The progressive capacity to stick his neck out through an intervening guillotine is something to behold. Here witness Digby co-blogger dday opining that it is now incumbent on Obama, as the Donk's leader (and oh, how the progressive loves that word), to stop some new incarnation of a warrant-less wiretapping bill. After all:
Obama positions himself as a new kind of Democrat who wants to change Washington and has a background as a Constitutional scholar. There is no other issue which both shows the rot of the Democratic leadership and their disinclination to enforce or even recognize the Constitution than this one.How I love that: "positions himself." These fools actually recognize the sawdust in the engine, but they're gonna buy the motherfucker anyway.
23 comments:
that Barry O'Bamma is a serious contender for cipher-of-the-decade, but that's what gives wood to the Donkey Dip-sheets.
"dday" writes: "I congratulate Obama on his primary win and think he has the opportunity to bring forward(sic) meaningful change in America. In fact, he can start today."
In fact, he has, making his first post-victory stop in front of AIPAC, to present his bona fides.
Don't worry about those nasty emails circulating out there about his being a not-good-enough friend of Israel; Hill has his back.
Sweet Jeebus but it's going to be a long summer.
Mike
Sorry to double post, but an ad on Digster's site caught my eye and reminded me to ask:
Anyone seen Mrs. Obama lately??
Mike
M. IOZ - you saved my day. In the UK, everyone is orgastic over Obama. See Johann Hari in the Independent - http://tinyurl.com/6bgzop - he says that like Rick and Elsa in Casablanca Saint Obama will bring out the selfless "good" America. Puke. I can't stand it.
And worse, to Donkels like dday, Obama must be some fucking combo of Ghandi, Captain America, Superman, and Jesus H. Christ. Yet, oddly the great Saint sits there and hasn't said one thing of note about the warrent-less wiretapping bullshit.
It will be beautiful to watch the Donks sink into deep depression over the next couple of years. Especially when he bombs the fuck out of some Middle East/Central Asian/South Asian/East African country (take your pick). He'll prove to everyone that a black man can bomb the fuck out of black and brown people JUST as well as any white man/woman.
They're not going to sink into depression. Did you see a lot of depression when Bill C. went all high-altitude on the Balkans? They love that shit.
IOZ is right: All the little pwoggies will get their "interevention" in Burma or Darfur or wherever is easiest for St Barry to tie to the GWOT, and they'll crow about how RIGHTEOUS this military action is, and how Obama's reclaiming our lost moral high ground.
but he's so hip, so fresh, so brown! Once he becomes our esteemed leader the possibilities are endless! Can anyone say 'Barackennedy!!!"
I was at a friends house last night and his mom came running in the room telling us to turn off the met game and to put on Obama. She explained to us that he was going to change the world...
Dem dare dems aint gonna be fallin to no depression anytime soon. As long as their righteous black Pharaoh is in power the bush crowd will never again walk the streets, Africans in Africa will wear condoms at all times regardless of whether or not they're having sex, and terrorists will see that America has CHANGED and cease suicidebombing.
Ahhh the air smells right in the land of Liberty once again.
-alexi de sadesky
but he's the liberalist senator!
All this cynicism is perfectly rational, but I'm still willing to support Obama so we have a shot of ending the occupation of Iraq. Maybe that's not enough for some, but that hope is enough for me.
in before "LOL ending the occupation of Iraq."
Well, I don't think it's irrational to believe that. Between Obama, who has expressed support for withdrawal, and McCain, who has equated withdrawal with disaster and treason, I'll pick Obama.
Maybe McCain'll pull a Nixon, upping the atrocities but ultimately beginning a reversal. I'm not saying I know for sure what these men will do. But if Obama offers a change in that very crucial policy, I think that's important. I understand cynicism and the tendency to equate the Republicans and Democrats. I know their history and I know how much they share in, how much guilt they share between them. But I still think that Obama may offer something over a McCain victory.
Obama has said he wants to withdraw combat troops from Iraq, leaving "support" troops to protect our humongous embassy there. That will mean more attacks on the embassy on the troops, more violence against Iraqis, and the game will continue. Besides, what good will it do to pull out of Iraq if the sonofabitch then attacks Iran, as he wants to do?
By the way, why can't you wankers spell "Gandhi"?
I don't think it's fair to criticize him for what he could do. If he attacks Iran, I will oppose him, but in the meantime he offers a chance to reduce Iraqi occupation forces. Perhaps not as much as desirable, but any loosening will allow the Iraqi civil war to be waged by Iraqis. Our evacuation will be effected.
Certainly, they've disappointed us before, and with some consistency. But I don't think the Dems would sabotage their position by invading Iran. It would be even less successful than Iraq, at least if we occupied, and a mere aerial assault would be seen, rightly so, as a clumsy atrocity.
Hell, even the Republicans see McCain as an anti-war candidate. In the longterm, I accept that Obama's a typical candidate for an authoritarian party. But in the short term, he may be able to remove one large act of violence currently waged against a foreign people. He is a tool with at least that much utility. And though I may come off as insufficiently radical, I think that's enough. He's better than McCain. In the long term, I'd like to see better candidates, but I don't think that he's useless.
"I know their history and I know how much they share in, how much guilt they share between them. "
Yet, and yet...you persist in believing in the Democratic Party....or for that matter, the centralized American State in all its imperial glory. "Give him a chance" is the cry. yet...there is nothing...NOTHING one man can do...the system wants war...the system needs wart. The American Economy IS War. why would a corporatist Democrat do anything to change that to begin with?
Heck...one can argue that the Democratic Party largely helped create (or co-create) many of the horrors of today. Woodrow Wilson's intervention in the intrafamilial European spat directly led to the rise of Hitler. Arguably, to the fall of the rotten Tsarist regime and the rise of State Communiosm. Make the World Safe For Democracy indeed!
" The House Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat disclosed late Tuesday that he is ready to accept a Republican-brokered deal to rewrite the nation’s electronic surveillance laws, signaling that a long-running congressional impasse could soon be coming to an end.
House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes told CongressDaily that he is “fine” with language offered by Senate Intelligence ranking member Christopher (Kit) Bond and other Republicans to overhaul the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Notably, the GOP language, which was offered a day before the recent congressional recess, would leave it up to the secret FISA court to grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have helped the Bush administration conduct electronic surveillance on the communications of U.S. citizens without warrants.
About 40 civil lawsuits already have been filed against the companies. The administration, Bond and other Republicans had backed a Senate-passed FISA bill that would have shielded the telecom firms from the lawsuits upon enactment.
“It’s about finding middle ground and we have middle ground,” Reyes said of the compromise offered by Republicans. “It’s not going to please everyone but let’s get on with it.”
Reyes said he believes enough Democrats will support the proposal to pass it in the House.
But he said House Majority Leader Hoyer told him that House Democratic leaders want to have the liability of the telecoms reviewed in federal district court as opposed to the FISA court.
A senior Reyes aide clarified his boss’ positions by saying that while Reyes thinks Bond’s proposal is a positive one, he remains supportive of Hoyer’s efforts to improve on it.
Why on earth would Reyes do this? As Digby says:
There just isn’t enough money at stake to explain this. Nobody’s suing for the money, they are suing for the discovery. Something bad happened here and the Democrats are helping the Republicans cover it up."
Something BAD happened here????
WTF?
"But I don't think the Dems would sabotage their position by invading Iran. It would be even less successful than Iraq, at least if we occupied, and a mere aerial assault would be seen, rightly so, as a clumsy atrocity." Hahahahah. And who would see "a mere aerial assault ... as a clumsy atrocity"? Not Americans, that's for sure. After our failure to level Iraq, America would be standing tall again, as long as only ragheads died.
"But in the short term, he may be able to remove one large act of violence currently waged against a foreign people." Removing combat troops will not end the occupation. The occupation is the violence currently being waged against a ... foreign people? So you wouldn't mind an act of violence waged against non-foreigners? You're tripping over your exalted rhetoric here.
I don't have the exact number in front of me, but we have probably 140,000 to 150,000 troops in Iraq, less than half of which are "combat troops," (the only ones Obama has committed to withdraw, (unless al Quaeda tries to establish a base there!))
Know what else we have 140,000 of occupying Iraq?
"...we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can’t draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops."
He wants them out of Iraq as much as we do, but simply we can't.
Promiscuous, you've got me. I totally accept the death of thousands and the exile of millions, as long as it's played before a domestic audience.
You started off with fair criticism of my points, and I appreciated it. But now you're just looking for ways to twist my points. I said "foreign" to be specific. I didn't mean it as a crucial qualifier.
Thanks for your comments. Incidentally, I got a chance to read your journal last night. It's good stuff.
Awright, which ones of yaz have been over there taking the piss out of the Hullabadoofuses? That Kovie freak's halfway to the psych ward in his frenzy to make you all go away.
Have to admit, I was one of the Monsieur's "fans" having some fun at "Kovie's" expense.
That dewd needs serious help.
Read Digster's "coda" too, and the revived commenters. I swear some of them are going to come down with the vapors before the end of summer.
Here's a sampling:
"The blogs I used to read every day have been severely pruned. DKos, HuffPo, AmericaBlog, and others abandoned their stated mission to provide an open honest forum and actively encouraged the most rabid postings. They bear a huge responsibility for the tone this primary took. Seeing them now on the MSM makes me physically sick."
Mercy.
graycarter's dad
Shorter Digby Commenter:
"Bill Clinton wanted to do (fill in the blank) for America, but the dog ate it."
Cüneyt, perhaps I was excessively mean in playing with "foreign" there -- my mom always told me not to play with my words -- but I think my main point remains, and that your rhetoric was running away with you. Obama is playing with words, too, when he promises to withdraw the combat troops.
Earlier you argued "I don't think it's fair to criticize him for what he could do," but Obama accepts Bush's view of Iran, which is built on lies no less serious than the ones he used to justify invading Iraq. It's not a matter of what he could do, but of what he wants to do. And it seems that killing ragheads suits Obama just fine. I think it's time to attack him on these matters NOW, not after he starts the bombing.
Thanks for the kind words, though. Glad you liked the blog.
Post a Comment