As someone who supported Obama, I have no problem bashing him for what he did wrong. I am not in any niche - left or conservative. This diary is a whiny joke. For you to equate Maddow with Hannity (in your last comment) is ridiculous and shows how off the walls the PUMA movement was. Maddow is to the left of my ideology, but no thinking person can say she is dishonest and a shill like Hannity. Hannity was to the right of Bush Jr, yet just to be a partisan shill, he would glorify every little thing Bush Jr did. Maddow hasn't had a problem being objective about Obama and it did not just boil down to a gay marriage issue for her, even if she feels more strongly about it than I do.
I never realized why a subset of liberal democrats like Feingold and others didn't form their own "tea party" of sorts where they publicly repeatedly hammered the same easy to grasp in a newsbite message that government needs to be held accountable. More than small government, the message that resonates with the average person is ACCOUNTABLE government. People are divided about government size which is a tea party obsession. But people are united about government accountability.
This is where I think people of different ideologies can find common ground.
Are you serious??? Printing more money would have saved our economy?
I don't fault Obama for not turning the economy around in a short time. It is not easy especially with this gang of Democrats in the senate. I am one of those skeptical of TARP and even if TARP worked as they claim it did, I think it was a missed opportunity to reform the system.
But Hillary, McCain, Palin, Kucinich , or anyone else would have a hard time turning the economy around so fast.
I have problems with Obama, but this is not one of them.
They burn bibles in Taliban country. Even if they didn't, our response should be that we have freedom of expression here. If Taliban wants to burn bibles or the Old Testament, be our guest. That should be our response.
I have no problem with politicians calling that preacher an idiot because that is what he is. Other than that, they should not waste time going on the defensive. They should just point out all the intolerance to other religions that go on in other countries.
It's too bad our morons made such a big deal about building a mosque. That could have strengthened our position for free expression.
For Profit is not the problem here. The problem you seem to be railing against is the lack of sufficient regulation of colleges which partake in the government based financial aid pool. I share your concern about such waste too. But let's not make it a broad based rant on the for-profit status of a college.
There are plenty of good for profit colleges all over the world.
This may be good for Barnes. I think Handel doesn't scare the moderates in GA as much as Deal despite Handel's pandering to the far right in recent months.
My vote will be between Barnes and Monds, the African American libertarian. At least, I know I won't get a racist libertarian. If the election is very close between Barnes and Deal, then I may just vote for Barnes just to make sure Deal doesn't get into power. Deal is far worse than a guy like Perdue.
Here is a simpler message to Obama and his people. Your only ally on cable news is the so called professional left. Regardless of the criticism you faced from them in the past, you want to alienate the only people who are going to bat for you against the birthers and racists on FOX NEWS which is the most watched cable "news' network? CNN wont. You are going to disrespect a section of your voters so much that you are in danger of creating another nader like spoiler in 2012??? What are your objectives with this kind of messaging? LIKE IT OR NOT, YOU ARE PERCEIVED TO BE A LIBERAL. DO NOT FUCK UP THAT BRAND NAME WITH YOUR SURROGATES BASHING LEADERS AND COMMENTATORS WHO ARE LIBERAL. BECAUSE THAT IS AN INDIRECT BASHING OF YOURSELF.
First of all, I will admit that the professional left as Gibbs likes to call them will most certainly demand that Obama implement policies that are to the left of the general population's ideas and probably obama's. That doesn't mean most of them are angry at Obama because he didn't follow every single one of them. It's that he doesn't follow MOST of them, even those that are common sense non-ideological related demands like a watchdog over Wall Street which most Americans support. Plus, it is the professional left's DUTY to espouse ideological related policies because no one else will promote those causes. It is upto the President to sift through them and find acceptable versions of them after doing a sincere job of trying to sell the ones that pass the cmmon sense test. And I do not think Obama has done that. He has given up on many of them after doing a very lame initial selling job of some of those causes.
The funny thing is Obama sacrificed a lot of political capital over the bank bailouts and healthcare reform(I know of quite a few conservative bosses taunting Obama in front of their employees over increased premiums next year, including mine). Thanks for nothing. While the effectiveness of the two policies have been debatable(I personally dislike the bank bailout and am clueless but skeptical about the healthcare reform), we do know that Obama could have led on some liberal positions that would actually have earned him some net goodwill if he had the courage to sell them well to the public. Something like healthcare reform has been explained so badly by the adminsistration that liberals are being blamed for a bill that is debatable on who it actually helps. Conservatives HATED the auto bailout. Hell some independents (and some fiscal moderates like me were skeptical too). But that seems to be one issue where Obama did the right thing. You don't hear much talk about that auto bailout hurting him now. So imagine if Obama led on other liberal issues that have been neglected for years.
Is the professional left to blame for the bashing of Obama on BP? It wasn't just liberal pundits, but almost all Americans who were not right wing shills that bashed Obama for being too soft on this issue. It's funny, but this was the only issue where right wingers were actually divided on whether to bash the government for not doing enough on this.
The majority of the mainstream moderates just want to be led with confidence. If any idea is good, whether it is from the right or the left, it is upto the politician to sell the idea to the public. Bush did a much better job selling his ideas and even got reelected mainly because he showed a lot of confidence in his ideas and it took moderates a long time to finally realize the true extent of how costly the Iraq war has been.
I am moderate who has been aligning with the professional left a lot these last eight years because they have been right on the issues that are of the most pressing concern right now. If Obama wants to disagree with the left, why is there a need to bash them? If he is willing to suck Lieberman's *&$# for politics, why isn't it good politics to treat the left with respect? Like it or not, the right think of Obama as a socialist. Bashing the left may seem like a good short term tactic, but it still wont change people's perceptions of him and will actually make their old smears of him more potent becuase his people are also joining in the bashing of the left. Besides, people like Huffington, Feingold, Olbermann and Al Franken(the type of liberals Gibbs is no doubt alluding to) are hardly prime choices to edit www.counterpunch.com.
If an idea is good, do not worry whether it is from the left. If Obama is truly a great communicator, as his advisors like to sell you as, then he should be able to sell liberal policies that also meet the overdue common sense ones that are universal. Obama so far has failed in that regard.
Do we have a record of Nelson's opinions on similar appointments in the past so we can nail him on any inconsistency? Maybe someone should get him on the record as to his opinoin of several ex judges who were not judges prior to appointment.
First of all, Rangel must go. I agree with that. It is troubling that even MAxine Waters has come under the microscope. When I see the crimes of these black lawmakers who get caught, the conflict of interest items are troubling , but are they ethically any worse than former administration officials who go into private industry and capitalize on their former positions for access to contracts? How did Dodd get away with his controversy? Or have their kids or spouses get employed by "friendly" private entities at well above market value salaries? DO you think Lieberman's wife could get such a nice salary if she was never married to Lieberman? Or Cheney's daughter when he was in government?
But more importantly, why is it tough for the Democratic Party to have an internal police to warn
All you blind supporters, what would you have said if Bush was the President and this happened? This is shameful. The OBama administration has also refused to allow India to interrogate the American citizen involved in the Mumbai terrorist attacks.
As Secretary of State, what is Hillary's role in this? Is she responsible too?
I would like to use the R word to describe Victoria Jackson, but I dont want the word police to censor me. Let's face it. She is a dimwit who has been on some reactionary 20 year zeal to cope with what I think are her feelings of exploitation in the entertainment industry. She has been going downhill in terms of sanity in recent years. Even Dennis Miller hasn't gone as batshit crazy as this woman.