Blame The "Counterculture" First

Booman responds to my post in which I write:

If I am understanding this argument correctly, Booman is saying that the South was not lost to Dems by the Civil Rights movement, it was lost by the Vietnam War. That is a pretty stunning claim it seems to me. Ridiculous even. What happened since the 60s, at least in terms of politics, is that the South became solidly Republican and the rest of the country became more Democratic.
Booman ignores my point, and instead continues discussing "countercultural" progressives:

[T]he post-Vietnam War progressive movement grew out of the counterculture, and you can't make a very good case for running the country if your disposition is counter to the culture and power structures of the country.

[MORE . . .]

That's why I say we need to get over being countercultural. I don't mean that we should change our values. I am talking about our disposition, our attitude, the way we carry ourselves, what we expect of ourselves. When I say that we should make the countercultural cultural, I mean that we should have the confidence to behave like our values are mainstream and that we want to and deserve to govern with our mainstream values.

I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Slapping the label "countercultural" on people disagreeing with THE POLICIES adopted by the "power structures of the country" is not meaningful to me. Perhaps Booman means to object to the "protest" culture (seemingly the reference here is to the Occupy Movement.)

Perhaps Booman, like Markos Moulitsas before him, disapproves of protests. Maybe that is what he means by "countercultural." Personally, I'm not much of a protest person myself. But that does not mean I do not appreciate the political space protests create.

I'm not a big fan of empty labels, and to me, "countercultural" is a particularly empty label. When Booman asserts that "[T]he post-Vietnam War progressive movement grew out of the counterculture," what does that mean? Did the progressive movement not also grow out of the Civil Rights Movement? Or the Women's Liberation Movement? Or the environmental movement?

And in case you are wondering, I think it is indisputable that in terms of electoral politics - the "winning power" thing -the aftermath of the Civil Rights and Women's Liberation movements had much broader effects on elections than the Vietnam War protest movement.

Booman's argument does not seem to say anything concrete to me, other than adopt the Right Wing idea that "progressives hate the culture of America." I'm not seeing that as a helpful insight.

One final note, it is rather ironic to me that I am ostensibly being placed in the position of "defending," such as I am, the "countercultural" idea. It reminds me that not only is Booman echoing the critiques of Chait against opposers of the Iraq War and Joe Lieberman, but also those of Ann Althouse:

You'd think that if Armando was going to bother to link to this, he'd respond to the point that matters so much: it's dysfunctional to alienate the people you need to win over in order to gain majority power. But, though he goes on for 725 words, it's all just about how angry he is at the Bush Administration and don't I ever think about why he's so angry?

Yeah, well, but you linked to me. Don't you ever think about why your side can't seem to win elections, despite all these deficiencies in the people you are so angry at? Can't you distinguish between them and people like me, who represent the votes you need to win?

Althouse was responding to this post by me in February 2006. You can read it and see what a crappy "hippie" I am. And, obviously, Democrats found ways to win elections without the support of the Ann Althouses of the world.

I guess the "countercultural" thing was not as big a problem for those elections.

Speaking for me only

< Tony Rezko Sentenced to 10 1/2 Years | Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hilarious comment (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:11:54 AM EST
    from Booman's thread:

    Armando, being Armando, makes absolutely no effort to understand or engage with your argument.  You wrote something about the SixtiesMan that lamented something bad, so he jumped up to defend the people he's decided are "his team."

    The South?  You didn't write a word about the South.

    (My emphasis.) That's sort of my point. Not mentioning the South and the Civil Rights Movement when discussing the "demise of the liberal movement"'s power is a huge omission.    

    Seems Booman's knowledge of liberals was formed (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:57:36 AM EST
    in the Nixon era, with Nixon administration defined DFHs in the antiwar movement.

    Many so called modern progressives have bought into that vague definition of 'counterculture'.

    Wish I had time to go into it more, but a meeting of the corporateculture beckons.


    I agree. (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:10:44 AM EST
    That is the willful ignorance that "cult of personality" politics create. The Democratic Party handed the Republicans the Presidency for the best part of a generation (with the exception of Watergate's Carter one term) for the principles espoused in the Declaration Of Independence, that all People are created equal (not just men.) It was a terrific sacrifice, but it was worth it because we made substantial gains (no, not near enough for Women and Gays), and in the end, despite the temporary losses, standing by these principles improved the lives of millions of souls. My eyes well up in pride for what the Liberal effort accomplished despite multiple killings and electoral setbacks, because we stood up for undeniable truths, not electoral expedience.

    Which is why when President "These Business Men are savvy" Barack OCorporate, a man who would be nowhere near the Presidency without that sacrifice and standing stoutly for Principles, wipes his @ss with those said Principles it angers people who believe in the system. Look in Webster's under "Political expedience" and you will find his picture shaking Boehner's hand. He is an insult to almost two generations of sacrifice. And what is worse, he didn't have to be that! He went out of his way to play kissy kissy with the vermin of the Government, and played around for two and a half years while the economy burned. (Yes, the auto bailout was good, but the younger workers got their pay cut. The Stimulus was underfunded and rife with tax cuts, which are not the stimulative. ACA is a gun to the head of poor people to buy crap insurance. DADT was great, but cost him way too much {ie., the extension of the Obama tax cuts, they're his now.} There has been other good stuff, but he always undercuts with with his naive {which I don't think he is} belief that the Regressives are just cranky and a little wrong and that we whining Liberals should realize that Boehner and Mitchell are good guys too. They are not.)

    You may buy his recent partisan rhetoric, but I don't, he is just desperate. Even if he is being truthful, just how stupid did he have to be for almost three years to believe the Regressives were reasonable people? Pretty d@mn freaking stupid. I agree with you and disagree with most below, Obama is better than Romney. Hell, what I flushed three hours ago is better than Romney, but try to understand when you feel stabbed in the back you might be just a wee testy at the jack@ss who put it there.

    And Booman, just put your Obama pajamas on and gently stroke the picture of your wittle hero, because you are making an absolute joke of yourself.

    There, now I feel better. :)



    It's 12:30 am here (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    in China, and I have to go to bed because I have early class. Sorry, I'll be back at some point, probablt night time for you all. Sorry. :(



    Counterculture? (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:13:37 AM EST
    Does Booman mean when Obama and the Democrats proposes cuts to Social Security they need to get over being countercultural. Seems when it comes to the safety net programs the Dems are being countercultural while abandoning long held values. A twofer.

    For instance:

    SANDERS: Well, I think that position is way out of line with what the American people want. I just saw a poll today. Seventy percent of Republicans, of Republicans say do not cut Social Security. Numbers are higher for Democrats and independents. In this economic moment when so many people are hurting, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are enormously important. They are life and death issues. link

    The economic meltdown ... (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:52:55 AM EST
    gave the Dems all the cover they needed to move Left. But they continued (and continue) their move to the right.  And not merely on economic policy, but on civil liberties and foreign policy.

    For the crypto-conservative liberals who make up a lot of the party (and most of the left blogs) this doesn't mean much.  They were half in the bag already.

    But for those of us who really believe in the progressive agenda.  This means a lot.  And why most of us can find very little to support in the current Democratic Party.

    Sanders is of course right.  But almost no one in the party is listening.

    And the current attempt by Dems to do the traditional "bogey man dance" about the Republicans I find wholly unpersuasive. It's just Pep Rally politics.  Nothing more.


    Robot Porter is an example of an (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    Obama voter who has no reason to get out of bed on election day.

    I'll get out of bed ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:08:53 PM EST
    to make popcorn.  And watch the silliness.

    Perhaps we can find a way to stir you (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:12:57 PM EST
    and our President at the same time.  He really got off on the wrong foot all the way around.  Does he care enough to correct himself?  Some blabbing head on CNN said that he has the same problem that George W. Bush had and cannot admit that he may have been quite wrong about something, therefore he cannot change course in office.  I had never thought about that, viewed any of it in that light.  I'm having a difficult time stirring myself as you can see.

    You stir Obama ... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:24:27 PM EST
    I'll stir my popcorn.

    Wrong foot? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:25:50 PM EST
    No - I think he's doing exactly what he set out to do and wants to do, and achieving exactly what he set out to do and wants to do.

    I don't believe he is incompetent.


    Cannot resist: (3.67 / 3) (#155)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:22:38 PM EST
    "Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again."
     [Andre Gide]

    You know (1.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:36:07 PM EST
    A lot of the time when I read your comments I have no idea what you're are trying to convey.

    Often they sound like "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra"... ;-)


    Edger..big guy!! (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:43:44 PM EST

    Professor Irwin Corey teaching grammar and speech.



    Some achieve. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:56:04 PM EST
    They do. Really. ;-)

    A new cultural reference. Wonder how I can (none / 0) (#183)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    use that in everyday life?

