Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“Obama-Firsters”

“Obama-Firsters”

Well, it’s not the title of Glenn Greenwald’s post, Repulsive progressive hypocrisy (h/t @Steven_Swenson), but it could be.

Here goes:

During the Bush years, Guantanamo was the core symbol of right-wing radicalism and what was back then referred to as the “assault on American values and the shredding of our Constitution”: so much so then when Barack Obama ran for President, he featured these issues not as a secondary but as a central plank in his campaign. But now that there is a Democrat in office presiding over Guantanamo and these other polices — rather than a big, bad, scary Republican — all of that has changed….

Indeed: is there even a single liberal pundit, blogger or commentator who would have defended George Bush and Dick Cheney if they (rather than Obama) had been secretly targeting American citizens for execution without due process, or slaughtering children, rescuers and funeral attendees with drones, or continuing indefinite detention even a full decade after 9/11? Please. How any of these people can even look in the mirror, behold the oozing, limitless intellectual dishonesty, and not want to smash what they see is truly mystifying to me….

…. long before Barack Obama achieved any significance on the political scene, I considered blind leader loyalty one of the worst toxins in our political culture: it’s the very antithesis of what a healthy political system requires (and what a healthy mind would produce). One of the reasons I’ve written so much about the complete reversal of progressives on these issues (from pretending to be horrified by them when done under Bush to tolerating them or even supporting them when done by Obama) is precisely because it’s so remarkable to see these authoritarian follower traits manifest so vibrantly in the very same political movement — sophisticated, independent-minded, reality-based progressives — that believes it is above that, and that only primitive conservatives are plagued by such follower-mindlessness.

Whether one agrees with Greenwald or not on specific policies, he is right that allegiance to re-electing and supporting Obama has replaced any semblance of intellectual intergity among the Democratic coalition.

I wonder if Greenwald is more angry about the inconsistencies of his compatriots, or that he fell for it in the first place.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Mr. Jacobson, and I mean this in a friendly way, I think you need a journalism refresher. “Dog bites man” isn’t news.

Liberal hypocrisy, Romney isn’t a Reagan conservative, this is like reporting: “Newsflash! The sky is blue!”

What IS news is “Man bites dog.” For example: Drudge posting an anti-Romney article, Obama taking a stand against unions, stuff like that.

=)

    Astroman in reply to Astroman. | February 9, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    If I may humbly suggest, you could start a new category of posts: the “Not News” category – posts that just reinforce what we already know.

    Stuff like flaming liberal hypocrisy stories, Eric Holder still denies any responsibility for Fast & Furious, Fox News is shilling for Romney, Ann Coulter is still insane, Obama is anti-Israel, that kind of thing.

” … sophisticated, independent-minded, reality-based progressives … ”

Few things make me laugh like a fully collapsible premise.

I R A Darth Aggie | February 9, 2012 at 1:28 pm

There’s a reason they’re called ‘yellow dog democrats’…

I don’t think Greenwald is genuine in his misgivings. Let us remember that his critique is a long, long way from insisting that Obama must go.

When the crunch comes Greenwald would still prefer Obama, how has done nothing to increase freedom anywhere, to any given Republican or independent.

While Roland Martin faces censure for an impolitic tweet Obama could murder a gay couple on live TV while screaming the f-word and still get the votes of Greenwald and the Salon crew.

Why? For the same reason he has a Nobel Prize. Because he is not George W. Bush.

It doesn’t matter who the Republican nominee is. Mother Teresa would be smeared for being too involved with her religion. Ghandi would be called an Uncle Tom. Truth doesn’t matter to Greenwald and the rest. Only having their totem animal (the donkey) in the White House.

Hosanna Heysanna Sanna Sanna Ho
Sanna Hey Sanna Ho Sanna
Hey B O, B O won’t you smile at me?
Sanna Ho Sanna Hey Superstar

Wm, you concur with Greenwald that “allegiance to re-electing and supporting Obama has replaced any semblance of intellectual intergity among the Democratic coalition.”

