By now, we should expect the soft Left (and more than a few radicals) to gleefully guzzle the Democrat Kool Aid every four years. In 2004, it was Anybody-But-Bush. This year, it was Attack of the Obamatrons. Hey, when you’re a liberal, harboring multiple delusions comes with the territory, e.g.
*Sooner or later, the Democratic Party is gonna wake up and help us “take back” the country
*No matter what we think of war, we must always support the troops because sooner or later, the men and women in uniform are gonna wake up and help us “take back” the country
*There’s a mysterious mass of Americans out there—just sitting on the proverbial fence as they wait for us to convince them we are right so they can wake up and help us “take back” the country
*There was once a time when the people actually “had” the country
During presidential election years, of course, the most contemptible liberal lie is this: We shouldn’t vote for the third party candidates who actually represent our deeply held values because (drum roll please) they can’t win. It should be obvious that the only reason a third party candidate “can’t win” is because almost everyone who claims to be progressive votes for a Democrat instead.
This self-fulfilling prophecy comes courtesy of the same folks who apparently believe that marching with giant puppets might help end a war.
The same folks who apparently believe that holding a candlelight vigil might help end hate crimes.
The same folks who apparently believe that a giant rock concert might help end global warming.
The same folks who apparently believe that adhering to state sanctioned free speech zones is a legitimate method of expressing dissent.
I could go on but I’d rather ask this simple question: Why is anyone still trusting the entrenched Left on anything? Thanks to their archaic tactics and dogma, we now face four years of genuflecting before the Pope of Hope as he blatantly spits on every effort toward peace, justice, and solidarity.
It’s gotten to the point where I wouldn’t be surprised if Lord Obama announced that he’s decided to keep Dick Cheney on as vice president…you know, in the name of bipartisanship and all. What would be most amusing is how quickly 90% of those on the Left would find a way to justify it (and call me “cynical” for not being stoked).
To paraphrase a certain Mr. Diderot, the planet will never be free (or detoxified) until the last politician is strangled with the entrails of the last liberal.
Very true. Liberal delusions form one of the 2 walls that
ensure that society's basic character can never really change.
Liberals don't understand what liberalism really is. Liberals imagine that their preferences make them morally superior to conservatives. What they don't understand is that liberalism is based on ceding the whole playing field to the right, then tacking on a few moral-sounding preferences at the end, only after they've given away the whole game.
For example, "We believe in a strong defense of national interests, (but we don't like war)." What this translates to in practice is 100% support for the military-industrial complex, & all the aggression that inevitably accompanies it -- plus the parenthetical little teaser at the end, which lets the liberal feel like a 'moral person' because he's 'against war.' So the liberal votes for pro-war big business Democrats, then goes to candlelight vigils. Or he insists that the pro-war Democrats he votes for aren't really pro-war; no, they're just "pretending" to be pro-war to get elected.
Another bit of liberal self-delusion is pretending that all America's crimes are due to "Republicans." Liberals refuse to see that the Democrats are complicit with virtually every Republican crime. There's always an excuse for that: "We simply didn't have the votes to stop them!," etc.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1293 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 9:38:44 AM
I keep reading how Obama will not change anything, how he will be right of Bush, that Clinton is a horrible choice----read alternet today----and anyone that believes differently must be "drinking kool aid", an expression I thought left our lexicon along with 'cool man cool". If I remember we had 2 choices and McCain/Palin was just not it but I will admit that all the negative alternet articles did get my attention. But, it would be nice to let Obama at least get sworn in and as far as what Rove thinks, or little Joe leb I could care less. We are even critical of candle light vigals, so I would guess that would cover peace marches and the marches Dr. King led.
As previously stated, Obama will give the marching orders and his administration will carry those orders out or he will replace that job. It is absurd to think that every thing Obama does will please all of us but at least I would hope he has the chance before calling for his head.
As to third parties I am all for them but ask yourself "what I did to promote a 3rd party candidate"? And lets cut to the heart, how much $$$$ did you give? Talk is cheap but how much dough did you give. And as far as not voting for a 3rd party because they had not a snowballs chance in hell to win, that has to be the individuals choice. A bit like a candle light vigal.
by
virginius "gin" arnold (13 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 343 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 12:17:17 PM
You and me are big enough to know that you can give marching orders to do evil but there is no way to give marching orders to do good. Somehow the good deeds can only be done WITH THE CONSENSUS OF ALL THE CHAIN OF COMMAND! Goodness is intrinsically democratic, so to speak while evil is intrinsically totalitarian. It is thus a delusion ( sorry) to think that a good man Obama would be able to pursue the bad people ( and they are bad, sorry) to do good. As such we better understand that the people put on those key positions of power are the cadres chosen by those who helped Obama to come to power and try to realize that the actual good features of the ruler do not mean that the actual power would be good.
As such as free citizens of the US we have a right and obligation to express discontent and do it as loud as possible: so far the people coming to power, ALL of them are the enemies of peace, Clintonians, unqualified and certainly open establishment agents. It is the truth. Eat your checkers.
This is just a friendly reminder:)
by
Mark Sashine (55 articles, 19 quicklinks, 256 diaries, 3705 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 12:41:40 PM
I refuse to change my opinion until I see more reason than I see now. I have been wrong in my life probably more than I have been right, so if i am wrong about Obama, it will be just one more time.
Peace
by
virginius "gin" arnold (13 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 343 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 4:23:15 PM
I myself discouraged voting for "third" party candidates. It was not so much because they couldn't win, although if we check the electoral results, it seems that they didn't. What's more Mickey, in the extremely unlikely event that your efforts improved their results by a factor of ten, they still would have lost.
But no, that isn't the big thing. The big thing is that if they were elected, they couldn't govern, at least not unless they governed as a dictator, and trust me, if you're any kind of American, you wouldn't like that any better than the brush with right wing dictatorship that we've suffered lately.
Moreover, I grow weary of being accused of being some mindless drone, following the Pied Piper to destruction by every half-assed street corner sign waver that manages to stumble out of bed in the morning.
Face it, your beef with Obama is that he isn't a hard left ideologue who will become the dictator you wish he would. He is, and has always been a centrist and never claimed to be otherwise. The other thing he is, is the best chance to move this country away from the right wing ideological government that has so damaged it over the past thirty years.
This country isn't supposed to be governed by ideologues, and if you'd crack a history book, you'd discover that those nations that are ruled by ideologues eventually come to bad ends.
Why don't you at least let Obama get sworn in and begin to govern before you start blowing hot air at him? I'm quite sure that your crystal ball is no clearer than mine, and with what your seeing in yours, I can only recommend that you move it over and clean the table underneath it.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1379 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 12:45:19 PM
'Face it, your beef with Obama is that he isn't a hard left ideologue who will become the dictator you wish he would. He is, and has always been a centrist and never claimed to be otherwise. The other thing he is, is the best chance to move this country away from the right wing ideological government that has so damaged it over the past thirty years.'
That above, unfortunately is not true, John. I can only speak for myself but as a reasonable citizen I voted for Obama because he claimed to represent my interests. As a smart person I am I also know ( and I wrote that in my comment above) that the soup is as good as its ingredients- that is people in charge reflect the goals of the governing group. As I see those people chosen by Obama or for him ( and believe me, I can distinguish when I see a good cadre) are not the ones who will represent my interests. I thus protest, express my discontent and I don't need to wait until inauguration or two years or four. Those are four years of my life and I am not young. I would advise also to remember that any man, even the best one is not ' the best chance'- the group, the party, the power system is. Obama so far had already demonstrated a prowess to use the system for his own, personal benefits- he had not so far demonstrated his prowess in using it for mine and I need just that.
by
Mark Sashine (55 articles, 19 quicklinks, 256 diaries, 3705 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM
I guess Obama will forever suffer for his "associations".
Barack Obama explained his choice of people who know their way around the machinery as being better than others with a steep learning curve and multiple crises to deal with. Those he chose will have only the multiple crises to deal with.
It comes down to a question of leadership. Oddly, those who believe Obama has cast a spell over those who support him, believe at the same time that he will in turn be beguiled by the people he has hired to work for him.
I can't really fault anyone who doesn't recognize the real thing as far as leadership ability is concerned, because it so rarely presents itself to be recognized. But I see it in Barack Obama.
When he is sitting in a room full of people wrestling with a problem, he will be guiding the discussion to where he wants it to go. Then those people can go out and execute the solution. They may not even realize that they received a directive from him, but that is the kind of leadership he is capable of.
No, it's not a spell cast through a camera or microphone, it is a practical art for which he possesses a great deal of skill born of long experience with it.
That is my view of what we may expect. Anyone who wishes to may differ, but they should at least wait until he is sworn in before they start in about what a lousy job he's doing and how he has betrayed us. It just isn't so.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1379 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 7:19:53 PM
John makes the classic liberal assertion that "this country
...isn't supposed to be governed by ideologues."
Actually, there's no such thing as non-ideological governance. The idea that such a thing could even exist is as much an illusion as the notion that the US represents "government of the people, by the people, & for the people."
To be sure, in the US the illusion that government should be non-ideological is encouraged & widely promoted. It's a cherished fantasy. But no such thing can exist, any more than news coverage can be truly "neutral & objective." Any news coverage tells the story a certain way. It can't help taking sides, because telling a story requires making choices, and how you make the choices reflects your perspective & your sympathies.
Similarly, any government must necessarily make choices, and these choices must either strengthen the position of society's ruling class, or weaken it, relative to the rest of the population. There is no such thing as a government that doesn't lean one way or the other -- and in fact, there's no such thing as a government that doesn't mainly serve the interests of the ruling class -- because any government that tried to, would be out on its ear in short order, & would never have come to power without the support of the ruling class in the first place.
The cold hard truth is that any given government is always just a front for the dominant social classes in that society. Its main job is to serve the interests of the top 1%, & to bamboozle the rest of the population into going along -- always maintaining the pretense that what is being done, is being done "for the good of all."
This is exactly what can be expected from Obama, and every one of his choices to date are solid proof of this. Like ALL US administrations of either big business party, this one will pursue militarism, imperialism, & the interests of the ruling plutocracy.
PS - Did you ever wonder why it is, in the US, that we are only allowed to have 2 parties, & that both of them are "big business" parties?
PPS - My favorite liberal excuse for appointing Wall St shills to control economic policy is that they have "experience." Oh yes, Robert Rubin and all his clones have "experience," all right. He, Geithner, Summers et al are the very people who paved the way to the current economic meltdown, who profited immensely from it, & engineered the bailout to save the skins of themselves & all their friends!
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1293 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 2:13:10 PM
might take a giant dump on your front lawn. Its past behavior would lead one to expect that. But if I'm on the other end of that leash, it's just not gonna happen. I won't let it.
You may look to Barack Obama to keep as firm a grip on the handful of leashes that he has taken up, as well.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1379 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 7:25:31 PM
If I knew where you lived I would buy you lunch:) I get a lot of "oh Dad" stuff from ny 2 40+ age kids and sometimes I think maybe I have fallen out of the loop. I still have a regular cell phone, do not own a ipod, do not know an actor under 50, and still buy whole chickens with the skin on. Like you, I would at least like to see Obama get in office before it is decided he is on the wrong side of the issues I care about. You are also correct in his being a centrist------he would never have been elected otherwise. Do any of these people realize that George Wallace got more votes than Nader? I do wonder if any of these political insiders have ever been to Washington and not for a football game but on the Hill. It is an entirely different world and to think that you can get anything accomplished by NOT playing the game is simply childish.
by
virginius "gin" arnold (13 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 343 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 4:36:16 PM
for his appointments and sociopathic compulsion to appear 'right-of-center'.
But don't you think we should atleast wait to gloat with the 'I told you so's' until after he's been sworn into office and we've had a chance to judge him for his presidential actions?
I agree that the dems are not the party of reform that they play on tv...and they should come with a warning "CAUTION: Political Parties at the Ballot Box May Appear Further to the Left Than They Actually Are"
"I could go on but I’d rather ask this simple question: Why is anyone still trusting the entrenched Left on anything? Thanks to their archaic tactics and dogma, we now face four years of genuflecting before the Pope of Hope as he blatantly spits on every effort toward peace, justice, and solidarity."
I honestly have to wonder where the f**k this statement is coming from. Nobody of the longtime Left (in the traditional interpretation of the term) ever assumes that the Dems are anything more than the velvet gloved faction of the Money Party. There are progressives within the party but there are also numerous right of center...and even far right of center dems...i.e., the Blue Dawg Dems...to thwart their every decent move. If this weren't a fact then Hillary would've been laughed out long ago, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached and Dennis Kucinich would've been given a fairer shake by the party and their auxilary mouthpieces in the press.
But I was most definitely of the opinion that the first priority this year was dethroning the GOP. Even though we've so far seen little sign in the appointments and retention of people like Gates that there is recognizable shift in direction... we do have some hopeful signs in areas like FDA policies and finally may have some actual justice in the Justice Dept.
Of course it remains to be seen... the guy's gotta get sworn in first.
And I very firmly believe that the third party choices were ultimately untenable... by 2012, possibly... yes. But in 2008... no.
I've loved hearing Nader speak during the campaign... but what did he really have behind him and in terms of organisation and overall policy?
And Cynthia McKinney?...who I agreed with more than anyone. But the same thing... they just aren't ready. I wouldn't mind working for her for 2012... but is that going to been enough to fundamentally reform what is really wrong with this system.
Ron Paul?... who I don't agree with on most things socially but I do agree with on matters of individual freedoms and US interventionism (except that I don't harbour conspiracy theories about an international illuminati and US involvement with the UN) but again, even if I was one of his admirers, getting him or Bob Barr elected wouldn't be enough to deal with the fundamental faults of the system as is. Doing away with the Federal Bank and taxes isn't going to be done by one political party and requires a massive reorganisation of society.
All this change has to happen from the bottom up and not the other way around. The media needs massive reorganisation so that the term objective journalism has meaning again and can no longer be different propaganda wings of whatever political parties nepotism has steered them towards.
Most of all, ...we have to dismantle this lingering vixation with the term two party system....depoliticize our electoral process so that political operatives no longer control the voting process whether they be election officials or the companies providing the voting machines.
We need to demand political pluralism and loudly.
But stop using hackneyed definitions of "the Left"...and assigning blame to where it's never been deserved.
Because that's never going to facilitate a solution.
by
chariotdrvr14 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 141 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 12:48:03 PM
First, I was very very active in working on Nader's and McKinney's campaign. As far as $$, it really in none of your damned buisness but this working class smoe Nurse, with child support to pay and living my own life gave BOTH campaigns over $500. Along with time and sweat equity
Second and more importantly, I did not support the war machine and I am a dissident of ALL US foreign Policy.
You can not say the same thing. All the Blue Kool Aid in the world can not change that simple, undeniable fact.
Drink, drink deep from the Blue Kool Aid.
We Suppport Wars
Yes We Can
We'll Suppoort Wars
Of Obama Man
Sorry, it is not my fault or Ralph Nader's or Cynthia McKinney's fault that YOUR Party, the Democratic party are complicit, critical parts of the war machine and assault on our rights as citizens.
