A great rant from BooMan

This is only the beginning:

If you supported Obama during the primaries, you know who you are and this does not necessarily apply to you. For the rest of you, you spent the primaries either shilling for Clinton and telling us our guy was all talk and no show, or you spent them bitching that David Plouffe wouldn’t respond to and obey your emailed wisdom. As soon as he won the presidency, you started bitching about his appointments. As soon as he became president, you started bitching about his messaging, his framing, his agenda, and his lack of deference to your opinion. I want to know where the point was in this process when Obama was supposed to conclude that you were his allies and that you were responsible for his victory. When was he supposed to conclude that he owed you something, or that you had any respect for him, or that you credited his good intentions, or that you understood the myriad responsibilities of the job might mean that your pet issues might have to wait six months, a year, or two years to get to the top of his agenda.

Only change I’d make is that there are a fair amount of Obama supporters who have joined in the caterwauling and foot-stomping. John Aravosis was a strong Obama supporter, but he’s outraged at the moment (I know, I know). It’s certainly his right, but it is discouraging to see racist shitheads from No Quarter storm his comment section to lay down a few wobbly told-ya-so’s. Fortunately, someone I know was there to speak truth to PUMA.

RELATED: Yep, John Cole’s right.  Get ready for a flurry of “SEE, THEY LISTENED” posts. I also got a kick out of this line: “[S]ome days I hate Democrats more as a Democrat than I did as a Republican.” Personally, it wasn’t until this lifelong liberal started blogging in ‘03 that I realized how much some fellow liberals drive me fucking crazy. It wasn’t until the ‘08 primaries until I figured out how much I loathed a good portion of them.

Posted by Kevin K. on 10/13/09 at 08:06 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBarack ObamaHealth CarePUMAsPoliblogs

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via del.icio.us   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

It’s certainly his right, but it is discouraging to see racist shitheads from No Quarter storm his comment section to lay down a few wobbly told-ya-so’s. Fortunately, someone I know was there to speak truth to PUMA.

Good catch, Kevin. And I’ve seen plenty of others on that and other threads who aren’t so easily identifiable but have been spouting the same old “now you know how it feels to be under the bus” line or similar (I don’t know whether to laud sarainitaly’s honesty for posting under her usual nym or laugh at her stupidity for not realizing somebody would out her). Maybe those hours spent studying PUMAoid tactics last year weren’t entirely wasted!

Who knows, maybe I’m wrong and the offending quote wasn’t just an invention or inflation of Harwood’s - certainly, if it didn’t feed into insecurity that some folks are feeling, it would never have gained legs. But there’ve been a number of people joyfully stirring the pot, including the usual suspects.

PUMAs (and their ilk who have shed the label but retained the sentiment) forfeited their right to be taken seriously—ever—in critiquing Obama “from the left” when they tried to get McMoreWar and the Frozen Cheesecake elected. They are indistinguishable from the wingnut noise machine and deserve to be called out as the fraudulent hacks they are or simply ignored as the mood strikes.

More troublesome is formulating the proper response to cauterwaulers and foot-stompers who really do give a shit about health care, gay rights, etc. I was struggling to come to grips with that in my rambling, incoherent comment in Gil’s thread below when I cited a Greenwald column in which he states that since the Dems control congress and the presidency, they own the pace of progress and makes the following assertion:

The challenge—and it’s a difficult one—is always how to combat that cynical Emanuelian approach (how to criticize and pressure the White House when warranted) without strengthening and rejuvenating the incomparably vile Palinesque Right.

Well, that is the question.

...or that you understood the myriad responsibilities of the job might mean that your pet issues might have to wait six months, a year, or two years to get to the top of his agenda.

There it is. Everyone wants their shiny new pony NOW.

Everyone wants their shiny new pony NOW.

And an ill thought through strategy next year to strike back at the administration by reducing its majority* will obviously make pony delivery WAY more likely. I’ve even seen genuine lefty blogs running with the meme that the Republicans are more LGBT-friendly!

* I’m not talking about clinical strikes on Blue Dogs here, though they could still backfire, I fear.

The money:

I think the White House is willing to listen to criticism from their allies. From you? Not so much.