    It'll be (none / 0) (#194)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:10:26 PM EST
    Wiki doesn't include references to (none / 0) (#199)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:16:23 PM EST
    the appar. famous line and/or the language:  link

    "Dar (none / 0) (#202)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:18:53 PM EST
    How may I locate this? (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    Picard uses his newfound knowledge of Tamarian metaphors to communicate with the Tamarians and end the battle.

    You might need (none / 0) (#210)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 03:36:10 PM EST
    a faster than light spaceship and a planet with intelligent life to communicate with on it. ;-)

    I guess (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:27:19 AM EST
    when you are undergoing ritual humiliation you have to find someone else to blame?

    Charlie Pierce on the blame game (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:34:42 AM EST
    as it applies to the Obama administration.

    There wasn't a seat at that table, as far as I'm aware, for a member of the administration."

    (Translation: Don't blame us. We're only the Executive Branch. We came here to end partisanship and we're doing so by eliminating the need for one of the two parties.) link

    Goodies galore in that post. Read the whole thing.


    I'm afraid... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by ek hornbeck on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:31:42 AM EST
    you're no longer a 'centrist'.  The Overton Window has moved.  Only lickspittle loyalty to the 1% will suffice and why?

    Because they know they will lose.

    I found this piece by Taylor Marsh instructive and I quote the relevent part of it here-

    What is at the root of Obamabot invective, however, is the palpable fear and realization that Pres. Obama could actually lose in 2012. This is a stunner for them, especially considering where Barack Obama started his presidency.

    But now the President's fans have their own egos attached to him and the thought of Obama losing is scaring the crap out of them. Their goal to get Obama reelected now tied to not being proved wrong about him, but also to protect gloating rights, never mind that the current choices from either party leave a lot to be desired. The sad truth is there isn't very much difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney that will be felt by people. For Obamabots, it's not just about Pres. Obama winning reelection in 2012. It's not about their belief that Barack Obama will champion greater policies in a second term. There is no evidence he will. Obama's reelection is now also about them. It's personal, not political or policy driven.

    Fan politics for the sake of the politician being supported is always toxic. It also usually disappoints. Just ask the bookend to the Obamabots, die hard fans of Sarah Palin.

    Fan (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:41:35 AM EST
    politics is really about the best description I have seen. This reminds me of Bush supporters in 2004. They were saying that they had to reelect Bush but couldn't really find a whole lot of agreement on policy with him outside of the neocon agenda.

    I think Taylor Marsh (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:58:16 AM EST
    hits it, and getting him reelected is now personal for many out there.  There isn't much difference between Obama and Mitt that most voters will experience.  For me and my family, because the President is the CIC, even small policy changes in foreign policy can have a large affect on MY life. But most Americans would not experience a huge difference in their lives.

    When things are personal and about our own egos though and not about being able to live something that passes for a decent life, that is usually when we begin to make the least sense.


    It's pretty easy (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:14:42 AM EST
    to caricature other people.  

    I can list about 10 fundamental differences between Obama and ANY Republican candidate.  

    And I can I also envision what sort of SCOTUS nominees Romney would appoint compared to Obama.

    But I'm sure it's all about being a superfan.


    Who would Romney appoint (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:23:53 AM EST
    to the Supreme Court that would destroy the world?  Sadly Ronald Reagan's appointees were not of the caliber that I am told must make me scared to death of electing ANY Republican.  Dubya's appointees were vile.  Who knows what Mitt would appoint?

    Scalia? (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:29:29 AM EST
    Honestly, there is a unreal sense in this thread.

    He tried to Bork us too (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:40:12 AM EST
    Okay okay....Reagan was bad...horrible

    But Mitt passed Obamacare in MA, he cares when he must, he's a kind Conservative :)


    "Obamacare" (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:45:56 AM EST
    was going to pass in MA with or without Romney, he just didn't stand in the way and that allowed him to influence the bill to be more conservative during discussions.

    An example of his irrelevance to that is that he vetoed 8 or 9 different sections of the bill and every single one of his vetoes was overriden by the overwhelmingly Dem legislature.

    When he was governor we had no growth and the murder rate shot up (due to what I consider a direct relationship to the policies he implemented).  Not very kind.


    He gets credit for it on the big screen though (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:02:45 AM EST
    He was governor.  People looking for someone who cares about them will give him full credit.  He's a functional Conservative, he does things that are right for the people when they need to happen. He would end the D.C. deadlock in doing the right things for the right people because finally the Republicans would end their insanity and everyone knows the Democrats would never screw the people like that no matter who was President :)

    The Republicans will end their (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:40:22 AM EST
    insanity once they get Mitt in the W.H? That is some good fantasy right there.

    I know it is not you talking....ask your friends how well the nut job base of the GOP has responded to Romney so far. What will happen is that Eric Cantor will define himself as the Romney-prodder. Romney will get made more crazy, not the other way around.


    You get it (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    It is all battle planning.  And sometimes you forget who the Haqqani network is because they are small right now doing all the wrong things, seem to be a little isolated, and have blown themselves up several times.  If they could only get the right leader running Afghanistan the whole world would change for them....everything :)

    I really hope this is satire<nt> (none / 0) (#57)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:04:13 AM EST
    I'm saying that I will hear this argument (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:15:52 AM EST
    at some kitchen table.  It isn't one I will be making, but I will hear this argument from Independents and I'm surrounded by them.  They are people who are have blood and skin invested in Afghanistan, who show up every single day and must do the thing that works in extreme environments and situations and using deductive reasoning doing what I outlined would work.  They sleep in the dirt often, they eat dirt in their food often and they turn in stellar work performance every single day and they are sick of the crap. They just want $hit fixed and they are really really fed up right now.

    Murder rate increase directly connected (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:13:16 AM EST
    to Romney policies (in your opinion):  how so?  

    What do you think of his judicial appointments?


    Boston (none / 0) (#136)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:48:19 PM EST
    Had had a very good record in fighting violent crime in the years before Romney was governor.  There was a real effort to bridge the gap between the community and the police, and there was funding for summer jobs for youth in the city.  As a result of this (in my opinion), the murder rate dropped significantly in the years before Romney was governor.  As an aside - these jobs were typically things like cleaning parks, or running camps.  I had one of these as a teenager as did most other kids I knew my age.  All you needed was to be a resident of the city.

    That program was pretty high up on the chopping block, and he cut it multiple times throughout his term.

    Here is an article talking about one round of cuts.  Here is an article talking about another round of cuts.  Here is an article talking about the murder rate spike that Boston experienced that directly coincided with those cuts.

    It's pretty well assumed around here that kids with jobs don't go around killing people.  And it's also well known that the murder rate spikes during the summer when kids are out of school and it's hot outside.

    It's important also to see this in some context.  Just a few years earlier was the "Boston miracle" which was a time in the mid 90's where for 18 months no one under the age of 18 was murdered.  And the murder rate spike was almost entirely attributed to youth violence.


    to be honest (none / 0) (#143)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    I don't know very much about his judicial appointments.

    But the governor does not have complete power over that one either.  His appointees have to be approved by the governor's council which is an elected body and overwhelmingly liberal.


    That was for Massachusetts (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:46:34 AM EST
    He won't be Massachusetts Mitt in the White House.

    Massachusetts Mitt? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:49:53 AM EST
    I can't stop giggling.

    No, he won't (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:37:09 AM EST
    Romney will toe the Tea Party line because he has to now....

    And, he is very, very close to Salt Lake.  

    Why was he chosen to replace the exisitng leader of the Salt Lake Olympics?  Why him?  He was from Michigan and lived in Massachusetts.  Who wanted him to come to Salt Lake?

    Would not someone ask a few questions if a Catholic Bishop were running for office?

    His every inclination will be to be conservative....The experiment in Mass was just to get elected there....


    But Salt Lake City proper (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    is pretty liberal and has hippies downtown :)  Right next to the tabernacle.  I love Salt Lake City as long as I'm IN THE CITY.

    Do not be fooled (none / 0) (#141)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    Yes, SLC proper (which is very small and only a fraction of Salt Lake County) is like Portland, Oregon.  

    Romney, however, is very, very much tied into the Mormon Church.   He is not a cultural Mormon.  He was a Stake President for 9 years.  He will be very, very conservative.

    The Baptists are shooting themselves in the foot by worrying about Romney being a conservative.

    Of course, the GOP primary voters are just playing hard to get and will fall in line behind Romney because he polls better against Obama.  The conservatives just want Romney to know they own him.


    I can't say that I'm fooled (none / 0) (#151)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:17:51 PM EST
    I am very familiar w/Mormon faith.  It is strong in WY in areas like Star Valley.  And many Mormon's do tend to insist on educating their children and there is a large presence at the University of WY.  I don't fear Mormons any more than I fear Evangelicals, and I did debate one in college on the issue of abortion and she did start crying.  I don't know if I feel bad or happy about that to this day.

