating jobs?

    Nixon was said to be (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:05:33 AM EST
    a very, very intelligent man. . . .

    Nixon was smart as hell (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by aeguy on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:44:04 AM EST
    Does that mean Americans were "privileged" to have him as president? I hope not.

    President Obama has an above average intelligence president, he's a thoughtful person, but it is not so Earth shattering that all Americans should feel honored to be served by him.

    I think President Clinton is more intelligent than President Obama, but that's me.

    Parent

    It (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:43:22 PM EST
    depends on who you include.

    If I start to comb through the list back to the turn of the 20th century I have to say that he only gets somewhere near the middle because of Harding, Coolidge, Reagan, Ford, W Bush, HW Bush.

    Intellectually he's simply not in the same league as T. Roosevelt, Wilson, Clinton or Carter.

    Intelligence and knowing what to do and how to do it he's separated by astronomical distances from Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, men who had intelligence and ability that was actually usable to the nation.

    I don't think he's at all distinguished when compared to Taft or even Hoover.

    Never been even remotely impressed from that seriously overrated keynote address in 2004 through today.

    Ordinary at best and too small for the task at hand.

    Parent

    Agreed on all counts (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:43:39 PM EST
    And Nixon could be said to have been a man of goodwill on some counts, too.  (Not by me, but there is a historical argument for it.)  So what?  All those smarts and all that goodwill in foreign policy, and he nearly took down the Constitution.

    Parent
    And his singing voice (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:52:28 PM EST
    was underrated.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:07:29 AM EST
    Okay. I guess being called racists has run it's course. It's now devolved down to "traitors". Wow, I guess we never got rid of the Bush Administration.

    Ironic that we have somehow kept the (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:17:34 AM EST
    worse traits and policies of the  Bush administration and threw away the successful ones (i.e. the Republicans rammed through their agenda items without any major concessions).

    Putting politics on an emotional level (i.e. love/hate) and assigning emotionally charged labels (traitors, Fifth Column etc.) is and has  been a very successful way to derail discussing whether or not policies are good for the country.

    Parent

    I was a racist (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:39:24 AM EST
    now I am a libertarian. I am not sure that is an improvement or not.

    Parent
    Big improvement... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    one favors liberty and justice for all, the other favors hate and discrimination.

    Parent
    "Libertarians" (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:34:14 AM EST
    I prefer Thom Hartman's definition:

    "Libertarians are Republicans who want to smoke pot and get laid."

    Parent

    Cute... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:51:22 AM EST
    but I got there from the left...a former Dem who likes to smoke pot and get laid and values liberty above all else:)

    Parent
    It gets a little trickier (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:58:26 PM EST
    when you start trying to define liberty.

    It seems to mean different things to different people. Some people wanna exercise their liberty by organizing society in a way the diminishes others liberty, and they rationalize by saying "Well there are always trade-offs to be made"

    Btw, You always sounded more like an old school anarchist to me, kdog. Alot of people are giving the title Libertarian a bad name these days, IMO.

    Parent

    An age-old debate. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:20:25 PM EST
    Where do the rights of one individual intersect with the rights of others and with the common good?

    My beef with libertarianism is that it seems fundamentally selfish at it's core - there is rarely the acknowledgment (or concern) that one person's liberty may infringe on another's. And there seems to be very little concern for the common good.

    Parent

    And my beef.... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:48:47 PM EST
    with socialism/communism/fascism is that these philosophies are all too willing to sacrifice the sovereignty of the individual to the hard-to-define concept of "common good".

    If we all had a nickel everytime the "common good" turned out to be a "common evil"...or just plain tyranny.

    Parent

    There are few individual sovereignties (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    that don't affect another individual's sovereignties, sometimes adversely.

    I don't see libertarians caring about that. That's my only point. It seems quite narcissistic.