I think that’s pretty much it. I can’t remember ever seeing Chris Bowers have a positive thing to say about Barack Obama, from the primaries through election strategy to the transition to now. Why on Earth would the White House count someone like that as an “ally?”

Not quite OT, but do I recall correctly one of our commenters a while back reporting a discussion with somebody related to the administration that laid out a strategic timeline for tackling human rights concerns that included TGLB (I try to mix the order up because I don’t want to get into fistfights over which priority they should be afforded) issues?

I saw some folks on Balloon Juice saying that Obama should/would have revealed such a strategy this weekend if it existed, and others saying that would just give the Republicans the gift of foresight.

That “speaks truth to PUMA” comment doesn’t seem to be there any more. Browser fail or something else? (Browser fail is certainly possibe: I always have NoScript turned on these days).

Must be browser fail, Comrade Mary. I can still see it.

John Aravosis was a strong Obama supporter, but he’s outraged at the moment (I know, I know).

I know you know, but I stopped reading Aravosis circa 2006. It’s just poutrage, and there are too many interesting blogs out there to spend time like that.

I don’t read Aravosis at all.  Only did yesterday because a lot of folks were linking to his post.

BTW, if anyone wants to see a recent example of sarainitaly’s “work” at No Quarter and why I callled her a “froth-spewing lunatic,” here you go. It spirals out of control near the end. And Flowbee’s update at the bottom is precious:

We will criticize Obama and praise Obama (when it is warranted) because of what he does. Not how he looks. Please keep that in mind as you comment.

The title of one of Larry’s post titles from Sunday: “Barack Obama, the Half-Black Chance Garderner”

What. A. Dick.

Adding, I agree with most of the sentiment here, and certainly Booman’s, but I want to highlight what I think is the salient point.

It’s not that certain bloggers aren’t “allies” with the white house, and as such have their opinions summarily dismissed. That sounds like petty tribalism.

More to the point I think, is that the criticism (good faith criticism, not PUMA caterwauling which certainly doesn’t reach the white house’s radar) is heard. As Booman noted, when the administration makes a political calculation, and the blogosphere says “this is not the best idea on the merits,” the white house just isn’t going to say “you’re correct, we’re going with a sub optimal policy for political reasons.”

Poutrage and concern trolling are the surest ways to get ignored by an ideological ally. They’re hallmarks of a personal agenda (America’s Next Top Blogger!), not a shared, outcome oriented agenda.

Mostly OT, but speaking of lefty blogger tics I can’t stand, this is a pretty good illustration of why I have little time for Greenwald:

In light of this long record, it should come as absolutely no surprise that, last weekend, Feinstein joined with GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia to apply public pressure on Obama to escalate further the war in Afghanistan, announcing on ABC News that “she didn’t see how President Barack Obama could turn down [Gen. McChrystal’s] request for 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan.”

Except, you know, that’s not actually what she said. She said she couldn’t see blah blah…if we’re not going to get out. That’s a pretty critical distinction. Without it, she’s basically ceding the commander in chief role to a field commander. But with it, it’s an entirely reasonable point; if you’re going to try to accomplish X, you have to give the people you charge with doing that what they say they need. If you’re not willing to do that, then you should just pack it in. Like Feinstein or not (and I don’t), this isn’t an offensive statement by any means.

I don’t have nearly enough time to research the claims Greenwald makes in every dissertation he writes, so I don’t have any use for them, because there’s no way to know other than that where the bullshit is.

Kevin, btw, that was a pretty short and sweet smackdown of Sarainitaly over there.

I whole-heartedly endorse the emerging Rumproast policy of calling out the more rancid PUMAs when they try to blend in on mainstream sites.

Community troll watch?

But with it, it’s an entirely reasonable point; if you’re going to try to accomplish X, you have to give the people you charge with doing that what they say they need.

Indeed. Whatever you think about a strategy for getting out of Afghanistan, they tried it the other way in Iraq under Rumsfeld. It ... didn’t work out too well. Lesson learned?

Whoops, link:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/13/af ghanistan/

To enlarge on Booman’s point (and possibly offend everyone). In my ideal world, a governing body doesn’t give a person’s opinion greater weight just because that person happens to have access to a computer and enough spare time to blog regularly.

