On Tuesday, Robert Gibbs made comments about the "professional left" being "crazy" for attacking Obama. Then he backpedaled away from those comments by saying, "I watch too much cable, I admit." If he was watching cable last week, this is what he might have seen:
Now, it looks like I'm attacking the president from the left since I say he should be more progressive. And I have written in the past about the value of doing just that. But the reality is that this isn't about left or right. That whole paradigm is wrong.
If I was more of a liberal, I might have been ecstatic about the 30 million new people that will have health insurance under Obama's reform. That's basically lower income people getting government subsidies.
If I was more of a liberal, I might be mad at Obama for dragging his heels on fixing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But I know he's getting to that. As annoyingly political as his split the difference stances are on this issue and gay marriage (which he is comically opposed to), I can live with slow progress as long as we're on the right road.
If I was more of a liberal, I might be mad at the amount of stimulus spending. They think it's way too low. I'm a real deficit hawk, so I'm torn on that issue.
This isn't about whether Obama is liberal enough. It's about whether he's actually going to challenge the system or just be a cog in it. The system is fundamentally corrupt. Our politicians and their staffs are bought by the highest bidder. They then use the government to funnel taxpayer money to the people who bought them. Conservatives are just as angry about that as liberals are.
So, that's why so many of us are mad that the president didn't fight for the public option. It wasn't that the public option is some sort of liberal magic cure-all. It's that it would have provided real competition to the private insurance companies. Instead Obama not only left the system exactly as it was, but instituted a mandate that would funnel even more people into the arms of those same companies.
The public option was a bellwether. It signaled which direction he was going in - and that turned out to be in a corporatist direction that leaves the system wholly unchanged.
We got more of the same when the drug companies got the same deal as they did under Bush - the government cannot negotiate prices with them and we cannot import drugs from other countries (i.e., another unnatural monopoly imposed by the government).
We got more of the same when the big banks got out of financial reform relatively unscathed. They're still too big to fail. They're still doing risky bets with taxpayer backed money. They're still in charge.
The large defense contractors are also just as large as they were before. Actually, they're bigger because Obama not only escalated the war in Afghanistan, but increased the already record breaking Bush budgets at the Pentagon. And the game remained the same.
Do you see a pattern here? Corporate and special interest money always wins out. That's what we're worried about! That is what we're challenging Obama on - because that is not the change we voted for.
I guess the president and his staff think they're clever because they played the same old Washington game a little better. I guess they think they couldn't have done any better. I guess they think that this is the best they could do given the state of Washington. But that's the whole point. We didn't elect them to accept the Washington status quo as reality. We elected them to challenge and ultimately change that reality. And it seems like, on that count, they didn't even try. That's what we're so disappointed by.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
William K. Black: Why Gay Opponents Hated and Feared the Proposition 8 Trial
The "rational basis" for prohibiting homosexual marriage that opponents claim arise from their theories cannot be demonstrated. This is why they feared a trial on Prop 8 rather than relishing the opportunity to back up those claims in court.
The Professional Left is the reason that Obama won by 22 million votes. Yes, I said 22 million.
http://richardcharnin.com/
He does have 2 more years to prove himself, and I don't think the Republicans have anyone that can beat him at this point, no matter what the polls say. I will still vote for Obama again, seeing that he is at least getting a few things done.
The Republicans want to take us backwards into the Reagan era.
At least Obama want's us to move forward and invest in the future., however slowly he and his political operators do it.
Just more vile right wing BS from a CON.
Cenk, we're political soul mates, you and I. I could have written this excellent article myself. Keep up the great work you and your staff are doing. We need someone like you with a growing public profile who can wipe away the smoke and mirrors and help Americans see things as they actually ARE, before we'll EVER be able to fix this corrupt and broken system. As long as the robber-barons and their army of lobbyists are allowed to make the rules in Washington, everyone - left and right - will continue to get the royal shaf.t.
Unfortunately, as I have been at pains to point out, it will not help them. They need neither additional left nor middle of the road voters to win in November. They need the young people and minorities who voted them in 2008 and who are not going to vote this November because they already did the cool thing they went to the polls for in 2008. No young minority presidential candidates running this time. Ergo, no fun. Politics, as opposed to policy, is grim business. Definitely no fun.
he can attack the left before the elections then they can blame and midterm losses on a rift with the "radical left"
For those poor souls, the pro left are those people who make a living criticizing and "analyzing" as talking heads on cable or on the internet as bloggers.
Examples : James Carville, Ed Schultz, Arianna Huffington, Jane Hamscher, Markos of Daily Kos, Cenk Uygur, etc.
Cenk is right on the money in this article. Obama made a choice to side with corporate interests.
That SHOULD alarm you if you give a damn about what happens to the middle class in this country.
The WH has made a political calculation, this whole thing is about lefty-bashing to win centrists. It makes me sick as someone who worked hard to get this man elected that he's so willing to bash his activist base while kowtowing to the right wing. How his Admin immediately caves to the right instead of put up a fight.
Could you imagine what would have happened to Ari Fleischer or Dana Perino if they publicly trashed their base? They'd have been fired in a millisecond.
"Do you see a pattern here? Corporate and special interest money always wins out. That's what we're worried about! That is what we're challenging Obama on - because that is not the change we voted for."
So it's still essentially about those on the left complaining about not getting what they want out of Obama such as the public option. Also that businesses still seem to control much of what goes on in Washington.
But Mr. Uygur appears to be asking for the power to shift from corporate America to the federal government, and to liberals in particular. This is just as bad as the Repubs saying "no" to spending after eight years under Bush...the political class is just as much part of the problem as the corporate class.
Right now, and what we've had for years now, is a huge inbalance, where corporations control our government to their benefit and to the detriment of the people. What we want is a balance, where there is a government who fights for the interests of the people by making sure corporations don't overstep their bounds.
"It's that it would have provided real competition to the private insurance companies. Instead Obama not only left the system exactly as it was, but instituted a mandate that would funnel even more people into the arms of those same companies."
Corporations don't give a rats ass about the people, their obligations are to their bottom line, hence, they will do whatever it takes to increase their profits, even if that means trampling on the people to get there. Hence, without a government that is protecting the people and making sure corporations don't trample all over the right sof people, we have corporatism or fascism. Is that what you want?
It isn't about "Left vs Right", it is about Corporations vs We The People.
Let's see...state governments make more and more demands on what is considered "minimum" coverage, and that just raises the cost for everyone. President Obama said more than once, "If you like your health care plan you can keep it." Yet if employers find it cheaper to drop coverage and pay the fines, what's to stop them? Clearly the President doesn't get it...or he's lying. More people dropped by employers go into the Public Option pool, which is to be funded by those companies' fines and individuals through mandated health care coverage. Yet we're "funneling" people into the very same companies you and the left are berating. Only this time the federal government is making the rules as to which companies "qualify" to offer policies under these new "equitable" guidelines. And this reduces cost how?
There are ways to reduce health care costs for most of us yet both the Dems and the Repubs cling to the notion that employers should be the de facto conduit for health care. We don't get auto, home or life insurance through an employer - why should health care coverage be any different?
"Corporations don't give a rats ass about the people, their obligations are to their bottom line..."
Up until the point where they fail. Now if government would quit bailing out these corporations they might just start treating we the people better.
Voting against incumbents is not the answer. Voting against whoever takes large amounts of money from powerful interests may be an answer that serves to discipline those in, or running for, elected office. They will counter that they have to accept money from wherever they can get it, though they often accept much more than is needed in that most races are lopsided. Large war chests insulate those people from competition and make them less responsive, except to fulfill the expectations of their shrewd and powerful donors. Follow the money is still good advice; then, vote against those who have sold themselves to the special interests. How to make it effective:
It will take leadership that is not risk averse (there are some capable of it) to secure the needed transparency and numbers among the electorate. It may require some reconciliation around those shared goals, painful as the raging right is to many of us. Both sides of the great divide are dissatisfied with the status quo and, whether they realize it or not, are uniformly in favor of political reform that reduces the number of unresponsive representatives. It is the only tunnel that has some light at the end.
Obama filling all the chairs with the same cast of characters does little to promote change.
though I supported his election, I am now listening to Huckabee. His ideas do represent real change, but wether they would be embraced or adopted is an entirely different matter. I still think we need to lynch a few crooked politicians, or at least, lock some up and take their money and pensions.
Two days later: oops, we're really sorry about that. We didn't do our homework. At least, progressives who criticize us do know something about what they are talking about. And, they are measuring our progress with respect to the measures we wish to be judged by. And, yes they even seem to be aware of the anti-democratic tendencies in the Senate that necessitate compromise.
Sorry, we can't give you your jobs back, though we might send you back out on the road to generate enthusiasm for the changes we have in store. We still intend to unilaterally disarm (single payer) before engaging in compromise negotiations with the Party of No.
Note to Gibbs. Definition: vilsack (v.) to pillory upstanding, rational individuals by coercing road-side resignations based on imaginary issues.