Far Left? NYT Goes Looking in Portland
In tomorrow's New York Times, William Yardley writes about the disaffection on the left with Obama's perceived two-step to the political center. Naturally, he came to Portland. I was scanning a bunch of headlines and clicked through, and the photo at the top of the article caught my eye. 
See if you notice the specifically Oregonian detail (given that I've included giant arrows, the task is made easier). That's Mollie Ruskin, a fellow with Politicorps, the Bus Project's "political bootcamp" to train young activists.
Intrigued, I read further. It's a pretty standard story about how lefites are reacting to recent events like Obama's FISA stance. And then I got to this:
“I think it’s accentuated by the fact that Obama’s appeal is an appeal to idealism,” said Kari Chisholm, who runs a blog, blueoregon.com, and does Internet strategy for Democratic candidates. “They believe their ideology is the only idealism and Obama’s is very mainstream. I’m not surprised they’re getting a little cranky. They’ve always been kind of cranky. A mainstream Democrat has always been too mainstream for them.”
Maybe it was the 75,000 who showed up to see Obama earlier this year. Or our huge protests against the Iraq war. Or Ralph Nader's strong showing here in 2000. Whatever it is, the word's out. You want "far left?" Head to Portland. In addition to BlueOregon and the Bus Project, Our Oregon also gets a mention.
“I don’t think the test on him is in an explicitly narrow set of check boxes that have to get filled,” said Kevin Looper, executive director of Our Oregon, a liberal advocacy group. “I think it’s about do his campaign and his message embody serious changes for the direction of the country?”
Mr. Looper and many other supporters said Mr. Obama was solid on core Democratic concerns like the environment, social and economic justice and how to balance taxes among economic groups. Of course, his stands on more specific issues appeal to many supporters, too.
The article, driving home the point, ends on this note:
[Martha] Shade, the Green-turned-Democrat-returned-Green voter, spoke about Mr. Obama while leaning out her second-floor apartment window, where she has placed homemade signs urging the impeachment of President Bush. Others say “Free Gaza” and “Occupation is Terrorism.” She said twice that the American political system was “rotten.”
“You realize,” Ms. Shade said, her voice fading with resignation, “that you’re talking to somebody who’s pretty far out of the mainstream.”
Little Beirut, your reputation's safe.
|
July 12, 2008 |
Jeff Alworth | Comments (131 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 12, 2008 8:00:52 PM
Hmmm... It's always interesting when you talk to a reporter for a half-hour, and 58 words make it into print.
My point, which I think Yardley mostly conveyed, is that Obama has managed to win the support of a big chunk of the Nader/Kucinich wing of the party -- despite the fact that his policy positions are not in sync with their's.
Part of it is because of his appeal to idealism, part of it is the excitement about voting for the first African-American president.
But as Obama said recently (paraphrasing), just because he disagrees with you on a particular issue does not mean that he's "being political" or "playing to the middle"; it's entirely likely that he just plain disagrees with you.
And that's OK. I think most folks understand that. But there's a small slice of the electorate that's getting very cranky. He's idealistic; they're idealistic. They assume that his idealism leads to the same policy choices as their idealism does. When it doesn't, it can come as a surprise.
Barack Obama is not from the Nader/Kucinich slice of the electorate; and he's never pretended to be. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that those folks are so surprised by that.
Other than the FISA thing (which is fairly inexplicable), I haven't seen him change his position on anything so far. It's just that people haven't been listening very well; or only hearing the stuff that fits their own preconceived notion of what the perfect candidate is.
Until you run for office yourself, you'll never find a candidate that agrees with you 100% on every issue.
Posted by: James X. | Jul 12, 2008 8:20:13 PM
I agree with that, Kari, that most of what's being packaged by others as a series of flip-flops or reaches for the center aren't actually changes in his position. That narrative is just a convenient storyline for late June/early July when there aren't many other storylines handy. But Obama didn't do himself any favors by pledging to filibuster warrantless wiretapping immunity, then pledging to vote for the FISA bill with or without immunity (and without filibustering). That was clearly a flip-flop, and his polling numbers certainly haven't gone up as a result (not that the reason they've gone down can be pinpointed to anything specific). FiveThirtyEight.com shows his average lead making a quick drop from 6 to 4, Pollster.com shows about the same, and RCP shows a drop from 8 to 4. Maybe Obama needs to recapture his ability to inspire voters.
Posted by: Jenni Simonis | Jul 12, 2008 8:41:31 PM
I think that sometimes people find themselves ticked off at a candidate like Obama because he isn't far enough to the left. But what we forget is that no matter how much we want it to be so, this country is not far to the left, nor are the majority of voters. We can pull the thinking in this country a little more left in steps, but there's no way we're going to get a far left person elected to something like the presidency - not in one step.
It's a big problem that I've had with democrats.com over the past year - they go after Democrats who aren't left enough for them. It doesn't matter if the electorate they're representing is moderate or even conservative - if the person isn't far enough left, then they need to go.
Posted by: Daniel Spiro | Jul 12, 2008 8:52:35 PM
IMHO, the beauty of Obama, if you are a true progressive, is not that he was the most progressive of the Presidential candidates. It's that he's the one who was best equipped to build a consensus to produce changes that progressives strongly support.
I think he wants to make access to health care much more universal, fight global warming, and bring diplomacy rather than war to the Middle East. He also wants to make our tax system more equitable. I like my chances of seeing these reforms come to fruition more with an incredibly talented politician like him in the White House than with a guy like Kucinich ... or, for that matter, Edwards (I'm one of the few around here who backed Obama from the beginning).
Heck, I'm more progressive than Barack ... but trust me, you wouldn't want to elect me. And that applies to millions of other progressive just like me.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 12, 2008 9:39:53 PM
Excellent thoughts, everyone.
More thoughts from me, along the same lines (mostly cribbed from an email exchange with a friend.)
I'm pretty cranky about FISA too.
I do think that Obama is basically right that he hasn't changed his positions in recent weeks (except on FISA) and that people who think he has may not have been paying close enough attention.
I think we've got an interesting thing going on here. Obama has a strong appeal to idealism. And it's easy to get caught up in that. It's easy for folks who are substantially further to the left of him to think that because they like him so much personally that he must agree with them on every issue.
It's kind of like the pro-choice Republicans who love John McCain because they think he's a maverick - and he must therefore be pro-choice like them. Except he's not. And when they find out, it's devastating for him. See Peter Hart's poll last month (PDF).
In some ways, Obama appeared on the national scene so fast and so strong that he became an empty vessel for the hopes and dreams of many, many people. And, inevitably, because they assigned positions to him that weren't accurate.