We are simply pointing that reality out. So don't shoot the messenger, listen to the f**ing message instead.
by
Michael Cavlan (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 329 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:11:12 PM
The basic liberal delusions rest on a false knowledge of human weakness.
Liberals mistake moralizing for morality, and they constantly serve the God of good manners. So, they walk out when a discussion turns into an argument.
Liberals think that facts and ideas can be used to change people's political persuasions. Ridicule and teasing are much more effective (the right wing uses them all the time.)
Liberals think that the common man is ultimately responsible for great events like wars, depressions and so forth. This shows a childlish faith in a non-existent Democracy.
by
John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1483 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:29:58 PM
Did EIGHT YEARS of bush give you the satisfaction you wanted from your 2000 Nader vote?
And WTF with the diatribe about Obama winning? Look's more like you are just ensuring you have something to whine about for the next few years and drive traffic to your self-aggrandizing website. I'll pass on the MickeyZ tee shirt, thanks.
I guess that "the Left" has their Limbaugh's, Hannitty's and O'Reilly's too.
by
TomMikesell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:45:18 PM
Did anyone ever learn not to cross bridges before you.....
get to the bridge? Seems to me that George W. isn't out of the Whitehouse just yet and he may have other false flags flying around that will put us all in stand down mode. Some seem to think he is more than glad to get out of the Whitehouse. I for one will believe it when I see it. Any president that says "If this was a dictatorship and I was the dictator..." and even acted like one, disreguarding our Constitution, saying that it was "just a piece of paper" is not a man about to leave quietly in my mind. (Especially knowing his grandfather's, and father's backgrounds). George is just another pawn doing the work of the "ones" that control everything and loving every minute of it.
The way I see it, the "terrorist act" in India is just that; another false flag perpertrated by the "ones" (the power mongers) to cause fear. And... it also could be a prelude to what's going to happen here in the USA by the crooks that have controlled us for centuries. By the crooks I mean the guys that control the Federal Reserve and have created acts of war and terror as a means to gain power, do ethnic cleansing, and to take all our resources from us. In case some of you don't read a lot, our crops have been altered, our livestock have been given so many drugs that they probably are killing us, and the AMA has so much control over us that even though there are cures for cancer and other diseases they won't allow them to come out to the public.
Don't count your chickens before the eggs have hatched. And don't argue over things before they take place. I believe that if we are under Martial Law that Obama can't take office. Correct me if I am wrong.
And don't think that Bush staying is the only thing to be thinking about. There isn't enough money in the world to bail us out of going into a depression. Start stocking up on the things that will get you through it.
That's my opinion of the situation. I'm just a disabled woman that keeps busy surfing the net and like investigating all angles.
by
Snoopy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 32 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 3:15:51 PM
1. Any time you paint a big heterogeneous group in bold strokes, as you've done here with liberals, you're likely to a) inaccurately characterize many members of that group and b) antagonize the people you inaccurately characterized. You may have intended to do both and you may feel justified in doing so. Whatever the case might be, while there are certainly a handful of liberal apologists here and elsewhere, I don't think you've accurately described most of the readers of this site who voted for Obama.
2. Although I enthusiastically voted for Obama (and don't regret doing so!), I nevertheless agree with Mark. I know Obama hasn't been sworn in yet and that there is a tradition of a 100 day honeymoon period, but we have a right (perhaps even a duty) to express our opinions about anything that he does as part of his professional responsibilities as President-elect, even before he formally takes office. That's the nature of his job.
3. Mickey, I think you misunderstand the purpose of vigils. They're not intended to solve the problem. Their purpose is to provide participants with a sense of support and unity. Being an activist can be lonely and solitary work. The process of coming together with likeminded people can be invigorating and a meaningful source of sustenance, as well as an opportunity to meet allies and form collaborative partnerships.
by
Mikhail Lyubansky (8 articles, 4 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 109 comments)
on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 3:30:26 PM
1
1
1