I posit that your shared assumption, that the Democrat coalition had any intellectual integrity to begin with, is false. I reason in this wise: They are Communists, and Communists have no intellectual integrity. The Big Lie is where it’s at for them.

“Not news” or not, I think posts like this are a perfect reminder of what we are actually up against. In my opinion, articles like this are FAR more newsworthy than most of what we all read week to week.

After having served two deployments in Iraq with the Marines, I realized it did not matter how much good we did on the ground. Everything, every success, every sacrifice could be and was undone or erased by the anti-war movement back home. Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid… they were each worth more than a division of al-Qaeda. They did more damage to us than the enemy ever could.

In fact, it was when I realized that our real “enemies” were sitting back at home, destroying everything we did for political purposes that I decided to get out and dive more heavily into politics. “If you can’t beat them, join them.” I did that for as long as I could.

Here I am. Back in Iraq. As a civilian. Trying to make the sacrifices we made mean something. Trying to salvage victory from the jaws of defeat, a loss we did not have to endure. A loss we would not have had to suffer if it weren’t for the double standards and the hypocrisy this article addresses.

People, this is more newsworthy than any of the inter-party rivalries we are going through right now. We are at war. Mostly, we are at war at home. It’s a war for ideas. It’s a war we cannot afford to lose. It’s a war we can only lose if we turn on ourselves, if we forget where the real threat lies.

We can’t do to our fellow citizens what we have done to the Taliban and al-Qaeda (even if they are hypocritical, ultra Left-wing, pinko Commies) but we can beat them at their own game, and we can stop them in tracks and defeat their agenda. November folks, that’s where it’s at.

    WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    that should read “more newsworthy than any of the intra-party* rivalries we are going through…”

    Hope Change in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    WoodnWorld —

    thank you for your service to our country.

    It’s so strange. When you write about your wishes for a better world, I feel how much we are all in this together.

    I wish you all success in your endeavors.

      Hope Change in reply to Hope Change. | February 9, 2012 at 3:44 pm

      to clarify,

      I said it’s so strange

      because we seem to have identified different candidates who we think can best help us to make a better world.

      And I thought that must mean our ideas about what a better world would be, would be more different. Or that our feelings would be more different.

      but I don’t think so.

      So this is an opportunity for me to learn something, it looks like.

      Thank you.

      I hope it’s ok to say, “namaste.”

      WoodnWorld in reply to Hope Change. | February 9, 2012 at 9:02 pm

      First, you are more than welcome. Second, thank you for everything you do back home. Hopefully we do what we do so you (all) don’t have to. If one of us can stand in the gap so ten, or a hundred of you don’t have to, it’s all worth it to me. Enough of that.

      To clarify, and I don’t think I have said this yet: I don’t *want* Romney. I would prefer to nominate a carnivore, somone who eats red meat for breakfast, spits fire discriminately and cuts through our ideological opponents like a scythe. I *want* a purist. But I think we *need* a moderate. Let me ex

        WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 9:51 pm

        Right, that should have read: “Let me explain.” Not sure what happened there.

        So, let me explain. While I would prefer to have the most conservative candidate, I do not think having another conservative purist for our nominee will be what is best for the nation.

        I know some of us have rewritten our most recent histories, applied current values on yesterday’s candidates and concluded that George W. Bush was a RINO, but at the time he was as much of a meat-eater as we could get. As much as I liked him, liked having him as a Commander in Chief and (deeply) appreciated what he did to support us, as a nation immediately after 9/11, and for us in uniform when we deployed, I can also not forget how hard “the last eight years” were for us a people.

        I am not saying that was his fault, but only that having a carnivore unified our opponents. Some of the people who are, now, very conveniently and expediently calling for “civility, reason and rational behavior” were foaming from the mouth and swinging from the rafters when he was President. It very nearly tore us apart.

        You and I both watched a very deep wedge get driven into the heart of this nation. This used to be the UNITED States of America. Now, it looks more like the DIVIDED States of America. We are breaking into camps, and factionalizing along largely imagined, and artificially constructed, ideological lines (so much so that to many here, I am the enemy).