    Even in Junior High, one of my friends played cello in the orchestra with me.  She was one of the kindest kids I had ever met.  I ended up at her house, her family was so happy, and they never bicker like my family does.  It was like being at a spa retreat.  I took home Pearls of Wisdom and watched my dad melt like the wicked witch.  "It's a cult!"  He yelled at me.  None of their literature allowed in this house or in your possession.  Whew...he went a little crazy on me there.


    Very nice people (none / 0) (#168)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:46:31 PM EST
    Not critical of active LDS in that sense....

    But the issue is to know Mitt.  

    When asked very recently about his always changing his mind, he blurted out that he had always been a member of the same church.  "The Church." It is at the center of everything Romney.

    Mitt will not cross the LDS Church on social issues.  

    Most are familiar with the LDS Church's pivotal role in Prop 8 here in California.   But the LDS Church was also instrumental in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment in 1980.

    Many will balk at discussing Romney's faith but it goes beyond just faith into Romney being a leader of the Church.  A Stake President.  Which is roughly equivalent to a Catholic Bishop, as the LDS Church has largely a lay clergy.

    Other Mormon politicians are often cited to say that it doesn't matter that Mitt is a Mormon.  But take a closer look.  The Udalls, and I include Mo from a generation ago, are not church- going Mormons.  Mormon by ancestry is all.

    Harry Reid.  A true anamoly.  But Harry is a mutt far outside the inner circle of Mormon heirarchy.  Not a leader like Romney.  A convert from nowhere.  The exception that proves the rule.

    Huntsman.  Great example.  Look closely and you will see a Mormon who now publicly muses that he may not accept all the tenets of LDS doctrine--which is heresy.  He appears to be gravitating to the very socially liberal Episcopal Church, which is the route many intelllectual  Mormons use to leave the LDS Church.  This is why Huntsman appears "socially moderate."

    BTW it is not "Pearl of Wisdom" but the "Pearl of Great Price" (a separate set of LDS scriptures that talks about the hereafter) or the "Word of Wisdom" (which contains the prohibition against alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea)  which is found in another set of LDS Scriptures entitled the Doctrine and Covenants.


    Didn't Romney previously say he supported (none / 0) (#187)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:01:50 PM EST
    a woman's right to choose?  Did he just say that or did he do something more in support?  

    When he was running in Massachusetts (none / 0) (#193)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:09:38 PM EST
    Which he has now disavowed.

    Was only elected once to be Governor of Mass....

    If people want to see another version of the "compassionate conservative,"  they can point to his pandering in Massachusetts.....

    The reason conservative primary voters are playing "hard to get" with Romeny is that they want him to learn real, real good that they will own him once they swing into his camp, and they will do that because he polls better against Obama.


    Then (4.00 / 0) (#201)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:17:12 PM EST
    perhaps we should be doing the same thing with Obama. There are so many people promising to vote for him even though he hasn't done much to improve their situation.

    The thing is the GOP thinks that they need their voters. Obama just expects everybody to show up and vote for him no matter what he does.


    I understand this position (none / 0) (#208)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:24:14 PM EST
    and with a little legerdemain and word play one can can turn light grey into black.....

    But Sotomayor and Kagan are very real appointments....

    And Romney and Obama are not the same....

    And Romney will find a new war.....

    The thing with Romney is that anything outside the LDS Church just doesn't matter very much to him.  That is why he can change so much....So, he will be fine with kowtowing to the Tea Party.....

      Because the most important point to Romney is that he will be fulfilling the White Horse Prophecy.


    Gee, maybe they sent me home with (none / 0) (#200)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    something really good and my dad threw it away :)  I'm almost certain it wasn't a book called the Pearl of Great Price.  I'm sadly a born shopper.  I would have remembered that title :)

    Book of Mormon most likley (none / 0) (#209)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:25:26 PM EST
    The Southpark episode is pretty accurate regarding Mormon history and the origins of the Book of Mormon.

    The LDS Church had been running (none / 0) (#197)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:14:58 PM EST
    the latest set of feel good commercials around the country.....but pulled them in important Republican primary states....

    No, there is no coordination between the LDS Church and Romney.....

    There would be a hotline to Salt Lake in a Romney Whitehouse.   Don't believe the (insincere )attempt mimic JFK.


    You will have to flesh out your argument (none / 0) (#203)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:19:45 PM EST
    with some kinds of evidence I think when the time comes, or we will be called intolerant and bigots :)  It isn't so much that I doubt you.  But we will the evidence in a form that makes it extremely clear to Independents, who generally have a kind of intolerance for the overly intolerant and the bigot :)

    Sorry...skipping words again (none / 0) (#205)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:21:20 PM EST
    We will need evidence.

    You are discarding (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:03:26 AM EST
    political reality.  

    If Romney were to win the election and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were forced to retire, he absolutely would move the court to the right dramatically.

    We KNOW the sort of person that Obama will appoint.  And I am quite happy with his selections so far.  I believe he would be even more aggressive with a Ginsburg replacement.  Romney, otoh, would face massive pressure to appoint another Alito.

    I get that a lot of folks don't like Obama but this sort of equivalency simply ignores what the Republican Party has become.


    So far... (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:16:20 AM EST
    all I know for sure about Obama's appointments are they think warrantless searches are cool, and 1 of 2 think corporations are as good as people.

    And I'm supposed to be afraid of Brand R exclusively?  F*ck that, I'll find somebody to vote for who is actually interested in possibly maybe representing me and people like me.


    It's not all that great is it? (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:17:24 AM EST
    That's your choice (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:23:18 AM EST
    I understand the "pox on both your houses" mentality a lot more than the "Hillary would have been so different" mentality.

    For you the problem is that the status quo is far too much to the right.  No one elected by the Democrats or Republicans will be acceptable.


    Bingo... (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    No one elected by the Democrats or Republicans will be acceptable.

    I think we're as close as we've ever been to a sizeable enough portion of the electorate realizing that, to where maybe a party for the 99% emerges...the Brand D/Brand R shuffle only works for the 1%.


    This isn't a pox on both your houses mentality (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:33:48 AM EST
    This is what kdog truly believes in and fights for and nobody can seem to get Obama to wake up and set any parameters for the left to even feel protected in.  When he does things that violate people drastically they will seek any kind of relief they can find.  That isn't a pox on both your houses, that is survival.

    Maybe a little poxing... (none / 0) (#167)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:45:12 PM EST
    I do take being called criminal by both houses a little personal...they first sicked a pox on my house, a pox commonly referred to as the law.

    The SCOTUS argument (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:47:28 AM EST
     leaves me cold these days.  Or rather, these years.  If it works for you, fine.  But I've had to eat too much sh!t because ... SCOTUS!!!

    Especially when we've been ... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    through a decade featuring continual infringements on our civil liberties, ones that continue apace in this administrations, and the Supreme Court has only weighed in occasionally and with negligible impact.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:29:23 AM EST
    Because congressional dems in the Senate have taken their job of advise and consent wrt presidential appointments so very seriously for decades.  Don't put all that blame on Republicans.  I have no doubt that I will be unhappy with the next appointment to the Supreme Court.  At this point, a level of pain of 7 and one of 8 is still more pain than I want to enable.  It will happen.  But I'm not going to help them shoot me in own foot.

    It is still a valid argument and (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:38:45 AM EST
    a very real threat.....

    As I've said in the past (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:23:34 PM EST
    If it influences your actions, fine.  Those are personal decisions of significance.  SCOTUS doesn't do it for me personally anymore.  That is a personal decision.  Of significance.

    What the hell? (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:28:52 AM EST
    You are still around....

    Do you still post at RedState....I don't even look anymore....Nor have I for quire some time.


    Nah (none / 0) (#125)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:02:11 PM EST
    That place is an insane asylum.

    There's all kind of wrong (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:02:18 AM EST
    in Taylor's assessment of the differences between Obama and Romney.

    It's one thing to disagree with Obama's policies, it's another thing to disregard the vast differences between Obama and Romney.

    Weak stuff from Taylor.


    What "vast differences" (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:15:23 AM EST
    do you see between Obama and Romney?

    Supreme Court to start (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:16:48 AM EST
    tax policy to follow.

    Just to name 2.


    You know a bit about Supreme Court politics (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:26:51 AM EST
    Who would Romney appoint that would destroy the world?  And let us remember that Obama loves him some Cass Sunstein and I originally learned that and who Cass Sunstein was and what was disturbing about him from you :)

    A ClarenceThomas (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:28:45 AM EST
    Gotcha (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:33:11 AM EST
    I think Obama needs to know though that he and Mitt are so closely related that we must have these intense discussions online sorting out exactly where and how there are meaningful differences.  It is time for that pol to shift and stay shifted :)  It is time for him to fully grasp that when it comes to espousing the principles of the people who want to vote for the Democrat....HE SUCKS RIGHT NOW BIGTIME.

    Mitt and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:51:55 AM EST
    the shape shifting twins who are merely "present" when legislation is passed. Somehow as governor and President they are/were both powerless to do anything.

    When it comes to tax policy (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:33:02 AM EST
    are you judging Obama's position by his rhetoric or by what he actually signs into law?

    Obama's 2010 tax cuts are even more generous to the rich than the Bush tax cuts regardless of any of his rhetoric about making the rich pay their fair share.      


    Do you REALLY doubt (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:59:58 AM EST
    he want to raise taxes on the rich?

    It's one thing to criticize his tactics, as I have done, but he has staked his position on taxes quite clearly.

    Your point is not well taken by me.

    If he had fought as hard for the public option as he did for higher taxes on the rich, I do not think we would be having a conversation about whether Obama supported the public option.


    He only recently began fighting to tax the (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:09:53 AM EST
    rich though.  When he made the December deal many of his old economic crew (Geithner, Summers) were saying that if you taxed the rich at that point it would cause a shock upon the economy that could have upended everything and blown the world up.  I think he believed them then, and he made that deal. I think he has gone farther down this road and sees things a bit differently now and understands he was just a little bit snowed.

    But the Goldman Sachs treasury is going to doomsday anything with Obama that encroaches upon the 1% and sadly Obama is likely to believe it too often.


    What (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    you fail to realize I think is that many of us here just don't trust Obama. From FISA on down he has not done what he said he would do he has a very serious credibility problem. Who knows what Obama really wants? When given the chance with taxes he didn't do it. Why is that? He had to do nothing and he chose to give the GOP more than they wanted.

    Wow....no kidding (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:18:30 AM EST
    How many times did he give the GOP more than they ever dreamed they would ever get let alone ask for?

    Yes, and fundamentally... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Pacific John on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:06:46 AM EST
    a lot of us placed higher priority on some policies like healthcare and education than did Armando. We looked for specific promises.

    Dem base voters liked the '90s for the obvious reasons, but were attracted to a detailed campaign proposal (Putting People First) that the candidate asked to be held accountable to, and largely lived up to.


    Obama stated his position quite clearly (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:28:00 PM EST
    on taxes when in "campaign mode" during the run up to the 2008 election. His "campaign mode" rhetoric is much the same now as it was then.

    Negotiating and signing tax cuts that are even more generous to the rich than the Bush tax cuts are more than just tactics they are legislation actions that have real results.

    If you consider Obama's campaign promises as fighting for something when he personally negotiated and signed into law legislation that is the polar opposite of what he said then, then I guess we will agree to disagree. A person ignoring actual actions for the sake of of few campaign promises.... oh well...



    MO Blue (2.00 / 1) (#134)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    Obama has stated (and the dems have supported) his assertion that the BUsh tax cuts will not have a second life for the wealthy.  HIs hard line is part of what tanked the deficit committee.

    According to the GOP, his unwillingness to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy is a primary cause for the breakdown.

    Shorter: he's proving you wrong.

    I have no problem with going back on campaign promises if the moment and situation demand it.  I am more concerned with adhering to those promises in the long term and Obama seems to be doing that while getting little notice of his actions.

    He could have caved on his veto threat.  He did not.


    Shorter Still: (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:59:26 PM EST
    Obama hasn't proven anything other than he can make the same promises in 2011 as he did in 2007-2008.

    Get back to me when Obama actually raises taxes on corporations and the rich instead of just talking about raising taxes on the rich.

    Much more probable is that he will support and sign legislation that lowers the tax rates for corporations and the rich by 10 - 12%.


    Longer ABG's shorter: (none / 0) (#135)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:40:26 PM EST
    Shorter: he's proving you wrong.

    in the future.  

    Really, ABG, not your best effort.


    No (none / 0) (#137)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:50:26 PM EST
    right now:

    "Last summer during the debt ceiling hostage crisis, Obama appeared to be the loser, but yesterday Republicans woke up to the reality that they lost Big Time--that we were going to get $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions, with 50% of the cuts coming from the military and none of the cuts from Social Security and Medicare. The Congressional water carriers for the Military Industrial Complex are in a panic.
    Republican lawmakers moved quickly Monday to protect the Pentagon from automatic budget cuts that will be triggered by the supercommittee's failure, with the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee saying he'll soon introduce legislation to repeal them."


    Wake me up when it's done. (none / 0) (#138)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:51:28 PM EST
    And Obama called a press conference (none / 0) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:01:27 PM EST
    yesterday and put everything that was happening and had happened on the table, and he explained it so that average Americans could understand it all.  It was great except that he did no such thing.

    You know what you know because you are a junkie of sorts.  When the election takes place it is all about the economy and the Repubs will stand up and say that our household balance sheet is in big trouble and Obama cannot lead on this.  They will argue that the broken balance sheet is keeping the economy broken. Obama is the President and he cannot lead.  Everything he touches when it comes to the economy fails.


    Actually (none / 0) (#165)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:38:41 PM EST
    He did it and then had his spokes person do it:


    You aren't listening.

    Also, the economy is slowly improving and with only slight backtracks, continues to improve. His policies are working.  

    They just aren't working instantly.


    Such bull$hit (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:23:12 PM EST
    You see a Picasso in every doodle :)  Even dog doodles :)  I have a yard full of dog doodles :)

    I suppose (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:38:32 AM EST
    one might sell out the people, and the other might reach out to selling out the people in the spirit of bipartisanship.

    "Hey Mitt, you go in there and whack him around the room for awhile, and then I'll come in and drag you off him and make him trust me while my accountants take his pension and house away out of sight over in the back room there."?


    Supreme (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:26:09 AM EST
    Court is the only possible argument I see right now and it's impossible to say who Multiple Choice Mitt would appoint. He might appoint a Souter or he might not.

    That's absurd (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:28:29 AM EST
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:50:21 AM EST
    has he said who he will appoint? I really have no idea about him and his word is about as good as Obama's which is worth less than nothing.

    Yes he has (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:00:37 AM EST
    Scalia and Thomas types. His words.

    Well (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:12:05 AM EST
    then the Supreme Court is about Obama's only argument then.

    here's one (none / 0) (#17)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:26:51 AM EST
    that already happened


    If anyone is wondering, I will probably link to this at least a dozen more times before the election.  I think it serves as a good reminder of what is at stake.


    Cool, Romney was wrong on that (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:28:44 AM EST
    But Obama has been all wrong on Too Big To Fail and not implementing meaningful regulation in the Wall Street department.  Looks like a wash to me.

    Sigh (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:31:17 AM EST
    I do not understand some of you.

    Do you really think it is necessary to pretend Romney is ok in order to be critical of Obama?

    This is the anti-personality cult phenomena.


    I don't think Romney is okay (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:36:13 AM EST
    Bleh....not at all. I'm saying Obama doesn't have much to run against Romney with and that is Obama's fault.  He has time to change that up some though.

    I don't think anyone is pretending that here (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:43:35 AM EST
    Sorry (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:45:43 AM EST
    but that is demonstrably not true.

    this thread has been filled with such comments.

    You yourself asked me to name differences.


    I did, yes. Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:50:36 AM EST
    I guess I'm reading their comments differently than you are. I read them as mostly saying one's nearly as bad as the other and that the differences are cosmetic and "minor" in the big picture, not as saying one is ok.

    KInd of OT sort of (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:21:22 AM EST
    and maybe more cultural than counter-cultural, but I'm not sure whether there would be a difference between Obama and Romney on this or or not...
    WASHINGTON -- US President Barack Obama warned Congress on Monday that he would veto any legislative attempt to escape automatic cuts triggered by the failure to reach a long-term debt reduction deal.
    Under the August law that begat the committee as part of a deal to extend the US borrowing limit, the deadlock calls for draconian automatic cuts to domestic programs and military spending come January 2013.
    "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off-ramps on this one," Obama said.
    "I believe Democrats are prepared to do so. My expectation is that there will be some Republicans who are still interested in preventing the automatic cuts from taking place and, as I have said from the beginning, I stand ready and willing to work with anybody that's ready to engage in that effort."

    see my post below (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:25:36 AM EST
    the difference between Obama and Romney on this is huge.

    Romney wrote a lovely letter to Obama telling him to replace the defense cuts with medicaid cuts.


    And Obama wants both (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:29:37 AM EST
    That's a difference....

    I'm done (none / 0) (#85)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:34:59 AM EST
    pretending that 100 million = 800 million

    Yes I made those numbers up.  But you get my point.


    No not really (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:39:02 AM EST
    Heads They Win, Tails We Lose

    If agreement is not reached, $1.2 trillion in cuts automatically kick in, split evenly between domestic and military spending. Either way, the economy will wind up with $1.2 trillion less in purchasing power. The result will be to reduce demand, kill jobs and put more people on the streets.

    okay (none / 0) (#91)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:40:37 AM EST
    so 600 billion now = 1.2 trillion?

    If there is one thing I thought Democrats could agree on it's that domestic spending is more important than military spending.


    Did you read it? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    Obama will veto cutting any cuts.

    The threat is marinly targeted to the (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    attempt to restore military spending....

    And, the cuts to domestic spending exempts a lot.....


    The point is that you're being (none / 0) (#116)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:51:21 AM EST
    set up by very good con men, to cheer being set up by very good con men.

    The key to all this is that our debt is owed in our own currency - US dollars. Our government has the power to fix its solvency problems itself, by simply issuing the money it needs to pay off or refinance its debt. The US federal debt has been carried on the books since 1835. It has NEVER been paid off during that time, but just continues to grow. This has not hurt the economy, which for most of that period has been among the most vibrant in the world. The federal debt IS the money supply. All of our money except coins is created as bank debt. Historically, when the deficit has been reduced, the money supply has been reduced along with it, throwing the economy into recession.
    The burgeoning debt has been blamed on reckless government and consumer spending; but the debt crisis was created, not by a social safety net bought and paid for by the taxpayers, but by a banking system taken over by Wall Street gamblers. The banking debacle of 2008 caused credit to collapse, businesses to go bankrupt and unemployment to soar, drastically reducing the federal tax base. If anyone should be held to account, it is Wall Street; but the bankers were bailed rather than jailed and the taxpayers got billed for the crime.

    We have been deluded into thinking that "fiscal responsibility" is something for our benefit, something we actually need in order to save the country from bankruptcy. In fact, it has simply been an excuse to impose radical austerity measures on the people, measures that benefit the 1 percent while locking the 99 percent in a dungeon of debt peonage.

    I do not disagree (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:23:50 PM EST
    The debt is a chimerical bugaboo.

    But holding up the Defense budget is the type of negotiating that Obama should have been deploying long ago.


    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:32:46 PM EST
    should have been doing a lot of things long ago that he should have been doing.

    Now he's supposedly in trouble(?)- even though he's accomplished everything he set out to accomplish -  and all he has left is Boo! Scary republican might be elected who will do what I'm doing, and that would be 'worse'?

    It's called teamwork in the trade.


    You rermember 2000? (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:50:22 PM EST
    How everyone said that Bush was a different kind of conservative, a "compassionate conservative?"

    And off you go charging down that Nader track.


    meh (none / 0) (#192)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:07:22 PM EST
    take your strawman to somehwere someone might bite

    Yes! (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:40:35 AM EST
    That is exactly right.....

    I cannot (none / 0) (#171)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:50:22 PM EST
    rate this comment highly enough.

    for it to be a wash (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:31:49 AM EST
    Romney would have to be right on those issues.

    He's not.


    here's another goody (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    that I posted yesterday

    "Obama's fans have their egos attached" (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:59:59 AM EST
    The ego boundary blurring was present and exploited from the outset of Obama's candidacy.  It is why obamacrackheads once reacted so viscerally to any criticism of Obama.  An attack on Obama was to them literally an attack on themselves.

    His supporters bought the sales pitch that their support proved they were smarter, more evolved, less racist, younger, brighter, shinier, etc..  

    Now - all you hear is how "disappointed" they are.

    Whadda bunch of confirmation bias addled suckers.


    I am an Obama supporter (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    and have been posting here since Feburary 2008.

    I do not like your slurs.

    The phenomenom of which you speak happens all the time with political candidates, sports teams, etc.  It is a human trait.

    If you wish to discuss issues, then fine.  Ad homimen like this drivel not so much.


    Hey, thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    Your constant accusations of "ad hominem" just inspired me to refresh my memory of logical fallacies in general.

    I'd forgotten how many logical traps there are.  Plus some I'd never studied previously but can now name.  

    Examples of Irrelevant Conclusions abound.  I'm particularly pleased to learn of

    • argumentum ad misericordiam
    • argumentum ad verecundiam
    • argumentum ad ignorantiam
    • argumentum verbosum*

    and the less musical but much used "Ignoratio Elenchi"

    ::sigh:: and that's just for starters... I don't know if I should save the link or forget that I ever found it ...
    *argumentum verbosum:  a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.


    Taylor Marsh is projecting (none / 0) (#150)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:14:55 PM EST
    when she talks about gloating rights.

    She opposed Obama for a long, long time during the Primary fight....

    It sounds like she wants to gloat.


    Sorry but what an idiot (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:46:45 AM EST
    This from Booman's writing:

    That's why I say we need to get over being countercultural. I don't mean that we should change our values. I am talking about our disposition, our attitude, the way we carry ourselves, what we expect of ourselves. When I say that we should make the countercultural cultural, I mean that we should have the confidence to behave like our values are mainstream and that we want to and deserve to govern with our mainstream values.

    The majority of Americans support OWS.  OWS is not counterculture, it can't be unless we have thrown out the idea that this is a democracy.  Our current President and almost EVERY elected official in D.C. is the counterculture and remain so because of all the money there is for them in being counter.  I am not the one who has shunned OWS, I'm a full supporter and spend most of my free time reading from the think tank that has evolved from them.  You haven't shunned OWS, you gave them your first born :)  Booman has shunned OWS.  BOOMAN IS AT THIS TIME COUNTERCULTURE, and he can spend all day long saying he isn't (which he does all the damned time) and it won't change the fact that he is counter.  He is counter purely to protect a single President too as far as I can tell.

    If you stare too long at the 60s because you are afraid to look at and challenge the problems that we have today (that you could actually do something about), like a completely bought Washington D.C.....the lint in your navel will felt.

    And secondly, I am not afraid to lead.  I am not afraid of being in charge.  Perhaps some liberals are, I do know that power does scare some of us.  Don't throw us all in the I'm scared pile though because it isn't true.  Not all of us are frightened by power, all of us have had it with the bought off backroom deal power though that has become what both parties serve.  That power can ki$$ our a$$.

    Many of "our" values are mainstream (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:11 AM EST
    Unfortunately those are not the values that Obama and the Dems in Congress are pushing through Congress. They are championing policies that are the polar opposite of our long held values.  

    Republicans: Unintended advocacy of the 99% (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:38:19 AM EST
    by intended advocacy of the 1%. From the NYT editorial, Nov 22.  "In July, they (Republicans) rejected a "grand bargain" from President Obama that would have cut $l trillion in domestic and  defense spending and $650 billion from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, (note: since when are these social programs not part of domestic spending) all because it would have raised tax revenues by $1.2 trillion.  They dismissed Mr. Obama's second offer in September, which would have cut $3.6 trillion from the deficit, 60 % from spending cuts.  ....They rejected the proposal from the super committee Democrats to cut at least $3 trillion from the deficit , because one-third of it would have come from higher taxes on the rich.  When you hear Republicans claim that Democrats refused to touch their sacred cows of spending, remember that the Democratic offer would have cut $475 billion from Medicare and Medicaid over ten years, nearly half would come directly from beneficiaries."   Of course, all of this would be on top of the unmentioned  "first installment" of last August of about $1 trillion, in domestic spending.  Yes, we should remember.

    So true! (none / 0) (#122)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:00:05 PM EST
    One example of this was in the Healthcare debate.  Poll after poll for the last 20 years showed a majority of the public supported a "medicare for all" style program.  But listening to the media, or reading most of the "lefty" blogs, or watching the Dems' actions, you'd never know it.

    A couple things (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by kdm251 on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:28:24 AM EST
    Most libertarians I know claim they were protesters in the sixties, and then they say they grew up, who can forget Rand Paul and his aquabeddah.

    In terms of a whether Romney would be different than Obama, I think we could probably kiss reproductive rights goodbye, and look forward to more glorious wars, whether you like Obama or not he has reduced American casualties abroad and may actually get us out of Iraq. Obama is not perfect but he is way better than better than Romney

    Romney did nothing (none / 0) (#54)
    by itscookin on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    to try to limit abortion rights when he was governor of Massachusetts. I don't want him to be president, but trying to scare women with abortion rights only works when the candidate is scary.

    Massachusetts Mitt (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:19:45 AM EST
    It's going to be hell trying to fight Massachusetts Mitt.

    this is going to be a problem for me I think (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    I really despise Massachusetts Mitt.

    It's visceral.


    You may come up with the best (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:35:46 AM EST
    arguments to fight him.  He reminds me of Ward Cleaver.  I think he has that affect on many people.

    He reminds me of Gingrich (none / 0) (#104)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:21:35 AM EST
    in the sense that he appears to not connect the dots between his politics and his personal life/past in any way whatsoever.  Ugh.

    Gingrich makes me seethe and twist (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    almost as much as Anne Coulter does. He silently screams con artist to me the minute he opens his mouth.  Then my mind really starts to unwind on him, his eyes are too close together, his ass is so damned stuffed fat, his wife looks like she's so full of botox that the only thing that still moves on her is her arms and legs.  They have matching platinum Marilyn hair...... that's so fricken creepy to me it isn't funny.  Whenever he's talking I'm throwing up a little in my mouth.

    You actually (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:12:25 AM EST
    are a pretty good anti-Romney poster. You are doing an excellent job of pointing out his flaws.

    It may become a full time job for you on the blogs next year :)


    We'll be needing those arguments to win (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:52:17 AM EST
    the independent vote.  I don't seriously think any liberal is going to vote for Romney.  If they feel like crap though, they may not get out of bed to vote.

    that's ignoring one pretty big elephant (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:23:15 AM EST
    which is that when he campaigned in MA he was "pro-choice" and any attempts to limit abortion rights there would have gone over like a nuclear bomb.

    Now he's had his "I see the light" moment at whatever age and is all about saving babies from irresponsible mothers.  He will not forget who elected him to national office.  Not before his first term is up.

    Also, the supreme court.


    If the meme here is that Obama forgot (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:25:48 AM EST
    who elected him to office, why couldn't the same thing happen if Romney is elected?

    i think in some ways (none / 0) (#146)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    Obama actually believes his bipartisan nonsense.

    Romney will say/do anything to get elected.  I think that includes anything to get re-elected.


    Anything (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:11:45 PM EST
    to get reelected. He reminds me so much of Obama it's not funny. I consider him the GOP version of Obama. If he gets in office I'm not so sure he'd do the Tea Party's bidding because frankly the Tea Party agenda is extremely unpopular.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#154)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:22:38 PM EST
    frankly it seems to me like Obama is doing anything to not get re-elected.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    but he thinks he's doing what it takes to get reelected unfortunately.

    I've never in my life seen someone throw away everything in such a short period of time.

    Some of the pundits are saying that he really doesn't want to be reelected because he really doesn't like being president which probably has some truth to it. I mean he doesn't really care about policy or affecting policy change it seems. It's more like once he won the election it was all downhill for him from there. I guess when your goal is to the first African American president and the election is over, there's really not much else to shoot for.


    Do you think Obama's goal was to become (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:34:01 PM EST
    President or to become the first African American President?  I think the former.  

    Also, if I were Pres. and my wife was booed at a NASCAR event, I'd be thinking, why ever should I subject him/her to that abuse?  


    That's some racist (none / 0) (#180)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:58:35 PM EST
    bullsh*t oculus.

    Straight up.


    Which part? (none / 0) (#191)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:04:56 PM EST
    also frankly (none / 0) (#174)
    by CST on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    I'll take someone who will do anything to get reelected as a Dem over someone who will do anything to get reelected as a Repub any day of the week.

    You are playing to a different base.  That matters.  If Obama had actually been doing anything to get reelected - effectively - I'd probably have a lot less of a problem with him.


    Personhood amendment (none / 0) (#149)
    by kdm251 on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:13:43 PM EST
    Didn't Romney recently come out for the personhood amendment.  If Romney was sane when he was governor of mass, he's not now

    Re: (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:31:02 AM EST
    I mean that we should have the confidence to behave like our values are mainstream and that we want to and deserve to govern with our mainstream values.

    What approach is this?  It sounds like the "Fighting Dem" approach except that Booman wants us to co-opt progress instead of fighting for it.  I would also guess he is directing this at progressives and not their politicians, but shouldn't progressives give voice to this moral leadership by demanding it from their politicians?  Again, it's hard to believe that someone who is constantly defending Obama for not speaking out/using the bully pulpit can really be saying something like this.

    Are we a center-right nation not receptive to progressive values or did we already win all the cultural wars?  I feel like I've heard both from Booman.

    In terms of acting as those are values are mainstream, let's look at the issue of taxation.  I seem to recall that letting the Bush tax cuts expire was the consensus position for YEARS among the Democratic Party.  It was a position that helped them get elected.  But Democrats and Obama refused to act as though it was a mainstream position and strengthen their hand as they bargained it away.  You can argue about whether or not that was the right move but they certainly didn't act as though it was part of our moral vision.

    I understand that Booman thinks progressives are more comfortable criticizing from the sidelines.  But when the criticism is mostly that Obama has not taken advantage of the power of his position, it's hard to say that liberals just "distrust" being in power.

    Booman is all over the place with these posts.

    Booman is on the field? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:32:30 AM EST
    I know he thinks he is.

    Getting on the field (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by DFLer on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:11:17 AM EST
    I'm reminded of something Glenn G quoted in his recent article about police "response" to protests:

    As Rosa Luxemburg so perfectly put it: "Those who do not move, do not notice their chains."

    I dunno. (none / 0) (#35)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:40:08 AM EST
    Thinking you're on the field seems to be all you really need (see: Chait, Beltway lefties generally).

    I suppose (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:42:00 AM EST
    I had the same delusions years back, but hell I was practically writing the Daily Kos blog in 2005.

    Even then I was foolish.


    You got the attention of Ann Althouse. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:51:09 AM EST
    What more could you want.

    Where else is the President to turn? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:40:31 AM EST
    and, by extension "us" for that matter, seems to be the point to me.

    you can't make a very good case for running the country if your disposition is counter to the culture and power structures of the country.

    I'd put it a different way.  Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?  Support or action?

    For all the support the president supposedly had, within a year of his election, he had apparently done such a terrible job that Dems took a shellacking in the midterms.  What was the left's response?  "Oh well, you deserved it because you didn't {insert perceived slight here}"

    Either one of two things happened.  A totally different electorate showed up, or, too many of the president's prior supporters stayed home.  In either case it points to a tenuous support.

    Focusing on the latter, and this goes to another of BooMan's points, if people distrust the President and the current Dems to the point where they are either passively or actively working against, where else are pols to turn?

    An example - stimulus.  Another example - ACA.

    I'm wondering how you (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:44:12 AM EST
    concluded that was "the Left's" response?

    Exit polls seem to indicate they voted.

    As for me personally, I was "first guessing" the Obama Administration's action on the economy, and especially, the mortgage crisis.

    This might ring a bell - "Tim Geithner should resign."


    Here's a link (none / 0) (#58)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:05:09 AM EST
    to a few of the left's faves:

    Cenk, Greenwald & Ratigan on MSNBC

    And this (although I admit, there may be more recent data somewhere):

    Perhaps the most significant point about voter turnout in 2010 is how many voters didn't vote. Some 38 percent of eligible voters didn't vote in 2008 and this November and this year that figure rose to 61 percent.

    Compared with 2008, voting dropped off this year particularly among pro-Democratic groups:

    • Young voters were down by 55 percent.

    • African-Americans were down by 43 percent.

    • Hispanics were down by 40 percent.


    As for me personally, I was "first guessing" the Obama Administration's action on the economy, and especially, the mortgage crisis.

    Well, IMO, at least recently you've sounded more clear in your support of the president - in spite of your differences.


    2010 (none / 0) (#64)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:10:46 AM EST
    Doesn't mean what many liberals and conservatives think it means.

    African Americans and other core Obama voting blocks do not engage in midterm elections.  But trust me, the black voting block, in particular, is coming out in full force for Obama again in 2012.  The hispanic block and youth will be out in force as well.

    Because of the changing composition of the composition of the dem base, the mid terms just aren't a good proxy.

    Especially because one of the GOP strengths is their ability to get people to mid term voting booths.

    2012 will represent the true test and tell us where the nation really is.


    Agree (none / 0) (#182)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:59:40 PM EST
    particularly w/the black vote.  It'll probably be even higher considering all the grumbling from party.

    Of course, the protest ... (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:05:11 AM EST
    movement in the sixties would have been unnecessary if LBJ hadn't started an unwinnable war and lied to the country about it on a daily basis.  Similarly, OWS would be unnecessary if Obama hadn't bailed out the banksters, not to mention preventing the DOJ from pursuing the criminals in this sphere.

    Politicians, and their sycophantic supporters, always want to blame someone (anyone!) else for their electoral failings.

    He was worried about "losing Vietnam" (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:11:06 AM EST
    in the height of the Cold War.

    The Vietnam War was as much driven by politics as policy.


    Cmon, Lyndon and a few RWers (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by brodie on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    in the GOP including Nixon and Rocky were the only ones driving the idea of sending the US military into VN to fight the Cold War.

    And it wasn't the "height of the Cold War" in 1964-5:  the height was reached in the Missile Crisis after which tensions considerably relaxed and there was an effort by Kennedy and Khrushchev to begin detente.  There was no major public clamor for the US to go into VN.  Paranoid Lyndon was just trying to prove his manhood by conjuring up the bogus example of Munich.  Insane cold warrior paranoia by LBJ.


    Yup ... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:35:45 AM EST
    and, of course, this is also where the neo-cons start inching their way into the Republican Party.  And they wanted to put the Cold War center stage again for their own bizarre reasons.

    LBJ won by a landslide ... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:24:56 AM EST
    in '64 by convincing most of the country that he was the one that wasn't gonna get mired in Vietnam.  He was the "peace candidate".

    Yep. That election was in part (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by brodie on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:35:56 AM EST
    a rejection by the electorate of the case being offered by the GOP that the US needed to be far more militarily aggressive over there.  Just no factual basis for the assertion that politics drove Johnson -- rather it was his paranoid personality combined possibly with some personal payback to Brown & Root and also Johnson's reflexive cold warrior mentality.  His peacemaker campaign rhetoric was just a cynical ruse for votes.

    And even his VP Humphrey recognized that after the 1964 landslide that Johnson was perfectly situated politically to begin to fully disengage militarily from VN.  But Johnson didn't want to hear that sort of advice-- he immediately shut out Hubert from further discussions about VN.


    Counterculture vs. Them (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:10:10 AM EST
    The basic point of counterculture was the rejection of authoritarian paternalism--you know  Norquist pledges and lock step agreement to the Party.  Booman and the converts to the left you quote,  don't get counterculture mindset.  It would be so much easier for the pundits if they could put everyone in nice little boxes and make them behave.  Being counterculture is having a certain comfort in the gray areas of ideology and thinking.  

    I may agree with OWS, but that does not mean that I will criticize some of their tactics.  I may have wanted a different ACA , but there are key elements for the very poor that I want to see preserved and I see they are now being implemented.  

    Counterculture to these people makes them nervous.  You see "serious people" want "certainty".  

    They should stop worrying about the left and everyone should worry about the bipolar Indie middle of nothing.  The ones who love divided government and "vote for the man".  

    It's simple, just change the entire culture! (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Addison on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:58:36 AM EST
    What is easier: pushing for the policies we want or redefining the entire political culture of the United States? Booman seems to think it's the latter.

    He's treating abstractions as things, which is easy to do if you get too immersed in "politics" (itself an abstraction) for your own good. Laws are specific things, culture is more of an diffused abstraction. He seems to want to "reform" culture (both left-wing culture and by extension the national culture) in the same way he'd reform tax code. "We should make the countercultural cultural". Yeah, well, if it were that easy...

    Right On (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:00:33 PM EST
    Booman has to take that approach (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:31:08 PM EST
    because on some level he knows (1) that Obama's not going to give the country what it needs/wants and (2) that pushing for the policy means having to actually criticize Obama.

    Which he just isn't going to do, even if he has to engage in extreme rhetorical gymnastics to avoid it.

    This is nothing new from Booman, which is why I don't read him, other than the comedic stylings BTD offers us from time to time.

    All I am sure of is that if you didn't change anything else about Obama but the party affiliation after his name, people like Booman would be apopleptic instead of apologetic.


    Was thinking about this thread (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    There were times in the past when people discussed some particulars in depth around here on some issue that would meltdown other websites.  Very intelligent people debating back and forth would get to some clear resolutions and then two days later some "serious" person would come to the same resolutions and I would think, "You stole that from Talkleft".

    I'm certain they thought that all out and argued it all out completely on their own in their own minds :)  I'm just paranoid.

    I bet in this upcoming election it'll happen again.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:57:42 PM EST
    we're going to be invaded and the Supreme Court is going to the used as a threat to vote for Obama. Sometimes it's great to matter isn't it Alabama Tracy? There's no way Obama is going to carry GA in '12 either.

    It's all I have in Alabama (none / 0) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:05:26 PM EST
    He will never carry the state, the state might let him carry his own cross like Christ did, but he will never carry the state.

    I can still vote in Colorado though (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:09:36 PM EST
    I did not allow the new immigration legislation to put an Alabama driver's license and residency in my hand for convenience sake.  They do have a copy of my birth certificate on file though.  What a bunch of crap.  A Colorado vote could matter.

    Remember "compassionate conservative?" (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:20:38 PM EST
    In 2000, it was said George W. Bush was a different conservative who could work across the aisle with Democrats because he had done it in Texas?

    And Nader was all the rage because Al Gore was a corporate toady.  

    Tell me what good came of 1968 and 1980 from a Progressive viewpoint.  Did a challenge from the Left to a sitting Democratic President do any good?

    Tell me how much a primary challenge to an incumbent worked out for the incumbent party in 1968, 1980 and 1992?   Were the liberals helped in 1968 or 1980?  How about conservatives in 1992?

    Variation of the classic ... (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:24:31 PM EST
    STFU lefties.  A favorite of Blogs for over a decade.

    Very real issue (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:53:02 PM EST
    If you don't like 2000, we can duplicate 1968.  

      How did that turn out for liberals?.....

    ......Beginning of the end......

    And Teddy really gave it to Carter....in 1980.  How did that turn out?


    What Dem ... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:57:50 PM EST
    is running against Obama?

    Mebbe no one (none / 0) (#184)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    But it does appear that many on the Left are hoping someone does...

    Ourselves (none / 0) (#185)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:00:57 PM EST
    Deflection (none / 0) (#173)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:53:53 PM EST
    that's not what was said at all.  Serious question w/serious impacts to the entire country.

    What good did come of it?  8 years later we're all unified?


    It's not a serious question ... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:11:48 PM EST
    and this is not a serious election.

    Obama will be re-elected.  He did what his evil overlords told him to do.  And he will be rewarded.

    So stop worrying.  You'll get four more years of this Bushite puppet.


    Not STFU (none / 0) (#181)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:59:09 PM EST
    The Occupy movement can push Democrats including Obama leftward.

    But hoping for or advocating the defeat of Obama in this cycle is very destructive and foolish.....

    No, the Left never does STFU.  Just don't behead Danton this time....

    This is why the Left has trouble governing.

     The Right gets how to use power.  They threaten the hell out of Romney, which is why he is having trouble in the polls right now, but they will all fall into line and support him because he can beat Obama.

    The Left gets it exactly backwards.....


    Obama (none / 0) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:14:46 PM EST
    doesn't listen or doesn't care. Take your pick I guess. the only group I have seen be successful with pressuring him was LBGT and Wall Street. I really think sometimes that he detests the very people who voted for him from what he says.

    This (none / 0) (#177)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:56:11 PM EST
    I was apathetic in 2000 thinking that it fundamentally didn't make much difference who was selected.  I was horribly wrong.  

    I am glad that this back and forth happened (none / 0) (#29)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:33:36 AM EST
    I never got the hippie/Vietnam arguments either of you were making.  I think the BTD v. Booman discussion is a great one to have because it focuses intently on the recent battles in these comments and others among liberals.

    The point Booman makes that I agree with most is the one at the conclusion of his piece:

    "People are wallowing in self-pity and petty recriminations. There's a party on the right that is attacking us on every conceivable front, and some that aren't even conceivable. I am not going to list them because you know the list. And so many liberals just ignore all that and find something they can fault in the president. If liberals want to be ascendant again, they have to embrace power again and step inside the system, take responsibility, get their hands dirty, and cut the holier-than-thou bullshit."

    [slow clap]

    I respect both BTD and Booman, and I think BTD has some good counters to Booman on the other points (although I wish we could ratchet down the level of animosity between the two liberal sites and their followers a bit).

    But that quote above sums up my biggest frustration and underlines a point I have made again and again here and other places.  

    There is a line between being frustrated that the dem in office isn't doing everything he should be doing and asserting that he's affirmatively working for the other side.

    The former is legitimate criticism and the latter is counterproductive ideological suicide.

    That's at the heart of Booman's point I think.  Our need to see ourselves as outside of the power structure does not in many cases allow us to criticize while supporting.  We place dem leaders in an "us v. them" scenario where every dem leader is viewed as a "them".  

    This is extremely destructive to the accomplishment of our goals, and it's the core issue that is at the bottom of most of my comments on Obama.  Criticize away.  He (and every other leader) deserves that.

    But this idea of Obama the Conservative is lunacy.  It just is on almost any objective level.  When we parrot that over and over again, it makes liberals seem completely disconnected from a reality where everyone else on the planet sees him the opposite way.  And that matters.  

    When people think you are nuts, they dismiss your opinions.

    Booman glorifies Chait (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:39:15 AM EST
    while calling for  an end to "wallowing in self-pity and petty recriminations."

    Those are contradictory arguments.

    I think anyone reading me the past few months has seen me put what I believe to be grievous mistakes by the Obama Administration behind me and am focusing on what I believe to be a smart pivot by the Obama team.

    I pointed to Chait to laugh at him.

    I then saw Booman's "counterculture" post, which I found ridiculous and a form of "self pity and petty recrimination."

    The last graf you point to is in fact a jarring rebuke to . . . Booman.


    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    I think I have said before that my respect for you increased immensely given the way that you have discussed Obama over the last few months.  I had you pegged completely wrong and happily admit that.  You are criticizing but keeping a good perspective.  Good stuff.  Let me say that up front.

    But I would counter that if Booman is engaged in self pity and backward looking and petty recrimination, lots of the commenters to this blog and pther pundits are as well. Perhaps even more so.  I think Booman (and Chait and Sullivan) are not talking about the BTDs of the world.  They are talking about the folks who affirmatively assert that Obama is a conservative.  Who assert that there is no difference between Romney and Obama. Who assert that those who think the POTUS deserves a "B" grade so far are "stupid m____ers". Those who spend one hour attacking Obama for every 10 minutes attacking Boehner.  Those are the folks at the heart of the Chait/BTD/Booman/Sully discussion.

    And when it comes to those folks, I think Chait, for example, is absolutely right.  They aren't being fair. They aren't being IMHO objective.   And more importantly, the effect of their constant hammering is to hurt the overall chances of their preferred policies.

    Watch the difference in the way that conservatives treat Romney.  One thing we can all agree upon is that conservatives don't like Romney.  They trust him even less than people like Edger trusts Obama.


    But when the rubber hits the road, they will look at the big picture and rally around Romney strongly. They will grasp that, although imperfect, he is a conservative on most issues and is far better than Obama and they will do what's right to tackle their primary objectives.

    Simultaneously, what will liberal anti-Obama types be doing?  Damaging the guy standing between us and GOP control of government because, doggoneit, the principles matter most!

    Chait and Booman are right on that point.  We've got to get our sh*t together.

    Because the other side will have their sh*t together and if we lose, it's going to become very clear very quickly that Obama, for all his faults, was no d*mn conservative.


    Not fair from Chait or Sullivan (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:09:04 AM EST
    and their track records makes the argument ineligible for them.

    Why Booman would glorify Chait is beyond me.

    Beyond that, do you really think the unreasonable commenters at Talk Left are living in a counterculture.

    I am disagreeing with the lot of them in this thread but I can assure you that there is not a "counterculture" type among them.

    I do not know these folks personally, but they have shared enough of their lives for me to know this is not a group of "hippies." These are pretty standard issue liberal Party stalwarts.

    Even when I disagree with them, I try to understand what they are thinking and engage it.

    By contrast, read the thread of my 2006 post that Ann Althouse took exception to - as a anti-Communist, you'll see what amounts to the caricature of "hippies"looks like (support for Castro and communism, etc.)

    One of the most ironic parts of all this to me is that a communist sympathizer like Al Giordano of the Field contorts himself in ways that you could not imagine to support center right policies.

    And to critique "hippies." Al Giordano! It is amazing.


    Fair Point BTD (none / 0) (#96)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:56:51 AM EST
    On the counterculture thing.  Like I said, I never really understood that angle.  I disagree that Chait and Sully are somehow disqualified from making the points they do, but I understand the counterculture argument may be incorrect.

    I do think there is a certain liberal mentality that prevents us from setting aside differences on various smaller issues to focus on the bigger goals.  The counterculture argument is one explanation that might be wrong, but there is something that makes us different than conservatives in this regard.  I am less concerned about figuring out what it is and more concerned about the real world impact it could have (and getting us to have a real conversation about those impacts).  

    If liberals aren't willing to sell the progressive policies that Obama has supported, it hurts not just Obama but the progressive policies as well.  At some point the negativity begins to taint not just Obama's bad moves, but also his good moves.  How long before the repeal of DADT or the new rules on pre-existing conditions are looped in by the GOP as an example of Obama's failures?  That's the danger of spending all of our time blasting Obama's negatives.

    If Obama and the dems win, we will have four years of killing him for bad moves (and I'd be fine to see BTD, for example, pivot back to his more critical stance of Obama at that point . . . that's when we need Obama to get hit hard for betraying liberal ideals). But we've got a bigger evil looming now.


    Maybe I don't undestand what you see (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:02:32 AM EST
    as the bigger goals. For progressives, single payer health care was the bigger goal, as was ending the Bush tax cuts, and closing Gitmo.  Obama doing none of these is not just a quibble about smaller issues, it was abandoning the bigger goal itself.

    What is a bigger goal than these three examples?


    Bigger Goals (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:10:46 AM EST
    1.  Preventing GOP control of every branch of government.

    2. All other progressive goals

    It really can be summed up that simply to some degree. But let me answer the questions even more directly with specific examples:

    • Preventing the appointment of a conservative supreme court justice to replace Ginsberg or Kennedy

    • Avoiding an overreaching attack on Iran that would probably occur under a GOP president.  I think Obama may bomb Iran but the GOP version of that attack would be to bomb the entire country and set off a mid east war in earnest

    • Avoiding the complete privatization of the entitlement system

    Each of those three matters is far more pressing than Gitmo, a public option or ending the BUsh tax cuts and on each of those three matters, Obama will do a good job.

    Boy, I'm convinced. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:01:28 PM EST
    "Re-elelct President Obama, unlike his opponent,  he will only bomb a portion of Iran."  A great bumper-sticker.

    Along with avoiding the (none / 0) (#190)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:04:29 PM EST
    complete privatization of social security.

    Reelecting Obama. What else? (none / 0) (#108)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:30:16 AM EST
    What is a bigger goal than these three examples?

    I thought (none / 0) (#109)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:36:29 AM EST
    We were talking about progressive goals and their relation to why Obama's reelection should be the no.1 priority.

    The core progressive goal is easy: preserving the safety net for as many people as possible at as high a level as possible and lowering the income disparities.

    That's more fundamental than Gitmo, tax cuts, etc.

    But that's like arguing that the conservative goal is smaller government. The real trick is in the way that the GOP prioritizes the sub-goals to accomplish that main goal.

    As they have said repeatedly: the most important sub-goal to accomplishing their main goal is taking the white house.  The most important liberal sub-goal to accomplishing our main goal is keeping republicans from taking the white house.

    There really is no higher priority for liberals than that IMHO.


    Gitmo is emblematic of the (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:15:56 PM EST
    dismantling of civil liberties in the name of the war on terror. That's why it is a core progressive goal. And Obama knew that d*** well in the 2008 election. I personally don't think there is a more fundamental goal than civil liberties.

    Ending the Bush tax cuts is part of how you preserve the safety net and lower income disparities. Obama knew that too in 2008, which is why GOP via Joe the Plumber attacked him as a 'socialist'.

    I agree with you that it is important to keep the WH. I am on your side in that argument. But I don't agree that the argument progressives are having with Obama is over minor points and not core values.


    You're a funny guy (none / 0) (#127)
    by sj on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    The most important liberal sub-goal to accomplishing our main goal is keeping republicans from taking the white house.

    Goals... sub-goals... main goals... It always comes back Obaaama!  Obaaama!  Obaaama!  

    This has nothing to do with Obama (none / 0) (#178)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:56:44 PM EST
    Let me give you a heads up.  In 2016, no matter who the nominees are, the most important goal for progressives will be keeping republicans out of the white house.

    In 2020, no matter who the nominees are, the most important goal for progressives will be keeping republicans out of the white house.


    The most important progressive goal for so long as the GOP believes as it does, is keeping them out of the white house.

    Full stop.

    It benefits Obama today.  It may benefit Nominee Elizabeth Warren in 2016. It may benefit Nominee Wasserman-Schulz in 2020.

    You don't get it.


    IMO... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:58:02 AM EST
    If liberals aren't willing to sell the progressive policies that Obama has supported, it hurts not just Obama but the progressive policies as well.

    ...many blogs/bloggers that are primarily critical voices now will coalesce around Obama's re-election.  I also expect Obama to throw a few bones to progressives in 2012 to rally the base.  That's just common sense on his part.

    The ACA is the hardest sales job I'd guess.  I don't think all bloggers are going to try to sell it.  But I don't think the President's advisers really know how to sell it either.  We'll see what happens with that.


    I suppose while Booman picks at his (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 10:54:24 AM EST
    navel felt, many people on this blog are seriously weighing the upcoming fight.  And probably coming up with battle plans ahead of schedule.  That's probably a good thing because I think we are in for one hell of a long bad fight.

    Romney will be like Bush II (none / 0) (#153)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:21:28 PM EST
    only more enthrall to conservatives.....

    Bush II is already taken! (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 01:54:47 PM EST
    By Obama.

    I understand that comeback (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    is generally applauded here.

    But it is not true.

    It is a rationalization for a Romney win.


    Nope ... (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:20:28 PM EST
    Obama will win.  Sell outs like him always do.

    This chain (none / 0) (#186)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:01:40 PM EST
    Restores my faith somewhat. It is good to see push back on the Mitt = Obama theme.

    I guess I'm pleased you approve. (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 02:03:35 PM EST
    MTracy, your Picasso in Every Dog Doodle (none / 0) (#211)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Nov 22, 2011 at 11:44:37 PM EST
    was the most incisive insight in a thread filled with insight.

    The herders are afoot.