In fact, in my ideal world, that person’s opinion gets LESS weight unless they take the time to communicate directly with who ever is upsetting them, just like everyone else.

Sorry it is the height of delusional (and even arrogant) to assume that anyone has time to read the long moany screed some twerp posted on his cyber-toilet wall, and then get upset because an elected official didn’t stick his head in there to read the message said twerp left for him.

But at the end of the day I’m GLAD these people have the Internons to keep them occupied. I’ve been in meetings and tried to organize real actions with these cretins and NOTHING can get done until everyone assures them they are the bestest, most righteous and prettiest activist in the whole world.

I whole-heartedly endorse the emerging Rumproast policy of calling out the more rancid PUMAs when they try to blend in on mainstream sites.

Oh, hell yeah. The more the caterwauling outside of the deadender zone, the more they’re gonna lunge for openings like sarainitaly did. Definitely call them out.

HTP, no problem with what you wrote. Spot on.

when they try to blend in on mainstream sites

Yeah. Whatever happened to GO PUMA!!!!!!!! and PUMA HAKA!!!!!! No sense of fair play.

YAFB, I think I posted a link to this Advocate interview with John Berry, director of OPM, talking about prioritization and sequencing of LGBT rights issues inside the administration.

But that was way back in June, so no one could possibly be expected to remember that the road map was released back then…

Because I’m far, far too lazy to actually do the extensive research required to answer this question, I’ll just throw it out there.  Has Greenwald ever said anything positive about Obama wherein that positive statement wasn’t just a screen for the negative comment that was coming in the next paragraph?  It just seems like he only points out the good things solely so that he can later say, “I’m not just an unrelenting critic.  See, I said something positive in that last paragraph.  Now, back to why he’s worse than Bush.”

Thanks, Allan. I had a feeling it might be you that mentioned it. Excuse the long cut and paste, but I think it’s worth taking a look at and reproducing most of it here:

... this is directly from the White House:

Our first hope is that we will get our federal house in order and ensure that no discrimination exists in the federal work place against any of the LGBT community. [Note: This presumably pertains to the fact that transgender workers are still not protected by the federal government’s nondiscrimination policy, though gay employees are covered.]

Second, we want to make sure that we get the benefits for the LGBT community that are equal to all other benefits provided to other federal employees, and where we have the authority to move forward, the president is going to be announcing something in the very near future that is going to be a very significant announcement in that regard. Where it requires legislation, we will seek and support it.

We have four broad legislative goals that we want to accomplish and legislation is one of these things where you’ve got to move when the opportunity strikes, so I’m going to list them in an order but it’s not necessarily going to go one, two, three, four. Obviously, I think the first opportunity is hate crimes and we’re hopeful that we can get that passed this week. We’re going to try, but if not, we’re going to keep at it until we get it passed. The second one ENDA, we want to secure that passage of ENDA, and third is we want to repeal legislatively “don’t ask don’t tell,” and fourth, we want to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Now, I’m not going to pledge—and nor is the president—that this is going to be done by some certain date. The pledge and the promise is that, this will be done before the sun sets on this administration - our goal is to have this entire agenda accomplished and enacted into law so that it is secure.

The Advocate: Does that include a second term? A lot of people have talked about DOMA being pushed back until a second term.

Berry: I say this in a broad sense—our goal is to get this done on this administration’s watch.

Finally, I want to talk to you about the DOMA brief. Our strongest argument against “don’t ask, don’t tell” is that we stand with the truth. And that we, more than anyone, know the cost of lying and the terrible pain it invokes.

This president took a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and he does not get to decide and choose which laws he enforces. He has to enforce the laws that have been enacted appropriately and that he has inherited. It would be wrong for me or any of our community to advise him to lie or to shirk his responsibility. He’s doing his job. He has made clear that he stands for the repeal of DOMA. It will be part of this administration’s agenda to accomplish that act. We ought not waste energy and angst attacking him when we should be focusing the energy and effort on getting 218 votes in the house and 60 votes in the Senate, and that’s where we ought to target the energy and the strength of this community and this president is with us, this is our agenda and it’s his agenda.

I certainly believe that and I’ve discussed this now with senior advisors in the White House—it is clear that there’s unanimity on this. And this charge that somehow there’s some secret deal going on or something behind the scenes—there is nothing. This is as simple and straightforward as I can be and this administration can be, and we will work with anybody to advance this agenda.

The Advocate: One of the things that people are concerned about is that it’s been rumored that at the White House round table meeting with LGBT leaders, administration officials indicated that DOMA would wait until a second term.

Berry: I was at that meeting with Jim Messina and Brian Bond and all the groups. Nobody said that—I did not hear DOMA in the second term. It’s clear that we want to accomplish these things on this administration’s watch. We hope we get eight years, but if we’re limited to four, we’re still going to try to pursue this agenda. I was there for the entire meeting, start to finish. Nobody said second term, nobody is crazy enough to presume that we get a second term - the American people decide whether we get a second term.

The Advocate: And what about “don’t ask, don’t tell,” is that being pushed back?

Berry: We don’t have the votes to do Hate Crimes right now, we don’t have the votes to do ENDA, how are we going [to get “don’t ask, don’t tell]?

The Advocate: Understood that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a heavier lift, but there’s still no Senate repeal bill with which to start lobbying on and building support.

Berry: We’re going to have to - there’s a lot of good support there - [Senators] Lieberman and Collins - a lot of people, I think, are going to be willing to help. I believe that that energy is going to come together. This administration has got some really smart people, and we’re going to work together to do this right and do it in a way that’s going to last.

http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Washington_D_C_/Ber ry__Hate_Crimes_May_Pass_Next_Week/

Asked with no intended snark whatsoever—How’s that working out?

Fair points on Greenwald, but it’s pieces like this that keep me reading. Even though I do wish he had an editor. Gah!

Fair points on Greenwald, but it’s pieces like this that keep me reading.

Really? Because it’s things like this that make me find him unreadable:

While the Republican Party is absolutely dominated by people who are exactly that, is yelling at the President really such a bad act? 

Well, in the context of the article he’s responding to, yes! Because regardless of how you feel about the merits of Congressman heckling the President, it’s something that we just don’t do. So yes, it’s pretty crazy when someone does this. Now it would be one thing if Greenwald were going on to argue for the merits of this, but he’s not, he’s bitching about the fact that the media was taking Wilson to task, and building his post around fundamentally twisting what people are actually talking about. And even though I agree with him on the merits, I don’t have the time for someone who writes in such a fundamentally dishonest manner when there are plenty of people making the same point without lawyering their way through.

I don’t know whether this helps, but I found teh Whitey Tape. It was in the center console of my car, stuck inside a map of Nevada. It’s great viewing for the entire family!

Kan I has wolverine?

Well, Greenwald being Greenwald, the article goes off in a dozen directions before he ties it up. Like I said, I wish he had an editor.

But I definitely see the value in pointing out that the MSM have zero credibility on what constitutes acceptable discourse when they are STILL tarring people who were 100% right about the Iraq war with the crazy brush while acting as if those who were 100% wrong are “serious people” who deserve our attention.

Maybe I’m reading the wrong blogs, but I don’t see lots of people making those same points with the same evidence, etc., so I find Greenwald worthwhile, if maddening at times.

The amount of bullshit is staggering now. I don’t watch the evening news anymore. I quit watching the Sunday morning politalk shows. And now half the blogs I have always enjoyed are so bogged down with second-guessing and sniping that it’s pushing me right up to the edge.

I have found myself trying to step back from the incessant chatter and shit-slinging. It will only get worse; I expect it to go off on bizarre tangents I don’t even want to think about.

When we voted last November, there were African American men and women, many of them seniors, who wept as they exited the polling stations. They had finally seen the day when a man of color could run for the highest office in the country. They wept, after waiting their entire lives to see that day.

And then he won. Doesn’t anyone remember that feeling? The joy, the thrill, the faces of the people on the Mall as they cheered for the person who would take us back from the precipice? I do. I don’t remember Obama saying he was going to turn things around in the first six months. If he had, I wouldn’t have voted for him.