        I don’t want to see that again. I don’t want to see that process perpetuated even more and am (literally) afraid of what a purist will do to them, the Left, so close to 2000-08, particularly if it means sending their Golden Boy off the field and onto the bench. We need time to heal and we need time to turn this country around.

        I, objectively, think Newt (a carnivore) will just piss people off. Many people here might say, “So WHAT? F*ck em…” If I thought we were stronger as a nation I would join you all and personally hand him the can(s) of “gasoline,” but I don’t. If we did not have to treat our fellow Americans (who, I really hate to admit, really do not see things the same way we do) like fellow citizens, instead of enemies, I would say burn them all down. But we can’t.

        If we want to win, in the end, we are going to have to convert them, one by one with reason, with the strength of our positions and the merits of our arguments. If Romney looks a little like them, talks a little like them, and acts a little like them, while I do not like it, I am okay with it (for now) if it enables us to stop them in their tracks, make a tactical withdrawal, make gains in the Senate and in the House, make gains in the Supreme Court and come back stronger in the end. I have had bad Commanding Officers (thankfully, very few). They do stupid things, say stupid things and, ultimately get people killed. Barack is a bad Commanding Officer. I do not think Mitt would be a “bad” C.O. I think he would largely be run by his junior officers and senior enlisted people. I think he would listen to his command and not make seriously aggressive mistakes. We would not love him, but we would not hate him. He would not be the best, but he certainly can’t be worse than the last guy.

        That is my moral argument for a moderate right now. On an intellectual (well, as intellectual as a Marine can get!) level, I do not see anyone in our current field who is better poised to win. Objectively, Mitt has the three things you need to win an election: Time, money and people.

        You can win with two of the three, but it helps to have all of them. We have plenty of time between now and November to focus on Barack. We can make this a referendum on him. Mitt has plenty of money, and can get plenty more. We all know this. Finally, he really does have the organization to pull off a national campaign. While the TEA party may not support him, he really does have a small army of people out there volunteering for him in the local offices, making calls for him from their homes, making the ads for him, covering for him in the press etc.

        It took me a (very) long time to get here, but I do not see anyone else in the current field who has put together the organization that Mitt has. I do not see anyone else who can, or has, raised the money he has up front. In fact, it seems as though both Rick and Newt think they can run their campaigns without an organization, or without money. That both will magically come to them later when they win the nomination. That’s not the way it works, and even if it were, it will not be enough to beat Barack in November.

        In closing, I am not trying to convert anyone, or persuade anyone. This are my own opinions, they are not worth two cents and I could be wrong. I am merely trying to explain where I am coming from, and why I have (yes) settled, on where I am today.

          Hope Change in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 9, 2012 at 11:19 pm

          Thank you, WoodnWorld, for all you are doing. Heart-felt appreciation.

          Also thanks for your clear and thoughtful explanation of why you think what you think. I can see much better now why you have reached those conclusions, based on your experience and point of view. You have given me a lot to think about.

          You have experienced things about which I know practically nothing. I can see that almost anyone would be a better CinC (if that is the correct way to write that) than the present one. I’m really, really sorry for the hardship of having a bad CO.

          From where I’m sitting, I don’t see Newt quite the same way as you describe. Obviously, I guess, since I’m so in favor of Newt’s winning.

          I see Newt as a uniter of potential a huge majority of the American people. I think if Newt wins the nomination, Newt will almost certainly win in the fall, with a team election including House and Senate as well as lots of down-ticket people teaming up to enact a clear and specific agenda, favored by a huge majority of the American People. That’s what I believe is going to happen.

          So clearly, that looks very different from how it looks to you.

          I get the feeling very strongly that Newt will win. But of course, I can’t prove it. I don’t expect anyone else to think it will happen just because I say I think it will.

          I agree with you very much that what we’ve been calling the Establishment will not unite with Newt. Also, clearly, the Left will fight him every day. There will be constant dissension.

