"Liberals:" Do You Need the GOP Back in Power to Get Active?
By Paul Street at Jul 08, 2009 |
|
"Yeah, King is a scary-ass proto-fascistic nut-job like that crazy Michelle Bachtman kook up in MN. The Republicans are insane messianic miltiarists and misogynists and racists and so on. Christ, look at Sarah Palin. But here's the thing: do we need the GOP back in power so that Iowa City- (and Ann Arbor- and Madison- and Blloomington, IN- and Hyde Park- and Upper West Side- and [you get the idea]) -style "progressives" can remember how to subject policymakers and politicians and other ruling elites/classes to critical scrutiny and resistance? So-called 'liberals" are looking the other way when Empire's New Clothes ("Wall Street Barry" Obama) does one thing after another that would really piss them off if a McCain-Palin adminsitration was doing it.
For a semi-recent summary of things that Obama gets far too much of a free pass on from "liberal left" Americans (along with some reflections on frankly pathetic liberal-progressive surrender) see http://www.zcommunications
On the Democrats: http://www.zcommunications




Re: "Liberals:"
By Servo, Tom at Jul 20, 2009 07:34 AM
Short answer: "Yes!" Long answer: "Hell yes!"
Reply this comment
By Green, Chris at Jul 09, 2009 18:15 PM
I'm watching Olbermann and he was talking about Obama's continuation of Bush's insistence about executive secrecy and executive privillege. He was talking with Howard Fineman about this, a leading inside the beltway liberal journalist. Olbermann has talked a little about Obama's protection of Bush's torture policies and so on, but for the most part he talks about relatively trivial things like what crazy thing Ann Coulter or Michelle Bachman or O'reilly or Limbaugh has recently said or how stupid Palin is. And a lot of talk about political horseracing or what false things some Republican has said about Democrats. Usually Olbermann dosen't get to the fundamental problems with our government's policies. Alot of persons on the liberal left seem satisfied with such a presentation, especially since Olbermann expresses himself with such intense hostility against right wingers. Olbermann and Maddow pretty much talk about what every other media outlet talks about, petty political intrigues and horceracing and stuff. Maddow seems a little more to the left than Olbermann and I've heard that her radio show is a little more to the left than her TV show. I saw Maddow once talking about Troy Davis on her TV show. Olbermann spent at least a few days seemingly talking about nothing but Michael Jackson. MSNBC officials probably ordered that their tv shows talk about nothing but MJ but Olbermann seemed very enthusiastic talking about it. Olbermann believes Bush is bad but Hugo Chavez is about as bad. We need media reform, media democracy, so people will be more excited by Amy Goodman than Rachel Maddow
Reply this comment
Re:
By Green, Chris at Jul 09, 2009 18:43 PM
I'm watching Rachel Maddow right now and she is talking about the John Ensign scandal. I can think of many more important things to talk about than the John Ensign scandal.
Reply this comment
Re: Re:
By Green, Chris at Jul 09, 2009 18:44 PM
Her show appears to have led with an in-depth discussion of the Engsign scandal
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re:
By Street, Paul at Jul 11, 2009 22:20 PM
Chris I agree with you about Keith and Rachel. Sometimes they surprise me a little on the rare chances when I watch them in full but not so much. TV aside, I observe that one of the tell tale signs of a a fake-progressive not-so left-liberal surrender monkey is talking about the crazy Republicans most of the time and not focusing on issues with the current party in power and its top operatives. You'd think it was still the Bush-Cheney era the way some of them carry with the bad GOP this and the dumb GOP and so on....
Reply this comment