For example, a big chunk of the anti-war left loves Obama. But he's always been very clear that he's not anti-war. In that famous 2002 speech, he said as much -- not anti-war, but anti this war, anti "dumb wars". I hope it never comes to this, but I won't be surprised if years from now, President Obama has to send troops or planes or missiles to some part of the world we're not thinking about right now. And the anti-war left will go nuts, because they thought he was anti-war like them. But he's not. And never was.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jul 12, 2008 9:46:13 PM
Kari,
The little box you've invented "Nader/Kucinich wing of the party" isn't doing anyone any favors.
And the idea that anyone sort of at that end of things is "surprised" is ludicrous. I get angry at George Bush when he does things he shouldn't that don't surprise me. I get angry and disappointed and frustrated by missed political opportunities, IMO, by Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, but not surprised. Now, same for Barack Obama. Actually, consistently for Obama going back to when Edwards was still in the race.
I'm not surprised. I am disappointed, because he had choices, chose wrongly on a number of things, and IMO missed some political opportunities that would help him in the election as well as helping the country and the party. Obviously his judgment in light of whatever his advice he's getting was different.
The closest thing to "surprised" for me was his backtracking on NAFTA and his reversal on FISA. I had hopes that his talk of "change" meant something about trying to hold himself to a higher standard of personal honesty than do many politicians. I wasn't certain, I was waiting to see. Now I've seen and know that I can't trust what he says. This doesn't surprise me, because I didn't have an actual belief that he was more honest than that, just his claim. It does disappoint me, and it tells me that he will be conducting more politics as usual.
The (few) actual current Naderites who comment on BlueOregon have been consistently disdainful of Obama since before his recent moves. They're either not Democrats at all, or determined to vote for Nader once Kucinich was out. They are not surprised, but they, like you, mistakenly think that others whose policy views may not be so different from theirs, but have been determined to vote D, are surprised. Hence the variations on "told you so" or "aren't you going to change your mind now." But they, like you, are mistaking disappointment for surprise.
In fact most of the commenters here whom you might call left-liberal, left-progressive or social democratic, have been raising questions and doubts about Obama (and Hillary Clinton, and even John Edwards) right the way along. And also saying they intend to vote for "the eventual nominee"/Obama, depending on date. And still are saying that.
It's not a question of surprise, it's a question of resolution of certain uncertainties and hopes held open for the sake of not prejudging, that now are more or less foreclosed. If they'd been resolved the other way, it wouldn't have put Obama much further left than he currently is, that wasn't the question or the expectation. But it would have left more confidence about core values, and a better feeling about character.
So I'll be motivating myself much more by deep opposition to McCain and antipathy toward what he stands for and would do, than by enthusiasm for Obama. That's more or less what I expected, just wasn't absolutely sure.
But please also note that some of us who regard ourselves as social democrats or left-progressives or something of that sort never have supported Nader in this cycle or the previous (in my case, also not in 2000), and some, though fewer, never have been particularly engaged by Kucinich either. To me, one of the problems, which I recognize as a measure of the marginality of my views, about which I don't have illusions, is that there is little in the way of effective leadership for them, no one with whom to identify the way some people apparently do with Kucinich.
In any case, of the 75,000 who turned out for Obama, few were so far left, and to my mind, the real question is not what we who have been skeptical all along think of the recent moves, but how those moves will affect the enthusiasm that produced that crowd among loosely progressive but basically less political folks he inspired at that point. They're the ones who matter for the election.
Posted by: backbeat | Jul 12, 2008 11:13:01 PM
Regardless, I wish the NYT would quit doing stories on Portland. Please visit, now go home.
/Tom McCall
Posted by: backbeat | Jul 12, 2008 11:17:58 PM
Most people are lefties if they are given straight talk.
I wish the NYT would quit writing stories about Portland. IT RAINS ALL THE TIME HERE!!!
/Tom McCall
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 13, 2008 12:00:24 AM
Chris -- Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I didn't mean to imply that all the people that are upset with Obama right now are just Naderites.
And if your concerns are entirely about FISA, well, then I think your concerns are legitimate.
My comments (both here and to the NYT reporter) are directed more at the people who think Obama is backsliding on bringing the troops home. Maybe I watch too much cable-news, but that's all they've been talking about for the last two weeks.
During the primary season, Obama basically said that he'd start bringing the troops home right away (and it would take 16 months to do it.)
Now, he's saying that he'll finish bringing the troops home in roughly 16 months (though he'll start right away.)
The same thing, though with reversed emphasis.
Anybody who thinks he's changed his position on bringing the troops home hasn't been paying attention (or, like the mainstream media, is deliberately crafting a convenient storyline.)
Posted by: Alex | Jul 13, 2008 12:23:27 AM
I want to know what sort of "ideals" are leading Barack to these decisions. I don't mind that he's a little bit more conservative than myself or my previous candidate Kucinich, but what's up with these incongruous stances. Obama voted against a majority of Senate Democrats on FISA. He chose to side with the conservative minority on death penalty for child rape and the conservative majority on gun control. Is he really going to be to the right of Justice Kennedy? What other votes and decisions are going to surprise us? And none of these stances were compromise positions. Just compromised values.
Are state rights really that important to Obama? I think Bob Barr will have this area covered. Positions like these are going to lead to more hot-mic "n--s."
I'm not interested in another Bill Clinton presidency. I'll vote for a Clintonesque president, but I'm not going to volunteer and donate money to one. I thought Obama's health care plan was less ambitious than Hillary's, but I liked that he was already planning a compromise position. I also appreciated his recent and more nuanced approach to an Iraq withdrawal. But people should be upset about those other decisions. Supporters should be able to know where a candidate stands and should be upset when his decisions seem to be at odds with where they thought a candidate stood. Obama needs to realize that the middle is a lonely place. Just ask Gore and Kerry.
Posted by: LT | Jul 13, 2008 1:06:25 AM
There are those who delight in putting everything somewhere on a liberal-conservative spectrum, and those who want problem solved and think "Not left, not right, but forward" makes more sense.
I liked the Gail Collins column recently in the Oregonian--"When Obama said he was going to bring people together, did you think he meant in left field?".
Under Senate rules, it takes 60 votes to get anything done, no matter who is president. And logistics knows no ideology. I'd rather have all the mechanized equipment brought out of Iraq, not just the troops. That's a lot of machinery, and unless there is a port other than Kuwait to do that, there is a limit to how fast the machinery can be brought out (even working 3 eight hour shifts to do the loading process, there's only a certain number of machines they can do in an 8 hour period--or doesn't that matter?). I'd rather it be done intelligently than done in 15 months and 20 days even if that means leaving some things behind.
Put another way, I'd like to see the kind of quality control removing US forces that wasn't there when they went in.