          The difference from the G.W. B. era, I believe, will be that Newt will make his case directly to the American people, and do that often. I think it is a built-in part of Newt’s plan to communicate with the People and bypass the MSM. So that one particular hell we went through, wherein the White House is silent for eight years while fury just builds and builds, will not happen.

          Because as to the 80% – to – 90% issues, such as balancing the budget, prosperity, solving the issue of illegal immigration in a way that is fair and effective, et cetera, 80% to 90% of the American People, if we do team up, will be with Newt. If the American People want it.

          I see your point about Romney’s strengths. He’s got money. For sure. And money buys him organization. Yes. But I don’t see Romney as having people.

          Romney’s biggest fundraisers, as you may already have seen (I haven’t seen the graphic yet, but I understand Fox news produced it) were Obama’s fundraisers. Goldman Sachs, for example, is the biggest fund raiser for both. Now what does that tell us. There’s a reason the bankers and the Establishment want Romney.

          Also, he doesn’t have the voters. There just were the, apparently to the pundits, “shocking” wins for Santorum in the midwest. They aren’t shocking to me. Romney doesn’t really have people. Romney has enough money to buy people so it looks like he has people.

          But. I can also see that from a military point of view, the urgency is strong to have a new CO. Also, your concern that the country was divided over hatred of G. W. Bush. If you believe that NEwt would lose,I can really understand that you strongly, strongly want someone to replace the current administration.

          I can understand. Thank you for explaining. May I tell you, one American, one person who loves freedom to another, that it means a lot to me that you explained your point of view so that I can understand it better.

          I’m not trying to convert people to my point of view through my persuasion. I do hope that the more people who take the time to watch Newt in his own words, the more people will realize that what they think they know about Newt is largely distortions from MSM and people who loathe and detest the idea of a Newt presidency.

          And they loathe and detest the idea for a very good reason. Because the Government Establishment (and I guess by extension, its dealings with money institutions) will have to change and become transparent and accountable if Newt wins. Then all the moving of money to reward their friends and punish their enemies will be visible and much harder to accomplish. Government will begin to be held accountable.

          But again, this is what it looks like to me. I’m not saying it’s true just because I think it true. It looks true to me. But these are determinations each of us must make for ourselves.

          The reason I offer Newt’s speeches is, the speeches were very transforming for me.

          One I saw Newt talking, describing his solutions, without the filter of the “journalist” or the “skeptical” interviewer or whatever, something happened in my thinking. I saw that it just might work. AI began to feel eager about the future.

          I want everyone who is interested to have a chance to feel that way.

          So, WoodnWorld, thank you again for your thoughtful explanation. It was richer and more complex than I had any way of anticipating. I feel so much appreciation, as another American, that you gave me a chance to understand.

          My hero, more with every passing year, or even day, is Ronald Reagan. The thing I find amazing is how many people write about Reagan as such a surprising success, for such an average man.

          But Reagan was not an average man. HIs son Ron, Jr., said once in an interview that when young Ron came home from school each day, his father was sitting at this certain desk in the bedroom, working. And Ron Jr. stopped and said to the interviewer that he didn’t mean that his father was “usually” there, or “often” there. He said that he meant that t every day, when young Ron came home from school, Ronald Reagan was sitting at his desk, working.

          And as I’m sure you know, Reagan wrote his own speeches for GE, and the radio addresses. Did his own research, too. Into the Soviet Union. Trying to find out how much they grew, how much they they actually produced.

          Reagan came to his own conclusions. What brilliance. Remember when the student at Berkeley (I think) stopped him and said Reagan couldn’t understand because the younger generation had grown up with all this technology and Reagan said he did understand; the generations were different, and his generation had a different attitude because they’d been busy INVENTING the technology. Spur of the moment, out on a sidewalk on the campus. Love, love, love Reagan.

          I wonder if Reagan wrote the jokes: The most frightening words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I”m here to help”; or “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; a depression is when you lose yours, and a recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.” And so many more.

