Why Do Liberals Keep Sanitizing the Obama Story?

[hippifried]

One poll during the transition, & shortly after the economic collapse, showing that people expected things to get better. Hmmm... & this is the basis of the claim that folks were expecting the second coming? Who you tryin' to fool, other than yourself? All I'm seeing is a bunch of whining & hype from the fringes. So what? That's an every day of every year constant.

I'll bet that if anybody was ambitious enough to look, you'd find those same poll results after the first election of any President.

[BluegrassCat]

Only now 3 years into the failure do I hear hand wringing about too high of expectations.

Think about that for a second. How else would you know if your expectations were too high unless you waited to find out? Hmm?

And you've inadvertently pointed out how the liberal community is fairly reality based. They (myself included) had very high expectations about a strong liberal president who would be a fierce advocate for progressive values. Instead we got a moderate pragmatist who fetishized bipartisanship. To be fair to Obama, a lot of those expectations were hopeful projections onto a candidate who had already shown his moderate stripes. The Left saw Obama's correct position against the Iraq War as a signal that he would show the same progressive courage on all other issues (his race probably didn't hurt either). Now that he's continued the anti-American and immoral (Yes I think American and moral can be synonymous) Bush policies many on the Left have realized their mistake. They have changed their mind in light of new evidence, part of the definition of rationality.

The same cannot be said for the Right. Conservatives also projected their own version of Barack Hussein Obama onto the new president: a Kenyan Muslim Socialist who planned death panels for grandmothers. And while Obama was busy cutting taxes, this fantasy fringe congealed around the Tea Party moniker. 3 years later, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Tea Party persists in its lunacy, thanks to a right-wing echo chamber that not only keeps out facts but constructs falsehoods to smear the president. As the David Frum article made clear, there are legitimate grounds on which to criticize Obama but the conservative base cannot tear itself away from its self-imposed delusions to engage in reality-based arguments.

[hippifried]

They (myself included) had very high expectations about a strong liberal president who would be a fierce advocate for progressive values. Instead we got a moderate pragmatist who fetishized bipartisanship.

Really? What were you watching? Every speech, from the initial announcement of intent to run through the innaugeration, put bipartisanship at the top of his priority list. Think back & punch your memory button. When did you ever hear anything else from him? The problem is that nobody saw the teabaggers coming. Reason went right out the window with that shit, but that was 2 years later when they actually got elected.

I'm liberal, going back to my teen years in the '60s, & I have no clue what the hell you're talking about with "progressive values". You mean like starting up a national healthcare system after 100 of trying? Granted it could have been a lot better, but look what Medicare was in the '60s or Social Security in the '30s. The Republicans were just intransigent. That's expected to a degree. They didn't have to do anything else because the "blue dog" Democrats screwed up the Recovery Act, health care, & Dodd Frank for them. Aren't they just about all gone now? There's 1 or 2 left in the House, & the ones who didn't have to run for reelection in the Senate? Biggest single group that got beat in 2010. The only way to get rid of an incumbent asshole is to vote for the opponant. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I think the 2010 election has been misread.

[BluegrassCat]

Really? What were you watching? Every speech, from the initial announcement of intent to run through the innaugeration, put bipartisanship at the top of his priority list. Think back & punch your memory button. When did you ever hear anything else from him? The problem is that nobody saw the teabaggers coming. Reason went right out the window with that shit, but that was 2 years later when they actually got elected.

I'm liberal, going back to my teen years in the '60s, & I have no clue what the hell you're talking about with "progressive values". You mean like starting up a national healthcare system after 100 of trying? Granted it could have been a lot better, but look what Medicare was in the '60s or Social Security in the '30s. The Republicans were just intransigent. That's expected to a degree. They didn't have to do anything else because the "blue dog" Democrats screwed up the Recovery Act, health care, & Dodd Frank for them. Aren't they just about all gone now? There's 1 or 2 left in the House, & the ones who didn't have to run for reelection in the Senate? Biggest single group that got beat in 2010. The only way to get rid of an incumbent asshole is to vote for the opponant. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but I think the 2010 election has been misread.

Why chop off my next sentence that directly addresses your point?

To be fair to Obama, a lot of those expectations were hopeful projections onto a candidate who had already shown his moderate stripes.

