New York Magazine: When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable?

[dennis4868]

If we trace liberal disappointment with President Obama to its origins, to try to pinpoint the moment when his crestfallen supporters realized that this was Not Change They Could Believe In, the souring probably began on December 17, 2008, when Obama announced that conservative Evangelical pastor Rick Warren would speak at his inauguration. “Abominable,” fumed John Aravosis on AmericaBlog. “Obama’s ‘inclusiveness’ mantra always seems to head only in one direction—an excuse to scorn progressives and embrace the Right,” seethed Salon’s Glenn Greenwald. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow rode the story almost nightly: “I think the problem is getting larger for Barack Obama.” Negative 34 days into the start of the Obama presidency, the honeymoon was over.

Since then, the liberal gloom has only deepened, as Obama compromise alternated with Obama failure. Liberals speak of Obama in unceasingly despairing terms. “I’m exhausted defending you,” one supporter confessed to Obama at a town-hall meeting last year.

*****SKIP*****

Why are liberals so desperately unhappy with the Obama presidency? There are any number of arguments about things Obama did wrong. Some of them are completely misplaced, like blaming Obama for compromises that senators forced him to make. Many of them demand Obama do something he can’t do, like Maddow’s urging the administration to pass an energy bill through a special process called budget reconciliation—a great-sounding idea except for the fact that it’s against the rules of the Senate. Others castigate Obama for doing something he did not actually do at all (i.e., Drew Westen’s attention-grabbing, anguished New York Times essay assailing Obama for signing a budget deal with cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that were not actually in the budget in question).

The entire editorial is here...http://nymag.com/news/politics/liberals-jonathan-chait-2011-11/

This is a REALLY GOOD READ and makes so much sense. I know the many here who have an irrational 24/7 hatred for Obama will not like this article but for those of us still working on "facts", it's a wonderful and insightful editorial. :-)

[rfranklin]

1. After more than thirty years of being beaten down it's hard to be generous...

We want change and we want it now.

[dennis4868]

6. HELLO?

Change in Washington happens in baby steps....DID YOU NOT READ THE ARTICLE? Even changes made by FDR (with supermajorities in congress) happened in baby steps and he took alot of grief for that from dems....people here live in a fantasy world.

[krispos42]

111. It happens for US in baby steps... sometimes.

It happens for them in a normal pace when WE run thing, and giant leaps when THEY run things.

[treestar]

24. or what?

[polmaven]

25. If we want change NOW

then we need to give the president the tools he needs in order to effect that.

[CakeGrrl]

29. Do you understand how Congress works?

You want change, figure out how to keep the ignorant masses from letting the GOP back in control. They only get power if voters give it to them, and they have no interest in the agenda you presumably want.

[Union Scribe]

39. And that's why people aren't waiting anymore

That's why they're in the streets. And ultimately that's why authorities, and some posters here, are (shall we say) 'uncomfortable' with OWS.

[Sherman A1]

56. Precisely

:hi:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SheilaT]

3. We were promised change.

We were promised that Guantanamo would close. We thought we were promised that the criminals of the Bush administration would be brought to justice. Instead, Obama surrounded himself with holdovers of that administration, brought on board extremely conservative advisors, and behaved in general as if the progressives did not exist.

If being disappointed in him is unreasonable, if wanting him to keep some of his promises is unreasonable, then so be it.

Little or nothing will change at the national level in next year's election, but I firmly believe that by 2016 huge changes will have taken place, many of which will have their roots in the entire Occupy movement.

[dennis4868]

5. first of all...

people like you love to "conveniently" forget that the night Obama won the WH he said that change is a very slow process in Washington...he said that all the way through the campaign...he said it could take more than one term...I only have time to touch on one of your issues in your posts - Gittmo....

Obama has repeatedly put into the budget the closing of Gittmo but each time the congress, including dems, will not fund it. Are you saying that Obama is wealthy enought to close Gittmo out of his own pocket? Are you serious? He fought for closing Gittmo, hell, it was the first thing he did as president but CONGRESS WILL NOT FUND IT!!!!

Gotta get my kids to school so I cant address your other remarks...will try to do that later. :-)

[treestar]

23. Why the passive voice?

Who promised what to whom?

Obama promised he would do what he could to close Gitmo. Done. Obama never said he was going to prosecute any particular Bush official as far as I know. Obama did not surround himself with any holdover at a high level other than Gages. He did not bring on extremely conservative advisors, unless your definition of conservative is way out of normal.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

31. So Bush should be our model?

We should lie to get what we want?

And that's not as likely to work as its ill for a war. The American people are always ready to go to war it sometimes seems.

[harun]

32. If we are to get anything we want politically we will have to do much more than just lie.

Democracy is a fairy tale taught to little children.

[treestar]

67. So you don't even believe in our Constitution?

Our form of government?

You don't think it's a good form of government?

And lying is OK or worse, to get what we want?

[harun]

72. I'm saying we live in a Corporate Representative Republic and until

we get the dirty money out of politics it doesn't matter who we elect because nothing will change.

I think our Declaration of Independence explains it just fine:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

[catgirl]

33. He hasn't done one liberal thing?

Have you been in a coma? Wake up!

[Swede]

35. The Iraq war was never paid for.

[joshcryer]

46. You were promised post-partisanship. You got it.

This is post-partisanship. This is what it looks like.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. This is so not from The New Yorker....why say that it is?

This is an editorial yammering out of Chait at New York Magazine. Hardly The New Yorker. So the OP title to tail is nothing but bull, not even the source is correctly named. Intellectual dishonesty, the hallmark of the Warren defenders.
Just before the Inaugural, Warren equated gay relationships with pedophilia and incest. Anyone who did not speak out against his presence is part of the problem.

[dennis4868]

7. Thanks for correcting me...

I made the change :-)

[Bluenorthwest]

12. The New Yoker is a great magazine that would not publish such

utter tripe. A defense of Warren would not go over at the New Yorker, where the readers can read and the writers can write. I note that you did not address the facts on Warren, that should be pointed out clearly.

[dennis4868]

18. I didn't realize the...

entire article was a defense of Warren and the New Yorker is so pure ands white as snow...hahaha!

[Bluenorthwest]

19. Why be snarky? No one said the whole article was a defense

of Warren. Why say that? It contains a defense of Warren, in the form of attacks on gay journalists who did not silently accept the hate speech.
Warren had just equated gay relationships with pedophilia and incest. Anyone who did not criticize loudly the subsequent national honoring of that man was wrong. Those who spoke out were right and righteous. This article slams them for doing the right thing. Address that.
Why make snark instead of discussing what you posted? Well, that's obvious, isn't it?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Good read.

Best summary and analysis I've seen so far on the subject.

[dennis4868]

9. agree...

very insighsful and historical :-)

[Enrique]

10. Jonathan "Chuckles" Chait, big-time "liberal" supporter of the Iraq War

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. Facts! They Burn! Get thee behind me!

I'm gonna guess some became unreasonable when they found out they could take money from Republicans, teach them how to defeat Democrats, and still keep their "progressive" credentials. Afterall, "progressive" attacks on the president are much more credible than those coming from the right. Right? ;)

[ClassWarrior]

51. "They??" If you're not liberal, what are you?

NGU.

[Tarheel_Dem]

73. I'm a Democrat, and a reasonable one at that. This new "liberalism" I'm seeing...

is every bit as divisive and irrational as the teanuttery we've all come to despise. Is there any wonder we don't have statesmen anymore? They're no longer allowed. The professional left and the teanutters won't have it. They make money off the deep divisions that have engulfed our political system. But then you knew that, because they're actually the cause of it. ;)

[ClassWarrior]

74. Quit waffling. Are you liberal or conservative? "Centrism" is self-serving bullshit. And a myth.

No Center, No Centrists
by George Lakoff

"Centrism" is the creation of an inaccurate self-serving metaphor, and it is time to bury it.

There is no left to right linear spectrum in the American political life. There are two systems of values and modes of thought -- call them progressive and conservative (or nurturant and strict, as I have). There are total progressives, who use a progressive mode of thought on all issues. And total conservatives. And there are lots of folks who are what I've called "biconceptuals": progressive on certain issue areas and conservative on others. But they don't form a linear scale. They are all over the place: progressive on domestic policy, conservative on foreign policy; conservative on economic policy, progressive on foreign policy and social issues; conservative on religion, but progressive on social issues and foreign policy; and on and on. No linear scale. No single set of values defining a "center." Indeed many of such folks are not moderate in their views; they can be quite passionate about both their progressive and conservative views.

Barack Obama has it right: Get rid of the very idea of the right and the left and the center. American ideas are fundamentally progressive ideas -- the ideas this country was founded on and that carry forth that spirit. Progressives care about people and the earth, and act with responsibility and strength on that care...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/no-center-no-centrists_b_60419.html

NGU.

[Tarheel_Dem]

75. I'm a Democratic Pragmatist, and I didn't bother to read the rest of that shit.

You won't box me into your little niche politics. But nice try. :hi:

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

109. I'm not surprised you didn't read it. Oftentimes the truth is hard to take.

NGU.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. The author was a cheerleader for the Iraq Invasion

And those who did that were more wrong than it is possible to express. I reject all who supported that criminal enterprise. Sorry if that bugs the Warren lovers like the author.
And to the OP, if criticism is 'irrational hatred' I dare you to tell me how you define those who claim to hold Divine superiority to others while they spout off that God wants those others to endure a lack of equal rights? What do you call Warren, McClurkin, or for that matter, Obama? If criticism is hatred, then what the hell is the anti equality 'we are better than them' shit called these days?
Warren calls us by slanderous names, and you post his defenders. Irrational indeed.

[treestar]

22. So? Ad hominem fallacy.

[Zorra]

26. Not necessarily. That fact calls into question both the author's judgment

as well as his intentions.

Bluenorthwest seems to be pointing out that the author is obviously not the brightest candle on the altar, and that this enormous major error in judgment or intent makes suspect anything that this author says.

The invasion of Iraq was one of the major unparalleled mistakes in our history and will forever be a national shame.

The legacy of George W. Bush, worst president ever.

[treestar]

40. Doesn't address any issue

That's the very problem with ad hominem.

It doesn't make everything he says wrong that he was wrong on one thing.

Leave that to the right wingers. It's what they do.

[Zorra]

47. We're all three of us right. It doesn't address any issue,

and dude suffers from a serious deficit of good judgment and logical process.

"Here is my explanation: Liberals are dissatisfied with Obama because liberals, on the whole, are incapable of feeling satisfied with a Democratic president. They can be happy with the idea of a Democratic president—indeed, dancing-in-the-streets delirious—but not with the real thing. The various theories of disconsolate liberals all suffer from a failure to compare Obama with any plausible baseline. Instead they compare Obama with an imaginary president—either an imaginary Obama or a fantasy version of a past president."

Liberals are dissatisfied with Obama because he didn't do what we elected him to do, and did not make a visible sincere effort to try to do it. It's that simple. No pedantic, semantic ring around the rosie apologist explanations, like the one in the paragraph above, is necessary.

He didn't get the job done when the enormous opportunity to do the job existed, and the opportunity was squandered.

I ran a non-profit corporation at one time. I was ultimately fully responsible for everything regarding that corporation, including its success or failure, and I fully accepted that responsibility.

No excuses. No blaming any one else if things did not work out. No passing the buck.

Excuses for not getting the job done to their satisfaction was totally not acceptable to the BOD.

[joshcryer]

50. I highly doubt that the few weeks they had a filibuster proof Senate that the President...

... who campaigned on post-partisanship, could've even remotely came close to passing the stuff that he needed to pass to appease the chronically unsatisfied left.

The article isn't about "Obama failing" the article is about historical revisionism by liberals with regards to the failure of left-voted Presidents.

[treestar]

69. It's about liberals failing to realize they don't get their way all the time

Some of them act like they should personally get to make all appointments and make all calls and have their "negotiation" skills followed (which would be a disaster in that they have little or no skill at it).

The main thing I got from it too was that it shut down the stupid arguments to the effect that LBJ, etc., were magical and never had to put up with any opposition or could crush it at a word.

[ClassWarrior]

88. Why do you think people with the weakest Democratic values are better Dems...

...than those with the strongest Democratic values?

NGU.

[Zorra]

90. The real fact is, the Senate can end the filibuster, permanently, at any time.

There are a number of unfounded rumors that have been floating around here for years regarding the filibuster. Here are some facts:

How To End the Filibuster Forever
The Senate can kill the rule any time! And with only 51 votes.
By Akhil Reed Amar and Gary Hart

Is the Senate like Cinderella—does it have the power to transform itself in only one limited moment, at the opening of the new Congress? That is one of the two big questions in the filibuster-reform debate that is now taking center stage in the United States Senate. The other is whether the Senate can change the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote, regardless of what the rule itself seems to say. The short answers to these questions are that there are no magic moments in the Senate and no need to muster 60 votes to repeal the filibuster rule. The upper house has the clear constitutional authority to end the filibuster by simple majority vote on any day it chooses.
snip--
The Times and others are right about the power of the simple majority—more about why in a minute—but wrong about the Cinderella power of the Senate's opening day. A simple majority of determined senators may lawfully change the filibuster rules, even if the existing Senate rules say otherwise, at any time.
snip---
Unlike the House, the Senate need not begin its session by approving procedural rules. The internal Senate rule allowing filibusters—Senate Rule 22—is not approved biennially at the outset of each new congressional term. Rather, this old rule, initially adopted by the Senate in the 1910s and significantly revised in the 1970s, simply carries over from one Congress to the next by inertia, since the Senate is a continuing body. Similarly, on Day One in the Senate, no leadership elections need occur. The old Senate's leaders simply continue in place, and the Senate can oust the old leaders at any time—by a simple majority vote. The same goes for old rules, including the filibuster rule. It's that simple.
snip---Unlike the House, the Senate need not begin its session by approving procedural rules. The internal Senate rule allowing filibusters—Senate Rule 22—is not approved biennially at the outset of each new congressional term. Rather, this old rule, initially adopted by the Senate in the 1910s and significantly revised in the 1970s, simply carries over from one Congress to the next by inertia, since the Senate is a continuing body. Similarly, on Day One in the Senate, no leadership elections need occur. The old Senate's leaders simply continue in place, and the Senate can oust the old leaders at any time—by a simple majority vote. The same goes for old rules, including the filibuster rule. It's that simple.
snip--
In fact, neither house has ever formally prescribed a supermajority rule for formal amendment of its rules. Not even Senate Rule 22 has the audacity to openly assert that it cannot be repealed by simple majority vote. Rather, the filibuster rule says that debate on its own repeal cannot be ended this way. If Rule 22 simply means that it should not be repealed without a fair opportunity to debate the repeal, then it is fully valid. But insofar as Rule 22 allows repeal opponents to stall interminably so as to prevent a majoritarian vote from ever being held, then Rule 22 unconstitutionally entrenches supermajority rule. It's a question for each senator to decide for him- or herself—and then to act on, by simple majority rule, just as the framers intended.

http://www.slate.com/id/2280238

Also, see BzaDem's post at the bottom of the thread posted below. Bza knows a lot about senate protocol.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/harveywasserman.com/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2071225

[joshcryer]

97. If they're too weak to do it within the rules...

...it is hilarious to suppose that they're 'strong' enough to do it outside of the rules and attempt to force a constitutional trigger.

It would work, but it is preposterous that they would do it. Therefore they get the blame.

[Zorra]

105. Yay. We agree on something. They get the blame.

:thumbsup:

But the President should have smacked them around in order to get them to end it.

He's the boss, so he's ultimately reponsible.

[BzaDem]

54. The point is that Liberals were also dissatisfied with EVERY president, and they would claim that it

was for the same reason. X "didn't do what we elected him to do" (as if that is even well defined), etc etc etc. All of it is the same. There is nothing new here.

"Roosevelt did not run for office promising to boost deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy. He ran castigating Herbert Hoover for permitting high deficits, then immediately passed an austerity budget in his first year. Roosevelt did come around to Keynesian stimulus, but he never seemed to understand it, and in 1937 he reversed himself again by cutting spending, helping plunge the economy into a second depression eventually mitigated only by war spending.

Liberals frustrated with Obama’s failure to assail Wall Street have quoted FDR’s 1936 speech denouncing “economic royalists,” but that represented just a brief period of Roosevelt’s presidency. Mostly he tried to placate business. When he refused to empower a government panel charged with enforcing labor rights, a liberal senator complained, “The New Deal is being strangled in the house of its friends.” Roosevelt constantly feared his work-relief programs would create a permanent class of dependents, so he made them stingy. He kept the least able workers out of federal programs, and thus “placed them at the mercy of state governments, badly equipped to handle them and often indifferent to their plight,” recalled historian William Leuchtenburg. Even his greatest triumphs were shot through with compromise. Social Security offered meager benefits (which were expanded under subsequent administrations), was financed by a regressive tax, and, to placate southern Democrats, was carefully tailored to exclude domestic workers and other black-dominated professions.

Compared with other Democratic presidents, Roosevelt enjoyed relatively friendly relations with liberals, but there nonetheless existed a left opposition during his time, mostly of socialists and communists, who criticized him relentlessly. Progressive senator Burton Wheeler complained that FDR, “for all his fine talk, really preferred conservatives to progressives.” And actually, the Roosevelt era had the same pattern we see today, of liberals angry with the administration’s compromises, and the administration angry in turn at the liberals. In 1935, Roosevelt adviser Rex Tugwell groused of the liberals, “They complain incessantly that the administration is moving into the conservative camp, but do nothing to keep it from going there.”

(Page 3 of article in the OP)

[Number23]

87. That passage from the piece is very telling

Roosevelt enjoyed relatively friendly relations with liberals, but there nonetheless existed a left opposition during his time, mostly of socialists and communists, who criticized him relentlessly. Progressive senator Burton Wheeler complained that FDR, “for all his fine talk, really preferred conservatives to progressives.” And actually, the Roosevelt era had the same pattern we see today, of liberals angry with the administration’s compromises, and the administration angry in turn at the liberals. In 1935, Roosevelt adviser Rex Tugwell groused of the liberals, “They complain incessantly that the administration is moving into the conservative camp, but do nothing to keep it from going there.”

Like you said, there is absolutely NOTHING new to any of the complaints against Obama from the "left." And this passage is all the more telling when you consider the non-stop and wildly idiotic comparisons between Obama and FDR (in which Obama ALWAYS comes up lacking, of course).

The whining is incessant and most of it is completely fabricated. People think that screaming daily that the president is a "conservative" qualifies as activism. It would be funny if it were not somewhat terrifying.

[joshcryer]

96. What's interesting, now, though, is that those leftists bashing Obama look to FDR...

...as a harbinger of progressivism, meaning that these same "leftists" are to the right of the communists and socialists who were angered at FDR!

[Number23]

103. Exactly. It's almost humorous.

The incessant criticism, unrealistic expectations and quest for perfection from certain "leftists" has left them toothless. And yet, they openly wonder why so few wish to join their ranks and even fewer pay them even the slightest attention.

After 60 years of shrill absurdity, they have completely backed themselves into a corner. And some are so idiotic that instead of perhaps changing their expectations and modulating their perceptions so as to gain relevance and maybe even implement some of the changes they wish to make, they double down harder into that corner and scream even louder at the few people willing to even listen to them. Fools.

[treestar]

68. He did do what liberals elected him to do

Each liberal must realize they are part of a large group. Judging politicians, one has to keep that in mind.

The whole thing of politics is about living with people who don't agree 100%.

How do these liberals manage to be members of a family, if they think they are not going to have to put up with things they don't want to happen, because of the existence of other people, continue to happen, because other have rights too?

[joshcryer]

45. Yes, the author admitted being wrong about Iraq, though.

Which should at least give him some minor intellectual integrity on that count.

I am not making a statement about him as a whole, but he admitted being wrong about Iraq, so on this point, it is meaningless ad homs and misleading. A lie of omission is still a lie.

Window gets broken. Johnny threw the ball, but Dave hit it with the bat and that's what broke the window. If you just say "Johnny threw the ball!" when queried about the broken window, then Dave gets off scott free.

Meanwhile Chait was for the Iraq war and admitted that he was wrong. If you just say he was for the Iraq war it completely neglects that he admits he was wrong about being for the Iraq war.

[treestar]

70. True and it is logically fallacy, or ad hominem to in essence argue:

Author was wrong on Iraq, therefore the liberals are reasonable on other subjects.

[Zorra]

91. Logically fallacy or not, I always knew that Bush was always wrong.

And I was always correct on every issue, 100% of the time. Bush is an idiot with malevolent intentions, therefore, he is totally predictable.

In reality, especially when you dealing with human beings, common sense can sometimes trump logic.

Predictability, based on past behavior.

[joshcryer]

95. Bush was wrong when he tripled aid to Africa and signed off on billions in AIDS drugs to Africa?

See, that's what's so sad about this view, black and white, up and down. No, the world doesn't behave that way.

I would agree that Bush was wrong on almost every single thing he did, but it is still incorrect to say he was always wrong.

[Zorra]

98. Yes, so sad. But...back to reality: "Bush's AIDS Claims Fall To Scrutiny"

Looks like I'm still batting 1000. I'm tellin' ya, ol' Chimpy never fails me. he never did anything without a hidden malevolent intention/agenda. As predictable as the sunrise. So sad. Actually, this is full on disgusting.

Bush's AIDS Claims Fall To Scrutiny
February 25, 2008 12:21 PM
snip--
Even on aid to Africa, Bush's claims do not stand up to scrutiny. The president has made foreign aid a priority of his administration, nearly tripling the overall budget for foreign assistance from where it stood in 2000. And many in his administration, like former speechwriter Michael Gerson, as well as aid advocates in Congress, like Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, have increased conservatives' interest in Africa. But the administration has spent much of the aid money on unilaterally created programs that neither learn from existing efforts nor respond effectively to Africans' real needs.

And it shows. One of the White House's major aid initiatives, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), has wasted much of its funds on scientifically questionable programs designed to please American religious conservatives. Though studies show that only a comprehensive approach, including condom distribution, sexual education, and antiretrovirals, could reduce HIV, the White House insisted that PEPFAR spend one-third of its behavioral prevention budget on programs that promote abstinence until marriage. It also refused to let PEPFAR money go for programs like needle exchanges and aggressive condom promotion. Recipient nations had to sign an American pledge vowing to oppose prostitution, even though prostitutes are major carriers of HIV in Africa, and signing the pledge could scare PEPFAR recipients out of helping sex workers. Virtually no other major multinational donor agreed with PEPFAR's strategy. Even the administration's own inspector general responsible for overseeing aid couldn't prove that its methods had worked. (As a footnote, Randall Tobias, the administration official responsible for overseeing AIDS programs, including the prostitution pledge, resigned after his number was discovered on the D.C. Madam's infamous call lists.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/25/opinion/main3873641.shtml

[joshcryer]

99. So, again, you think that Bush was wrong to give aid to Africa?

Wow. Even Bono praised Bush: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/07/19/bono-praises-george-w-bush-saving-millions-africa-prendergast-credits

Sad that you had to go dig up some sort of article to 'refute' (actually, completely avoid) the question.

Bush increased aid to Africa. He could've done it better, but he did it. Do you disagree with him doing it? Not how he did it. Doing it.

I had completely forgotten that Bush helped push for South Sudan's independence. But I'm sure you'll find something about South Sudan that you can denigrate without actually answering the question.

[Zorra]

104. It was a total scam to use our tax money promote a conservative agenda

Do you seriously believe Bush sent money to Africa out of the goodness of his heart, and his concern and compassion for other human beings? Any actual help that real people received was collateral fallout from his real agenda. That actual help, yes I am glad for. But giving Bush credit for humanitarianism - I don't think so.

Here's more, from the Independent:
snip--
In an another example of accelerating development aid to Africa, President Bush signed a law just before Christmas pledging $52m annually for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to the Democratic Republic of Congo following elections there. As with aid to other countries, it comes with strings attached, including a requirement that the government open up to trade and foreign investors.

Some African specialists complain that because of such conditions, American assistance is still more about self-interest than altruism.

"I know a lot of activist groups who believe that the President's stated commitment to Africa is, at best, a play on words," Nii Akuetteh, executive director of Africa Action, an advocacy organisation, told The Washington Post. "There are conditions that are attached where the emphasis is more on countries that open up their markets so American companies can go in and privatise things."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/aid-to-africa-triples-during-bush-presidency-but-strings-attached-430480.html

Also, Bush lied about the amount of aid given to Africa:

From the Brookings Institute:

U.S. Foreign Assistance to Africa: Claims vs. Reality

The Bush Administration Record

The Bush Administration has significantly increased aid to Africa, but that increase falls far short of what the President has claimed. U.S. aid to Africa from FY 2000 (the last full budget year of the Clinton Administration) to FY2004 (the last completed fiscal year of the Bush Administration) has not "tripled" or even doubled. Rather, in real dollars, it has increased 56% (or 67% in nominal dollar terms). The majority of that increase consists of emergency food aid, rather than assistance for sustainable development of the sort Africa needs to achieve lasting poverty reduction.
snip---
Key Findings

U.S. aid to Africa from FY 2000 to FY 2004, the period to which the President referred, has not "tripled" or even doubled. Rather, in real dollars, it has increased 56% (or 67% in nominal dollar terms).
An analysis of actual U.S. appropriations from FY 2000 (the last full budget year of the Clinton Administration) to FY2004 (the last completed fiscal year of the Bush Administration) reveals a different reality about U.S. aid to Africa than President Bush has maintained.
In nominal dollars, total United States aid to Sub-Saharan Africa increased from $2.034 billion in FY 2000 to $3.399 billion in FY 2004.
In nominal dollars, of the $1.365 billion overall increase, $728.9 million, or 53%, consists of emergency food aid rather than overseas development assistance, which contributes to sustainable development. The remainder of the increase is comprised primarily of funding for the President's HIV/AIDS initiative (distributed between two accounts, Child Survival and Global Health) as well as emergency and post-conflict assistance to Liberia and Sudan.
Actual development assistance, excluding food aid and security assistance, increased only 33% from FY 2000 to FY 2004 in real dollar terms, or 43% in nominal dollars. In nominal dollars, less than $450 million of the increased foreign aid to Africa is official development assistance.
Official Development Assistance to Africa (aid programs directed at sustainable development) increased by 43% from FY 2000 to FY 2004. Of these programs (in nominal dollars):

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2005/0627africa_rice.aspx

Did you read what I originally posted? That was originally from the Nation, a long standing and highly respected progressive newspaper, and it was re-published by CBS, if MSM media is more acceptable to you as a source.

One more time:

And it shows. One of the White House's major aid initiatives, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), has wasted much of its funds on scientifically questionable programs designed to please American religious conservatives. Though studies show that only a comprehensive approach, including condom distribution, sexual education, and antiretrovirals, could reduce HIV, the White House insisted that PEPFAR spend one-third of its behavioral prevention budget on programs that promote abstinence until marriage. It also refused to let PEPFAR money go for programs like needle exchanges and aggressive condom promotion. Recipient nations had to sign an American pledge vowing to oppose prostitution, even though prostitutes are major carriers of HIV in Africa, and signing the pledge could scare PEPFAR recipients out of helping sex workers. Virtually no other major multinational donor agreed with PEPFAR's strategy. Even the administration's own inspector general responsible for overseeing aid couldn't prove that its methods had worked. (As a footnote, Randall Tobias, the administration official responsible for overseeing AIDS programs, including the prostitution pledge, resigned after his number was discovered on the D.C. Madam's infamous call lists.

And yeah, well Bono did not know that Bush had a hidden agenda at the time. We can cut him some slack, Bush fooled lots of people.



Wow. This is the first time in 8 years that I've ever had a debate with a poster that was defending Bush.

How times have changed. Go figure.

[joshcryer]

112. "That actual help, yes I am glad for." Thanks for the honest answer.

Not defending Bush, not defending how he went about it and his underlying agenda.

I not once said I agreed with Bush's agenda in Africa. I never once said, implied, insinuated, that Bush did it "out of the goodness of his heart." You're just interjecting some sort of paranoia induced opinion because you are annoyed that Bush did something that some progressives could be behind, including you, who are "glad for" those policies even if they were incidental and unintended consequences.

FYI we're in complete agreement here and I am NOT DEFENDING BUSH.

[treestar]

113. It still wouldn't be smart to consider something wrong

merely because Bush said it.

That would be just the opposite of blind following. The trouble with ad hominem is that it says "don't think for yourself," just base your opinion on WHO said a thing. That's why it's a fallacy. Even Bush might be right on a given thing.

[krabigirl]

120. +10000 I will never support a warmonger.

[ElboRuum]

123. Nice Try...

But logical fallacies have a stink about them. Discount the argument by attacking the man, also known as argumentum ad hominiem.

[zbdent]

14. Why not publish when Conservatives/Republicans became unreasonable ...

at birth ...

Or, to put a date on it, 11/7/2001, the day when they stopped saying "If Bush won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, there are legal remedies he could pursue" and started saying "Gore can't sue to be President!"

[ClassWarrior]

15. ClassWarrior: When Did New York Magazine Become So Irrelevant?

NGU.

[woo me with science]

16. What utter horseshit.

The "change takes time" meme is perhaps among the most ludicrous we hear, because it implies that he has even attempted to move in a liberal direction.

People are massing in the streets, because the corporations are STILL being fellated; we are STILL moving rightward; and we are STILL being thieved of our civil rights, jobs, safety nets, and futures...even under a "Democratic" administration.

[Cali_Democrat]

36. Well said

Thank you.

[Raine]

102. Exactly nt

[uponit7771]

121. You believe congress is sane, on planet Earth the 84% LIBERAL dems who approve Obama know theyre not

[Enrique]

17. just like the liberals that primaried Joe Lieberman

liberals that Jonathan Chait also thought were unreasonable.

[Cigar11]

20. Only an idiot would ask /n

[Skittles]

49. CORRECT

it's the usual sit down and shut the fuck up shit directed at liberals

[treestar]

21. Great article, especially for the review of the previous

Democratic Administrations.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Azathoth]

27. Sadly, history repeats over and over and over, no matter how much you point it out to people nt

[and-justice-for-all]

30. we should not negoiate/reason with terrorist...nt

[Cali_Democrat]

34. Correct.

It only encourages more terrorist acts, or in this case, more hostage taking (debt ceiling, unemployment benefits etc.).

[and-justice-for-all]

42. exactly..nt

[Union Scribe]

37. Better title: "Why Can't Those Peons Just Accept Mediocrity?"

By the author of "Mushroom Clouds from Saddam" lol.

[stevenleser]

77. More like: Progressives want a President who ignores congress, except when they have one. nt

[Union Scribe]

110. No, that isn't very good at all.

Though it does capture both your and the author's dislike of progressives.

[ElboRuum]

124. Actually, it captures a fundamental dislike of autocracy.

Of course, I know some progressives would love a firebrand, executive order writer whose pen never stops moving... so why not elect one? Why not run one? Pesky Constitution. Just a piece of paper, right?

[whatchamacallit]

38. When Did Liberals Become So Much Less Gullible

is more like it.

[Number23]

41. "it is hard to find a liberal willing to muster any stronger support than halfhearted murmuring"

This is not true. Many black liberals (Al Sharpton leading the pack) have voiced very strong support for this president. It's just that blacks who are critical of the president seem to get much more coverage.

But on this, I simply could not agree more:

"Liberals are dissatisfied with Obama because liberals, on the whole, are incapable of feeling satisfied with a Democratic president. They can be happy with the idea of a Democratic president—indeed, dancing-in-the-streets delirious—but not with the real thing. The various theories of disconsolate liberals all suffer from a failure to compare Obama with any plausible baseline. Instead they compare Obama with an imaginary president—either an imaginary Obama or a fantasy version of a past president."

Great read. Thanks for posting. Rec'd.

[Union Scribe]

53. Lol, so you like it even though it's built on a blanket smear

of liberals, you included.

[Skittles]

61. they just don't fucking get i, US

it is SAD

[Number23]

84. Yeah I do like it. Alot.

And your point is.... what exactly?

[RFKHumphreyObama]

43. Wow! Thanks for posting this

One of the best and most accurate articles I've read in a long time!

:yourock:

[joshcryer]

44. So.Fucking.True.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. He was helpless. The brain slugs FORCED him to demand Social Security cuts,

to fill his WH with Wall Street insiders, and to moon FDR Democrats.

[BzaDem]

55. On FDR:

"Roosevelt did not run for office promising to boost deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy. He ran castigating Herbert Hoover for permitting high deficits, then immediately passed an austerity budget in his first year. Roosevelt did come around to Keynesian stimulus, but he never seemed to understand it, and in 1937 he reversed himself again by cutting spending, helping plunge the economy into a second depression eventually mitigated only by war spending.