          WoodnWorld, I say this to say that I remember when Reagan was in the White House. The MSM vilified him constantly. Ridiculed, criticized, belittled, lied about. Remeber when Clark ./Clifford ( I think) called him and “amiable dunce”? there was no peace, no unity, between the Establishment and the left, and Ronald Reagan. But he went over their heads to the American People. And Reagan helped our country beyond measure.

          And NEwt was there. This is what Newt wants to do. That’s the plan. So there won’t be the excruciating silence from the White House.

          Newt is explicitly saying, if you want a paycheck for your children instead of food stamps, join us. If you want local control if your school, join us. If you want a balanced budget and accountable government, join us.

          Newt is going to run an AMERICAN campaign. He says this often in the speeches.

          Ronald Reagan said, “There’s almost no end to the good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.” I honestly think Newt agrees with that. I know that the way he looks through the lens of the MSM, that might be hard to believe, but that’s how he looks to me.

          So I think that seeking comity by seeking to elect a”moderate” may be a chimerical objective. Because the Left is not interested in comity and they are not interested in good for the United States.

          They pretend now to have respect for Reagan because it provides a foil for all the “bad” conservatives today. It’s another stick to beat today’s conservatives with.

          Because the main thing a conservative does, above any particular policy, is, we resist the Left.

          And that is the true crime. That is the unpardonable crime, that brings out the howls of hatred. And well they might howl. Because conservatism is going to save the United States. If the American People want it.

          This is longer than I had intended, and it is sort of stream of consciousness, for which I hope all and sundry will forgive me, if it wavered around the topic.

          So, WoodnWorld, the overall point is, we all love our country, and we want things to go well for everyone, and much better for the future of those we love. And also all our neighbors throughout the world who want to live in peace.

          And that’s why we write these comments on these blogs.

          You take care of yourself now, you hear?

          First of all, you are not the enemy here and I cannot bring myself to ‘like’ or ‘dislike’ your explanation of your reasoning for wanting a moderate in office.

          Second, I strongly disagree that “We need time to heal and we need time to turn this country around.”

          My reason for wanting what you refer to as a ‘carnivore’ in office is that we have run out of time.

          P.S You said you are now in Iraq…..be safe.

          WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 10, 2012 at 12:31 am

          Hope, you too have just given me a great deal to think about. I have read, and (just) re-read your last comment here. There is something in it, something all too human and all too reasonable for me to ever easily dismiss. Before I head out for the day, I will read it again, carry it with me, chew on what you have said and, hopefully, through careful digestion, be better for it.

          I cannot argue that there seems to be more that unites us than divides us and am deeply happy for it. You have given me reason to pause and reason to reflect on the possibility that there may be something with Newt that I have either missed or overlooked. Thank you both for the time you took and for your sincerity while taking it.

          Best regards,

          WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 10, 2012 at 12:36 am

          Joy, I can absolutely respect that. You may very well be right, we may be out of time. Should things start to fall apart, should everything start to burn around us, you have my word I will be one of the very first to step up to and into the line. Until then, I leave the psychological “zombie kit” packed and tucked away. I still have hope we can do things the right way.

          I will be safe too. Thank you.

It’s interesting to see that even a far left progressive loon can see the problem with supporting every move BO makes, even if it is supposedly antithetical to their beliefs and principles. I think the root of this is an absence of either firm beliefs or principles, and this is another reason that the far left thinks that a decent rebuttal to any criticism of BO policy is (usually said in shrill kindergarten playground voices) “Bush did it!”. Calmly looking them in the eye and saying, “yes, and he was wrong, too” has the effect of silencing them on the issue and making them burble (quite hilariously sometimes) about GOP “circular firing squads.” And there’s the (other) rub.

They’ve so bought into their own narrative that they’ve effectively shut off any option for them to criticize BO on policy–they, by their own definitions, are immediately RAAAAAACISTS, unpatriotic, or a “circular firing squad.” Is it any wonder they just blindly follow and accept whatever he does? The corner they’ve painted themselves into is their own and only turf. I find it amusing.

