How the Hell did despising liberty become the sine qua non of Obama support, anyway?

[cthulu2016]

On TV and the internet the best predictor of just how much of an in-the-bag stooge for the NSA a commentator is seems to be past performance on Obama-boosting in specific, as opposed to boosting workers, Democrats, moms, apple pies, etc..

It is weird.

I have never thought of Obama as defined in terms of contempt for things like the 4th Amendment. As Presidents go, I think of him as above average on liberties. Perhaps way above average.

I never felt that Obama was a unique champion of liberties in a single-issue crusader way, but he was not notably different from Hillary or Biden or Dodd or whoever. Reliable wishy-washy Democratic center on liberties. Far to the left of Diane Feinstein types, for instance.

I don't love the Democratic Party center-point on liberties but it is miles better than the Republican average on liberties and arguably better than the libertarian center-point on liberties. (re: Libertarians. When another Party rivals you on your supposed single issue, that's sad.)

But to see the line-up of newly-minted fanatical authoritarian stooges on the inter-webs and TV machine one would think that Barrack Obama had been, his entire life, a single-issue figure rising and falling on the solitary platform of trampling the 4th Amendment.

How? Why?

I don't picture Obama foaming at the mouth over spying on people. I don't think his presidency is, or shall be, defined in terms of domestic surveillance.

It is an issue he was handed that just goes with the job, same as every president.

And I am damn sure that NOBODY in America voted for Obama because they were single-issue haters of human privacy.

So how did crapping on liberties become the signal issue, the definitive issue of the established single-issue pro-Obama-the-man spokespeople?

[mike_c]

1. I'm convinced this issue is being stoked by paid PR hacks....

I mean, we see small number of DUers who have seemingly devoted 24 hrs a day to flogging this issue, going to ridiculous lengths to discredit whistleblowers, journalists, politicians, fellow DUers-- anyone who criticizes the security and surveillance state that they themselves cannot possibly welcome as wholeheartedly as they would have us believe.

Either that, or it's being flogged by some utter obsessives with the worst tunnel vision I've ever seen. But my money's on at least a couple of the most active ones being paid to post happy thoughts about the regime all day long.

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. I'm sure they're being dingbats for free. I suspect it is an obsession rooted not in actual support

for the surveillance state - at least in most cases - but the tunnel vision of hyper-partisanship and personality cult.

[cthulu2016]

6. But Obama has never enegendered that "support"

Obama has never said anything (at least that I have heard) that would encourage a normal person to view surveillance-luv as the definitive indicator of support.

Obamacare is a definiive Obama issue.

Surveillance is a balance-of-powers, nature of the state itself over-arching issue that kind of transcends politics.

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. it's true - of all issues to go to the the mat over -

[liberal_at_heart]

17. That's why they are all guilty. The NSA, FISA, Congress, and the President.

This is not just about the President but he does not escape responsibility.

[cthulu2016]

4. But the regime is not all about surveillance.

One could ignore it as a nagging problem that all presidents will have.

But it seems to be foisted as THE ONE ISSUE THAT PROVES WHETHER YOU ARE A REAL DEMOCRAT, and I don't get why.

It seems like a really stupid issue to make central to supporting the President or the Party or much of anything.

It is the quintessential 'shit you live with' issue. Secrecy, war on drugs, religion coddling, defnding executive perogatives... everyone knows that even a really cool president will tend to disappoint on such things.

A terrible "With us or against us" issue, sure to drive away more than it could possible attract.

[snappyturtle]

5. +1 Happy thoughts! That's exactly what it is.....goes nicely with

another term that I can't type....but still makes me laugh.

Just thinking.....Happy, happy, happy thoughts....
to the tune of "Happy Talk" of Rogers and Hammerstein's
"South Pacificc"....those were the days....1958.

[woo me with science]

22. States that turn authoritarian always build propaganda machines.

Always.