    Parent

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    some hardcore libertarians just wanna be free to f*ck people over.  I'm not one of those, I just want to be free from getting f*cked over by those working towards a "common good" that I don't find so common or so good.

    The way I look at it...I get this one body, one mind, one life...I don't feel like blindly surrendering any part of it to anybody or anything, especially a vague concept like "common good".  I'll sacrifice my well-being and happiness for a greater good of my definition when I see fit, not when a bunch of corrupt beuracrats see fit, or a majority of my fellow citizens.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:16:47 PM EST
    not to get fancy, but it seems to be, like alot of other Western ideologies, another outgrowth of a somewhat obsolete way of seeing the relationship "between" the self and others.

    Parent
    Well, I don't know from fancy. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    All I know is that a libertarian will always rail about: his/her right to smoke whether or not the secondhand smoke affects another; his/her right to ride their ATV's through the wilderness whether or not it destroys the wilderness for others' enjoyment; his/her right to ruin the environment; not pay taxes; etc etc. You know what I mean. There is never the acknowledgment or concern about how their rights may affect those of others. I think that's a fundamentally selfish philosophy at it's core.

    Parent
    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:31:44 PM EST
    demanding the fruit of anothers labor by threat of violence can be considered quite selfish as well.  Demanding the surrender of free will by threat of violence too...selfish.

    We all agree it's a balancing act on a fine line between chaos and tyranny...I just think we're way out of balance tipping the scales towards tyranny, but reasonable people can disagree.

    Parent

    There's always Alaska, bro (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:35:46 PM EST
    not to be flippant.

    Parent
    The thought of the wilderness... (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:44:52 PM EST
    has crossed my mind, but I'm from the concrete jungle and that is where my skill-set lies.

    Deep down I wallow in piker-dom, I know man, I know.

    Parent

    Obviously alot of it (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:52:09 PM EST
    is the result of just too many damned people.

    Plenty of studies to back up the detrimental effect to consciousness of mammals packed in together too tightly. Planet of the Apes time.

    Parent

    I've sure been tempted... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:02:58 PM EST
    to drop Heston's line when I've had my run-ins with the protectors of the "common good".

    Get your diry paws off me you damned dirty ape!


    Parent
    Next time (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:08:16 PM EST
    try saying it with flowers.

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:48:41 PM EST
    The libertarians are already ruining Alaska - the last great untouched wilderness in the U.S. - and they're destroying it.

    Keep them out!

    Parent

    kdog's not that type of L (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:53:19 PM EST
    you're refering to the moose molesting tundra trash.

    Parent
    Hmmm. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    I don't see much difference in the end result. That's why I think libertarians and republicans have a lot in common (no matter whether they started from the left or the right).

    kdog's on record here opining that it's all good on the planet, no need for regulations to help with climate change, etc., because the world will just keep on spinning even if everything's extinct except the cockroaches. No need to regulate anything. Just individual liberty liberty liberty no matter what.

    Although I do think he is a sweet libertarian.

    Parent

    I'm also on record.. (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:15:21 PM EST
    admitting my utopia may well be a total disaster...as is likely of the central planners utopia.

    Utopia is a myth, the world will be one f*cked up place regardless...I prefer a free-er f*cked.

    Parent

    Ah, but if you cared to, (none / 0) (#73)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:18:05 PM EST
    you could try to help stop or slow down the f*cking up part.

    Yes, utopia is a myth, so why not try to do the right thing here on planet earth - for as many as possible.

    Parent

    I could say the same to you Molly... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 03:24:59 PM EST
    slow down this tyranny and make this world a less f*cked up place.

    We just place a higher value on different things...I think my heart is in the right place, and I'm sure yours is as well.  Who is right?  Neither and both.

    Parent

    Well. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:29:33 PM EST
    If doing the best right thing for the most people and for the planet they inhabit was equal to tyranny, then I guess I would understand this point.

    Nuff discussion I think.

    Parent

    Just dont step on my blue (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:32:19 PM EST
    suede shoes.

