A note to our readers: We're eager
to hear from you, and to provide a forum for your words to be read by
others. Here are some helpful hints: Short, several paragraph letters
have the best chance of being accepted for publication. Sign the letter
with your name; we don't want to be giving out your email
address
to strangers. Unless you instruct us otherwise, we'll assume it's OK
with you if we post your letter, or excerpts from it.
Send your letters to us at
crisispapers@hotmail.com.
This page has retained letters
for the past three uploads.
Thanks. -- The Editors
May 27, 2009
Hi, Bernie:
Glad to have you back and yes, Obama has morphed into Bush at least in
the arena of national security and everything that touches those issues.
You may want to read Greenwald today He covers a lot of this
ground and links to other good pieces doing the same.
This has been a trend going on at least since about early February based
on DOJ cases that were being argued the same as Bush when Holder took
over that department. One after another they have consistently defended
the most extreme Bush abuses of executive power even to the point of
almost being in contempt of court. In one case, I believe it was Jewel,
they went way beyond Bush to argue why the case should be dismissed.
Please don't feel that alone. Every day I hear from new and more people
worldwide expressing alarm at what Obama has been doing. Many others I
think feel the same way but aren't yet ready to publicly express
themselves. You may like the cartoon I posted recently on my Home page
by Bill Sanders. I found many cartoonists expressing this same sentiment
and have links to these.
Obama will do some things we like but he is going to completely trample
on civil liberties in the war on terror. The change we get will be
mostly a cosmetic one and one that could end up uniting more of the
country behind the most horrible of Bush policies - a claim Greenwald
made today but this really came from someone who left a comment on his
blog that he ended up quoting in another piece. Take care and glad to
hear from you again.
P.S. Yikes, does this mean we might end up being on the same side as
those idiot tea-baggers but for very different reasons? Also now we have
to root for Obama to lose (court) cases.
...Bernie, you will also enjoy the
This Modern World cartoon.
If Greenwald is right on what is happening, a real third party won't
happen either even if one wants to develop because Obama will take all
of the Dems who aren't on the far left and align them with the GOP on
national security.
The question is whether there would be enough of us left with some
Independents and moderate Repubs to form a big enough third party that
could win a national election not having any party structure in place to
do so?
Also I don't see the far left agreeing with most moderate Republicans on
enough issues either. The deck is really stacked against any third party
winning the White House.
I think when Obama disappoints lots of his ardent supporters, which he
is intent on doing, they will turn away completely. I saw the same
happen to those who worked hard for Howard Dean. When he lost, they
dropped out.
There were always clear signs everyone ignored that Obama was just
another politician: How Obama and the Dems kept Carter from speaking at
their convention so they wouldn't alienate any staunch apologists for
Israel; how Obama and the Dems brought Lieberman back into their party
giving him his committees and seniority after he trashed Obama and
campaigned for McCain and with McCain; and how Obama went to CT to
campaign for Lieberman against Lamont when everyone knew we were lied
into war by the likes of Lieberman and his GOP ilk.
I also knew we were in trouble the minute Obama said he wanted to "look
forward." That's just Beltway speak for not wanting to prosecute any
crimes committed by the previous administration.
When Obama reneged on his promise to the ACLU to release those torture
photos, it means to me he can't be trusted.
RJ Crane (5/26)
Editor, Topplebush (topplebush.com)
If I were you guys, I would wait on that Bush-lite opinion until he has
spent more time in office. Right now he is appearing like a Bush-heavy
to me. I know that he couldn't be any bigger disappointment b/c at least
you knew what Bush was. Do we REALLY know who and what Obama is
REALLY???? We have set up a lot of puppet govts in foreign lands. How do
we know we just didn't do it to ourselves???
Sparrows (5/26)
from Buzzflash.net
A corrupt system never reforms itself. You can vote for bank candidate
number one or bank candidate number two. That is the only choice you
have.
edpell (5/26)
from Buzzflash.net
I agree. Which is why Kucinich was marginalized by the MSM from very
early on in the race.
Fioreen (5/26)
from Buzzflash.net
Obama is just another Manchurian Candidate. He has heart and will do
what he can, what can you do when your hands are constantly tied behind
your back, and made to bend over? Bottom line is that we are controlled
in an illusionary matrix of lies and deceit. There are so many people
controlling our government puppets, it must make Obama feel less lonely
and part of something comfortable. China is draining the money out of
the USA by the hundreds of billions a month. China will win by draining
our finances into a dark hole. Then create a new currency that will make
the great depression look like a picnic in Disneyland. Don't wake up,
it's now fun. Go back to sleep our Manchurians, go back to sleep and
leave us alone !
buzz (5/26)
from Buzzflash.net
As Jonathan Turley said, Obama has "created the greatest bait and switch
in history!" He also said that Obama has "morphed into his predecesor."
I agree, and I don't think he is "Bush-Light." There is nothing "light"
about keeping someone locked up for life, without a trial, or in keeping
us ALL under domestic surveillance without a warrant. I have reluctantly
come to believe that, despite his beautiful smile and his articulate
words, Obama his just as bad as Bush. He may even be worse, because he
is smarter and more ambitious.
couchblog (5/26)
from Buzzflash.net
HEY BERNARD WEINER:
Is Obama Bush Lite? NO!!! Obama is Bush Darker.
First let's stop talking about Republicans and Democrats when we know
all too well that Democracy is a fantasy and oligarchy/fascism are the
realities. This means that Obama was installed to serve the Masters of
the Universe, or, as Bush 1 likes to call his cabal: the New World
Order...
Next give credit to Obama's intelligence. He knew exactly what he was
doing when he surrounded himself with the same Bush miscreants that
bankrupted America and buried we the people in a debtor's abyss from
which there is no escape. The speed and blatantness with which he
sanctioned Wall Street's theft of $trillions without oversight,
transparency, or accountability from Main Street, speaks volumes.
The predictable pattern of allowing an enormous or even mind- boggling
event he is responsible for, such as a record-breaking military budget,
to be followed by what appears to be a populist goal, such as increasing
mpg requirements on later-year vehicles. The one statement that should
send him straight home to Satan is his endorsement of my favorite
oxymoron, "clean coal technology." That's even worse than Exxon hawking
green technology to convert gasoline to hydrogen fuel, or Jack Welch Jr.
of GE notoriety, bragging about the virtues of nuclear energy.
The prosecution rests.
liecatcher (5/26)
from OpEdNews.com
Obama will prosecute if "no one is above the law"
Obama's words "no one is above the law" will cost him re-election if he
fails to enforce U.S. Laws and prosecute the Bush lawbreakers.
We need a Special Prosecutor appointed to control the giving of immunity
to witnesses.
SIGN THE PETITION
Calling For A Special Prosecutor for all Torturers
http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG
Over 250,000 have signed
Join Us
John H Kennedy (5/26)
from OpEdNews.com
I support Obama asking that settlements stop being built in the West
Bank.
What else has he done lately that I should be supporting?
Or do you mean we should all constantly be saying we support him?
I've been doing a lot of organizing on the health care issue here in MT.
Our Senior Senator is writing crappy legislation that mirrors the Obama
plan which I always though was crappy from the start, but now it's even
getting worse.
I haven't heard Obama say anything on health care lately that I can
support. So sue me. He had a bunch of health care industrial complex
people over to the White House a week or so ago, and announced some big
1.5% savings that they committed to. Then they screwed him and he didn't
make a peep. But it wasn't that big a deal in the first place.
He spoke at a commencement, but I don't watch much TV and I'm not
graduating. I support everyone's right to be invited to speak.
So what else should I be supporting?
Oh, I support shutting Guantanamo, but hiding the photos won't work and
is stupid, IMHO.
I don't support not prosecuting crimes. That's against the law, for
crying out loud.
John Q. Citizen (5/26)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Keeping a few Bush admin officials is not the definition of Bush-lite.
Remember "Team of Rivals"?
Bush-lite means that he's almost like Bush across the board. For
instance if he were to continue torturing but cut the numbers in half,
that would be Bush-lite. Instead he immediately repudiated BushCo's
torture program and released the memos detailing exactly what BushCo
did.
tridim (5/26)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Memos are meaningless without prosecutions
Obama can repudiate torture all he wants, but if those responsible for
torture get a pass, then in the eyes of the law, what they did is
considered legal. And our nation takes a blow to the gut from the 2x4 of
history.
derby378 (5/26)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Guantanamo staying open, Abu Ghraib staying open, no withdrawal time
line for Iraq, (still) no formal renunciation of the signing statements
that made *2 a dictator, flat out saying single payer is not an option,
NOT encouraging the Justice Department to investigate vote fraud by the
gop, no investigations into voter suppression in the South, still
pandering to Israel (but significantly less so, this is a lite thread),
the TARP bill, STILL allocating monies to the rich bankers with little
or no oversight, the auto bailout cruelty, the fact that GM is CLOSING
U.S. PLANTS TO OPEN FOREIGN ONES TO SAVE COSTS!!!!!!, destroying the
Appalachian mountains (recent decision), "don't ask don't tell" STILL
ENFORCED, NOT working for gay equal rights, NOT investigating BushCo's
crimes against humanity, etc.
That is how Obama is Bush lite.
Now, how is Obama Clinton 2.0?: improved responsibility in
budgeting, putting monies where they are needed (my friends on
disability got a $250 check each, which has helped them a fair amount),
at least working on health care reform (I prefer a two-tier system with
single-payer Kaiser-like health care for everyone, and one that you pay
into), at least looking at reforming the credit cards so that they can't
charge 50,000% if you fart the wrong way, saving the environment as far
as actually investing and looking into alternative energy sources,
demanding energy efficient (not as high as he should demand, but oh
well), demanding more electrical autos...etc.
He has done many great things, or at least he's promised to.
And I would add this:
HE'S ONLY BEEN IN OFFICE LESS THAN 130 DAYS!!!!!!!!!
comtec (5/26)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Disenchanted Dems and Repukes getting togther to form a third party!!!
Is Shallow Throat nuts!
Yes!
I'm more likely to join the Communist Party than to join with any
fucking Repukes...
It's way too early to decide it's all been a failure -- I'm going to
give him a year or two -- but if Obama keeps on going about things in
the wrong direction IMO, then I will have to decide. But I'm never gonna
like everything he does, and I smile a lot each day with what he has
already done. That in itself is significant for me.
TankLV (5/26)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Yes, he's very much like Bill Clinton, but has learned from Bubba's
mistakes. Even the Hope campaign was reminiscent of Clinton.
And, yes, I'll take that any day.
And the circular firing squad comment is spot on. Conservative Democrats
were Bill Clinton's problem and they're the problem now.
It's not helpful to call Obama 'Bush Lite'.
Captain Hilts (5/26)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Yes - the positive message of hope seems to be replaced By corporatist
support And rhetoric.
What appeared to be a man of the people has become another shill for the
system, which means the corporations.
lostnotforgotten (5/26)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
The comments in the "circular firing squad" part are spot on as far as I
can tell:
"The other side of that issue," I said, "is that Obama is being
pummeled by forces within his own party by Blue Dog Democrats and
so-called 'moderate" Dem Senators and House members. If they all
stood together against the Republicans, more could get done faster.
But, regardless of what their personal motives and ambitions might
be, they are effectively acting in concert with the Republicans in
messing up Obama's momentum and policies, the result of which is
that little of moment gets done. Yes, we can't."
"And," said Shallow Throat, taking a swig of a Dos Equis, "the
result of this behavior by the likes of Bayh and Lieberman and
Baucus and the rest in the Senate, and the Blue Dogs in the House,
is to join Limbaugh and Gingrich and Boehner and that baggage-laden
crew in trying to ensure that Obama does not succeed with any major
initiative. Reminds one of Will Rogers' famous statement: 'I'm not a
member of any organized party. I'm a Democrat'."
Puts the focus exactly
where I think it should be: on Democrats who act like Republicans and
doom any efforts to pass a truly Democratic agenda. They basically are
shoving bi-partisanship down their own Party Leader and President's
throat.
Weiner's piece is actually a very well-written and constructed article
worth the perusal of anyone on this board. The author comes far more to
Obama's defense than to "bash" him.
Interesting how quick people are to jump to conclusions before they even
READ what they are commenting on. Just a hint: someone could conceivably
post - Is Mother Theresa Turning Into Britney Spears? and if you in fact
read the article it may turn out that Mother Theresa is NOT turning into
Britney Spears.
Phoebe Loosinhouse (5/26)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
I know that when Obama first joined the Senate I was surprised at some
of his votes and comments. They seemed to lean DLC. I always thought
that Hillary was to the left of Obama and I admit I wanted her to win.
Then when Obama won, I supported him wholeheartedly, expecting him to be
at least somewhat liberal. He spoke thus in the campaign.
But I was also a little wary after his vote on the legislation which
gave immunity to AT&T et al. I am pleased with most of his environmental
policies (not the on removing the wolves for Endangered Species list),
but I am skeptical of his health care proposal and if it does not
contain a public option, I hope the House Dems who warned him they would
not support a bill with no public option will stick to their guns and
sink the bill. Otherwise it is just another pro-corp piece of chicanery.
I cannot believe he will not even select a Special Prosecutor. He is not
like Bill Clinton. President Clinton allowed a Special Prosecutor to
investigate himself when he had done nothing. Obama will not investigate
horrendous crimes which have not only proof but confessions on the
airwave. I was so hopeful and I am now so discouraged.
MasonJar (5/26)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Missed you, Bernie. I appreciate this thoughtful and timely post!
Wish you well on your other projects. It's good to have "another life"
in these trying times. Getting away helps one restore perspective. Many
of us could sure use that break these days also. But we must make time
for it.
"thumbsup"
KoKo (5/26)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Excellent analysis! My sense is that if Obama is to prevail it is only
if he continues to get out of DC frequently, and stands with the
interests of the people who elected him, which by recent polling
analysis included a very broad swath of the American population who
voted. Not the narrow interests of corporations, Wall Street and DC
insiders, seemingly whom he more often than not has stood with in his
first four months in office.
Lincoln was forced to pay attention to the abolitionists who did not
accept Abe's early disinclination to free the slaves. Their beliefs in
the righteousness and moral stand against enslaving human being for the
sake of private profit, and persistent insistence by their actions that
the federal government must act to end the horror of slavery, forced
Lincoln to act.
Same with Roosevelt who initially resisted implementation of the many
reforms credited to his administration. It was the army veterans, the
hungry, the unemployed, the union activists, the women fighting to end
child labor horrors that finally forced FDR to act.
Same will be true with President Obama! Whatever the political calculus
that drives his actions or inactions, we cannot be discouraged. He is
after all a politician -- a smart and in more ways than any before him,
a long-awaited and welcome one, but a politician, no less or more. He
must be moved by the people who elected him if he wants any measure of
success and a second term!
We must continue to push and insist that torture is never allowed; that
war criminals must be investigated, prosecuted, convicted and punished;
that banks, insurance companies and lobbyists cannot be handed the
treasury -- its our money; that medical treatment must be made available
to all citizens when needed; that schools must fully funded; and
corruption of any kind in the federal government (especially war
contracting) must be rooted out and punished. To name just a few Changes
that We Can Believe In - Oh Yes We Can!
Riverman (5/26)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
About Other Essays and Issues:
Subject: Sept 11th conspiracy theories
(Cf. Ernest Partridge's essay,
The 9/11
Conspiracy: A Skeptic’s View)
SIR
To the extent that I have thought about the subject of whether or not a
government conspiracy brought down the buildings, I am always haunted by
certain basic assumptions I have made about what is implied by ANY
construct, any theory, designed to promote the idea that the government,
or any other entity, did it. Forgive me for being pedantic, but it would
serve us all well to focus on what I call the "ground zero" of Ground
Zero. In other words, somebody had to plan it...
If you haven't guessed by now, I am adamantly opposed to the conspiracy
theories--any and all of them. I shun them all for a reason I shall
examine here---the assumptions we can make about the planning: (1) It
was the most elaborate conspiracy imaginable. Let us assume that a
further miracle occurred in order to agree that it has, to this moment,
held together. So, logically, the conspirators were satisfied that they
would "go" with the burden of having to recruit hundreds, if not
thousands, of individuals and some governmental agencies, to pull this
off. Let's accept, therefore, that they opted to conduct this event by
doing everything possible to exclude from view how it really happened.
(2) WTC 7 is the Rosetta Stone of my belief that it was NOT a
conspiracy: NO ONE commenting on this event has linked the fact that the
building went down "on its own" with the irrefutable fact that the
damage it initially suffered COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN PLANNED. In
order for there to be a bedrock, upon which to lay conspiracy theories,
one of "them" has to explain the following: Given that it is impossible
to argue that the damage to Bldg 7 was unforeseeable and unplannable,
then a governmental conspiracy cannot exist unless someone wants to say
the following: On the one hand, the government went to impossible
lengths to conceal its intentions, but didn't care, on the other hand,
that exploding Building 7 would reveal a conspiracy. Is there a
scintilla of credibility attached to the notion that all the planning
for the demolition of Towers 1 and 2 could be revealed by the way Bldg 7
went down? How does a "plan" like that leave the room it was conceived
in? How does the inherent dissonance of each plan, see the light of day?
Exploding one building does not guarantee damage to the other one,
especially damage that was just enough to construe that there might be a
collapse imminent, without the intervention of explosives in the
adjacent building. If that's true, then what do the conspirators do if
there was no damage to Bldg 7 sufficient to cause the argument in the
first place? Do they demolish it anyway (bearing in mind that any
argument that the govt did it presupposes that 7 was prepared to
explode). If they press the button anyway, they reveal themselves. If
they don't press the button then they stand a great, if not impossible
to avoid chance of being revealed, unless one can posit that no one
could have found pre-planted explosives in Bldg 7 after all the
inevitable forensic examinations of the area had been conducted. Do the
CT's really want us to believe all this? I, for one, do not.
nsaridakis09
RE: Ernest Partridge's
essay,
When the Law Goes
Flat.
Hi--
I just read your essay from 2004, "When the Law Goes
Flat" and
thought it was really good.
Do you intend to update it to include the lawlessness we have seen from
Obama administration in the last 100 days?
I guess what I am asking is, "Do you actually love the law, or do you
just hate Bush."
Regards--
--John, Rosman, NC
Ernest Partridge Replies:
Hatred is a wasteful and unworthy emotion, at least when directed
toward a person. I don't hate Bush, but I do despise his
lawlessness, his waste of human lives, and the damage that he has
done to my country's treasure and reputation.
I share your disappointment with Obama's "lawlessness" of the past
100 days, and the slow pace of his addressing the reforms that he
promised during the election campaign. And yes, I intend to complain
about all this and more in forthcoming essays.
April 16, 2009
About Ernest Partridge's Essay,
"The Left"
I agree 100% and I tried so many times to explain the same thing- there
are no ' liberals' or "conservatives'- it is all an invention of the
media. But no one listened. Very good, Mr. Partridge.
Mark Sashine (4/16)
OpEdNews
Dr. Partridge,
I enjoyed you article. What you describe and your identification of the
mainstream media as a major culpret are accurate.
Of course this did not come about through happenstance, but rather
social engineering. The major tool is the Hegelian Dialectic, and the
Orwellian smearing of language. The Right/Left Paradigm is used to
synthesize confusion in all arenas of human thinking. This is the
"Scientific Dictatorship" we behold. It is based on "Scientism",
seemingly rational formulae promelgated through perception manipulation.
I am glad to see you broke out of the box!
William Whitten (4/16)
OpEdNews
Left? Right? Huh?
Dr. Partridge, have you been living under a rock this past year? The
United States is experiencing a wave of movement toward the left and it
has become ridiculous to label someone as a "leftie" or "commie" or
"socialist" as if it were a pejorative. People are waking up to the
realization that the wealthy and powerful have been engaged in class
warfare for many years and that selfishness is not really the virtue
that the Mepublicans have told them it was. Many of us are considering
ourselves democratic socialists and the public seems to be pretty
comfortable with that.
Bryan Emmel (4/16)
OpEdNews
Since the Right's endless bashing of liberals has backfired beyond
belief, I see no reason to worry about it. :)
Today's young voters are the most Democratic generation in U.S.
history--more liberal than the generation of the New Deal; more liberal
than the protest generation of the 60s.
We're talking universal health care. We're talking about nationalizing
banks. People laugh when you talk about deregulation and tax breaks for
the rich. Everyone but the Right, the libertarians, and the conspiracy
folks is calling for the governmen to do more. We may even get to work
on global warming.
If that's what bashing liberals gets the Right, let them wail on!
Perry Logan (4/16)
OpEdNews
Regarding your Confucius quote, I think most would agree that indirect
usage of words, (political correctness) comes from the left. "Overseas
contingency operations" is a nice one.
This came from the "feel good, self esteem, victimhood" teachings of a
few decades ago.
"Equal outcome education" was another ambiguous misunderstood concept.
Never fully explained, because the idea of it is so sick, noone in their
right mind would agree to that. From my experience, it's difficult to
get people from the extreme left to explain themselves in a direct
manner.
You don't get collectivists from the left to say: "everyone put all
their earnings into the government, then we, the government, will
distribute the wealth as we feel is necessary, for the good of all."
Some of the "left" persuasion might not see things going that far. But,
given time it will. Then the system collapses, and we start out all over
again trying to build our own personal wealth.
sommers (4/16)
OpEdNews
This is a well reasoned, thoughtful analysis of the current weakness in
our popular political discourse. But I contend that the problem is
unsolvable with reason.
What politicians understand is that the actual mean of a word is not
nearly as important as the word's emotional profile. Unfortunately, the
world and this country are full of people who are unable to grasp the
underlying meaning of a word that represent a complex concept. For these
simple minded people, their level of understanding never extends past
the emotional profile of the word.
For the simple minded, conceptual words do not represent a meaning, as
such, but instead represent an emotion. For example, the word
"communism," for most, has a Bad emotional profile. People think of
Stalin, or other historical despots who have been linked negatively to
the word. All they understand is that communism it's simply Bad. But
they are unable to articulate a cogent definition of what communism is,
or to explain Why it's Bad.
Politicians understand this all too well, and are quick to exploit it.
They know that you can fool a lot of these types of simple minded
emotional thinkers by simply changing the name of a concept. So, if you
start calling "Communism" by another name with a Good emotional profile,
such as let’s say; "Economic Justice" for example, now you can get these
simple people to vote for it.
Obama is showing himself to be a master at name changing. "Spending" is
now "Investment." "Successful" is now "Selfish." "War on terror" is now
"Struggle against violent extremism." The word "Struggle" FEELS so much
better than the word "War" doesn’t it? How about this one: "Enemy
combatant" is now "Foreign Renditioned enemy Detainee." A "Detainee" is
much less threatening than a Combatant."
There is no solution to the problem as long as there are simple minded
people and politicians who want to exploit them. I don't see the balance
of rational to emotional thinkers changing anytime in the foreseeable
future.
Welcome to 1984.
roy lutz (4/16)
OpEdNews
According to Wikipedia: "Liberalism has its roots in the Age of
Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated
most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings,
hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism.
Liberals argued that economic systems based on free markets are more
efficient and generate more prosperity".
How could American conservatives argue against that?
contrapuntist (4/16)
Smirking Chimp
'Who' is on first?
I'm going to a give you a ten, Ernie, and as always, a
BIG FAT ZERO to the criminal government (and a goodly portion of the
deceived and idiot public) of the USA.
your friend,
nedlud (4/16)
Smirking Chimp
Great read EXCEPT:
And yet, the liberals and progressives, i.e., "the left," thoughtlessly
adopt the conventional language and conceptual frames, as they engage in
political and journalistic debates, failing to appreciate that by
playing according to the opponent’s rules, they needlessly put
themselves at an extreme disadvantage.
The progressives (i.e. the so-called "left") would be well advised to
put these abusive labels "left" and "liberal" aside and direct the
public's attention to particular issues.
And by putting aside labels that have been rendered abusive by the
right, the progressives are essentially admitting defeat on those fronts
and "play according to the opponent's rules".
. . . .
"The attack on the word "leftist," like the attack on the word
"liberal," has been largely successful: both words are in disrepute.
Accordingly, public opinion surveys disclose that most Americans
identify themselves as "conservative," fewer still as "moderate," with
"liberals" coming in a poor third."
Regressive-right politicians and pundits take these statistics to mean
that "the United States is a center-right nation."
And they are wrong. For when the public is polled regarding the
specifics of the liberal agenda – civil liberties, economic justice,
social security, universal health care, collective bargaining,
government regulation of business, environmental protection, etc. – a
solid majority of the American public endorses liberalism. The country
is, in fact, "leftist," despite the persistent efforts of the corporate
regressive propaganda machine.
But! But that's because that goldanged liberal media asks leading
questions in those polls to make the country look more liberal than it
really is! They ask questions in a way that no one would disagree with
them and twist the results to make the country look liberal! What are
you doing with that straitjacket? If you asked Americans about the
Democrats' specific dangerous socialist plots people would recoil in
horror! WHAT ARE YOU DOING? I'LL SHOW THEM! I'LL SHOW THEM
Morgan Wick (4/16)
Democratic Underground
I agree on both counts, overall this is an excellent read but the
language must be fought for and the curtain pulled back revealing the
Orwellian "conservative" label; for all the inconsistencies and
hypocrisies which make it up.
The author made an excellent case for Liberal, Left policies and
history, then suggested retreating from that brand. If you retreat from
Liberal, Left, or Progressive where do you retreat from and to next?
Would we retreat from Libertarian or Populist as they become demonized?
If that dynamic were to continue, I believe Moderate would be the new
Liberal and Moderate would be demonized, until Conservative became the
new Liberal and Fascist became Conservative, to some degree, that's
already happened.
The biggest challenge will be the corporate media, their interests and
agenda are decidedly corporate-centric, not people-centric.
I'm still kicking and recommending the O.P. as a good analysis except
for abandoning the language or brand.
" With our backs turned to the place in nature from which we came, we
sense an unfamiliar tide rising and swirling around our ankles, pulling
at the sand beneath our feet." From Al Gore's Earth In The Balance
Uncle Joe (4/16)
Democratic Underground
I had a Poli Sci professor .who often said that "there are no
conservatives in America--only people who are mixed up about what kind
of liberals they are."
Of course that was before Reagan and the idiots that followed him....
Hey, Dick Cheney wasn't always a conservative--he used to be a Nazi.
wizstars (4/16)
Democratic Underground
Maybe it's different in different countries, but I have never considered
'left' or 'liberal' to be insults; and many countries have Liberal
parties (which are sometimes conservative!). Wasn't it Reagan who
started these as terms of abuse in America?
'I kept the faith and I kept voting, not for the iron fist but for the
helping hand' - Billy Bragg
LeftishBrit (4/16)
Democratic Underground
Here in the U.S. the corporate media decided at some point, the easiest
way to promote their corporate supremacist agenda was to label and
promote them selves as a liberal institution. Thus the liberal media
myth was spawned, it was all really a big joke.
By camouflaging them selves as being at one end of the perceived
spectrum, they gave the Republicans and so called Conservatives an easy
punching bag. To the average American, the corporate media lost their
credibility to report on anything other than the Conservative point of
view.
This allowed the corporate media to give the lion share of air time and
opinion to promotion of Conservative ideology.
Pick your analogy, "good cop bad cop" or "Professional Wrestling", the
corporate media played their role to entertain and distract the American
People, in order to allow their primary commercial buying clients; that
being corporations and maybe a few oligarchs to disenfranchise the
American People from their government.
Uncle Joe (4/16)
Democratic Underground
Anti-leftism goes back to the anti-Communist hysteria of the early
1950s. Then the anti-war movement of the 1960s became identified as the
New Left, as opposed to the political party-based Left (Communists,
Socialists, etc.). As often happens when someone looks seriously at a
single political issue and begins to realize that there is no such thing
as an issue without a context, some of the anti-war movement began
looking at economic injustice. The late 1960s, which saw not only
anti-war protests but also an official War on Poverty, as well as the
charismatic leadership of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, were
the high point of the New Left.
The assassinations of King and Kennedy deprived the New Left of
mainstream leaders that it could look up to, and Johnson discredited
himself by staying the course in Vietnam, leading to fragmentation among
the Democrats at the 1968 party convention. Some in the New Left turned
to violence in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, and the media
conflated the violent and non-violent groups.
Meanwhile, a lot of young people, both in and out of the New Left, had
adopted hippie fashions and were open about drug usage and non-marital
sex. These behavioral issues were deeply offensive to a lot of middle
class people. I was 18 in 1968, and I couldn't believe the vehemence
with which some adults railed against "boys with long hair," "kids tom-catting
around and shacking up together," and "turning into junkies." They
really thought that the world was coming to an end.
To make matters worse, from the point of view of the white middle class,
there were African-American riots in most major cities between 1964 and
1969, and TV news reports were full of black people with natural
hairstyles and African-style clothing condemning white racism.
The evil genius of the 1968 Nixon campaign was to take Middle America's
("Middle America" is a term that his campaign popularized) fear and
disgust about social changes and extend it to the political Left.
It didn't help that the mainstream Democratic party moved away from its
workers' rights orientation (like Labour in Britain) and concentrated
more on behavioral issues. Like Nixon, Reagan spoke to middle class
opposition to the behavioral issues. His destruction of the Air Traffic
Controllers' Union should have been a wake-up call for working people,
but the media praised him for being "tough and decisive," both then and
after the invasion of Grenada. Unfortunately, Americans are suckers for
"tough and decisive" and don't particularly care what the toughness or
the decision is.
With Reagan's election and the foundation of the Democratic Leadership
Council (DLC), whose sole purpose appeared to be to aid Republicans in
their predations and to heap scorn on the "far left" (a phrase that THEY
popularized) of their own party, the mass media decided that the right
(Republicans) and center-right (DLC) were the wave of the future.
Mondale and Dukakis (1984 and 1988) were such terribly inept candidates
that both times, I and many of my friends wondered whether certain
forces within the Democratic Party didn't throw those elections
deliberately. When Bill Clinton came along in 1992, I was glad to see
the Republicans go, but that was about it. I knew that Bill Clinton was
a member of the DLC, and sure enough, he bent over backwards to appease
the Republicans.
I was disgusted in 2000 when Gore ran a "look at me, I'm for a strong
defense and pro-business too" campaign, and again in 2004, when Kerry
was less interested in fighting for his election than the typical
campaign worker was. When 2008 came along, I mostly sat back as the
fierce partisans of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fought bitterly as
if there was actually a substantive difference between the policies of
the two, while other qualified candidates received little media
coverage.
Once Obama got the nomination, I was willing to vote for him, because
the McCain/Palin ticket was the triumph of the mean and stupid, but
unlike some of the (younger?) people on DU, I had no illusions that he
was going to make more than cosmetic changes. I KNEW from his dazzling
but ultimately empty rhetoric that he was Tony Blair, not Tony Benn (the
type that we actually needed).
After over half a century of being aware of U.S. politics, I am still
interested but deeply, deeply cynical.
The U.S. has committed war crimes according to the standards established
at the Nuremberg Trials. The invasion and occupation is costing $250
million per day. Your annual income taxes pay for less than 1 second of
the Iraq War.
Lydia Leftcoast (4/16)
Democratic Underground
And yet the corporate media accused Gore of being too populist or
liberal. This along with the continuous slanders and libel against his
credibility, ie; the charge that "he claimed to have invented the
Internet", etc. etc. combined with the Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal and
impeachment; which in all truth I believe was a run around, set up by
the corporate media, is what hurt Al Gore the most in the moderate to
conservative parts of the nation where the margin of error was and is
smaller. I also believe the primary motivation for the corporate media
doing this was to keep Al Gore from coming to power because he was the
primary political champion for opening up the Internet to the people.
The CEOs and upper management saw the writing on the wall regarding the
Internet's growing effect on diminishing the traditional, top down, one
way corporate media, megaphone of propaganda power and influence.
Al Gore had to run in the corporate media bubble which played a dominant
part in controlling the American People's perception.
One coincidence about your post which does strikes me, television came
in to it's own around the time of the McCarthy Era, anyone could and to
some degree still can be demonized by it's power and influence, however
I do believe the Internet is slowly but surely changing that dynamic.
Uncle Joe (4/16)
Democratic Underground
I take it to mean we should focus more on the substance of our values,
and less on the framed labels and distorted prescripts. We have no
ability to change the linguistic terms that are assigned to these two
particular words. Left is commonly used in many languages to invoke the
opposition of good. Right automatically gets a pass for being right.
Our values are more important than what one word can suggest, especially
since these words are falsely polarized.
Words are inadvertently or purposely misused, leading us to
perceive/communicate in broken words . Thinking black or white, and
talking left vs right can give society a bad case of frenzies. It
doesn't change the values I attribute to the word left for me
personally.
Enjoyed reading your OP. I hope others take the time to read it.
Sunnyshine (4/16)
Democratic Underground
Great read.
You put down in words what has been gnawing at me. Its a totally
unfortunate coincidence (maybe even a sick cosmic joke) that the Right
also has the same name as the definition of being morally correct.
I wonder when and how the word "progressive" will be stained.
LiberalLovinLug (4/16)
Democratic Underground
People still can't see that their fantasy world of free market
capitalism and limited government has failed time and time again. It is
not an excuse to be leftist but a wake up call that society and the
government must work to help the market.
firefox28 (4/16)
Democratic Underground
March 31, 2009
About Bernard Weiner's essay,
"Angler: The Rise and (Finally!) Fall of Dick Cheney."
Go to comments about
other essays and issues.
Cheney is overdue for another hunting accident.
I'd like to see him on the receiving end this time. I know that sounds
mean, but I just have a strong dislike for draft dodging cowards of my
generation like that 5 deferment asshole.
Submariner (3/31)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Forget an accident. I want a public trial for treason. With the death
penalty possible.
The ONLY way we are going to curb these power hungry neocons is to make
a very public example of the biggest warpig there is: Cheney.
Donnachaidh (3/31)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Anywhere to the left of the 20% extreme right, it has to be common
knowledge that Cheney is a criminal. It has to be common knowledge on
the Hill that Cheney is a criminal. Obama, a Constitutional lawyer has
to know that Cheney is a criminal. John Conyers most certainly knows
that Cheney is a criminal. How high does the stinking pile of evidence
need to be? How high the pile of corpses, how deep the debt from the
missing treasury?
WTF is Cheney running around still loose for?
I just don't understand.
Is there NO justice left in the justice system?
Get caught with a roach and go up for life. Conspire to lie your country
into war for profit, off a couple million people because of it, tear up
the Constitution, commit all sorts of war crimes along the way, even
treason, and you walk around loose?
WTF is this?
I ask again, is there NO justice?
HillWilliam (3/31)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
There is no justice! Our whole "justice system" is totally focused on
maintaining the status quo.
The victims of the "justice system" are legion.
Guilty poor people overcharged and overpunished.
Manufactured fear driving a bloodlust in Americans and their politicians
to be "tough on crime".
Innocent people persecuted, prosecuted and incarcerated by a process
that is designed to advantage the state/prosecutors.
Our culture is sick and nearly beyond any hope for redemption.
Generally speaking, WE ARE DOOMED!
Get used to it, the future is now and it isn't pretty.
clitox (3/31)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
I would like to see Cheney and Rove as life-long cell mates.
Their dislike for each other is well known.
RC (3/310)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
A most excellent overview of this very important book.
Recommended, highly.
bleever (3/310)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
This is why I practically begged people to not focus on dough-nut Bush
because it allowed Cheney freedom, free reins, no blame.
"The result was that Cheney, in effect, was
running his own government within the government."
That is why I keep saying focus on the sub-government.
Iran-Contra was all about operating a sub-government. It got by Congress
then and it did again under Cheney. Democrats are fully to blame. They
must have been frightened of the military coup.
I wonder if the book goes into Cheney's own businesses: Halliburton and
nuclear selling and trading.
peacetalksforall (3/31)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Don't imagine for a moment that Cheney has no more power or influence,
just because he's not on the corporate TV news every day.
He's probably in a bunker right now, coordinating the "terror attack"
that will force endless war and the whole homeland security sham back to
the top of the agenda.
Economic recovery is the last thing the elites want, and Cheney is their
point man who gets things done.
vinylsolution (3/31)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Bush is as much to blame as Cheney, as are Bush Sr and his confederates
who initiated this eviscerating American debacle on the citizens of this
country.
I especially blame James Baker and the Felonious Five; they and the
other shysters of the Cheney/Bushista should go up in flames, but unlike
the Phoenix never be seen again.
Please, God, let there be justice! How can Obama ignore these crimes of
such infinite magnitude? If he continues to do so, then I agree with
Jonathan Turley that Obama will be complicit in those crimes. He now has
the power to be sure this never happens again by punishing the guilty.
This was not a crime of bad judgment; it is a crime of purposeful
COMMISSION.
MasonJar (3/31)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Great article.
Thanks for posting; this is something I've been waiting to read for a
long time.
Glad to see the dust settle, and have people start to write about this
man.
After having followed Cheney the past few years, here are my comments:
(1) Cheney as the Eminence Grise: "He may not have had ambition for
higher office."
This is probably not true. I believe Cheney wanted to be president, for
quite a long time. He wanted to team up with his closest Evil Ally, Don
Rumsfeld. Those two were in the government for decades. Rumsfeld was
originally Cheney's mentor, but at some point Cheney became the leader.
However much Cheney wanted to be president, his numbers
were never there; he simply never had enough public approval. He knew he
could never win. So the next step was to find a "stooge," a "Stand-In"
who was ignorant enough and yet likeable enough to win the presidency.
Cheney would then be the power behind the throne...
(2) "Cheney had a 13% approval rating."
I believe it was far, FAR lower than that. I read reports that it
hovered around 5% for a couple of years. Most damaging: the hunting
incident when he shot his friend in the face. At that point, Cheney
became a laughing stock. His power went down the toilet.
(3) Like Bush, Cheney never really had any power. He was just a
gatekeeper for corporate interests, oil companies, war profiteers, you
name it. His incredible incompetence shows that...
cliss (3/31)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
As long as he is not investigated, tried, convicted, and punished he,
someone just exactly like him will be back again. And they will be worse
because they will know how not to lose power. And our children and
grandchildren and our poor country will suffer even worse than we have
during this last eight years.
We will see what kind of people we elected in 2008 on this issue alone.
acmavm (3/31)
from DemocraticUnderground.com
Crime(s) and Punishment?
And Dick Cheney's punishment for his countless offenses against the
people and Constitution of the United States, not to mention the world,
is..........?
Yep. That's what I thought.
Never mind.
John Quincy Adams (3/31)
from SmirkingChimp.com
Mr. Obama? What say you? Ya gonna let this go? You want this stench on
you?
Ms. Pelosi? what say you? You pathetic, corrupt, coward!
There's enough in this book and, indeed, in the public domain, that an
impeachment exercise SHOULD have turned 87% of the nation vehemently
against this pure evil motherfucker and his entire cabal of usurpers.
Think dumbfuck would have enjoyed being exposed as Cheney's cuckold?
Think the fascists in the Senate could have voted to keep a true Hitler
in office and expect to get re-elected? You craven [expletive deleted]!
This stench is yours also.
Mr. Conyers? See the above, you pathetic excuse for a
[expletive deleted]!
We're seeing, in the fascist propogandists' hysterical
reaction to Obama (who isn't really that far, policywise, from where
they are), how silly they look trying to paint a very popular figure as
(insert ridiculous adjective here). How monumentally evil would they
have looked in covering the exposure of absolute, Stalin/Hitler-level
evil and attempting to paint it rosy? This stench is theirs.
And, btw, from the moment that Cheney,
unconstitutionally, picked hisself for wizard of oz, I knew. Many knew.
America? What say you? This stench belongs to all of us.
jtree (3/31)
from SmirkingChimp.com
I wish to God that people would stop talking about the "corporate
mainstream journalism." There's nothing mainstream about the corporate
media. They hold and espouse the most radical, Statist, extremist views
of the power and rights of the elite.
bilejones (3/31)
from SmirkingChimp.com
Is there a connection?
"Sometimes, he kept Bush informed, but often he
withheld key information from his boss, and moved the chess pieces
himself, sometimes with disastrous results... Bush in his
final days would not grant a full pardon to Libby for taking the
fall for him in the spy-outing case of CIA agent Valerie Plame."
Maybe the way The Dick ran roughshod over Dumya and
fucked-up so badly as to destroy Dumya's cherished legacy of bettering
his dad is the reason, or one of the reasons, why Dumya didn't pardon
Libby.
metricman (3/31)
from SmirkingChimp.com
Bush Didn't Pardon Libby because to do so, to give Libby immunity from
prosecution, would have made Libby subject to subpoena as a witness for
the prosecution of the Bushevik war-crimes gang, and would have
prevented Libby from taking the Fifth.
A pardoned Libby could have been compelled to tell all
he knew, or else go to jail for refusing to do so.
Bush's refusal to pardon Libby was a defensive move,
nothing more, nothing less.
AntiSpin (3/31)
from SmirkingChimp.com
So, Cheney's objection to the Chimp's failure to pardon Libby was all a
charade, and once again, we are played for fools and dupes.
REJames50 (3/31)
from SmirkingChimp.com
About Ernest Partridge's essay,
"With Liberty for
Some."
Hi Ernest,
I read your article “With liberty for Some”. Very good
article. I am very interested in this area of study. I disagreed with
the assertion in the beginning that Margaret Thatcher is a libertarian.
Alan Greenspan also considered himself a Libertarian as did Reagan.
These examples as you know, are as impossible as Bush claiming to be a
Christian! He may think he is, but the blood of the Iraqi people speaks
otherwise.
Many of the issues you explain with Libertarianism are valid but you
fail to mention the vast environmental improvement that would occur if
some of their ideas are implemented. Corporations and government are
responsible for a vast amount of the environmental damage that is
occurring. Some estimates are 50%. Corporations are not considered a
valid expression of the free market in libertarian thought and you are
aware of their thoughts on government intervention into the market.
The end of the Federal Reserve would vastly diminish the artificial
economic growth patterns, one of which we are recovering from at this
moment, that cause so much of the over consumption and poor distribution
of goods throughout the world. This would in turn diminish environmental
degradation.
All in all though, I really enjoyed your article. I write on a
Libertarian webpage and I actually find it to be too neo-conservative
for my liking. Do you have any ideas on similar webpages that a person
could submit articles to that might be a little more open minded? I am
also a proponent of Henry George’s land fee system.
Thanks,
Gene De Nardo