But if you remember the focus on Iraq and the war on terror before the economy imploded, Obama's positions on Iraq, torture and Guantanamo were exactly what progressives and civil libertarians had been waiting for. The problem was we extrapolated from these positions his stance on other issues. Another problem is he didn't even stick to some of his explicit positions.

[hippifried]

I chopped off the sentence so it wouldn't interfere with my rant.

I remember the foreign policy discussion of the campaign & the tie-in to the general mindset that the President was trying to convey. It took a little longer than planned, but we're getting out of Iraq as an occupation force. We're not in the torture business anymore. The Guantanamo prison is still there because everybody balked at trying any of them in the civilian courts within their States & cities. New York especially took the professional sniveling coward stance. Oops, couldn't fulfill that promise. But it isn't like no effort was made. & you expected... What? Proseution of high government officials? Withdrawl from central Asia? A trial for binLaden or that asshole in Yemen who's name nobody remembers already? An end to the use of drones? I certainly hope you're not going to join the Republicans in whining about the Libyan "intervention". What's the "progressive" disappointment? What positions have changed? Please be specific.

Oh & by the way: When did "progressive" & liberal become interchangable terms? I can't remember that ever being the case more than 5 maybe 6 years ago. I find it irritating as well as dishonest. I'm liberal. I still don't know what the hell "a progressive" is, other than an adjective trying to be a noun. From every explanation I've come across so far, progressive has nothing to do with liberal at all, & doesn't require the liberal attitude. I've seen as much intolerance from those who claim the label of progressive as the teabaggers. Just sayin'.

[BluegrassCat]

I chopped off the sentence so it wouldn't interfere with my rant.

I remember the foreign policy discussion of the campaign & the tie-in to the general mindset that the President was trying to convey. It took a little longer than planned, but we're getting out of Iraq as an occupation force. We're not in the torture business anymore. The Guantanamo prison is still there because everybody balked at trying any of them in the civilian courts within their States & cities. New York especially took the professional sniveling coward stance. Oops, couldn't fulfill that promise. But it isn't like no effort was made. & you expected... What? Proseution of high government officials? Withdrawl from central Asia? A trial for binLaden or that asshole in Yemen who's name nobody remembers already? An end to the use of drones? I certainly hope you're not going to join the Republicans in whining about the Libyan "intervention". What's the "progressive" disappointment? What positions have changed? Please be specific.

Oh & by the way: When did "progressive" & liberal become interchangable terms? I can't remember that ever being the case more than 5 maybe 6 years ago. I find it irritating as well as dishonest. I'm liberal. I still don't know what the hell "a progressive" is, other than an adjective trying to be a noun. From every explanation I've come across so far, progressive has nothing to do with liberal at all, & doesn't require the liberal attitude. I've seen as much intolerance from those who claim the label of progressive as the teabaggers. Just sayin'.

For me progressive is just a rebranding of liberal and means the same thing: valuing social justice and social welfare. It's a response to the Con's successful demonization of the word liberal; even though a majority of Americans remain functionally liberal, they reject the label.

So we still engage in extraordinary rendition and send prisoners to countries where we know they will be tortured. Our treatment of Bradley Manning was grossly unconstitutional and bordered on torture. Obama promised to end military commissions, but when faced with political pressure, he backed down and continued the practice. None of this is to deny the limits of the presidency or the importance of Congressional intransigence but the Obama administration has fallen short of its rhetoric when it comes to civil liberties and the limits of executive power.

[hippifried]

For me progressive is just a rebranding of liberal and means the same thing: valuing social justice and social welfare. It's a response to the Con's successful demonization of the word liberal; even though a majority of Americans remain functionally liberal, they reject the label.

Yeah, well I refuse to surrender who I am to a lie by anybody from anywhere in the political sphere, just because the fringers are all pussified & scared of each other. It's not rebranding. It's revisionism, & it's the same lie regardless of who's doing it or why. If you're going to support or even just go along with the LImbaugh definition of liberal, you might as well go ahead & call yourself a dittohead.

Being liberal is an attitude, not a political position. The same goes for being conservative. The big lie is that a position on any given issue should or can be predictable by the attitude. A lie is a lie. All this revisionist bullshit is just fodder for more animosity & rancor. Bearing false witness is a violation of the moral code, & rude.