1. A couple of digressions, por favor:

a. Noot! Noot! Noot! Noot! Noot! Noot! Noot! Noot!

SAR-ah! SAR-ah! SAR-ah! SAR-ah! SAR-ah! SAR-ah! SAR-ah!

b. America must return to the Constitution, as given to Moses on Mount Sinai.

2. We now resume our regularly scheduled programming regarding brain-dead leftist lemmings.

“Israel-Firsters” is a term that was invented by lefties to label Americans who (seem to) place the interests of Israel above those of the United States. An Obama-Firster is then a Democrat who places the interests of Obama ahead of the Democrat Party.

Mr Greenwald seems to have noticed that the MSM consists mostly of Obama-Firsters and I think that he is disappointed due to the hypocrisy. So, shouldn’t we refer him to the campaign of Mr Ron Paul?

I don’t know what you mean. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

OOPPSS! (gs used the term first) Make that two lemmings to go please. Uhh, do fries come with that?

Funny how many of those dead set on getting Romney elected are displaying much the same lack of intellectual integrity.

Almost like there is a pattern, perhaps even a direct underlying linkage between the two ostensibly opposing camps…

Oh, and the Gleens are a proven dishonest hack.

He’s just trying to lay down a marker so the next time he jumps all over his opposition they can’t throw the hypocrisy of Obama back in his face.

Henry Hawkins | February 9, 2012 at 6:37 pm

The reductive issue with liberals is this: they are congenital outsiders, dissidents, complainers, fault-finders, and perpetual protesters. Their raison d’etre is to rail against the machine, foment change, and bring down the established order.

Once their hero(es) get into office and they *become* the establishment, they don’t know what to do or how to act.

“Whether one agrees with Greenwald or not on specific policies, he is right that allegiance to re-electing and supporting Obama has replaced any semblance of intellectual intergity among the Democratic coalition.”

I beg to differ. The dims have ALWAYS been dishonest. Look at how they rallied behind Clinton during his impeachment hearings. And the way the dims senate refused to remove him from office even though he was plainly guilty and made an *ss of himself by lieing on tv.

I read an article more than 10 years ago written by Cleta Mitchell, a former inner circle democrat who became disenchanted with the dim party and joined the republican party. One phrase a superior told her years before this when she joined the dim party was “if we don’t win, we don’t eatr”. Meaning that unless the dims win they cannot distribute the federal revenue as they please and to whom they please. Also meaning that winning is all and it is their duty to win by any means possible. Needless to say, Romney is carrying that torch today in the manner his real party affiliation demands.

    Hope Change in reply to BarbaraS. | February 9, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    BarbaraS — omg, omg, omg I read that article.

    thank you for telling me the name of the author.

    that article opened my eyes.

    I also read it to mean that Democrats regard government as their livelihood.
    She was saying that Republicans often have some other work, some business, some profession, some entrepreneurial activity they are engaged in.

    I think she was saying Republicans go to government as a corrective, to fix problems. They would rather be, or just as soon be, working on their own projects. If Republicans lose, they go back to what they were doing.

    Democrats don’t have anything else to go back to. So they fight for their lives.

    Of course, some of that’s been fixed for some with the revolving door to cable news and Wall Street, lobbying firms, “purchases” of and “advances” on books.

    Thanks for the reminder. I can’t find the article online. Too bad. I would love to read it again.

[…] Anyone cheering on Obama is sure to be disappointed. If you cheer on Obama or believe Obama – you are monumentally stupid. Stop voting. You are stupid if you believe Obama or any word that comes out of his mouth. Already Obama prepares to Abandon ship, his own, and “at least five senate democrats now oppose Obama’s new contraception rule”. The reports that Obama has doubled down on the new contraception rule at a Democratic retreat” will soon flop over and flip. Stupid is as stupid does. […]

http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/02/hypocrisy-of-barack-obama-and-irony.html The hypocrisy of Barack Obama and the irony of why he might still win…

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend