Shorter Pfaff: “Leave Barack alone! It’s not his fault!”

“He can’t help it that the doody-heads he picked as his advisors are a bunch of losers! And don’t forget those meanie Republicans!”

What a piece of condescending pap. Obama is “too decent?”  Give me a break.  William Pfaff, by inferring that Obama’s advisors are mediocre and mainstream, completely ignores who actually picked these advisors. Hint: It wasn’t the tooth fairy. Pfaff makes one concession … sort of:

. . . I would say that if his economic counselors are mediocre, then it is a judgment on the American economic profession as a whole. There are distinguished dissident economists whose advice Obama seems to have ignored, such as Joseph Stiglitz and James K. Galbraith, but the people he has used in Washington are mainstream leaders of the profession.

However, the economy aside, I would make the same criticism of the president’s foreign policy. He is doing what the mainstream analysts and the Pentagon are telling him to do about his war—the top people. Regrettably they are wrong, as will eventually be discovered.

Um, William, they’re his advisors, not his parents. He can stay out after midnight, if he wishes. He is, after all, the President of the United States.

After putting the blame everywhere but squarely on Obama’s shoulders, Pfaff throws up his hands and ends with this little nugget:

Can anything be done about this? I doubt it. The combination of prejudices concerning socialism and the supremacy of the American system that Americans seem to acquire in the womb, with Republican electoral nihilism, is probably impossible to overcome. Thank you, Barack Obama, for trying.

Wow, I must’ve missed something, because all I’ve seen Barack do is make speeches and cave to the corporate powers-that-be at every turn. I’ve seen him carry on Bush’s wars, and escalate them, defend and expand Bush’s shredding of the Constitution. He has broken campaign promise after campaign promise. That’s what Plaff calls trying?

Puh-leeze.

Detainees, Liberals, and the Powers That Be

Jonathan Turley on the  Obama administration’s newest claim that the President has the right to imprison detainees even after they have been acquitted  in a court of law. Turley calls out the Democrats.

Liberals continue to be largely silent in the face of policies that they once denounced and protested. It is rare to hear any coverage or questions of the Administration’s refusal to investigate war crimes of torture, for example. Liberals seem to be quickly developing a cult of personality that has supplanted the most basic principles of human rights and international law. As with the Republicans under Bush, the Democrats are refusing to push the Administration to investigate torture or comply with international law. Before the inauguration, various generals and senators claimed that Obama and Holder assured them privately that no one would be investigated for torture. It now appears that these stories were likely true. Democrats must choose between their principles and their politicians — and they appear to be making the same choice as their Republican counterparts.

My response on the flip side.

The Clown Rocks My World

myiq2xu at The Confluence (emphasis mine):

According to the deranged haters, we are Republican ratfuckers, ignoring the fact that we consistently take positions that are to the left of Obama.  We don’t call Obama a socialist and criticize him for being too liberal, we slam him for not being liberal enough.  Unlike Obama we strongly support a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage and universal health care.

Obama is the ratfucker.  He occasionally talks the talk of a New Deal Democrat, but he walks the walk of a Reagan Republican.  The Big Dawg moved to the right when he had to, but Obama avoids the left like it’s radioactive.  If his followers would take off their Kool-aid goggles and take a good look at him they would realize he’s not Barry the First, he’s Bush the Third.

Wow! An apology

From the comments at Glenn Greenwald’s blog at Salon:

Apologies …

… to Hillary Clinton supporters.

I voted for Obama because Clinton seemed like too much of an “in the pocket” and “old school” politician. Now, however, I’m thinking that would have been an improvement because she would have had more guts to stand up to the Republican party and, though more of a polarizing figure, she would have definitely been less of a “Bush-lite”.

– boaster

And now we’re stuck.

Word (Updated)

Greenwald:

. . . For all of you defend-Obama-at-all-cost cheerleaders who are about to descend into my comment section and other online venues to explain how Obama did the right thing because of National Security, I have this question:  if you actually want to argue that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do, then you must have been criticizing Obama when, two weeks ago, he announced that he would release them.  Otherwise, it’s pretty clear that you don’t have any actual beliefs other than:  ”I support what Obama does because it’s Obama who does it.”   So for those arguing today that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do:  were you criticizing Obama two weeks ago for announcing he would release these photographs?

Also, the OLC torture memos released several weeks ago surely increased anti-American sentiment.  Indeed, those on the Right who objected to the release of those memos cited exactly that argument.  How can anyone cheer on Obama’s decision today to conceal these photographs while also cheering on his decision to release the OLC memos?  Those who have any intellectual coherence would have to oppose both or support both.   Those two decisions only have one fact in common: Obama made them.  Thus, the only way to cheer on both decisions is to be guided by the modified Nixonian mantra: what Obama does is right because Obama does it.

I know I say this all the time, but: Must Read.

Update: Go read Greenwald’s answer to Obama’s apologists.  I am not even going to try to excerpt it. Read it all. What Obama is doing is wrong. Heinously, horribly wrong.  And so are his apologists.

“Sovereign Immunity”

Greenwald (Yes, again. He’s one of the few voices on the left actually speaking out on this):

But late Friday afternoon, the Obama DOJ filed the government’s first response to EFF’s lawsuit(.pdf), the first of its kind to seek damages against government officials under FISA, the Wiretap Act and other statutes, arising out of Bush’s NSA program.  But the Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the “state secrets” privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new “sovereign immunity” claim of breathtaking scope — never before advanced even by the Bush administration — that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is “willful disclosure” of the illegally intercepted communications.

In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad “state secrets” privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and — even if what they’re doing is blatantly illegal and they know it’s illegal — you are barred from suing them unless they “willfully disclose” to the public what they have learned.

Joe Cannon speculates as to the “why” which he asserts has much to do with the not-so-secret NSA technology of mass surveillance. Go read. It will make you feel so protected.

“What we are talking about is, I believe, an already-existent system which sucks in everything: All landline phone calls, all cell phone calls (although many argue that VOIP is still secure), all email, all driver’s license information, all transaction records, all credit histories. Everything. From everyone.

The MAEP scoops it all up. Data-mining techniques winnow it down.”

That’s the “state secret” Obama will not discuss in public. No, I’m not rationalizing his move: An explanation is not an excuse. We need to have candid public debate over the NSA’s new capabilities.

Hoo boy. 

There’s a reason I’ve placed “Obamabots” as a sub-category to Barack Obama. Not all of Obama’s supporters fall into this category (some of them are actually waking up to what we tried to tell them all along) but Joe’s capture of some of the still starry-eyed Obama supporters over at Democratic Underground reminds me of not a few of those Bush supporters who would twist themselves into all kinds of ideological pretzels to justify their guy’s actions. They know it’s wrong, but they just can bring themselves to admit the obvious. So sad.   

 

We tried to tell you, but you couldn’t hear us with your fingers in your ears

Major case of deja vu. If you were to substitute “Iraq” for “global plan for economic recovery” it feels like a redo of 2002. Are we going to have to start eating “freedom fries” again?

Why do I have a very, very sick feeling about this?

Calling Britain and America “partners of purpose,” Brown suggested the two countries would help bring world leaders together at the summit, which is taking place amid huge security following threats from anti-capitalist protesters.”We are within a few hours of agreeing a global plan for economic recovery and reform,” the prime minister said.

Brown’s remarks put the ball in the Franco-German court following comments by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, that measures currently on the G20 table were not acceptable to France and Germany.

Later today Angela Merkel, the German ­chancellor, and Sarkozy will stage their own joint press conference in ­London, demanding the G20 summit usher in a new era of global regulation of banks, ­executive bonuses, hedge funds and offshore tax havens.

In what will be seen as a challenge to Obama, they will insist nobody at the summit should discuss a fresh stimulus package, despite a report from the ­Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that “world trade is now in freefall”.

Before Brown’s meeting with Obama, Sarkozy said he would not tolerate “false compromises” at the summit.

 

 

Oh, and remember when “progressives” used to complain about power grabs by George W. Bush? Not any more. From this post by Riverdaughter in which she defends unions and decries Obama’s apparent union busting, a commenter shares this little tidbit about Steny Hoyer (yes, a Democrat):

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com on Tuesday that he does not know where President Barack Obama gained legal authority to oversee a restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler. But if authority is a question, he said, then Congress will grant it to the administration.[...]

“The administration clearly believes it does have the authority to use some of the remaining TARP funds for the automobile industry,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com Tuesday.

“I don’t know, technically. I would be kidding you to mouth some words on that, because I don’t know technically where that authority would be,” Hoyer said. “But my own view is that if it is perceived they don’t have that authority and it is perceived by the Congress they need to have that authority, the Congress would probably be willing to give that authority. But I don’t know technically the answer to that question.”

 

 

Huh.

Joe Cannon shines his light on a few who are exhibiting some signs of buyers remorse, and makes an observation on those still trying to justify Obama’s every “best evah” move:

Cognitive dissonance has caused some DUmmies to propose an explanatory conspiracy theory:

You can like Obama as a person and still realize that he doesn’t have the POWER, even if he’d like to… As much as you may love Obama, just realize that he is mostly a figure head, he can only do so much, the rest is up to us…. We also aren’t doing anyone any favors if we channel our anger and distrust at him as opposed to the assholes who are really in charge.

Ah yes. “THEY.”

We can’t blame Obama: Doing so would mean admitting that we were wrong, we were duped, we bought into the lie, we marched in a straight line because we saw everyone else marching in a straight line. Admissions of that sort would bruise the ego. Better, by far, to place the blame on — well, you know. On THEM.

Of course, this “blame-shifting” ploy is all nonsense.

Nothing stops the Obama justice department from going after the BushCo criminals. No unseen manipulators force Obama to continue the assault on our rights. The Illuminati isn’t goading Obama into a new disaster in Afghanistan. “THEY” did not force an unwilling Obama into capitulating to Wall Street interests.

The problem is not “THEM.”

The problem, all along, has been blind, ignorant, arrogant progs. They were too dumb to recognise the long con, and now they are too smug to admit that they were marks.

 

 

Must Read

Riverdaughter hands David Sirota his ass:

Obama’s response so far has been inadequate, short sighted, arrogant, ill-prepared and ineffective.  As a result, the recession will be longer, deeper and more painful for all of us.  His behavior and actions are a direct result of his 1.) lack of experience and 2.) lack of political philosophy.  It turns out that he really believed his post partisan shtick, which makes him not brilliant after all. In essence, what we have is a jumbo jet preparing to make a crash landing in the Hudson and instead of an experienced pilot at the controls, we have a guy who has never even soloed.  This is about OBAMA, David, not Hillary.  Obama has spent his whole career in campaign mode, not governing mode.  This fact should have been clear to you last year.  It was clear to us.

Now, do I blame Obama for the fact that the economy is in the mess it’s in?  No.  No one here would make that mistake.  But we do blame him for making it worse than it has to be because he is not the person we need right now.  Hillary might have been better but that’s something we’ll never know.  What we *do* know is that a year ago at this time, most of us bitter losers thought that Obama was not ready for prime time.  That is why we did not vote for him.  We didn’t say, “Oh, yeah, the economy is going to tank.  The signs are all there.  But wouldn’t it be cool to have Obama?  He totally makes us cry sometimes.“

Reverend Amy is my hero

While Amy is recovering from knee-replacement surgery, I thought I’d pimp her blog, Rabble Rouser Ruminations. Here’s her scathing answer to Obama-supporter Anne Hathaway’s  plan to protest Rick Warren’s selection for the inauguration by (1) attending the inauguration, (2) not turning her back on Warren and (3) wearing a ribbon to mark her displeasure. My, how civilized! So very symbolic, and so utterly useless.

Reverend Amy:

Freaking spare me already. I have had it. Sorry if I am being pissy, but this is just sheer stupidity. Yes, I said it. At what point are his followers EVER going to hold him accountable?? EVER??? This is like the people who thought George Bush could do no wrong no matter WHAT he did – the refusal to join the “reality-based community” is just as strong among the Obama supporters as it was for the Bush supporters. You know, the same ones we ridiculed. Enough already. Stop with the excuses. Stop the denial. And stop pretending that wearing a little ribbon will make any difference to the issue at hand – Obama’s homophobia. Here’s a newsflash: Obama is not the Saint you created him to be.

Frankly, Warren and Kaine are not all that different from Ken Blackwell, the potential RNC Chair, who said, “Homosexuality is a compulsion that can be contained, repressed or changed.” Please tell me why that is any more unacceptable than the crap Warren spews about unrepentant gays not being allowed to attend his church, and equates us to pedophiles and incest perpetrators. Or [Obama's pick for DNC Chair, Virginia Governor Tim] Kaine spewing this:

Marriage between a man and a woman is the building block of the family and a keystone of our civil society. It has been so for centuries in societies around the world. I cannot agree with a court decision suddenly declaring that marriage must now be redefined to include unions between people of the same gender.

Or this:

And finally in the area of adoption. Virginia has adoption laws right now that I agree with. The adoption laws say the only couple that is allowed to adopt is a married couple.

I’m just saying – not a whole helluva lot of difference there.

Here’s the deal: no amount of ribbons are going to change who Obama really is, Anne. He is a homophobe who surrounds himself with homophobes. And don’t tell me that this is just one issue among many. This is not an “issue” – it is my LIFE. Just as being a woman is not an issue, but my LIFE. Who Obama chooses to elevate is telling, telling indeed. That is the reality.

Just when I thought we were done talking about this

Fox News has picked up the Blogger shut-down story and it’s currently the #2 story on their web site… and I’m already beginning to feel it. I’m starting to receive email and comments from Obama supporters telling me how stupid I am for not supporting Obama. None of them have actually read my blog, but they know all about “why” I’m not supporting BO. Take Marc:

This is sad. Are you people really that upset because Obama is going to run for President and Hillary is not? Is it because you guys really wanted a woman as the next President? How about this, you have the Green Party. There is a black woman who will be running for President. Since you guys say that you want a woman and you don’t really care about the issues, then here is your chance. Sad that most of you guys will vote for McCain and he already said what he is going to do with some women programs. McCain couldn’t even vote for equal pay for women. Instead, your anger is blinding you from what is right. I am a registered Republican who will vote for Obama. I love my country and I really question if you guys love this country. I feel it is mostly because of the color of Obama’s skin. You guys have supporters like Harriet Christian who say they fought for civil rights but yet start to rant racial slurs. If you are ready to send this country down the drain, please then, vote for McCain.

Let’s take them one by one, shall we?

Is it because you guys really wanted a woman as the next President? 

Um. No. I don’t want just ANY woman to be president. I want Hillary. Not because she’s a woman, but because she is the most qualified candidate in my opinion.

Since you guys say that you want a woman and you don’t really care about the issues …

I care very much for the issues, hence I support a person who has fought for my issues for decades. Again, it’s not a WOMAN I want, it’s someone who will fight for me. Haven’t seen that from Obama.

I really question if you guys love this country.

Love it with all the fiber of my being.

I feel it is mostly because of the color of Obama’s skin.

It’s not the color of his skin. It’s the content of his character. Ask my son-in-law.

So, there you have it. According to Marc I am an unpatriotic bigot who only wants to see a woman elected.

Unity Pony for 200, Alex!