Moreover, my first presidential vote was 1968, when young people sounded like some bloggers here, "not much difference between Humphrey and Nixon". Same with McCain and Obama--anyone who doesn't see the differences isn't looking.
I doubt he would be another Bill Clinton--first of all, look at the Obama small donor fundraising and the decentralized campaign. Not the sort of thing Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe would design.
Secondly, the Sen. from Illinois is to some extent an old line Chicago pol--politics is the art of the possible. He has the rhetorical skills of Bobby Kennedy, but those who lived back then know RFK was a brass knuckle hard charging pol long before he was an inspirational thinker.
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jul 13, 2008 1:37:36 AM
But as Obama said recently (paraphrasing), just because he disagrees with you on a particular issue does not mean that he's "being political" or "playing to the middle"; it's entirely likely that he just plain disagrees with you.
"It's okay" if everything is on the up and up. When a politician lies to your face, as Obama did on FISA, we know that he is nothing more than a snake in the grass. Obama has demonstrated that he is a follower, not a leader. And he follows the wrong piper (Bush) on this major Constitutional issue. (One wonders HOW exactly he attained professorship!?)
Posted by: Peter Bray | Jul 13, 2008 1:42:09 AM
FISA and Obama's sell out of the 4th amendment is NOT a "left-field" issue. Regardless, even if you weirdly think it is, Obama LIED about his stance on it. Why do we want yet ANOTHER liar-in-chief?
Here's the rub: the Republicans have nominated someone who is the most liberal candidate since Nixon, if not TR. An Obama presidency would embolden far-right thinking in those wilderness years; while a McCain presidency really WOULD shift that party leftwards.
So... who to pick? A snake-in-the-grass like Obama who has no real convictions besides whatever it takes to get elected; or a liberal Republican who will shift his entire party apparatus leftward?
The House and Senate will remain firmly in Dem hands. But why NOT a liberal GOPer for president? Wouldn't that be long term advantageous?
Posted by: Alecki | Jul 13, 2008 3:54:14 AM
The reason Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama is because they are embarrassed of him, his life, his unfair tactics and his beliefs. And they still don't know all about him.
1. They don't want a candidate that has been in a twenty year relationship with Reverend Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ.
2. They don’t’ want a candidate that has a twenty year relationship with Father Pflaeger as his compass in life
3. They don’t want a candidate that went to a church that supports Louis Farrakhan, an anti Semitic racist.
4. They don't want to defend Black Liberation theology.
5. They don’t want a candidate that lies about his relationship with Tony Rezko, the Syrian Criminal that sold his property to Obama and supported his campaign.
6. They don't want a candidate that could work with a domestic terrorist, William Ayers.
7. They don’t want a candidate that Hamas supports.
8. They don’t want a candidate that Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam support
9. They don’t want a candidate that has a wife that has just now realized she was proud of our country.
10. They don’t want a candidate that denies Florida and Michigan their voices
11. They don’t want a candidate that mentions 57 states in his speeches. 50 states in the USA and 57 states in the Nation of Islam (IOC website)
12. They don’t want a candidate that fights unfair and steals Michigan delegate votes from his opponent.
13. They don’t want a candidate that feels sorry to leave a church that is anti American and that preaches hatred and racial views that are cruel and nasty.
14. They don't want a candidate that is inexperienced.
15. They don’t want a candidate that considers it a loss to not to be able to attend his anti American, racist Church.
16. They don’t want a candidate that has a “non practicing” Muslim father, but avoids the entire discussion of his father.
17. They don’t’ want a candidate that won’t debate
18. They don’t’ want a candidate that misleads the youth with an ‘Obama girl and her behind in their face”
19. They don’t want a candidate that says he’s an African American and missed the MLK Remembrance Day and the Louisiana Black Caucus meeting
20. They don’t want a candidate that enjoys laughing at sexism as an issues
21. They don't want a candidate that switches his position on gun control, FISA, the war in Iraq, religion and government....
22. They don't want a candidate that showcases his daughters on sleezy TV shows.
23. They don’t’ want a candidate that has poor judgment.
24. They don’t' want a candidate named; Barack Hussein Obama
25. He scares them to death.
26. He is embarrassing.
27. He is unelectable.
Posted by: portlander | Jul 13, 2008 5:22:31 AM
Obama's oath was to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Telecoms violated the constitution.
For Obama to vote to grant immunity to those who violated the constitution is a blatant violation of his oath of office.
The constitution is not some quaint set of principles that can simply be disregarded whenever it's politically convenient to do so. For Obama to have done precisely that makes him complicit in covering up the crimes of the Bush administration, and casts a long shadow of doubt across his character and integrity.
Anybody who thinks this is a "left or right" issue should consider that ALL americans are supposed to be bound by the laws set out in the constitution. FISA shows that the law may be disregarded with impunity by the powerful, while the wider citizenry is held firmly to its standard.
Posted by: portlander | Jul 13, 2008 5:54:51 AM
One more thing, and this is in response to Kari Chrisholm:
I resent your classification of those of us who respect the Constitution as "cranky."
We "assume that his idealism leads to the same policy choices as [our] idealism does" because that is simply the ONLY acceptable position for a candidate to have with regards to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment is not a "policy choice" that Obama is free to "disagree" with, it is a GUARANTEED right belonging to a sovereign people. Our "policy choices" must necessarily agree as a pre-requisite for him being granted legitimate authority under social contract theory.
We're not here making some kind of subjective interpretation of the document, we are being told by our lawmakers that guaranteed rights have been violated and the congress is intervening in a co-equal branch of government to let the perpetrators off the hook-- and the people are powerless to stop it.
It is absolutely unacceptable that any voter would believe that our core principles are violable without amendment or consequence.
Posted by: tas | Jul 13, 2008 7:12:54 AM
10. They don’t want a candidate that denies Florida and Michigan their voices
So Hillary not wanting to give Obama voters of both states any voice is OK?
13. They don’t want a candidate that feels sorry to leave a church that is anti American and that preaches hatred and racial views that are cruel and nasty.
When was his church racist? I never heard them discuss talking down all them "crackers" and "honkies".
16. They don’t want a candidate that has a “non practicing” Muslim father, but avoids the entire discussion of his father.
Sounds like you're hinting at something...
24. They don’t' want a candidate named; Barack Hussein Obama
...well whattya know?! You're hinting at racist notions!
17. They don’t’ want a candidate that won’t debate
Didn't Obama and Hillary participate in like 30 zillion debates together?
20. They don’t want a candidate that enjoys laughing at sexism as an issues
When the definition of sexism is reduced to calls for Hillary to concede being "sexist", then it's hard not to laugh.
23. They don’t’ want a candidate that has poor judgment.
For an example of this, see exhibit A: Hillary's 2002 vote to goto war with Iraq.
26. He is embarrassing.
And you're an asshole.
Posted by: BOHICA | Jul 13, 2008 8:37:50 AM
"Little Beirut"
More like "Little House on the Prairie." There are some hard core lefties and anti-war types here but mainly PDX has devolved into an apathetic bunch.
50,000 turned out in March of 2003 before the invasion. Where are they now?
Thursday I had an opportunity to to meet with a group of teachers here for seminar. They were mainly history and social studies teachers and I was there to talk to them about my experiences in the Vietnam war (what they were studying) and answer any questions they might have. Towards the end of the session, I was asked; "Do you have any faith in the (US) Government?" My reply, "Absolutely none." And that "my friends" (TM McSame) is the problem.
Most people have been so turned off by the actions of the "government" that they have no reason to get off their collective butts and demand real change or to believe that the next President will be the Savior of the country. He is not Obama Wan Kenobi. Until the people actually stand up to the corporatists that run this country and the politicians and media whores that enable them, nothing will change.
Something I wrote a while back:
When murderers, banks robbers, sexual predators, and con artist who prey on seniors are on the loose in Portland, there is a call to action to hunt them down. We unleash our outrage and demand justice. Stories are written in the press about the efforts of law enforcement agencies to bring these criminals to justice. Stories of tenacious detectives running down leads in search of missing children. Stories of the ongoing fight against meth labs and street gangs by special taskforces. We have “Amber alerts”. We have “Crime Stopper” public service announcements. This is good. We should be outraged and demand our system bring these criminals to justice.It is time we do the same with the criminals of the Bush administration. For that is what they are, criminals. They are international outlaws. They have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. So what are you going to do about it? How about stopping the obscenity of violence perpetrated by this administration against the people Iraq?
...
We must drowns out the echo chamber of the radical elements of our government and their minions of hypocrisy who repeat the same lies over and over again on talk radio and in their rarefied position as “pundits”. To drown out the misinformation put out by “think tanks”, corporate propaganda organs and Madison Avenue ad agencies whose sole purpose is to steer you away from the truth and lead you through the looking glass into a wonderland, where if you drink the right beer you get the girl of your dreams. A wonderland where a pill solves every problem or a new car puts you on the road of happiness. A wonderland of facades and shallowness built on the premise that money can buy you love. That is their promise. It is a false one.
It is as false as the glorious worship of war that permeates our society. War is a false god worshipped by warmongers and poll watchers; a false god worshipped by the media whores who wish to be bathed in its reflected glow; a false god worshipped by those who have never seen, heard, smelled or touched the obscenity of the violence they glorify. War is the promise breaker. As James Madison wrote in 1795, "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive [Branch of Government] is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Something worth repeating. It cannot sustain an economy either. $515 billions in the 2009 defense budget which does not include the appropriations for the global war on an abstract concept and the wars/occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. All on borrowed money.
Cranky over FISA? Just business as usual. The only reason to vote for democrats and Obama is the idea of nine Scalias on the Supreme Court should scare the hell of you.
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jul 13, 2008 8:42:14 AM
Label and dismiss, as Kari did in the NYT article, is a common way for lowgrade minds to debate.
Don't like what someone has to say, Label them and dismiss their opinion.
I've never voted for Nader, I supported Kerry long before his "comeback" in Iowa, and I think Kucinich is a funny, little gnome that is becoming a joke, yet I still support the Fourth Amendment. Does that make me a radical lefty?
Hardly, but Democratic Party establishment apologists would like the story spun (labeled and dismissed) that way.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jul 13, 2008 9:18:53 AM
I resent your classification of those of us who respect the Constitution as "cranky."
Fair enough. Just note that I also described myself as "cranky" regarding the FISA vote. How about "pissed off"? Or maybe "righteously furious"? We can play thesaurus games all day long, I suppose...
Hardly, but Democratic Party establishment apologists would like the story spun (labeled and dismissed) that way.
Pat, you're free to label and dismiss me as a "Democratic Party establishment apologist" if you'd like -- but please note that I didn't attempt to spin or dismiss the FISA vote. As I've said all along here, I think that's a legitimate concern.
Posted by: Steven Maurer | Jul 13, 2008 10:41:56 AM
Kari Chisholm: Fair enough.
Not really, Kari. Don't you see the calculated umbrage game Mr. Malach is playing?
Look at his statement: 'I resent your classification of those of us who respect the Constitution as "cranky."' The clear implication is that his view is the only one that "respects the Constitution", and that everyone else doesn't.
You've got to admit, it's pretty hypocritical to be playing the "oh my, you have deliberately offended my fragile ego by calling me cranky" - in the same post where you're insulting a vast swathe of the American public.
All that said, I also wish the FISA vote had gone the other way, even as I am perfectly aware that the ACLU has a real uphill battle ahead in trying to persuade any Court that preventing private lawsuits in particular areas of law is something Congress can't do.
Posted by: darrelplant | Jul 13, 2008 11:35:14 AM
The (few) actual current Naderites who comment on BlueOregon have been consistently disdainful of Obama since before his recent moves. They're either not Democrats at all, or determined to vote for Nader once Kucinich was out.
While I normally more or less agree with Chris when he posts here, I have to ask: How do you define a "Naderite"? And who exactly are the "Naderites" who post here? How can you be sure that they've determined to vote for Nader now that Kucinich is out? This sounds like the same sort of vague generalization and marginalization Kari expressed in the portion of his interview that was quoted.
This election may be a lot closer than a lot of people realize. Can Obama and the Democratic party really afford to continually piss on the "left" and expect to gain a clear majority (or a majority at all)? Particularly on issues like telecom immunity where nearly 60% of voters were against it?
Me, I'm just waiting for Obama to pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate in an attempt to "reach out" to the center of wherever he is and bring him back into the Democratic fold. Not really sure that's a fold of the big tent we'd want to live in, though.
Posted by: Chris #12 | Jul 13, 2008 11:44:15 AM
Kari wrote "Other than the FISA thing (which is fairly inexplicable), I haven't seen him change his position on anything so far."
As Chris Lowe pointed out above, Obama has done a pretty thorough about-face on NAFTA.
Posted by: LT | Jul 13, 2008 11:50:57 AM
O Ye of Little Faith!
Tossing around terms like Naderite, saying Obama may pick Lieberman, it makes it sound like people upset not everyone sees things their way.
This is 2008, folks, the year when lots of people who don't generally follow politics are enthusiastically involved in a national election.
Do all of them share the views of those here on FISA, the Iraq War, and so many other issues?
Or have they had time in their busy lives to even give those issues much thought?
This year is a unique opportunity to talk with folks you know or folks you meet while campaigning, and LISTEN to their concerns. We might just have some major upsets if we actually listen to the folks who are not political junkies and debate the issues they care about.