    "They" even put out a book some years back: The Vitue of Selfishness. Apparently alot of people never got past the title (all the permission they needed.)

    Parent

    Virtue (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:32:46 PM EST
    Yep... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:42:12 PM EST
    they lose me at "greed is good".  It ain't.  But I tend to agree with Adam Smith.

    "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."


    Parent
    Sometimes their percieved (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:59:07 PM EST
    interest is their benevolence. Who dosnt love it when people go Ah when you make something good?

    The old Rabbis used to say "Much as the calve yearns to suck, does the cow yearn to suckle"

    Parent

    We're all connected, yes... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    but connected self-contained units...from the skin in is mine man, all mine...if that makes me selfish so be it.  

    Like Jimi said..."I'm the one who has to die when its time for me to die, so let me live my life, the way I want to."

    Parent

    I really couldn't tell ya jondee... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    I change my mind everyday about which political philosophy is the best...there are anarchist days, to be sure.

    The truth is they all have good traits and bad traits...and we're probably at our best when we borrow from all of them.  I just wish we gave the libertarian way a little love every once in awhile instead of corporate socialism and corporate fascism getting all the love.

    Parent

    Love tends to follow the money (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:42:18 PM EST
    and security these days.

    At least that type of love. Face it bro, you're always going to be somewhat of a misfit (the good kind) sharpening his wits on the wetstone of the status quo.

    Parent

    Except in that (none / 0) (#67)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:54:51 PM EST
    Libertarian paradise, the world that sets the Koch family free, you'll be a serf, just a hopeless serf.

    Parent
    You are known by the company you keep (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by SeeEmDee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 10:57:04 AM EST
    Look at what Obama has surrounded himself with, as economic advisers: the very people who benefited so handsomely from the massive transfer of wealth that took place under Lil' Georgie. Geithner was the President of the Fed in New York. Made quite a bundle, while the rest of us were sliding frictionlessly into penury. And he's being given the keys to the financial kingdom?

    But you have to hand it to these guys: they've got the kabuki down perfectly. Threat and counter-threat, 'pitchforks', etc. Puh-lease. The script was finalized here, at that little secret kaffeeklatsch he had with the planet's power-brokers.

    The kind of NeoLiberal economic policies that have wrecked and raped Third World nations as written about by people such as Greg Palast are now coming home to roost, right here, and the chief architects and beneficiaries of those policies have Mr. Obama's ears...or perhaps it's some other portion of his anatomy they are grasping?

    That's funny to me (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:04:54 AM EST
    because I am positive you would be hanging me from a sour apple tree in normal times as I believe Rubinomics IN ITS TIME was good policy.

    The times are different now.

    Parent

    Sorry, but your belief would be incorrect (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by SeeEmDee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:35:56 AM EST
    I look askance at the entire political system that favors the wealthy, again and again, at the expense of workers.

    A long time ago, I was a Fed civil servant, way back when Newtie & Co. pulled that BS about 'shutting down the Fed'rul government'. Well, I still had to 'stand to', running a visitor center largely single-handed, and it was a major pain. But I guess I was lucky, as I didn't get furloughed, and a lot of folks did. That was my first direct taste of politically connected and super wealthy idiots (i.e. Michael Moore's 'Stupid White Men') playing chicken with people's livelihoods. I left Fed CS shortly after that, thanks in no small part to the idiotic War on Drugs.

    Since then, I began to do some digging and found all kinds of curious connections between people at the top of the economic food chain and pols, and began to take greater notice of the 'support' personnel around major political figures. It began to look like 'same old, same old' no matter who was in power, the little guy got screwed.

    Having once been an avid reader of science fiction, I recall the classic Frank Herbert novel Dune, and how the evil Baron Harkonnen controlled his fiefdom of Arrakis. He first sent his brutish nephew Rabban to drive the populace into despair, then when they begged for relief, would send his much smoother and slicker nephew Feyd as a 'savior'.

    We've had 8 literally bloody, horrible years of 'Rabban', and people screamed for 'change'. Now, here comes 'Feyd', the 'savior'. But the 'Baron' is still in the background, pulling strings. "Same as it ever was...same as it ever was..."

     

    Parent

    I think you missed what BTD said (none / 0) (#22)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:57:17 AM EST
    he said that those policies were right for the time, when Rubin was in office and NOT NOW.  You have conflated then with now.

    Parent
    No, I haven't missed a beat (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by SeeEmDee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:15:18 PM EST
    Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. _ Frederick Douglass (Emphasis mine - CMD)

    This game of 'screw the worker' has been going at least since Ronnie Ray-guns days. The same exclusive little rich folks clubs supplying the same 'advisers' to each party office-seeker, who all too often are members of that same 'Stupid White Man' fraternity (Obama got a 'pass'.) The worker may get a few crumbs one Administration, and none the next. And we're supposed to be satisfied with our 'lot'?

    Sorry, the cards are marked, the deck is stacked, and once more we're being dealt a hand that bears the fingerprints of past card-sharps. This Three Card Monte game is getting old, and worse, we can't afford to play at all anymore.

    Real change will require the big-shot bank(st)ers to be told to go bugger off and play with their toys in the Caymans or Davos or wherever their tax shelters are located. Giving them a second shot at making an already bad situation - created by them! - even worse is like deciding whether to commit suicide by swallowing poison or shooting yourself in the head. Some 'choice'. Some 'change'.

    Parent

    Nah (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:41:25 PM EST
    He understood. He disagrees.

    Parent
    imagine (none / 0) (#20)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:50:30 AM EST
    different policies for different times.  How can that be right?

    Here's the thing about being president.. you are a good president if you can deal effectively with the times you are living in.  If you get the job, you don't get to whine about it, you have to do the job you wanted so badly and you need to do it with the policies that serve the general well being at the time you are president. Yes of course we have to plan for the future, but now is of the utmost import.

    I would like Obama to stop whining and get to work.

    Parent

    Are you (none / 0) (#57)
    by JThomas on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:35:17 PM EST
    saying that Geithner made even 25% at the NY Fed as he could have made in the private sector?

    The top 25 hedge fund managers averaged over 600 million/year the last 3 years.

    Geithner probaby did not make more than 500k/yr over the same period.

    From a family security standpoint, he sacrificed by being in public service.


    Parent

    Palast and Krugman (none / 0) (#80)
    by Politalkix on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 06:49:47 PM EST
    and [Enron]

    Parent
    There are people still reading TPM? (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by shoephone on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:38:37 AM EST
    I always forget that site exists until BTD periodically refers to it.

    I liked destor23's response to Taplin, but in comparison to alot of the other TPM commenters, destor23 lives in the real world.

    It's no coincidence that Andrew Sullivan (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Joelarama on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:57:19 AM EST
    jumped over to the Obama bandwagon.

    I agree that Obama is essentially a person of good will who believes in the democratic process.  If he weren't I would be scared sh**less by the fanatics who bend the truth and shout others down to justify his every decision.

    I agree, he does believe in a process, (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Amiss on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:38:36 PM EST
    but I am not entirely sure it is a democratic one.

    Parent
    Not just he (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by AX10 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:29:54 PM EST
    add to that, former Republicans such as Ed Schultz, Arianna Huffington, Kos, Avrosis (is that the proper spelling of his name?) among others who were unabashed Clinton haters during the 1990's.
    It should not come as a shock that the Clinton hating "former" Republicans went for Obama.  Anything to stop the Clintons.

    Parent
    Huffington is (none / 0) (#59)
    by JThomas on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:37:30 PM EST
    hammering the President virtually every day now.
    Schultz is an advocate for the union working man.
    I suppose you disagree with that tho as NAFTA was a Clinton initiative.

    Parent
    The fact that this post (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:58:07 AM EST
    (or rather, Taplin's comment) comes a day after Obama broke a major campaign promise to hold Bush officials accountable for illegal survelliance is pretty comical.  Taplin writes about conspiracy theories but the government listening in on you is no longer a "theory."  Obama's government is doing so.  Bigger and better than ever!

    Oy.

    Talk about (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Spamlet on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:10:32 PM EST
    reliving the primaries, Taplin starts out with this analysis of the criticism coming his way from the so-called fifth column:

    Most of it started from the Hillary supporters who called me out for my early endorsement of Barack

    It's all Hillary's fault.

    Live by the sword, (none / 0) (#31)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:33:58 PM EST
    die by the sword.

    Parent
    And here I was thinking that (5.00 / 11) (#29)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:12:54 PM EST
    the president is supposed to feel privileged to serve us, and now I find out that we're the ones who are supposed to be feeling privileged...sheesh.  Does anyone know if there is any genuflecting involved?

    Actually, I was thinking about a one-fingered salute to those who would call us traitors and who use the term "liberal" like an epithet toward those of us who expect the president to fulfill the oath he took, and feel a responsibility to call him on it when he doesn't.  

    I'm sick of being told in semi-hushed tones that "soon, it will all be made clear," as if one of these days the image of Jesus will appear on the Lucite of the teleprompter and we can all fall to our knees in supplication.  Or a bright light will shine down and the wisdom of Barack will be manifest.

    OF COURSE I want him to be successful, but it isn't wrong to want that success to be on my terms - you know, where the government should not be free to do whatever it wants to whomever it wants with no consequence and no accountability.  And where the people's interests take precedence over the Almighty Corporation.  Where there is an end to the relentless encroachment on civil and human rights, and religion is politely, but firmly instructed to stay out of government.  Where women are not made to feel subservient to their husbands, boyfriends, doctors or pastors when making decisions about their reproductive lives.  Where the rights people have in one state do not disappear when they cross states lines.

    If that makes me a traitor, well, so be it.  I just have no time for these people who have switched their brains to "off."

    "Obama Butt Boy" LOL (none / 0) (#19)
    by aeguy on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 11:50:22 AM EST
    Sorry Taplin, but you are. Just look at this ridiculous Krugman column he wrote:

    "Paul Krugman In Despair"

    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/24/paul_krugman_in_despair/

    Yes, Taplin is one of many unconditional Obama supporters that believe he can do no wrong.

    Everybody who tthought they deserved to (none / 0) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:18:20 PM EST
    be on the next cover of TIME sure hates them Krugman :)  This write up starts off soundingly like a jealous cheerleader's vendetta letter.  A lot of the stuff I read criticizing Krugman and has little or no facts dealing with the actual economy and policy seem to start that waym, and then moves into lots of foot stomping and snorting everytime someone says "Krugman".

    Parent
    Ha ha ha ha (none / 0) (#25)
    by KoolJeffrey on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:04:25 PM EST
    "Decadent Left". LOL. I wish I could afford to be decadent like "former" neocon Andrew Sullivan.

    FWIW, BTD, I've the 'traitor' treatment ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:06:35 PM EST
    ... from someone you know as well as you know yourself, for speaking the unspeakable truth (for instance, that Jack Abramoff directed tribal political contributions to Democrats as well as Republicans ... such as the $6,000 in Mashpee Wampanoag slushfunds to Rep. Bill Delahunt and $5,700 to Senator Ted Kennedy among others involved in this plea and sentencing).

    For the old, dead record, the total of "new" Abramoff money directed to old Dem's in the form of political contributions was in the $1.2 million range, vs ~$1.7 million in comparable funds to Republicans.

    FWIW Ron (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 12:40:35 PM EST
    I still do not understand what point you were trying to make on the Abramoff thing.

    Parent
    That the Dems are a little (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:36:27 PM EST
    decadent and the Repubs are very decadent.