When liberty, privacy, and Constitutional protections including a free press are being stripped and replaced with authoritarian rule, of course great effort and expense will be poured into messaging to try to keep the people passive, confused about what is being done to them, and unsure whether those around them are as horrified and outraged as they are.

The authoritarian propaganda machine is creepy and ubiquitous now, and it works 24/7 to distract, disinform, and downplay what's really being perpetrated here. This is the hideous result of corporate power finding its way into governments that have power over human lives. Corporate rule has no regard for the liberties and civil protections on which free societies are built.

[Douglas Carpenter]

2. If someone is pro-Single payer universal healthcare - does that make them anti-Obama?

If they were pro-marriage equality prior to the President taking that position - did that make them anti-Obama?

If someone were to agree with this statement - does this make them anti-Obama? , ""It is not excessive to believe this growing, gargantuan, secret complex now represents the greatest threat to our freedom in the new twenty-first century." - former U.S. Senator Gary Hart -

When on earth did solidarity with the ever expanding clandestine services become a liberal and progressive cause?

[bvar22]

23. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ THIS ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Since Obama decided to stand by the NSA and James Clapper

There are DUers who are saying "my party, right or wrong", and taking the lead for "the party" from Obama, ignoring that the majority of House representatives voted to defund the NSA in its present state. So they have tied themselves to Booz Allen Hamilton and its surveillance state, as Obama did, and are now whining that admitting Snowden is right would mean admitting a supporter of Ron Paul is right on one topic, and they won't do that. They'd rather agree with Dick Cheney - because Obama does.

[liberal_at_heart]

9. everybody has their breaking point. Mine was education. For others it is the NSA spying.

[Scuba]

34. For some it was chained CPI.

[liberal_at_heart]

40. there are so many big issues that people are dissapointed in that could cause one to no longer

support Obama or the other democrats in Congress. Chained CPI, letting the insurance comapanies write ACA, education, NSA spying, drone wars, drug war, wages, you name it. There are plenty of reasons to not be happy with this administration.

[Scuba]

41. Yep, it's not that I didn't get everything I wanted, it's that far too often ....

... I got the opposite of what I wanted.

[quinnox]

10. As already said, it is a combo

of unhealthy sycophant like devotion, and perhaps some is just professional party hacks who cheer-lead anything Obama does with wild abandon as the BEST THING EVER. Meh, whatever it is, they are only a smattering and small handful on DU. Ever notice it is always the same handful of names in their threads? They are vastly outnumbered by the real progressives on here. And that inconvenient truth causes some of them to get rather unhinged at times.

[Andy823]

15. So tell me something

Who decides who is a liberal or progressive around here, you and your "loyal" followers who never seem to say anything positive about the president, but are more than willing to accuse anyone who disagrees with your thinking as NOT being "real liberals or progressives"?

This is just another flamebait thread stoking your egos!

[quinnox]

19. I don't have any "followers"

I'm afraid your post is just a complete miss. People like Manny are way more popular and their OPs get a lot more attention than mine do. And their are many other good progressives here at Du who are more popular than I am. And, I have said good things about Obama. Believe it or not, I just said good things about him in a thread yesterday.

[FSogol]

24. LOL: You Better Believe It!

[Andy823]

45. My apologies

I guess "you" are the follower and I guess there are others who lead the way for you to follow, like maybe the author of this OP from yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023483163#post217

You still did not answer my question, who decides who the "real" liberals and progressives are, and who is not? Would that be one of your leaders? Why are those who have said many times that the NSA issue needs to be investigated and any abuse fixed, but still support the president accused so many times of NOT being a "real" liberal or progressive? Is it really a bad thing to support a democratic president on a democratic discussion board?

[quinnox]

46. Well, you seem to have a thing for "followers" and "leaders"

I just don't think of Du, or my participation in it, in those terms. At all. Anyway, I really don't understand what you want me to say. It sounds like you are upset about something you are reading on Du, and trying to say it is all my doing or something. I don't have an answer for you. I think many duers call it like they see it. If you don't like that, it is hard to suggest anything, but just recognize that is the way of message board forums, especially political ones. I have to run now, so I won't be responding to any more posts. See ya later.