No, I’m not pleased with some things he’s done, but there are a lot of things he has done well, and for that I’m thankful. I think he operates in a manner which is not always revealed at the beginning, but becomes clearer as time passes. He’s a good man, he’s a good President. I’m willing to let things play out before I start trashing him.

But I definitely see the value in pointing out that the MSM have zero credibility on what constitutes acceptable discourse when they are STILL tarring people who were 100% right about the Iraq war with the crazy brush while acting as if those who were 100% wrong are “serious people” who deserve our attention.

Maybe I’m reading the wrong blogs, but I don’t see lots of people making those same points with the same evidence, etc., so I find Greenwald worthwhile, if maddening at times.

Well sure, it’s not that I disagree with him on the merits per se, because most of the time I do agree with him. The problem, I suppose, is that his brand of particular outrage is inevitably going to require straw men to perpetuate itself, and probably also that Glenn himself isn’t well enough versed in everything to engage some of this stuff honestly. The Feinstein thing is pretty typical: it’s not like you can’t make an honest argument against continued involvement in Afghanistan. Hell, Feinstein’s statement even gives you an opening to do so, by pointing out that we aren’t really able or willing to committ the sort of resources a COIN/nation building would require, and so we might as well cut our losses sooner rather than later. But Greenwald can’t, or won’t, do that because his schtick requires BAD GUYS. Nefarious people must be doing nefarious things. Feinstein has to be making a bad faith argument to benefit herself. If she’s not, everything falls apart. So we’ll ust have to fix that by selectively quoting her to cut out a critical qualifier. There are plenty of other people out there making these arguments more honestly and intelligently than Greenwald, and without the need to impute bad faith on everyone for the sake of their performance.

Although I will grant that Greenwald is very good on civil liberties, but even there the schtick still impedes him.

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/10/has

I also got a kick out of this line: “[S]ome days I hate Democrats more as a Democrat than I did as a Republican.” Personally, it wasn’t until this lifelong liberal started blogging in ‘03 that I realized how much some fellow liberals drive me fucking crazy. It wasn’t until the ‘08 primaries until I figured out how much I loathed a good portion of them.

That’s because there’s a certain segment of bloggers (the Hamsher/Open Left contingent) who view politics basically the same way wingnut bloggers and talk radioites do, and of course get upset that Democrats don’t approach politics in the same way Republicans do, which is to say Democrats are actually somewhat concerned with governing as opposed to fighting endless fights over small things (really, is there anything more embarrassing than this “veal pen” nonsense? Hamsher coined that over Van fucking Jones ferchrissakes), and doing things for the sole reason that it pisses off conservatives. And they get just as angry, if not angrier, at other progressives who don’t share their priorities/view of the nature of politics, in the same way the wingnuts pitch a shit fit about RINOs.

Love that Booman post. Thanks! Of course, the comments are chockablock with instances of my favorite Stupid Leftie Trick: Calling for Obama to be taking stronger action on civil rights, whilst simultaneously wishing he’d be “more like FDR.”

Yeah. For everyone’s sake, I hope Obama isn’t paying attention to FDR’s ideas of civil liberty. (Cough*Executive Order 9066*Cough!)

God, where to start? First, there’s the annoying presumption on the part of the (mostly white) leftie blogosphere that they, and they alone, represent progressive values. When of course, they don’t even represent the progressive blogosphere! Just because Eric Boehlert couldn’t find progressive bloggers of color to include in his book, that’s no excuse for the blogosphere to continue erasing their contributions. Not if they want to be taken seriously as “progressives,” that is.

Now, by no means am I suggesting that all bloggers of color are happy with Obama and don’t criticize him (I’ve seen plenty of deserved knocks on him from Pam Spaulding, for instance)—but anyone who uses phrases like “progressives are unhappy with Obama” or “the working-class is unhappy with Obama” (that would be YOU, Susie Madrak!) without qualifying that you’re mostly talking about white people in those groups is just an idiot.

To echo Al Giordano: There is no progressive movement in America without people of color. Period. End of sentence. Doesn’t happen. So you know, people who think they are sensitive and progressive might want to avoid shitting all over the first black president by using GOP framing points like “empty suit,” “teleprompter,” and “affirmative action.” If you think he’s not moving fast enough, fair point. If you think he should be doing more public arm-twisting to reassure his supporters on issues like gay rights, health care, and closing Gitmo, fair point (though again—he ran as a consensus-seeking moderate, not a radical leftie, and if you were incapable of reading his public statements and his policies on his campaign website, that’s your bad, not his.)

But yeah—what Booman said. When people do nothing but bitch and moan and try to undercut you (often employing the most grating passive-aggressive bullshit in the book—“well, maybe I’ll just STAY HOME in 2010”), then why try to please them? Perpetually dissatisfied people will find fault with anything, because they don’t know any way of being in the world that doesn’t posit themselves as “victims” who deserve “safe spaces” and “amends” for all the hurt they’ve endured, real or imagined. They’re neurotic to the point of uselessness. Which is why I’m with HTP on this one: better they hang out on the internet where no one pays much attention than show up at meetings where grown-ups are trying to get shit done.

I don’t remember Obama saying he was going to turn things around in the first six months.

Donnah, I was in Grant Park on Election Night and I clearly remember him saying “We may not get there in one year, or even one term.” An eminently reasonable thing to say, right?

Yet here we are, not even a year out from the election, let alone the inauguration, trying to stay afloat in the worst economy anybody has seen in over 70 years, and the Spoiled Narcissistic Instant-Gratification Online Set is demanding all their ponies RIGHT NOW!!!!!

The title of one of Larry’s post titles from Sunday: “Barack Obama, the Half-Black Chance Garderner

So apparently Agent Fucktard can’t operate Spell Check OR find the Whitey Tape.

Our first hope is that we will get our federal house in order and ensure that no discrimination exists in the federal work place against any of the LGBT community. [Note: This presumably pertains to the fact that transgender workers are still not protected by the federal government’s nondiscrimination policy, though gay employees are covered.]

Er, what? Actually no. Or rather, sorta. I would it was more a response to Bush’s habit of putting rampant ‘phobes fresh from Jesus Camp in charge of federal admin. departments.

Just to be clear - the bits in square brackets aren’t my insertions, in case there’s any confusion.

There it is, it’s all about Lieberman:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/sticking-it-t o-america-by-digby-looks.html

So much stupid, I don’t even know where to begin. But that’s what it amounts to; some people haven’t gotten over Lieberman beating Lamont.

Just to be clear - the bits in square brackets aren’t my insertions, in case there’s any confusion.

No, no, no. I know those are the reporter’s comments.

I will spare everyone my Bad Reporting rant.

Excellent post, Kevin K!

And I agree with all those who say we need to call them out whenever they whine and cry their widdle PUMA tears.

Stupid Leftie Trick: Calling for Obama to be taking stronger action on civil rights, whilst simultaneously wishing he’d be “more like FDR.”

FDR needs to be carefully distinguished from “FDR”. The “FDR” we talk about and whose legacy we fight over is a construct, at first of folks who worked with him, fought for him, and against him, continuing down to the present day and people for whom he’s not even a memory. Ditto “LBJ”, who is very different from LBJ.

Similarly, there’s Obama, and at least three or four “Obamas” running around out there…

What’s so stupid about hating Lieberman’s traitorous, whiny guts?

What’s so stupid about hating Lieberman’s traitorous, whiny guts?

Nothing really. I do, but that’s a bit sight different than bringing pretty much everything back to the fact that he beat Ned Lamont in the general election, and that the Democratic Caucus let him keep his seniority. A big chunk of the leftysphere is still fighting that battle, completely unable to get over Lamont’s loss.

Similarly, there’s Obama, and at least three or four “Obamas” running around out there…

And Orly Taitz wants to see birth certificates for all of them!

It looks like sailorboy’s getting all worked up on the relitigating and what not again:

Why does Eschaton hate
By okanogen on Wed, 10/14/2009 - 11:04pm

Democrats? Doesn’t he understand it’s hard work?

Meanwhile, at least someone (predictable) heart Booman (twice).

I welcome his loathing.

How about my guffawing?

Reclusive Racist’s—I’m sorry, Leftist’s brilliant takedown—

“Fucking Twit”.

Yeah.  That’s showing him, “Dr.” Socks.  You’re like if Will Rogers and Phyliss Diller had a baby.

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main