Where's the left?

[Fitz1980]

Bill Maher has spoken out against President Obama for being too centrist and too nice to stand up to the big corporations.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HWulnfog20c&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HWulnfog20c&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Here he is discussing his earlier statements with Wolf Blitzer.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/obBdGjf7tdQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/obBdGjf7tdQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

As bill says "we don't really have a progressive party in this country. We have the Democrats who are what the Republicans used to be when I was a kid. They're a corporate friendly pro-business party and we have the Republicans which is just a club for angry white people and Jesus freaks. I don't know what they are."

When Wolf asks him about Republican accusations of Socialism Bill says that it's "so rediculious because President Obama is not a socialist, he's not even a liberal."

He does make some good points that this country needs a left wing and doesn't really have one. Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader are left wingers who are treated almost as jokes by the media. Meanwhile nuts like Bill O'Reilly, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, Anne Coulter & Glen Beck are treated as mainstream.

I blame the whole thing on so many liberals apathy. The right is many things but they are not apathetic. They stick to their guns on an issue even when they know they are dead wrong. I frequently post to the Obama board on imdb.com, which has basically become the catch-all for politics, and that board is overrun with rabid conservatives repeating talking points from the right-wing echo chamber. If Obama does something that's middle of the road they call him a Marxist. If he's not doing anything that they can blast him for they make something up, like using a teleprompter too much or claiming that his birth certificate is fake.

It's sad to say but is this kind of "attack at any cost" mentality really the only way to get your voice heard in this nation? The two biggest liberal issues of the past 10 years are BS 9/11 conspiracy theories and global warming, which has been so politicized on both sides that it's impossible to get unbiased info about it; but at least it's got people talking and wanting to do something.

[MoonShadow]

LOL ---- fabulous! I loved it! Bill Maher in his infinite wisdom mixed with his fantastic humor hits a lot of issues dead on!

Loved watching and hearing him, Fitz!:)

[nimrod]

I do not know if it is apathy or a fear of being ridiculed for being liberal. There seems to be alot of negetivity towards any that lean liberal, being called nosey "do gooders", socialist and trouble makers for so long wears on a person and their fight withers. This is not good for the country, there has to be a balance.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, quite true, nimrod. It is the right wing's tactic and it has been working for some years now. All of this began with the Reagan years when the right wings were getting their feet into the doors of Congress and holding onto seats for a good while. Then came the Clinton era and dominated all but three years by right winged Republicans, they kept the spin going that if you were Republican, you were conservative and therefore the better person for Congress and remember that JW was elected for TWO terms. So their strategy worked.

And look on this forum, for example, a lot of right wingers who keep the spin going that being liberal is somehow a "dirty" word. But the reality of it is that there are few liberals on this forum. Hmmmm, let me count ..... well, maybe on one hand I can count them. LOL

[LamontCranston]

All of this began with the Reagan years when the right wings were getting their feet into the doors of Congress and holding onto seats for a good while. All of this began when Thomas Jefferson borrowed money for the Louisiana Purchase and caused a stir among his opponents. The election run-up for our 3rd President featured opposing view points and that's been true 40+ times since.

As for the left... don't I see their infuence everytime I pick up a newspaper or see the filth coming out of Hollywood? You know, the material the Muslim world points to when the say, "The West is..."

And as for the right... don't I see their influence behind the protection of violence, killings and pornography?

I figure we're about 40 years into the Fall of The U.S. Empire. No world power in history maitained their influence in the face of crushing debt.

Split hairs about who is greedier, Dems or Republicans, but they're both sliding off the stage.

[nimrod]

Split hairs about who is greedier, Dems or Republicans, but they're both sliding off the stage.

We are talking about left and right not Dems or Reps. One example given here is that Obama is more center then left, but the country has moved so far right that Obama seems like or is betrayed as the far left. During the election I liked Obama more then McCain, but was not entirely happy with Obama because he seemed to be more to the right then I was comfortable with. After some time and thought I am more surportive of Obama because he is near the center which is better for the country then the extreems on either end. I am with Bill though, he needs to start being a little tougher and be the pres and not a candidate.

[LamontCranston]

We are talking about left and right not Dems or Reps. One example given here is that Obama is more center then left, but the country has moved so far right that Obama seems like or is betrayed as the far left. During the election I liked Obama more then McCain, but was not entirely happy with Obama because he seemed to be more to the right then I was comfortable with. After some time and thought I am more surportive of Obama because he is near the center which is better for the country then the extreems on either end. I am with Bill though, he needs to start being a little tougher and be the pres and not a candidate. OK. I still think we're moving deck chairs on the Titanic. The Senate voted today for another $106B for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, the same war they were swept into office by pledging to end 2 1/2 years ago. (The same day the morning lead news story was about swatting a fly in the White House :() How much universal health care can an annual $106B fund? The band is playing a nice tune though, I'll just move up the rail as the bow dips below the surface... some ship is bound to come alongside any time now.

[Naturist Mark]

OK. I still think we're moving deck chairs on the Titanic. The Senate voted today for another $106B for the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, the same war they were swept into office by pledging to end 2 1/2 years ago. (The same day the morning lead news story was about swatting a fly in the White House :() How much universal health care can an annual $106B fund? The band is playing a nice tune though, I'll just move up the rail as the bow dips below the surface... some ship is bound to come alongside any time now.

Obama says this is the last time there will be a supplemental request for Iraq/Afghanistan funds because he has included war funding in his budget - unlike his predecessor. (We are still running under the Bush Budget right now - this "emergency" supplemental was planned over a year ago).

As for the left ... Some of us have been saying that Obama is a centrist from the beginning. I posted studies (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=198665&postcount=16) that showed he was among the most conservative of Democrats in the Senate - far from being the "most liberal" as some on the right reported, he was actually the 43rd most liberal. Sadly we've been proven correct, he is nowhere near the liberal that progressives hoped for and conservatives feared - despite their idiotic and definition defying calls of "socialism".

I would argue that Obama is to the right of the public. Even though most Americans consider themselves centrists, when questioned about vital issues they choose positions distinctly to the left (http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/caf_mm-20090526-6.pdf) of the so called "centrists".

Progressives can't sit back and expect Obama to do their bidding. He won't. He is an extreme pragmatist, and if there isn't support in the public AND in Congress for progressive change, he won't waste his time pursuing it. Obama is upfront about this, he said so during the campaign. Obama told the story about FDR meeting A. Philip Randolf - the founder of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters - of FDR being told of the many things he could do to better the plight of the Negro people. Franklin replied "You know, Mr. Randolph, I've heard everything you've said tonight, and I couldn't agree with you more. I agree with everything that you've said, including my capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit. ... But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it."

Obama has been committed from the beginning to healthcare reform. But he hasn't been committed to a real public reform - being content to stitch together a patchwork that leaves the failed insurance companies in charge. It is only as a response to the tremendous pressure from the public on Congress and the administration that Obama is now insisting on a public option being included in the plan. Obama and the Congress are still overwhelmingly opposed to a publicly funded, privately delivered single-payer (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/06/single_payer_health_care_is_on.html) system - which would streamline and reduce the overall cost while leaving healthcare providers - doctors, clinics and hospitals - independent private entities. The majority of Doctors and the public want single payer, but the Obama administration is guaranteeing (http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/sebelius-not-only-it-not-single-payer?) that it will never happen.

The only way that Congress and the President will do what the majority of doctors and the public want (and need) is if we go out and make them do it.

[Skinview]

As bill says "We have the Democrats who are what the Republicans used to be when I was a kid. They're a corporate friendly pro-business party"If the Democrats are so corporate friendly, then why do they throw around the word "corporate" like it was a dirty word?


When Wolf asks him about Republican accusations of Socialism Bill says that it's "so rediculious because President Obama is not a socialist, he's not even a liberal."
Oh? And who owns GM right now?


He does make some good points that this country needs a left wing and doesn't really have one.A country needs a left wing like it needs a hole in the head.


Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader are left wingers who are treated almost as jokes by the media.As well they should be. Nader doesn't get elected to anything, and Kucinich won very few, if any, delegates to the Democrat convention. They are left wing extreemists, and the voters don't take left wing extreemists seriously, unless they are in Vermont or Massachusetts.


Meanwhile nuts like Bill O'Reilly,Gets good ratings...


Newt Gingrich,Elected speaker of the House...


Dick Cheney,Elected VP twice...


Anne CoulterSells lots of books...


Glen BeckDitto re:Bill O'Reilly...


are treated as mainstream.If the majority votes for them, and they attract big audiences, they are definatively mainstream.


I blame the whole thing on so many liberals apathy. The right is many things but they are not apathetic.This is true. Republicans are much more likely to vote. They care about their issues much more than the average Democrat.


They stick to their guns on an issue even when they know they are dead wrong.What?? This makes no sense, and I don't know where you get this idea from. YOU may think they are dead wrong, but Republicans think they are on a holy crusade.


It's sad to say but is this kind of "attack at any cost" mentality really the only way to get your voice heard in this nation?Partisanship is bipartisan, if you know what I mean.

[MoonShadow]

The only way that Congress and the President will do what the majority of doctors and the public want (and need) is if we go out and make them do it.


Spot on, Mark!!! WE have to make these changes occur!

[jon71]

Basically the president is only half the story. We need a liberal congress to, to make things happen. We will have opportunities in 2010 and 2012. The house will be close to a break even in 2010 because most of the competitive seats are already Democratic. I expect a single digit gain. Remember most of the 435 seats are either extremely Democratic or extremely Republican and don't change. Of the ones left the most are Democratic now, leaving little room to gain. The Senate though is a different matter. Of the states that have Senate races we see some real opportunities. A few Republican retirements (Voinovich in Ohio for example) open up incredible opporunities for Democratic gain and no Democrat is in any real trouble. Republicans are trying to say that Lautenberg and/or Dodd are in trouble ignoring how strongly Democratic these states are. I guarantee they'll both win. It won't be a nail biter but the margin will be somewhat tepid compared to years past. In 2012 Obama will win big for a second term and his coat tails combined with redistricting (much more in Democratic hands now than it was in 2000) should really help the Democrat party start of Obama's second term right. That's important because the Republicans will probably make a come back starting in 2014. All the U.S. Senators elected in 2008 will be facing re-election in a midterm and no coattails. While most will win inevitably the Republicans will pick up a few. They almost can't help but do so considering how few incumbent seats they'll have to defend and how few pick up opportunities the Democrats will have. Usually midterms benefit the party not in the White House. Exceptions do exist ('98 and '02, and I predict '10) but I don't see Democrats beating that twice in a row. Then 2016 will be a real challenge. If you look back over the post W.W.II era you'll see the White House typically switching every eight years. There are exceptions but not many. Also after getting thumped in '06, '08, '10, and '12 I think Republicans will learn some big lessons. The biggest of which is that America is not remotely a conservative country. We will never elect an anti-abortion President again and if their candidate wants to be taken seriously he/she needs to at least somewhat support gay rights. Republicans don't have to nominate Barney Frank to win but if they nominate Pat Buchanan they can expect to get humiliated, again. They have to aim at least to the middle and if they're smart they'll aim just slightly left of that mark. That would leave Democrats either fighting over the same territory or moving more to the left than would work in '16 and Republicans win. They would have a few good elections and the Democrats could come back again around '24. Issues will shift but parties want to survive and are willing to do so even if it means changing every last little thing to do so. Right now some Republicans still argue that to win they have to "stick to our conservative principles" (arguably a contradiciton in terms) but after enough losses Republicans will be tired of losing and change. What good are their princliples if all they can do is go on fox "news" and complain. Honestly I'd love to see the Republicans stay hard right forever and Democrats really would be a permanent majority but I doubt that will happen.

[turtlendragonfly]

socialism???

[nimrod]

Oh? And who owns GM right now?

But that was not by choice, they did not actively try to buy out GM. Under Bush banks became government owned, is Bush and company socialists?

[Fitz1980]

Jon71, let's not forget that a lot can happen in the next 1.5 years till the 2010 elections. Usually the party that holds the Whitehouse loses congressional seats in the midterm elections.

It doesn't always play out that way, but usually. In 2002 it didn't happen because the Republicans were better at spinning 9/11 into "we'll protect you better from Arab terrorists than the left" and we all got to see how that turned out. Also back in 1998 the Democrats picked up seats because the Republicans entire platform was "we spent 5 years and $55 Million and caught Clinton lying about oral sex."

So long as Obama keeps playing down the center it's not looking good. A hard charging leftist plays better with middle of the roaders than a namby pamby Democrat specifically the middle of the road Democrat looks like a {slang term for a vagina}.

[jon71]

Jon71, let's not forget that a lot can happen in the next 1.5 years till the 2010 elections. Usually the party that holds the Whitehouse loses congressional seats in the midterm elections.

It doesn't always play out that way, but usually. In 2002 it didn't happen because the Republicans were better at spinning 9/11 into "we'll protect you better from Arab terrorists than the left" and we all got to see how that turned out. Also back in 1998 the Democrats picked up seats because the Republicans entire platform was "we spent 5 years and $55 Million and caught Clinton lying about oral sex."

So long as Obama keeps playing down the center it's not looking good. A hard charging leftist plays better with middle of the roaders than a namby pamby Democrat specifically the middle of the road Democrat looks like a {slang term for a vagina}.


I'll admit to simple optimism being part of that for the house. In addition to that though I think that if by then we see any improvement in the economy and the employment rate Democrats will get mountains of credit and the Republicans will look like even bigger fools that usual. Nearly all economists agree that we are seeing signs of improvement right now. I will flat out guarantee Democratic pickups in the Senate because of which states are holding Senate elections and which ones have an incumbent or are open. There are no especially vulnerable Dems but several seats either because of an unpopular encumbent or no incumbent that Republicans will have trouble keeping. The map looks good.

[MoonShadow]

hard charging leftist plays better with middle of the roaders than a namby pamby Democrat specifically the middle of the road Democrat looks like a {slang term for a vagina}.


What?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Fitz!!! You shock me using sexist language here.

[LamontCranston]

It doesn't always play out that way, but usually. In 2002 it didn't happen because the Republicans were better at spinning 9/11 into "we'll protect you better from Arab terrorists than the left" and we all got to see how that turned out. Not sure what you mean by "spinning." I remember there was a lot of doing: invasion of Afghanistan, Patriot Act, creation of Homeland Security Dept., consolidation of Intelligence agencies, revamped airport security, financial controls on cash movement and terrorism financing. All this before the Iraq war which is what I think you point to when you say, "we all got to see how that turned out."

Fact is there have been NO terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11, and there have been no plane hijackings anywhere.

I'm assigning no credit to any one party or person or ideology for any of this. I remember teamwork during the year or two following 9/11. Global teamwork.

[LamontCranston]

A hard charging leftist plays better with middle of the roaders than a namby pamby Democrat specifically the middle of the road ... I have to call you on this one too... which hard-charging leftist in our history proves this sentiment? Senator Ted Kennedy comes to my mind but he's not faired well on the national stage. And if your stement here is true, how do you explain the tepid progress of the Green Party?

Is it fair to say California has a high concentration (even a large majority) of "hard charging leftists"? They picked a right of center Governor on several election cycles (re: Reagan and the incumbent). How does that work into your argument here?

Checks, balances and concensus is how progress is made.

[Naturist Mark]

Fact is there have been NO terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11,

Except for the Anthrax attacks on members of the media and Congress. Still never solved. (The latest scapegoat - who seemingly committed suicide - is now pretty much ruled out).

And the DC snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo.

And Mohammed Taheri-azar - who ran down 9 students at UNC in order to "avenge the death of Muslims around the world."

And Naveed Afzal Haq's fatal attack at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. “I’m upset at your foreign policy. These are Jews and I am tired of getting pushed around and our people getting pushed around by the situation in the Middle East.”

And the explosion at a military recruiting station in Times Square.

And the massacre at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church.

And the many arsons and bombings at Women's Clinics (some that provide abortions, some that only provide advice and health care) and shelters.

And numerous burnings of black churches in the South.

And the chemical attack that injured women and children at the Islamic Center of Greater Dayton.

And the cross burnings in multiple locations in Durham NC.

OH ... you mean no "really big" terrorist attacks like Oklahoma City or 9/11 ...

Terrorism is the intentional use or threat to use violence against civilians and non-combatants in order to achieve political goals.

[LamontCranston]

Right Mark. True. And you left out the campus shootings and the subway bombings in Spain and London. Except Fitz is talking about a failure or "spin" at the Federal level somehow leading to a change in the 2002 mid-term federal Congressional election results. I say it was results.

What you have here is a list of local / state level events and it's a wide mix of motives.. or in some cases no motive at all. And some of the violence you cite has been occuring for decades. Fitz did refer to protection from "the Arab terrorists."

True. The Republican Administration sailed far out of field since then, but in 2002 the leadership was evident, strong, and largely acceptable. It wasn't about "spinning"... and I hate such a vague word, it's like saying "them."

[Fitz1980]

Actually the spin that I was talking about was the mentality that any criticism of Bush, on foreign or domestic issues, was tantamount to treason in the post 9/11 world. The things like the invasion of Afghanistan and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security were supported by the Democrats too but the party line was that if you even questioned the invasion of Iraq you were unpatriotic and wanted the terrorists to win.

[Agde]

Ok, let me stick my foot in it. I've already told the story of the French school kid asking an American reporter to explain how Obama could be considered leftist when he was clearly more conservative than France's rightist president. From over here, there was always an eerie stylistic similarity between Bush and Ahmadinejad. Now we are being told that Moussavi is a liberal reformist. Bertrand Russell once remarked something to the effect that even cannibals who had the good taste only to eat missionaries might still not fully qualify as socially enlightened.

Anyway, I am old school from back in the days when poli-sci students were taught that political "right" and "left" was essentially a struggle between "capacity" and "equality" partisans. One side argued that having a ruling class was ok since efficiency produced greater overall wealth so that even the comparatively disenfranchised would be "better off", whilst the other side scoffed at "trickle down" and argued that equality of treatment and opportunity produced not only broader and heartier wealth, but did so in a demonstrably higher-quality atmosphere of mutual fairness and hence social justice.

These rather simplistic ideas have of course long-since drowned in waves of Cold War caricatures and more recently in a tsunami of complex financial models, commercial interdependencies and legal fine print. As illustrated in the last decade, goverments now need only allow ground rules to stagnate for huge inequity and widespread hardship to emerge.

So one cannot help but think Bill Maher was fundamentally right to remind everyone that some major reforms are urgently needed to bring "capacity" and "equality" back into balance (not only for America but for all of us), that historically and practically it is not the time for the referees (ie. governments) to be cautious about revising and enforcing uptodate rules linked to clear social principles, and that this cannot be done without an identifiable, vigorous and articulate "left" -- in relation to which political leaders such as Obama can re-center their policies.

[nimrod]

Not sure what you mean by "spinning." I remember there was a lot of doing: invasion of Afghanistan, Patriot Act, creation of Homeland Security Dept., consolidation of Intelligence agencies, revamped airport security, financial controls on cash movement and terrorism financing.

With the exception of Afghanistan, all of these things were created to look like something was being done to fight terrorism, when in fact all they were doing was striping the American people of rights. But after Iraq how often did you even here about Afghanistan until the recent change of the guard?

[Fitz1980]

Bill has followed up on last week's remarks on this week's show.

I like his quote that in the past 30 years "Democrats Have Moved To The Right And The Right Has Moved Into A Mental Hospital."

<object id="flashObj" width="486" height="412" classid="clsid:D"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9/6555681001?isVid=1&publisherID=769341148" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=27017295001&playerID=6555681001&domain=embed&" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9/6555681001?isVid=1&publisherID=769341148" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=27017295001&playerID=6555681001&domain=embed&" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>