So we still engage in extraordinary rendition and send prisoners to countries where we know they will be tortured

How sure are you of this? I know it happened because there were documented cases. I haven't seen any kind of details on this blanket accusation that keeps getting repeated that it's still happening. I'm not much into doing a lot of research, so if you have something, link me up.

Our treatment of Bradley Manning was grossly unconstitutional and bordered on torture. Obama promised to end military commissions, but when faced with political pressure, he backed down and continued the practice. None of this is to deny the limits of the presidency or the importance of Congressional intransigence but the Obama administration has fallen short of its rhetoric when it comes to civil liberties and the limits of executive power.

All out of sympathy for Manning. He was a member of the all volunteer US military, working in a sensative position, who handed classified material over to a foreign national. That's espionage, regardless of the who or why. He knew that. Now he has to deal with the consequences. Maybe he can get his hero's ticker tape parade in Leavenworth after the court martial.

How many new tribunals have been started at Guantanamo in the last 3 years?

Lack of success is not the same as lack of effort.

[BluegrassCat]

Yeah, well I refuse to surrender who I am to a lie by anybody from anywhere in the political sphere, just because the fringers are all pussified & scared of each other. It's not rebranding. It's revisionism, & it's the same lie regardless of who's doing it or why. If you're going to support or even just go along with the LImbaugh definition of liberal, you might as well go ahead & call yourself a dittohead.

Being liberal is an attitude, not a political position. The same goes for being conservative. The big lie is that a position on any given issue should or can be predictable by the attitude. A lie is a lie. All this revisionist bullshit is just fodder for more animosity & rancor. Bearing false witness is a violation of the moral code, & rude.

It most definitely is not revisionism. What is being revised? Not what it means to be a liberal, it's merely using a different label with no change in meaning. Who cares about labels?

All out of sympathy for Manning. He was a member of the all volunteer US military, working in a sensative position, who handed classified material over to a foreign national. That's espionage, regardless of the who or why. He knew that. Now he has to deal with the consequences. Maybe he can get his hero's ticker tape parade in Leavenworth after the court martial.

This is not about sympathy for someone accused (not convicted) of a crime, it's about whether we are a nation of laws or not. And by the way, it's the people for whom we lack sympathy that the bill of rights is most important. For the same reason that popular speech doesn't need to be protected.

On the continued use of rendition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us...rendition.html

[sharave2]

Its all irrelevant. None of those GOP clowns are going to beat the president in 2012. We would be so much worse off if that happened (which it won't). Hopefully he can get enough democrats elected with him in congress to actually get something done. We need them to get something constructive done and get this country back on its feet. We need to get rid of the "say no to everything republicans".

[hippifried]

It most definitely is not revisionism. What is being revised? Not what it means to be a liberal, it's merely using a different label with no change in meaning. Who cares about labels?

I do, & I take offence. I'm not alone. You self-proclaimed "progressives" are pissing off the liberal base by making the exact same claims about us as the batshits on AM Clearchannel. I keep coming across more & more "progressives" who are every bit as intolerant as the reactionary teabaggers, just pointing in the other direction. There's nothing liberal about it. I was going to give the teabaggers props for being honest, but there's just as many conservative folks who are every bit as pissed off at being lumped in with the "I'm ignorant & proud of it" crowd. Labels are the biggest problem in politics, because they attempt to pigeonhole everybody into one extreme or the other along the lame linear descriptive, that really doesn't describe anything but extremes. Most people aren't fanatics. I find the label insulting. You don't speak for me, & neither do those whom you follow. It's not about policy or expectations. It's not about any particular philosophy. It's an attitude. An approach to the thought process.

This is not about sympathy for someone accused (not convicted) of a crime, it's about whether we are a nation of laws or not. And by the way, it's the people for whom we lack sympathy that the bill of rights is most important. For the same reason that popular speech doesn't need to be protected.

The Manning case isn't about free speech in any way shape or form. He's a member of the military (by choice), in military custody, awaiting court martial under the UCMJ, for the crime of espionage. His rights aren't being violated as far as anything I've heard. He knew the consequences of his actions & took them anyway. If you want to admire him, fine, but that won't be an excuse for keeping him out of prison. Don't get your expectations up.

On the continued use of rendition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us...rendition.html

These are recommendations by the DOJ's Special Task Force on Interrogations & Transfer Policies. Are there any details to back the claim that the US is actually still practicing "extrordinary rendition"?