Home » Users » Tom Bearse » Blog » Enemy of the Good
Democracy for America personal blog for Tom Bearse
Enemy of the Good
I suppose what we have are lines, the lines we will walk up to but refuse to cross. In the often unseemly world of politics, they shift in order to make the necessary trade-offs between personal integrity and the practical reality of Machiavellian strategies for success, or they harden and such trade-offs are rejected in favor of principled defeat.
They’re everywhere, expressed in the sentiments of bloggers here and at other sites. They stretch from the cold and lonely vigil over the cyclic presidential campaigns of Dennis Kucinich, to the euphoric band wagon jumping for the political Everyman, Barack Obama. It’s a riddle that needed solving when confronted in 2000, for example, with the decision of whether to throw away a vote on a third party candidate or, worse, take a vote from Al Gore, for the specific purpose of expressing your exasperation with two party politics, and give it to Ralph Nader. From this misguided calculus was formed the presidency of George Bush. It’s hard to appreciate the political idealism implicit in such a voting decision with results so horrible.
I listen to complaints about Obama, whose conciliatory and unorthodox resort to bipartisanship is often regarded as a simple kind of centrist politics, as if putting together a coalition of loyal Democratic voters, third party strays, independent thinkers, and disenchanted Republican moderates automatically rendered him and his left-of-center voting record a living statistical average of the voting tendencies of this diverse group.
The fatuous quality of this thinking is graphically revealed by a cursory review of the mainstream media, derided by hyperbolic harpies on the right as liberal mouthpieces, prating on about what a liberal firebrand Obama is compared with the moderate centrist, John McCain, a politician who rubs elbows with the press and forges legislation with such noteworthy liberal lawmakers as Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold. It’s as if the liberal policies of these senators could rub off on and contaminate the Republican standard bearer, wholly without regard for his own voting record, harsh foreign policy rhetoric, and repeated repudiations of formerly held views regarding tax cuts, off-shore drilling, and the torture of enemy combatants.
Do the same complaints about conciliation get directed at Kennedy and Feingold for the unpalatable bills they cosponsor with a person like McCain, whom these same critics vilify as a phony, two-faced Republican hack? No. Still, lines must be drawn, and while Obama is increasingly positioning himself in a way that will attract curious, suspicious, and uninformed voters, who sometimes venture with caution across the center of the political spectrum, the voices of ideologically pure liberals, the ones who pine for Kucinich’s hopeless but existentially satisfying crusades, are being raised. I’ve heard them before.
Similar criticisms were leveled at presidential candidate Howard Dean over his support for gun rights regulation by the states; his opposition to gay marriage; his willingness to grant tax breaks to large insurers and relax environmental protection standards for corporate farming operations in Vermont; his failure to support single-payer healthcare coverage; his support of NAFTA; his support for Israel; his overtures toward religious believers; even, incredibly, his support for war against Iraq in the form of the Biden-Lugar Amendment to the Iraq authorization bill in Congress. To his followers, Dean was taking on the DLC proponents in his party. To his detractors, he was the DLC. Of course, like Obama, Dean was called an out-of-the mainstream liberal by the conventional media, just like he was called a pandering, establishment Democrat by his left-leaning critics.
All of which I find fascinating because now, when we are on the verge of seeing Dean’s political progeny, Barack Obama, pick up the fallen standard of the 2004 Dean candidacy and use it to organize the most successful and compelling grassroots campaign in the history of American politics, the lines are becoming apparent. Opposing telecom immunity is not regarded as the principled stand that leading a filibuster and voting against the FISA compromise in the Senate is. Leaving Iraq is not sufficient opposition to the U.S. occupation as setting and keeping a timetable without regard to the security situation in that country, once the preset time for leaving comes to pass, would be.
Would Howard Dean have done the same thing as a nominee? Some people who drew the line in 2004 apparently thought so, following the same line of attack against him that Kucinich used. Dean didn’t support single-payer healthcare coverage and Kucinich did. Kucinich called out Dean for supporting an increase in the social security retirement age. Dean thought it necessary to stay in Iraq once the President committed troops there, while Kucinich demanded that the troops be withdrawn and replaced by U.N. peacekeepers.
I wonder how it is that for some ardent Dean supporters then, no lines between Kucinich and Dean were drawn on the basis of the candidates’ respective views, in a way that they are drawn regarding Obama’s views now. It’s possible to hypothesize that perhaps ideological purity is one thing and ideological consistency another.
Why not then convince me that a bunch of discontented Bush defectors voted for Nader?
Nader made points and asked questions that deserved responses and answers from the powers that be.
"Most Americans don't realize how badly they're being harmed by the
unchecked commercialization of what belongs to the commonwealth. If
enough people knew what questions to ask, we have both the ways and
means to achieve better schools, a healthier environment, a more general
distribution of decent health care."
". . . When people tell me that I'm wrecking the Democratic Party, I ask
them what's left to wreck. The Democratic Party isn't going to heal itself.
If it went and stood in a cold shower for the next four years, maybe it
would think of something to do and say that isn't already being done and
said by the Republican Party."
Has the water been cold enough after 8 years? Will the temp need to be lowered for another 4 years or does the lukewarm result of the 2006 mid terms keep the Party comfy?
"The change invariably begins with people whom the defenders of the status quo denounce as agitators, communists, hippies, weirdos. And then, ten or twenty years later, after the changes have taken place, the chamber of commerce discovers that everybody's profits have improved. The captains of industry never seem to understand that a free democracy is the precondition for a free market. . ."
Tell It Man, Tell It! YOU SHOULD HAVE TOOK IT TO THEM IN THE DEBATES!
I've never heard Gore blame Nader. So if you're looking for scapegoats
look first at the Candidate's campaign, then cast an eye on the multitude that voted for W. Working down the list there is the MSMedia who howled loudly at a couple of Gore embellishments while giving the "if he's talking, he's lying" Guvner Bush the who cares free ride. How about the Dem Elections officer in FL who couldn't put Gore's name in the right place on a butterfly ballot but kept her job afterwards. There was also the criminal tampering of Jeb and Katherine's ethnic voter list cleansing campaign that they got away with.
But don't cuss Nader. He did his civic duty.
4114
- Barack Obama has been clear and steadfast in his pledge to start bringing troops out.
By Phil Specht on Jul 7, 2008 3:07 PM EDTand he has often repeated "We will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."
"We will start immediately to withdraw one to two brigades a month" oft repeated.
His views on the war are inline with 2/3 's of the American people and have not changed.
Opposing telecom immunity is not regarded as the principled stand that leading a filibuster and voting against the FISA compromise in the Senate is.
It's not a "compromise". It legitimizes Bush's lawbreaking, that of the telecoms and the complicity of the Democratic Leadership. Not only that, it is a betrayal of a firm commitment to "Filibuster any legislation containing telecom immunity" given at various times over the past year.
Leaving Iraq is not sufficient opposition to the U.S. occupation as setting and keeping a timetable without regard to the security situation in that country, once the preset time for leaving comes to pass, would be.
16 months should be regarded as an upper limit for removing all US Forces from Iraq. The instability in that country is wholly attributable to the occupation. We've heard both the patronizing colonial gibberish about the Iraqis perhaps being not ready for our departure-a 230 year old country questioning the abilityof a 5,000 year old civilization to settle it's problems without our interference. Obama has also injected the politics of fear--saying we shouldn't leave if Al Qaeda is resurgent. That's taken straight from the Biush-Cheney playbook. Al Qaeda wasn't there before we invaded, and they'll be gone shortly after we leave--the Iraqis will see to that.
Would Howard Dean have done the same thing as a nominee?
That question is moot. He's not running for anything, and idle speculation about what he may or may not have done serves no useful purpose.
Dismissing something as moot is a quaint dodge, when the truth is Dean's brand of moderate liberalism, branded as some kind of unrelieved leftist cant by the mainstream press, was more than acceptable to liberal advocates who populate this community. Obama's moderate liberalism, branded as some kind of unrelieved leftist cant by the same media, is actually derided as appeasement politics by his antagonists here. It's too convenient. Sorry you can't make up your mind about which election cycle you should or should not be supporting Kucinich's bid for the presidency in, but you obviously can't. I just wonder what's the reason.
What you've done is put up a strawman of WWDD, which is unknowable and useless, since it is not the issue. The issue is what Obama IS doing, and whether it constitutes an acceptable political move, or an unacceptable flip-flop on issues of importance to this community.
Perfect may be the opposite of good, but bad is also the opposite of good.
A complete dodge. What's the reason that Dean's brand of moderate liberalism was acceptable to you, when Kucinich was the ideologically suited option, and Obama's brand of moderate liberalism is somehow inadequate? The media has crammed down our throat identical messages that both Dean and Obama brought an extreme sort of liberal sensibility to the political arena.
Are you seriously telling me that you don't recall the plaintive bleatings by liberal hand-wringers about what a phony opponent to the war Dean was, giving lip service to his opposition in March 2003 after conceding his support for the proposed Biden-Lugar amendment in 2002? Funny. Gephardt certainly remembered during the debates.
Tom, your obsession with and repeated resurrection of the failed Dean Campaign is simply not relevant in discussing the current campaign.
I don't keep harking back to the failed Kucinich campaign; you do.
I intend to vote for Obama, but 20,000 people have sent e-mails in opposition to his FISA position to MyBO. That's hard to ignore, or spin.
I simply do not accept the mantra that we have to express unqualified support and blind devotion to a candidate, no matter what dumb things he says or does.
From Ray McGovern's thoughtful letter on FISA:
You have made a big mistake, Senator, in indicating you intend to vote for it. There is still time to change your mind. That's what big people do.
the heat Obama is taking on telcom Immunity is a good thing. His response was lame, if for no other reason than the telcom victims deserve their day in court, and that right shouldn't be legislated away. Look what's happening to the innocent people who were tortured who can't sue the government or, it seems. the security contractors who may have been involved in it.
It's cost him in some recent polls, but it's early and Obama can probably shake it off. If he wanted to solidify the base, he'd be very smart to put Howard Dean on the ticket.
That would shut the base up in a hurry.
That he opposed telecom immunity?
- Chronolgy of Obama Statements on FISA, prior to June 20, 2008
By Huron John on Jul 7, 2008 2:05 PM EDT
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_fisa.php
Obama comes out against a proposed FISA bill granting retroactive immunity, October 18, 2007:
Obama: "It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal -- with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity -- is not the place to start."
Bill Burton issues a statement, October 24, 2007, reaffirming Obama's position and pledging to support Chris Dodd's filibuster:
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
Campaign statement, December 17, 2007, further elaborating on this point in regards to a particular upcoming Senate vote on Dodd's filibuster:
"Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect. Senator Obama supports a filibuster of this bill, and strongly urges others to do the same. It's not clear whether he can return for the vote, but under the Senate rules, the side trying to end a filibuster must produce 60 votes to cut off debate. Whether he is present for the vote for not, Senator Obama will not be among those voting to end the filibuster."
Obama issues another statement on the FISA bill, January 28, 2008, saying that the dichotomy between civil liberties and security is a false choice:
I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill.
Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand.
The FISA court works. The separation of power works. We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight, and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend.
No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people -- not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed.
That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd's amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens - and set an example to the world - that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.
That you've chronicled Obama's consistent opposition to telecom immunity?
And his consistent commitment to filibustering any bill that contained retroactive immunity--not just the immunity provision.
"I will work to remove..." is a big step away from that committment
That he hasn't supported a filibuster of such a bill? Are you aware that he won't support a filibuster of such a bill? Are you aware if there will be a fillibuster of such a bill?
... is Mile High:
A view of Invesco Field during set-up before an event.
Rocky Mountain News
Invesco Field at Mile High as seen from the air.
By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 07:34 a.m., July 7, 2008
Barack Obama will give his acceptance speech at Invesco Field at Mile High, where there is room for more than 76,000 people, Democrats announced this morning.
A special block of "community" tickets will be reserved for Colorado residents, with details on how to get them coming in the next couple of weeks.
It's a chance for grass-roots supporters to be there when history is made, and a break from the mold of traditional political conventions, said Gov. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
"The Democratic Party is nominating a true change candidate this August, and it is only fitting that we make some big changes in how we put on the convention," Dean said in a press release.
"Senator Obama's candidacy has generated an enormous amount of excitement and interest, not only in the Democratic Party but also in the 2008 Convention. By bringing the last night of the Convention out to the people, we will be able to showcase Barack Obama's positive, people-centered vision for our country in a big way."
Obama's campaign has inspired people to get involved in the political process for the first time, said convention co-chairwoman Kathleen Sebelius, the governor of Kansas.
The switch to Invesco "will allow thousands of first-time participants a chance to take part."
Invesco will be the site of the 2008 Democratic convention's final day: Aug. 28.
...
Wage earners and unemployed Americans ought to be spared the shameless promotion that will acrue to INVESCO.
Symbolism and "Meet The New Boss" ring.
Okay, I did have to check up on Invesco and look for any "Friend of the Good" characteristics. From its Website:
"Invesco Ltd.
As one of the largest independent global investment managers, Invesco Ltd. is dedicated to helping people worldwide build their financial security.
Invesco strives to deliver outstanding products and services through a comprehensive array of enduring investment solutions for our retail, institutional and private wealth management clients around the world.
Invesco
Invesco has worked hard to earn the trust of investors around the world. With fully integrated investment capabilities that span traditional and alternative asset classes, Invesco is one of the world's leading names in investment management for institutions and individuals worldwide"
Looks like standard Wall Street fare to me.
Does the party even pretend to stand for wage earners anymore?
If so how does the coronation of Barack Obama brought to you by INVESCO sound to them - in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania for instance.
Pittsburgh, PA - Steeltown USA population circa 1972 = 1 million
Pittsburgh, PA - poster child of Globalism population circa 2008 = 300,000
The USA as the "Shining City on the Hill" rots into the Dying City of empire.
Brought to you by Gucci clad suits playing with the big bucks between
Wall Street, Ridyah, Hong Kong, Bombay, Shanghai, Singapore, etc.
with the blessings of the BiPartisan coalition that taxes wages at a higher rate than capital gains.
. . .
Tactically, in the electoral fight for Colorado, the big house move makes sense. Symbolicly, it's going to be difficult making the occasion an honor
for The People when The Company banner is so conspicuous!
Much of the technology in the Obama toolbox was pioneered by Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign. “We were like the Wright brothers,” said Joe Trippi, the Web mastermind of the Dean campaign. The Obama team, he added, “skipped Boeing, Mercury, Gemini — they’re Apollo 11, only four years later.”
Mr. Rospars and other former Dean aides formed a consulting firm, Blue State Digital, to refine their techniques. The Obama campaign purchased the backbone of MyBo from Blue State and has set out to improve it. “It’s still TheFacebook,” Mr. Hughes said, comparing Mr. Obama’s current site to the earliest and narrowest version of Facebook. “It’s still very, very rough around the edges.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obama-must-be-doing-somet_b_110673.html
Frank Schaeffer
Obama Must Be Doing Something Right: He's Got The Fundamentalists of the Left and Right Upset
Posted July 3, 2008 | 02:35 PM (EST)
Obama is calling for change, service and reconciliation by we individualistic Americans. That is bad news for culture war, racial war, religious war, secular war, progressive war, conservative war warriors. The fact that the ideological fundamentalists of both the left and the right, of both secular America and religious America, are attacking Obama, and/or correcting him and admonishing him is a good sign that Obama is of indeed the right man for the job of President. He is self-evidently not about helping one side or the other in a divided America "win." He is about America winning.
People with vested interest in our ideological divisions, people like me -- authors who make our living exacerbating the differences between our various American tribes -- have found a lot of fault of with Senator Obama lately. Maybe we expected him to somehow become president without needing to be elected. Good God! He's playing politics! The sky is falling!
In order to change anything Obama must actually become President first, not run for pure-of-heart progressive-in-chief. Yes, that means he will use his money advantage and forget public funding. Yes, that means he'll reach out to evangelicals.
Obama happens to have his feet planted solidly on planet earth.
...
...except yellow stripes and dead armadillos.
A leader sets out a clear direction and asks others to follow. Watching where everyone already is (or you think they are, or someone tells you they are) and then running to get in front of the crowd is not leadership.
So, arguments that Obama has to be in "the center" to get elected don't convince me.
I happen to think he always was a centrist, "go along" Democrat, but that doesn't mean I don't get to try to convince him to be otherwise.
- What you think without the evidence can't be our concern.
By Tom Bearse on Jul 7, 2008 3:03 PM EDTHowever, the suggestion that Obama doesn't have to show some movement towards the center to get elected, is literally stupefying.
Would Kucinich? Skip him, would Dean? Now consider that Obama is the first black nominee for president of any major party, considered to be unpatriotic by fully 25% of poll respondents, and is still considered a Muslim by a substantial minority of American voters who concurrently disapprove of his membership in Rev. Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years.
This kind of political naivite, from a veteran Democratic activist no less, is shocking.
Gore moved to the right--he lost
Kerry moved to the right--he lost
Hillary moved to the right--she lost
I think I see a trend
You mean the "The People, not the Powerful" campaign?
I further don't understand the suggestion that Kerry moved to the right. He certainly assumed the guise of a strong national security candidate to become the nominee but by the time of the general election, recanted his own vote for the invasion authorization, against the strong advice of his running mate, John Edwards, and basically went after Bush's policies with a flamethrower.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/trey-ellis/what-if-obama-never-left_b_110318.html
Trey Ellis
What If Obama Never Left the Center?
Posted July 1, 2008 | 06:09 PM (EST)
What if Obama isn't tacking to the center just for the general election as all us good progressives would like to think, but instead he genuinely believes his positions? What if he meant it all along when he said he didn't see red states or blue states but the United States? What if he wasn't kidding when he blamed both the old guard Republicans and the old school Dems for the gridlock that has paralyzed the past decade of so? What if he really is very Christian and not just pretending, as you lefty atheists not-so-secretly wish? I can't tell you how many times I've heard friends say, "He's just like us. He can't really believe that mumbo-jumbo." (For the record I'm more of a Zen Buddhist but I think it takes a nuanced mind for a man of intellect to also be a man of faith.)
I was a little late to jump on the Obama bandwagon for many of these very reasons. I didn't find his positions, especially on universal health care, as progressive as I would have wished. Both he and Hillary seemed very much of the DLC centrist mold despite calling themselves progressives.
Paul Krugman has been writing about this for months but you Obama fans to the left of him just didn't want to listen. The same thing happened with Howard Dean. He was an openly centrist, pro-business governor, but because he was anti-war, progressives ignored his record and just assumed he was to the left of Ralph Nader.
...
Obama's strength isn't his slavish adherence to party line but his ability, issue by issue, to decide the right medicine at the right moment.
If that makes you call him a centrist then so be it. Get over it already. He's nobody's man but his own.
I tell my friends, acquaintances, and anyone else who will listen, that Obama is running for President of the United States, not president of DFA. We can expect that his rhetoric will move to the center so as not to frighten the villagers. Only once we have their attention and trust can we hope to move the center towards us which, I think, is the ultimate strategy.
You could be, as I am, represented in the Senate by Arlen Specter who voted for the MCA and justified his vote by saying that the courts would eventually restore habeas corpus. My head is still spinning.
|
|
- I would like the [person] doing the negative rating . . .
By Tom Bearse on Jul 7, 2008 2:30 PM EDTto come out from behind the curtain and explain the basis for it, rather than show their petulance from the shadows. Disapproval of the content of a post can be more persuasively demonstrated by means of a cogent counterargument than by affixing your little negative sign to it. Although I can understand the reason for the anonymity, it's not very forthright of you, and it's certainly a poor substitute for reasoned debate.


-
By * rdorgan on Jul 7, 2008 9:44 AM EDTTom -
Good post.