Liberals frustrated with Obama’s failure to assail Wall Street have quoted FDR’s 1936 speech denouncing “economic royalists,” but that represented just a brief period of Roosevelt’s presidency. Mostly he tried to placate business. When he refused to empower a government panel charged with enforcing labor rights, a liberal senator complained, “The New Deal is being strangled in the house of its friends.” Roosevelt constantly feared his work-relief programs would create a permanent class of dependents, so he made them stingy. He kept the least able workers out of federal programs, and thus “placed them at the mercy of state governments, badly equipped to handle them and often indifferent to their plight,” recalled historian William Leuchtenburg. Even his greatest triumphs were shot through with compromise. Social Security offered meager benefits (which were expanded under subsequent administrations), was financed by a regressive tax, and, to placate southern Democrats, was carefully tailored to exclude domestic workers and other black-dominated professions.

Compared with other Democratic presidents, Roosevelt enjoyed relatively friendly relations with liberals, but there nonetheless existed a left opposition during his time, mostly of socialists and communists, who criticized him relentlessly. Progressive senator Burton Wheeler complained that FDR, “for all his fine talk, really preferred conservatives to progressives.” And actually, the Roosevelt era had the same pattern we see today, of liberals angry with the administration’s compromises, and the administration angry in turn at the liberals. In 1935, Roosevelt adviser Rex Tugwell groused of the liberals, “They complain incessantly that the administration is moving into the conservative camp, but do nothing to keep it from going there.”

(from page 3 in the article)

[eridani]

64. Roosevelt had liberal messaging; Obama does not

He comes out against retugulations, refuses to say that government has a role as the employer of last resort, and instead of saying to the banksters "I welcome their hatred," Obama says don't demonize them.

[treestar]

71. Which would all be called hot air if Obama did it

Obama has demonized them, but it just doesn't seem to count. FDR gets credit for everything he said, whether it had an effect or not.

Face it, the current PL would be saying even worse things about FDR right now, considering the meager start for the social programs and his concern for the deficit.

[eridani]

79. He has? Calling people like Jamie Dimon "smart businessmen" is demonizing them?

To be sure, he has defended the helpful but inadequate banking reform legislation, but where does he go after bankers and welcome their hatred?

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BklnDem75]

106. Maybe he's referring to the vocal 15%?

[djean111]

59. I expect to see many articles like this,

trying to herd liberals into line, right up until the election.
Sigh.
Tedium.
Obama is a very lucky man in that most of the current Rep contenders look like a beginner class at Clown School. I wouldn't discount Mittens, though, he seems gravely reasonable at times, and reps are no more likely to vote dem than dems are likely to vote rep.
The way I see it, either Mittens will run, and the results will be up to those who control the voting machines, or Jebbie will step in at the last minute, during the convention.
I think what I resent the most is being exhorted to CHEER, and being told Social Security and Single Payer are "rainbows", as if I was asking for Whirled Peas or an organic chicken and pesticide- and GMO-free veggies in every pot.
I don't have an irrational hatred of anything. I am quite rational. And severe disappointment is not the same as hatred, and that is what I see. The ongoing attempt to characterize disappointment with Obama as hatred gets old, too.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

92. WORTHY OF ITS OWN THREAD

YES INDEED

[woo me with science]

107. Great post. nt

[treestar]

114. What is wrong with that?

How else do you ever expect to win elections?

And I bet you thought that a Democratic majority should always get in line to vote for anything you considered a liberal program.

Such an impractical approach will not bring success.

[ElboRuum]

125. Proves the authors point, doesn't it?

Liberals isolating themselves from other liberals, because the very notion of solidarity gives them fits... what the fuck?

On edit: To be fair, I don't agree with everything my fellow liberals say, do, or champion, nor do I agree 100% with them 100% of the time in the manner in which they choose to express their political viewpoint. But when a group of people of generally like mind seem absolutely intent on practicing divisive politics within their own ranks, I am left to wonder as to what goals, both short and long term, we as a collective group intend or expect to accomplish without the positions of political authority we will need to accomplish them.

[MFrohike]

63. Advocacy masked as history

I won't argue with the history presented in the article, generally. I felt it was mostly accurate, though I did take note of things that were not said. On balance, it's completely reasonable and laid out well. It's also garbage.

The author failed to note one glaring and very obvious fact. Obama created his own problem with the left. What exactly did he think was going to happen when he touted "hope and change" 24/7? It was obvious, after watching the exact same thing with Clinton, that he was raising hopes to stratospheric levels without any clear plan of how to fulfill them. Should have he run a boring campaign that only emphasize the grim reality of governance? No, he'd have lost. But, should he have held himself out, or allowed himself to be held out, as a transformational figure who would change the reality of politics? No.

I guess my problem with Obama is another thing that the author failed to note. Obama either has no instinct or no stomach for low politics. Witness the fact that Joe Lieberman is still a committee chair. The man campaigned against Obama and the president intervenes on his behalf so that he can continue to be a chair. What the hell? Honestly, that was a clear signal that he lacked the fortitude to actually get things done. Lieberman should have been stripped of the chair and ostracized. He committed a mortal sin (politically). That intervention was a clear sign to all watching that the president was fair game for below the belt challenges. Nothing in the last 2.5 years or so has changed in that regard. He is simply incapable of dealing with a political scene where chicken is the primary political strategy.

Does this mean I won't vote for him? No. Lincoln ain't coming back, so there's no republican really worth considering. Third party? Hahaha. I might as well burn the ballot for all the good that would do. I just prefer not to delude myself into thinking he's more than he is. He's a president who prefers high politics, speechifying if you will, with no aptitude for low politics. It reminds me of a saying I heard about the senate. An old senator tells his newly minted junior senator that the new guy has a choice: he can either be a showhorse or a workhorse.