[Skraxx]

11. When You Talk About People You Define As Your Enemies as "Despising Liberty", It's Time To Look

in the Mirror and realize you've become the Tea Party.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

12. Your post was the first time "enemy" or "enemies" appeared in this thread

So no, the OP has not, in this post, defined his "enemies". And no, pointing out that people are more than willing to give up liberties in order to be on the side that's winning doesn't constitute teabaggery. Learn some manners.

[cthulu2016]

14. When you cannot tell ideas from verbiage it is time for you to

stop talking about ideas.

Just because some dim-wits think it cute to rant about "libery" does not mean I have to become anti-liberty.

I was for liberty before the tea party and hopefully will remain so after the tea-party.

[randome]

13. How is shrieking 'Stop spying on us!' different from Brietbart's 'Stop raping people!'?

Many people don't seem interested in looking at all the factors. There are good and bad aspects to the NSA.

We can argue all day -and often do- as to whether or not enough evidence has been presented but the majority, I believe, look at Snowden's briefing documents and think, "Okay. Yeah. What else you got?"

At the very least, it should be possible to try and understand someone else's opinion without resorting to that "You're either with us or against us!" you mention.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Andy823]

20. It's just their way

My way or the high way, if you don't agree with them, then you are a paid shill, not a "real" liberal or progressive, and nothing anyone can say of do will change their opinion of anyone who dares to support the president! It' simply pathetic to see so many of these threads by the same bunch of Greenwald groupies where the only goal is to trash talk all those who disagree with them and try and make themselves into poor victims!

[randome]

21. The thing is, no one wants to listen to shrieking.

The shrieking itself turns people away. I'm immediately suspicious of someone who is trying to sell me something. That's just human nature.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[ljm2002]

16. Here's what I think is going on...

...I think those who ardently support President Obama are very threatened by this story because they see how it can harm the President politically; and they see that this can grow and do harm to the party, and threatens to lead to results that none of us want to see come election time. They see the right / libertarians making hay and it is infuriating. It is easy to understand that reaction. None of us like the right wing and the Randian libertarians. Look back over DU from before this NSA thing started, and you'll see similar statements of loathing for these groups, from many who are now butting heads on this spying issue.

I have seen people here accusing others of harboring the hope that Obama might be impeached on this issue. Sadly, a few posts have suggested just that, although it is clearly a very small minority who go that far. I will state for the record that impeachment is the farthest thing from my mind on this. Obama did not start this, and he has even taken some steps to rein in abuses (baby steps, I'd say, but still it counts). The fact that he has continued with these programs is entirely understandable. We have a huge MIC / intelligence complex with great power and great sway in the government; we do have real enemies; Obama is a Democratic President; he is the first black President; and (as the right wing is so fond of pointing out) his middle name is Hussein. It would be extremely hard for him to just unilaterally try and curtail the activities of the NSA/CIA/FBI/DHS(etc). He'd get reamed, and his own safety could be compromised even more than it already is as the first black President. It is a vexing issue, even if he wanted to fix it (and he has said he would like to make some changes).

Now with all that said, I must point out that if Obama supporters are this vehement in their reaction to the story, that means they actually recognize how serious this is. One does not generally employ a cannon to swat a flea. Therefore, the fierce reaction only serves to underscore the seriousness of the issue.

JMNSHO.

[JI7]

18. this all sounds like the crap wingnuts are always shouting

FREEDOM, LIBERTY ,

[FSogol]

25. FREEDUMB! LIBERTEE!

You nailed it, btw.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

26. Yes, because everyone knows all good liberals hate both freedom and liberty

Yes, wingnuts love to throw those terms around. There's a reason for that: they're bastardizing the terms. But they chose those terms in the first place because they needed something powerful and decent and honorable to co-opt. Now you've ceded those words to them, and let the world know you don't like the concepts of freedom or liberty. I don't think you meant to do that. Check yourself.

[liberal_at_heart]

27. kind of like entitlements or redistribution of wealth. I refuse to think those words are bad.

Neither is freedom and liberty. I'm not afraid to fight for freedom just because the republicans have bastardized it.

[JI7]

30. that's what i mean about it sounding like wingnuts, it comes off as just throwing terms around

[liberal_at_heart]

38. then we have to reclaim those words. I will not support what the NSA is doing just because

the republicans have tried to monopolize the words freedom and liberty.

[X_Digger]

31. Spot on. n/t

[quinnox]

29. Standing for Liberty is part of being a Liberal

ever wonder why the terms are so similar?

[JI7]

33. what does that even mean ? wingnuts use those terms to oppose gun control

[quinnox]

35. it sounded like you were disparaging liberty

just because right wing nuts have tried to co-opt the term, doesn't mean we have to let them.

[JI7]

36. so you oppose gun control ?

[quinnox]

37. I have no idea where that came from, but no, I don't oppose gun control

I do strongly support "liberty" though, as a liberal, you can take that to the bank.

[liberal_at_heart]

42. for some reason any criticism at all equates to having the exact same position as republicans or

libertarians. If you are for freedom that must mean you cannot be for any gun regulation at all.

[cthulu2016]

47. Unlike you, I am not all about what wing-nuts say

If you chose to allow wing-nuts to define words like freedom and liberty for you then that's just what you are about.

Have fun with it.

[pscot]

28. Ask the President

He's the one obsessed with leaks and whistle blowers. His Whitehouse put on a full court press to prevent the House from limiting data collection. He must have given the order to force the Bolivian president's plane down. The guys running the surveillance apparatus are his creatures. When pressed to explain, he doubles down. When all the evidence points one way, maybe it is what it seems to be.

[BeyondGeography]

32. Thanks for the additional helping of pure bullshit

[ProSense]

39. Maybe

"But to see the line-up of newly-minted fanatical authoritarian stooges on the inter-webs and TV machine one would think that Barrack Obama had been, his entire life, a single-issue figure rising and falling on the solitary platform of trampling the 4th Amendment."

...the "newly-minted fanatical authoritarian stooges on the inter-webs," aren't gullible and accepting of Greenwald's bullshit reporting.

I mean, look at all the threads today (including this one) that are basically name calling of people who disagree with his flawed reporting.

Another NSA "Bombshell" Starts to Fizzle Out, as Greenwald Pushes Government Conspiracy Theory
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023478767

Look at where this is today: Back to being about Greenwald, not the NSA.

He's always misquoted...not really ("sorry" vs. "regret&quot

The reporting is always ends up being reporting about Greenwald walking shit back.

The Guardian fell prey to this with that bullshit John Lewis story.

Now, he's going to focus on the UK, that'll help the debate about NSA domestic surveillance, huh?

[Mojorabbit]

48. You can post this a thousand times but nothing has fizzled out

This is the "tip of the iceberg" as a certain Senator said and I agree with him.
It gets more interesting every day.

[DirkGently]

43. Indeed. Obama's not even making these crazy arguments

for the most part. He has even publicly recognized the need for reform, just as he did as a candidate.

Apparently some people either believe he has been caught in a big mess here, and therefore must be defended on purely political grounds, or they actually support authoritarian abuses and were secretly sorry Democrats in general aren't on that side of things.

Weird.

[CakeGrrl]

49. Example???

I've seen time and again people try to explain that they do agree that the level of surveillance needs to be debated and addressed.

But If they express that belief yet also express that they aren't on board the Snowden/Greenwald love train, they're dismissed as "Surveillance State Apologists." Once their supporters see that, they can't see any other point that's being made. They go into "attack the messenger" defense mode that exceeds any claim you make about Obama supporters.

So where are these examples of NSA zealotry?

[geek tragedy]

44. As a general rule, best not to make any assumptions based on a politician's dumbest supporters nt