    Or is there more to it than that?

    Parent

    Sometimes the facts are just the facts. (none / 0) (#46)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 01:49:32 PM EST
    I view it as unwise (and un-progressive) to stake out positions contrary to all available evidence ... and especially unwise to mount such positions as foundations for personal or institutional attacks.

    For whatever reason, you found it advisable to join the collective left-blogospheric effort to suppress the facts and ostracize the messenger.

    "Progressive" bloggers and global warming deniers are not so very different in that regard.

    Parent

    I've been listening to Ralph (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:05:57 PM EST
    and reading people like Hightower and Palast for a little too long for what you've been talking about to be big news to me, my friend.

    Parent
    "Progressive" (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 02:11:18 PM EST
    like alot of things people aspire to, is always a matter of degree.

    Parent
    FWIW (none / 0) (#79)
    by daria g on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 06:02:32 PM EST
    I remember that.  I reread your diaries covering that issue several times over before I finally might have figured out what you were trying to say.  It wasn't easy.  I think you were trying to say that bloggers kept insisting that legal Ambramoff-directed money didn't make its way to both parties, when it did. So bloggers were making a flawed argument focusing on a diversion.

    People attacked you because they didn't get what you were saying.  They thought those donations (the ones that you explained were legal) were the entire issue.  So they also thought you were just stubbornly trying to prove that both parties were equally at fault in the whole Abramoff scandal.

    IMHO that was the fundamental problem. Total misunderstanding. Like I said, I read that stuff more than a few times, and BTD followed as well - and he's no fool - and neither of us are still completely sure we got the point. I have no use for the orange site any more but I can't put the blame 100% on them for that, because it was so hard to understand what was being discussed..

    Parent

    Yup, I have been a traitor (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:12:23 PM EST
    fed on killing babies, part of everything that is evil in the world, running with murderers and Obama haters......whatever, surely I've done it.  TomP at Orange State was really getting hell yesterday for his comments in the Young Turk diary about William Black and I commented about how juvenile it is make silly slams when someone is only talking "issues".  See TomP was told that he was "stupid" because he had been a supporter of Edwards early in the primary. I was told to get myself back my Pumaleft where I fit in or something weird like that.....it was just terrible, I cried for hours :)  What a freakshow.  Issues?  Issues?  According to everyone who doesn't want to talk about the issues the only thing that has issues is me :)

    It's the thing that lets you know (none / 0) (#76)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 04:17:37 PM EST
    you're doing a good job.

    Blinded by the light (none / 0) (#81)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 08:16:16 PM EST
    Since Obama's election I have seen most of my friends who were(are) staunch Obama supporters open their eyes. I am surprised anybody with a brain is still enraptured.

    Obama boosterism does Obama (none / 0) (#82)
    by pluege on Wed Apr 08, 2009 at 09:53:52 PM EST
    no good at all. Keeping Obama honest by challenging him is best for Obama, the country, and progessivism. But don't expect Obamafans to ever understand that - they're too blinded by Obama's aura to see anything other than they want to see.

    Obama has failed massively already on torture, states secrets and civil rights. His economic policy bankrupting us to bailout corrupt Wall Street crooks and bankers is an unspeakable tragedy that everyone from now thru our great great great child will suffer from.

    He has done very good things, but other than not being republican, on the whole he is a pretty large disappointment so far. But most here knew that would be the case.

    You (none / 0) (#83)
    by JThomas on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 12:43:16 AM EST
    just said you pre-determined that Obama would be a failure and now you say he is a failure.

    What a completely objective analyst you are..LOL.

    Less that 80 days in, he is a ''massive'' failure?

    It is going to be a long,painful 8 years for you.
    Enjoy it.

    Parent

    Less than 80 days... (none / 0) (#84)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Apr 09, 2009 at 02:28:14 PM EST
    ...and Presidenting is hard work!