One last thought: I am a bit unfair to the president here. The health care legislation may one day be fixable, but I highly doubt it will be by him. I feel as though he's done a decent job of making the patient comfortable, but that's about it. I think that he has an intellectual commitment to liberalism, but he just doesn't feel it in his gut. Maybe that's the problem.

[Skittles]

65. worthy of its own thread

:thumbsup:

[LWolf]

80. +1

[Mimosa]

117. Excellent analysis, MFrohike

I feel exactly the same way, for the same reasons. :)

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. when liberals got the silly idea that they could vote for change that they could believe in

[stevenleser]

78. Obama didnt realize you wanted him to ignore the constitution an stage a coup.

If he did, he would have not promised change.

[Douglas Carpenter]

82. oh give it a break- this kind of patent dishonesty is not convincing anyone

It is reasonable and it is honest to argue that President Obama is better than the alternative. I agree and so does almost every liberal and progressive. Representing him as something he is not - some kind of transformational progressive was simply disingenuous and it should not surprise anyone that some some people are very disappointed. They were mislead.

Personally I realized Obama was not some progressive transformational figure when I supported him because I knew that the alternatives were worse. But I also knew where the biggest support was coming from, I knew who his big time backer where. So I was not that disappointed myself. I will support him again because I know the alternatives are worse. But a lot of innocent people did not realize that and they honestly believed that they were voting for real change and genuinely expected him to at least try and certainly had not idea that he was going to pack the Treasury Department with the kind of people who caused our problems in first place. I wasn't too surprised myself when he put the foxes in charge of the chicken coop because I have seen it all before. But a lot of gullible and naive people did believe those words, "Change you can believe in." When people are mislead, you shouldn't be too surprised when they are a bit disappointed.

[Skittles]

93. come on Steven

that's a BS response and YOU KNOW IT

[BklnDem75]

81. That's gonna leave a mark

Very accurate article.

[Union Scribe]

115. Bird shit leaves a mark too. nt

[BklnDem75]

116. Hit dog holler

Call it what you want, it seemed to hit it's target.

[jefferson_dem]

83. kick for truth.

thanks for posting. but *real* liberals appreciate *real* progress, while demanding even more. i don't worry much about the handful of serial malcontented gadflies.

[Number23]

85. Kicking right along with you.

i don't worry much about the handful of serial malcontented gadflies.

Neither does anyone else.

[Vattel]

86. Yes, some criticism of Obama has been undeserved.

It's the deserved criticism that bothers me the most.

[ClassWarrior]

89. Why do some on this thread think the people with the weakest Democratic values are better Dems...

...than those with the strongest Democratic values?

:crazy:

NGU.

[Blasphemer]

100. The great divide

There is a divide that is almost as great as the traditional conservative/liberal or Democratic/Republican divide. Asking when certain liberals became "unreasonable" (loaded terminology that we traditionally see in arguments between liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans) is the same as a Democrat asking when Republicans became unreasonable or vice versa. There is a distinct difference in political philosophy. Articles like this one fail to address the real underlying problem. The divide isn't new but it was sublimated during the Bush years. Every time it crops up a different bogeyman is used to explain it (youth, Nader, racism etc.) but it's quite simply division. Chait explains his perspective and others have explained theirs. There will be no agreement and arguments are futile exercises. I have come to the point of accepting the divide and on which side of it I lie.

[Raine]

101. Liberals ... always the ones who get trotted out and shit on

:boring: it's really getting old.

[pmorlan1]

108. Big Surprise

Big surprise -- another thread attacking liberals. Wow, an even bigger surprise, former TNR editor, Johnathan Chait, attacking liberals. LOL. All you have to do is google his name and you can see that this "new" piece by him is just another rehash of his previous pieces where he targets...drum roll....liberals. LOL He likes to throw true liberals under the bus every chance he gets so he can prove how "serious" he is. LOL

[ClassWarrior]

118. When the RW discovered it could drive a wedge in the Dem Party by demonizing...

...its strongest standard-bearers.

NGU.

[DCBob]

119. I think some liberals are just impatient.

and are dreadfully disappointed Obama wasnt the progressive saviour many thought he was.

[ElboRuum]

122. I read that article a couple of days ago...

...I thought as you do that it was a particularly insightful article. I didn't bother to report the link, though, because I really didn't think people at DU wanted to hear it. But I think its something we all need to read and formulate for ourselves what we think about it.

[KoKo]

126. Agree ...This "Professional Liberal Class" really Sucks! they know Nothing...but jabber on and on

and thank you "dennis4868" for posting this article which nicely points out how the Liberal Left's arguments are "completely misplaces" and that disgusting Drew Westin's article which was just to promote himself in the NYT's View so he could make more Money off SELLING BOOKS.

Damned, Fucking anti-Obama whiners on the Left...just can't get over "Gore Lost." Fuckers can't seem to understand that the PEOPLE VOTE...and THEY DECIDE...and they complain and complain about "stolen elections" when time after time it seems the people decide.

I just can't understand these crazy lefters. President Obama was the Best Hope for America since JFK was ELECTED!

Why can't these Lefties understand that. It must be because they have their "own agendy" which maybe the RW is correct about. Could they be some Marxist/Socialists who have infiltrated the Dem Party that I've known and loved and voted for my whole life?

I can't IMAGINE anyone who could NOT UNDERSTAND that President Obama is working day and night for US! We DEMOCRATS! The rest are just whiners and losers and PUMA's who think Hillary should have been President. :-( Those folks need to get a life they are... soooooo past their time.

[KoKo]

127. YO! Dennis! I missed the post time to Recommend! So a Big Kick!

:kick: