How Pragmatic/Centrist MSNM IE: CNN Really View Progressives....
Nixakliel - 04/22/2011 - 11:02
From CNN: The Left's view on Libya- Bush's 3rd Term - March 23, 2011: by John P Avlon, CNN Contributor:
It's déjà vu all over again. Congressman Dennis Kucinich is talking impeachment. Ralph Nader is grumbling that the president of the United States is a "war criminal." Michael Moore is venting his spleen on the subject of U.S. hypocrisy.
What's different is that the president provoking the professional protest crowd this time is a Democrat.
Obama isn't considered a ideological soul mate by the 'far' left. Far from it.
Libya is just the latest example of Obama embracing national security executive powers that have prompted some liberals to claim that he is leading George W. Bush's third term.
There was his decision to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. Then came the realization that closing Guantanamo was easier said than done. There is the administration's use of wiretaps and escalation of predator drone strikes. And now the airstrikes in Libya, engaged without extensively consulting Congress [According to the Constitution- Mr Constitutional Law Prof was supposed to get congress' approval w a formal declaration of war- first].
A book by my Daily Beast colleague Stephen Carter, "The Violence of Peace," analyzes Obama's War Doctrine at length from a legal perspective.
Many on the left define themselves in opposition to authority,.. they are historically quick to turn on presidents of their own party for being insufficiently liberal -- IE: Truman's ... Cold War enthusiasm, LBJ's escalation of the Vietnam War, ... or Bill Clinton's welfare reform.
Kucinich has been joined by a small chorus of voices from the left in Congress in condemning the president. These include: Barbara Lee (who was the lone vote against the Afghanistan invasion after 9/11); Michael Capuano (last seen telling a union rally "you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody"); Maxine Waters (who repeatedly pulled a proto-Joe Wilson by calling President Bush a "liar") and Sheila Jackson Lee (a House Foreign Affairs committee member who last year said "Today we have two Vietnams, side by side, North and South").
This cast of characters is a fair representation of the 'far' left. They are now among Obama's fiercest critics. That should be a reality check that resonates with centrist and independent voters.
But you've got to give Obama's critics on the left points for ideological consistency. They are apparently not swayed by simple partisanship.
Libertarian, and longtime critic of the [Bush / Cheney] neo-cons, Ron Paul can at least claim consistency in his circulation of a congressional resolution "expressing the sense of Congress that the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya." Among its supporters to date is Detroit Democrat John Conyers -- Ron Paul's philosophic opposite on almost everything [thus, in this case, he criticizes bi-partisanship - even though it's been a trade-mark of Pres O-Bomb-em].
Barack Obama was never the "anti-war candidate" his leftist supporters had hoped for... Though he 'spoke' out against Iraq [in purely so-called pragmatic terms], he supported escalation in Afghanistan, even proposing drone strikes into Pakistan during the campaign.
The criticism of the 'professional' left... is likely to heat up if the conflict drags on. Michael Moore's tweeted sarcasm will set the tone for other liberal Obama critics on the netroots: "We've had a "no-fly zone" over Afghanistan for over 9 years. How's that going? #WINNING!"
But Moore's suggestion that Obama return his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ignores the substance of what the president said in his acceptance speech: "I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace." [IE: "The Violence of Peace" or 'War is Peace']...
============================================
Now maybe its just me- but, even though this guy's facts are basically accurate, his tone & critique of the so-called 'far professional' left [as if Kucinich, Moore, Nader, Waters, Lee, & Conyers, etc are some extreme Marxist / Leninist radicals- calling for the violent over-throw of the system] is a bit, dare I say, sarcastic & contemptuous. Those named above are- for taking a stance on principles rather than poli-tricks- dismissed as non-pragmatic [IE: un-reasonable & un-realistic]. In some ways these so-called pragmatic centrists [IE: O-Bomb-em, Billary, etc] are more dangerous than hard-core FOX Noise / Tea Party types - because at least w the hard-core you know up front what you're dealing with. These pragmatic centrists can lull [IE: Rope a Dope] you asleep- till they blind-side you because they seem so 'damned reasonable'- especially compared to the hard-core FOX Noise / Tea Party types...
___________
The Real Deal???
sgt_doom - 04/20/2011 - 18:54
Hopefully, everyone is wrong about Obama and he turns out to morph into a democrat, but.....
Even if you ignored his 100% neocon administration, and
even if you ignored his extending and expanding upon previous Bush administration policies, and
even if you ignored his torture treatment of Bradley Manning, and
even if you ignored his going after, and jailing, more whistleblowers than all previous American presidents combined,
even if you ignored his caving in to the tax cuts for the super-rich, and
even if you ignored the myriad other neocon-like stuff he has done, how
in creation can anyone possibly ignore that, after that Chicago school principal or superintendent fired ALL those teachers because of what they claimed were just a few bad teachers (I believe the total was 100 souls) in an attempt to privatize that school, the president of the United States of America went on national television to applaud and support that vile action?
I certainly can't, and I don't believe any sane and normal American could possibly ignore such amoral behavior on anyone's part!
(Last I heard, the Chicago court had overturned their firing under grounds of unlawful termination --- Thank God!)
Even if you ignored his 100% neocon administration, and
even if you ignored his extending and expanding upon previous Bush administration policies, and
even if you ignored his torture treatment of Bradley Manning, and
even if you ignored his going after, and jailing, more whistleblowers than all previous American presidents combined,
even if you ignored his caving in to the tax cuts for the super-rich, and
even if you ignored the myriad other neocon-like stuff he has done, how
in creation can anyone possibly ignore that, after that Chicago school principal or superintendent fired ALL those teachers because of what they claimed were just a few bad teachers (I believe the total was 100 souls) in an attempt to privatize that school, the president of the United States of America went on national television to applaud and support that vile action?
I certainly can't, and I don't believe any sane and normal American could possibly ignore such amoral behavior on anyone's part!
(Last I heard, the Chicago court had overturned their firing under grounds of unlawful termination --- Thank God!)
No comments:
Post a Comment