Or people can be true believers and if they lose some political battles either take sarcastic pot shots or just drop out of politics.
In a book he wrote awhile back, Howard Dean said "If you want leadership, look in the mirror".
Go out there door to door for candidates and see what ordinary folks are concerned about. And if they are more concerned about family, work, the cost of food and gas, or even veterans issues or the Medicare bill (which Ted Kennedy returned to the US Senate for a short while in order to cast the deciding vote) than they are about the details of the FISA bill, what will you do? Will you take those concerns into account, or will you be angry that they don't see things your way?
Do you actually an elected official doesn't vote the way you want them to vote 100% of the time? I have argued legislation with very close friends who were in public office, but in 2008 we should expect 100% agreement?
Sorry, that's not the politics I have been involved in these last 3 decades. I'll take a person whose heart is in the right place but whose individual votes I question, than I will someone who just talks generalities and never gives any indication of caring about people like me.
Posted by: darrelplant | Jul 13, 2008 12:06:17 PM
LT, as I remember it, someone picked Lieberman as the Democratic VP candidate just eight years ago. The New Republic -- that venerable organ of centrist Democratic politics -- touted him as their choice for President in the 2004 primaries even after his whole-hearted embrace of Bush's war and national security policies. And any number of Democratic politicians -- including Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer -- supported him in the 2006 primary race against Ned Lamont. He still chairs the Homeland Security committee.
If Al Gore had served two terms in the White House, Joe Lieberman would have been the leading candidate for president this year in the Democratic primaries. Contrary to what a lot of his former advocates claim, there's no real difference -- other than eight years of age -- between the Lieberman of 2000 and the Lieberman of 2008.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 13, 2008 12:10:41 PM
So... who to pick? A snake-in-the-grass like Obama who has no real convictions besides whatever it takes to get elected; or a liberal Republican who will shift his entire party apparatus leftward?
Peter, this seems unbalanced to me. I have had my own criticisms of Obama, but we do ourselves a disservice when we apply binary slots for candidates:good or bad. Politicians are a mixture in all things, as Kari has noted. I've never encountered a politician who stands for my varied views on the issues, and I never expect to find one.
But there's even more nuance than that. We can't know a politician's motivation, and in your commentary, I hear a very strong judgment on that score. When does a politician make a stand based on principle, and when does he do it for political expediency? When is it for a mixture of reasons? Or when does he do something for political reasons that may not be manifest until later--as when politicians back legislation they oppose on principle because they've done some backroom dealing for GOP support on an issue down the road.
I always find it tiring and dispiriting to hear people render moral, personal judgments about candidates. Obama may turn out to be a "snake in the grass," but there's really nowhere near enough evidence to render that judgment now. So what's the point of doing so?
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jul 13, 2008 12:44:38 PM
Darrel, fair comment. Harry Kershner is the only one who comes to mind regularly advocating a Nader vote. I thought Bill Bodden did too but he recently wrote that it was more likely than not he would end up voting for Obama, I inferred barring something even more dramatic by Obama. If we went back through we'd find a few anonymous comments against any DP presidential vote. But most pro-Nader comments have either been against scapegoating him &/or defending past votes, or defending in principle the choices of others. So you're right, I went along too much with the framing.
The main point is that it is simply an error, and a false accusation of naiveté to say that those who have been critical or skeptical of Obama are surprised by his recent actions. Which is why the Gail Collins column point is dumb.
Posted by: darrelplant | Jul 13, 2008 12:47:04 PM
I always find it tiring and dispiriting to hear people render moral, personal judgments about candidates.
What about when people render moral, personal judgments about potential voters?
I’m not surprised they’re getting a little cranky. They’ve always been kind of cranky.
I sympathize with Kari's lament in his first comment to a certain extent. My first interview (and last) with a national magazine just about got me fired from my job at the time (probably not a surprise to anyone here).
Despite the fact that I haven't missed even special elections (that I'm aware of) for nearly 30 years, I've never voted for a candidate who was in lock-step with my positions on every issue. Even my wife and I disagree on stuff. The idea that those of us who know we stand firmly to the left of the mainstream on most issues won't vote for people who don't share all of our positions is just so amazingly bogus that I can't believe it's still uttered. We've never had anything else to vote for. So those of us who do vote regularly are far more aware of the necessities of buckling down and voting for someone despite their shortcomings than the middle-of-the-road Democrat who has to make finesse their decision between people like, say, Edwards, Dodd, or Biden.
The other option, of course, is to simply not vote at all.
Which is why it continually astounds me is that anyone expects people on the left to just suck up and take the actions and comments from people like Obama over and over. Voting over and over for bad bills. Dismissing the concerns of opponents of telecom immunity as overblown. It is enough to make one cranky and -- I dare say -- "bitter." Because that kind of offhand disregard certainly makes it appear as if you really don't care about what those people think. And why should they vote for someone who doesn't care what they think? Why should they vote for someone whose supporters don't care what they think?
Let the accusations of "purity trolling" begin!
Posted by: Kevin | Jul 13, 2008 12:56:23 PM
Posted by: Pat Malach | Jul 13, 2008 8:42:14 AMLabel and dismiss, as Kari did in the NYT article, is a common way for lowgrade minds to debate.
LOL - this from the same lowgrade mind who thought it funny to softpeddle a racist quip by facetiously expressing the hope that my German father and Jewish mother hadn't give me a middle name beginning with the same "K" which my first and last names begins with.
This, of course, is just one small example of how *some* of the cranky whack-jobs on the far Left delight in dishing it out and then whine to high heaven if they percieve one iota of it being sent back their way.
F-ing hypocrits...
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jul 13, 2008 12:59:28 PM
Kari,
You are right that Obama has not changed his position on the occupation of Iraq, or indeed his general military posture (expand the military, intensify war in Afghanistan, be willing to attack into Pakistan without permission). These have all been clearly understood by the anti-war movement.
Two things have changed slightly. One is that he has amplified and detailed certain things. During the primary, Clinton was clear that she expected the "residual" troop presence to be on the order of 60,000 to 70.000 troops and to maintain the bloated "embassy" (read occupation headquarters city) of 5,000, protection of which is one source of high troop numbers. Obama was vaguer on both of those points, but has now confirmed that his "residual" number is comparable to Clintons (which most on the left & in the anti-war movement believed) and that he too intends to maintain an imperial proconsular city in the heart of Baghdad.
Secondly, he has been putting increasingly frequent emphasis on the "I will follow the advice of the commanders in the field" line, and downplayed his portrayal of himself as an anti-war candidate. These are rhetorical shifts, but it puts his rhetoric in line with George Bush's.
Again, if anyone might be surprised by this, it will be the folks LT likes to cite who don't or can't pay too much detailed attention and have heard the anti-war rhetorical tone and may now find it changing. Again, if that tone and the anti-war impression it may have created was a reason why some of the not-usually-so-political Obama enthusiasts liked, they may be disappointed and might be less active. The "center" of U.S. public opinion on Iraq is anti-war, except among hard-core Republicans. Obama is well to the right of the majority of Democratic and Independent opinion. I interpret him as shoring up his media position -- showing the foreign affairs pundits and the policy think-tanks on which they depend and with whom they form the echo chamber that let Bush lie us into war that he is "reliable."
Whether that will hurt him with the anti-war but not activist grassroots I don't know, but think is something he and his campaign and anyone who wants McCain defeated ought to worry about.
Posted by: darrelplant | Jul 13, 2008 1:04:26 PM
The main point is that it is simply an error, and a false accusation of naiveté to say that those who have been critical or skeptical of Obama are surprised by his recent actions.
I agree with you on that point.
Anyone who was paying attention knew the DLC was eager to claim him as one of their own when he ran for office, until he had his name stricken from their directory of New Democrats.
This is from Obama's letter to the Black Commentator, in 2003, when they asked him about his inclusion in the directory:
As I stated in my previous letter, I agreed to be listed as “100 to watch” by the DLC. That’s been the extent of my contact with them. It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC also listed me in their “New Democrat” directory. Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention....
But the third part of this part of the equation – and on this we may disagree – must be to gain converts to our positions. My job, as a candidate for the U.S. Senate, isn’t to scold people for their lack of ideological purity. It’s to persuade as many people as I can, across the ideological spectrum, that my vision of the future is compatible with their values, and can make their lives a little bit better.
Personally, I'm still waiting for a little of that persuading.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jul 13, 2008 1:11:52 PM
Peter Bray, the idea that John McCain is a "liberal" Republican simply is delusional. The reputation always was exaggerated, and his moves to the right on those relatively few areas where he did stick out are much more extreme than any changes in Barack Obama's positions. He couldn't move the Rs to the left if he tried, but he's not even going to try.
LT, it is not really true that it requires 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. The Republicans quite regularly used to force things through with smaller majorities. What it takes is a willingness to choose fights over which you will make a decision to try to stop something with the filibuster rules so painful for the other side in other terms, blocking things that matter to them, that they don't fight to that point. The Rs regularly used to do that. The D leadership should do more of that even now, but doesn't.
However, it should be said that at present the 60 vote excuse has a little more to it, insofar as forcing things through in the way mentioned would then come up against a veto in most instances. IMO the D leadership still ought to do that on some occasions and make the Rs pay the price of their positions on some things. I think they've missed some chances.
If Barack Obama gets elected president, the veto back-up behind the filibuster threats won't be there in the same way, and the ability of the Ds to make obstructionist Rs really pay for obstruction will be greater. Will they use those tools? Don't know, but am not optimistic, both because of the general timidity of the D leadership, and because it may be that Obama's "bipartisanship" will amount to a promise to fight with one hand tied behind his back. It may not -- that depends on the Rs. Right now I'd be more impressed if those who like his "stop the partisan bickering" approach would identify who his negotiating partners would or will be on the other side, and say what reason we should have to think that the R lockstep imposition of voting discipline on their more moderate members will change.
Posted by: portlander | Jul 13, 2008 1:16:47 PM
Kari,
I didn't see the part where you referred to yourself as "cranky" only the part where you differentiated yourself from "them."
Full quote:
“They believe their ideology is the only idealism and Obama’s is very mainstream. I’m not surprised they’re getting a little cranky. They’ve always been kind of cranky. A mainstream Democrat has always been too mainstream for them.”
Am I missing something?
With all due respect, nobody's playing a "thesaurus game." I feel your statements are dismissive and counter productive.
While I'm voting for Obama, I don't appreciate the efforts of some supporters to paper over his shortcomings or belittle those who have legitimate gripes with the candidate.
FISA is not a left or right issue, it is a Constitutional issue.
Posted by: darrelplant | Jul 13, 2008 1:34:38 PM
LT, it is not really true that it requires 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate.
Not only that, but with the Dodd amendment FISA bill, it would only have taken a majority vote. Instead, eighteen Democratic senators (only four of whom are up for re-election this year) voted to kill it. Then it would have been incumbent on the president to either accept it without telecom immunity or veto it.
I just think that there's a significant portion of the Democratic congressional delegation who are more or less in agreement with the Republicans on whether Americans need to be spied on. Some of them may just have to cover their tracks with meaningless votes on amendments they know are doomed to get elected. That's at least as reasonable an explanation as the idea that someone would change their vote on an important issue to gain important "centrist" cred.
There's no real reason this had to be passed at this particular time. It could easily have waited until after the election. It's hardly as if unconstitutional spying on Americans wasn't going to happen without it.
Posted by: LT | Jul 13, 2008 2:21:37 PM
Yes, I'm glad that Wyden (on the Intelligence Comm., he actually knew what the bill said!) voted against the FISA bill. I understand the point of view of those who view DLC as evil, and if only THEY were in leadership, by golly they would be as confrontational as they talk about being here. Are you willing to get involved in a debate about who should be Majority Leader in either chamber if Democrats keep the majority? (For that matter, same question about Oregon legislative leadership.)
I get all that. I also know many people who don't see the world that way. They have other things going on in their lives and don't follow politics as closely.
Just stumbled across something about Bush finally realizing that with a Democratic majority he can bluster all he wants to, but not everything he wants is going to happen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201616.html?hpid=topnews
The decider has become the compromiser.
President Bush has racked up a series of significant political victories in recent weeks, on surveillance reform, war funding and an international agreement on global warming, but only after engaging in the kind of conciliation with opponents that his administration has often avoided.
With less than seven months left in office, Bush is embracing such compromises in part because he has to. Faced with persistently low public approval ratings, a Democratic Congress and wavering support among Republicans, he and his aides have given ground on key issues to accomplish broader legislative and diplomatic goals, according to administration officials, legislative aides and political experts.
<<<<
Now for those of you who think I should say that with Lieberman and Sanders (independents) Kennedy and Tim Johnson (health problems) making up the 51 majority, the Democrats should act as if they have a 55 majority, we'll have to agree to disagree.
But then, with everything else going on in my life in July 2008, I just don't have the energy to get that angry at some of the things that anger other Blue Oregonians.
Posted by: Steve Snyder | Jul 13, 2008 2:25:39 PM
Am I the only one that was appalled at the headline calling the people interviewed the "far left"? Give me a break. From what I could tell, these were not folks from the far left but rather people holding moderately progressive views. Shows you how far the official lines of political demarcation have moved since...let's say the era of Nixon.
Hey, now revolutionary socialists or anarchists or at least those with an explicit anti-capitalist ideology could rightfully be called the far left but not these folks.
Posted by: darrelplant | Jul 13, 2008 2:37:21 PM
I understand the point of view of those who view DLC as evil, and if only THEY were in leadership, by golly they would be as confrontational as they talk about being here.
You reminded me that I forgot to mention Joe Lieberman was the head of the DLC for the years leading up to 2000.
I didn't mention the DLC to claim that it was evil, just to say that I wasn't surprised by Obama's current positions, because five years ago the DLC was trying to sidle up to him because they thought he shared their views.
I'm glad for you that you've accepted Bush into your life, LT, although I'd have to say that it's always easy to "compromise" when you propose incredibly slanted legislation over and over, then give up a few small things in order to get the things you really want.
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Jul 13, 2008 3:05:03 PM
Personally, I found Matt Bai's "Promises to Keep" piece in the NYT Magazine this morning much more insightful. To quote selectively:
Both men criticize a lack of responsiveness of government to its people, caused primarily by the influence of “special interests.”
….Obama, on the other hand, casts reform as something that primarily congeals outside Washington, which is why he started to sound a little like the Doobie Brothers during the primaries, invoking a movement that was taking it to the streets....
Reform, expressed in dueling visions, is the ideal that delivered both McCain and Obama to this shared summit in their political lives. They abandon it at their own peril, and at ours.
The Obama campaign's stock in trade was idealism, coupled with the savvy to cash that in for votes and legwork in addition to money. I think, Kari, that you miss the point when you say that "it's easy to get caught up in that." This wasn't something that naive souls got "caught up in" - it was the essence of the campaign itself. By suggesting that people shouldn't have been so naive as to actually believe that shit, you're undermining the strongest basis Obama's initial appeal to new voters, replacing it with the more standard fare cynicism of political insiders/hacks - like the majority of folks who write and read blogs like Blue Oregon.
Surely you see the problem here: one of the most hopeful features of the primary campaign was the mass registration and mobilization of new unlikely voters. While McCain's strength is with likely (especially older) voters, Obama needs to keep those new voters motivated and excited. While the punditry and seasoned political operatives will explain recent moves with their usual cynical savvy, that's hardly the spirit we need to keep up and build on the energy of the armies of volunteers who are now spreading out across the country.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jul 13, 2008 3:56:30 PM
Thanks Dan, very well put.
LT, the supposed "compromise" on FISA wasn't a compromise at all, it was a cave-in.
The "compromise" on the supplemental appropriation for the occupation of Iraq was not a compromise at all on its central provisions, to do with Iraq. It was a "compromise" of choosing not to veto add-ons for veterans and some other domestic spending. And even at that, the overall cost of the bill didn't rise above the threshold Bush said he would veto.
Bush hasn't really been conciliatory in any substantial way.
What both the D leadership and the Rs agreed on was taking "war funding" so-called "off the table" until well into then next president's term. This was a missed opportunity by the Ds, I believe.
You haven't really addressed the point that Dan had now made better than I did before, which is exactly about people who aren't deeply engaged with politics, who may have responded to one kind of impression about Obama, and who may be getting another message now, and what they may think about all of that.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Jul 13, 2008 4:07:39 PM
Re: “You realize,” Ms. Shade said, her voice fading with resignation, “that you’re talking to somebody who’s pretty far out of the mainstream.”
Ms. Shade's resignation is due to her lack of understanding that her positions are mainstream, even if they are far to the left of the duopoly's leadership. It is this false sense of being "far left" that is keeping us from coalescing with the real center.
Kari: You must stop this propaganda: "During the primary season, Obama basically said that he'd start bringing the troops home right away (and it would take 16 months to do it.) Now, he's saying that he'll finish bringing the troops home in roughly 16 months (though he'll start right away.)"
Chris did a good job calling you on this, but I want to call attention to the fact that "troops" is one of those weasel words that cloud minds. Obama, as you know, wants the mercenaries (150,000?) and a "residual force" of 60,000 or so regulars to remain. Not only is he, as you admit, not "anti-war", but he is also not "anti-dumb-wars", since his positions on Iran and on continuing the occupations are dumb as hell.
You need to at least read what his supporters say:
"But that pledge [to end "the war"] also has been laced with loopholes all along, caveats that the mainstream media and his opponents (excepting Bill Richardson) have ignored or avoided until now...Finally, it has taken the pressure of the general election to raise questions about whether his parsed and lawyerly language is empty of credible meaning. Consider carefully his July 4 statements:
The first one, promising a "thorough reassessment" of his Iraq position later this summer:
"I've always said that the pace of our withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability" — two conditions that could justify leaving American troops in combat indefinitely. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies" — another loophole which could allow the war to drag on.
Then there came the later "clarification":
"Let me be as clear as I can be" [not, "let me be absolutely clear"].
"I intend to end this war." [intention only].
"And I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our troops out safely at a pace of one or two brigades a month..." [but what if the military commanders on the ground assert that it is too dangerous to pull out those troops?]
Obama's position, which always left a trail of unasked questions, now plants a seed of doubt, justifiably, among the peace bloc of American voters who harbor a legacy of betrayals..." (Tom Hayden, No Retreat: If you Want to Win, Stop the War! Barack at Risk)
darrelplant said, "I just think that there's a significant portion of the Democratic congressional delegation who are more or less in agreement with the Republicans on whether Americans need to be spied on."
YES! And this is only the tip of the complicity iceberg.
"...such is the pathetic state of the Democratic Party: so desperate to avoid admitting its own mistakes that it would prefer to attack a large segment of its progressive base, chastising them like misbehaving children, as if somehow that will bring them back to the fold. Not likely. And not a very smart move." (Tim Wise, Fall Guy)
Posted by: Israel Bayer | Jul 13, 2008 4:29:40 PM
I think Kari hit the hammer on the head. I consider myself further to the left than the Dems, and I'm hell of cranky (about policies, current affairs, etc.)
I don't think Kari is doing anyone a disservice by saying that people like me are cranky. Of course, it can be used as a force against, but considering individuals like myself don't have much power to begin with, hence, the crankiness, than I don't see why calling a spade a spade is a bad thing.
Posted by: darrelplant | Jul 13, 2008 5:04:57 PM
I don't think Kari is doing anyone a disservice by saying that people like me are cranky.
It's the lack of acknowledgment that there are reasons people are cranky. Kari says he's cranky about FISA, too, but in the next paragraph he's burbling about how it's just a bunch of "idealists" and that everyone unhappy with Obama just misunderestimated him.
And the anti-war left will go nuts, because they thought he was anti-war like them. But he's not. And never was.
Pretending that the people who opposed the Iraq war were isolationists and pacifists a la Peter Beinart in The New Republic back in 2002 is cant that was old long, long ago. Just a bunch of un-American DFHs.
I admit, I had the audacity to hope because I thought Obama meant it when I heard about his remark that he wouldn't support "stupid wars". Hey, so am I! But that pretty much ended when candidate Obama started talking about expanding the military budget and chatting over foreign policy with Colin Powell. Didn't that guy get us into a "stupid war"?
Posted by: Jim Et Al | Jul 13, 2008 5:18:33 PM
I want to associate myself with portlander's remarks. He (she?) seems closest to my own position, and a fair reading of his post should leave no doubt as to how deeply felt by many is Obama's complete betrayal of the Constitution and the citizenry...
Let me add that the betrayal cuts even deeper if one considers that Mr. Obama is a Constitutional scholar of the first water, and for a man who is so obviously intelligent, well spoken, highly educated, and charismatic, the fact that he voted AGAINST the Constitutional comes as more than surprise. No, a knife in the back would be a surprise, Mr. Obama's betrayal of his senatorial oath to defend the Constitution is much worse. I am at a loss for the words required to really explain how his vote has affected me. I CAN say however, as it stands now, that I will NOT vote for Mr. Obama...
Posted by: Tyrannocaster | Jul 13, 2008 6:00:34 PM
Let the rationalizing begin:
"Other than the FISA thing (which is fairly inexplicable)"
Yeah, no wonder some of us are...cranky. Some of us who never voted for Nader, I have to add. Sounds like somebody is in full Obama-can-do-no-wrong mode; see Greenwald's recent comments on this for a much better excoriation of that mentality than I could do.
Posted by: LT | Jul 13, 2008 6:26:10 PM
"I'm glad for you that you've accepted Bush into your life, LT"
Way to win friends and influence people! Either we should be angry with anyone who didn't vote with Wyden on FISA or we are Bushies. No room for freedom of action by elected officials or candidates--by golly they should be listening to us as no one else matters!
Do I wish some votes had come out differently? Of course!
Do I think if everyone on BO said "Obama should be ashamed of himself for his vote on FISA" that would change anything? No.
But then I don't expect to be thrilled by every single word and action of anyone I support.
As is often true, the Beatles put it very well 40 years ago. You may not like their approach, but I can tell you right now anyone who calls me a Bush supporter is a person I will not believe in the future about anything without 3 confirming sources!
You want to see anger? Telling me I have no right to think for myself will get me angry!
I'd rather hear people say that what they are going to do about something is....
rather than telling us we should all agree that theirs is the only valid point of view. That has been my attitude for 40 years, and no blogger is going to change it.
http://www.elyrics.net/read/b/beatles-lyrics/revolution-1-lyrics.html
You say you want a revolution
Well you know
we all want to change the world..........
You say you got a real solution
Well you know
we'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're all doing what we can.....
You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
we'd all love to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead..........
Posted by: Israel Bayer | Jul 13, 2008 7:32:05 PM
"It's the lack of acknowledgment that there are reasons people are cranky."
If you don't like the slant of the story that's one thing, but one individual (Kari) who has a pulse on things made an observation - and he was right.
In the context of acknowledging that there's reason people are cranky falls w/the reporter and/or editor.
It was one quote. It's not the end of the world.
In the context of the big picture, and Obama moving away from the left. That's the game. Pure and simple. And no amount of critical analysis from lefties from Oregon or anywhere else changes that.
Am I happy about it? Actually, I'm kind of cranky.
But it's also important to remember that the hope Obama inspires only goes as far as we're willing to take it. We've had it all along. He only reminds us of it...
Posted by: darrelplant | Jul 13, 2008 9:14:20 PM
Way to win friends and influence people!
LT, aside from the fact that it was you who were claiming that Bush was "compromising" when he got everything he really wanted, it's not my job to win friends or influence people. You never seem to get that.
I'm not trying to get you or anyone else to come across to my point of view, because I've got nothing to sell. From where I stand, it looks like a bunch of Democrats -- including the current presidential nominee -- have abandoned what few protections laws passed back in the 1970s guaranteed American citizens -- i.e. the right not to be spied on by their own government (not that it ever really stopped, of course) -- because they were either too stupid to make the case to the people that it was a bad idea or they supported said spying.
I'm not pushing a presidential candidate. No, at this point, it's up to the Obama supporters to make the case that he really deserves the support of the people who are unhappy about the relentless rightward creep of the Democratic party since, oh, the late 1940s.
And that's why it's amusing -- if a little sad -- to see people in the center of the Democratic party demonizing the left while still trying to wrap themselves in a progressive flag. Theoretically, the left has nowhere to go, but if you spent enough time making sure that they know you despise them and everything they stand for, and caricaturing them the same way Republicans do, you just add another brick to the campaign foundation of the next third-party politician who comes along and tells them that the two parties are essentially the same.
That 2000 vote was sooo close. But like I said, I'm not the one selling anything.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Jul 13, 2008 9:21:27 PM
Maybe we should get T-shirts that say simply "Cranky" on them. The truth is, after 8 years of evil and corruption and 28 years of GOP dominance, we damn well should be cranky.
Posted by: LT | Jul 13, 2008 10:17:11 PM
Gee, I link to a story and that means I am a Bushie?
Is the FISA bill everyone is so angry about word for word verbatim of the old one? Or are there some new things in it? That would seem to be a question of fact (like today's temperature or the score of a ball game).
"This bill stinks and so does Obama's vote on this bill" would seem to be opinion.
Bad people gain power when activists want a whole loaf or none at all. For instance, there are lots of people who don't like everything Jim Webb believes, has said, stands for, and that was a close election in 2006.
But I'll bet there are lots of veterans who have new GI Bill benefits, and lots of folks who now have extended unemployment benefits, who are grateful to Webb (if they are even aware of the battle to get that bill passed).
What I was trying to point out is that a president my age is finally learning what we all need to learn at some point---the wisdom of that old Rolling Stones rock classic,
YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT
http://lyricwiki.org/The_Rolling_Stones:You_Can%27t_Always_Get_What_You_Want
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: James X. | Jul 12, 2008 7:22:00 PM
Excusing the wholesale rerouting of all telecom traffic, less than a month into Bush's presidency, to "secret rooms" where any or all of it can be monitored, is not "mainstream." It's more like the Soviet Union. I can easily handle mainstream Obama stances I don't agree with, such as that the country isn't ready for marriage equality, or stances that come from a personal moral conviction. This wasn't one of them. Yes, I'm voting for him, I just wish he wouldn't take that for granted. Perhaps his lackluster June fundraising (clickthrough here for full story and see the third and fourth grafs) could motivate Obama to be more representative of, and responsive to, voters.