Who Needs the Right When the Left Has Itself?
I'm a fan of Bill Scher, the popular creator of the Liberal Oasis blog, but I don't agree with him and others who have argued that the Left has been doing itself any favors since the presidential election. And if this discord were only over Mr. Obama's economic plan, I would hold my tongue. But it is not.
There's a conceit on the Left that all the public disagreements and squabbles are helpful - that this is the burden of a big tent party.
And what's made the territory even muddier is the fact that journalism, opinion and advocacy have crossed lines in our new media.
I suppose too that the cocktail of what passes for news - the Ann Coulters, the Rick Warrens, the Rod Blagojeviches, the Caroline Kennedys, the Palins - make life interesting, but the net result is a narrative of special interest squabbles. The 'air in the room' has been taken up by these stories and scarce else can be covered.
And I say this knowing that reality is harsh and we all need relief from it, anything to amuse us. (To this point, there's probably a reason Apple's top selling application over the holidays was its "fart" app. )
In my own corner, these angle squabbles came up strongly post election from blacks. I'm all for people of color getting ahead, but I had/have a problem with African-Americans pressuring the first black president to populate his cabinet with minorities. I kept thinking - what's more important - the best candidate or the appearance thereof? Time and again, we've learned that cronyism is the path to failure - Mr. Bush aside - one need only look at the failed state of our nation's cities, run by scores of black mayors to see that. (e.g. As I write this Baltimore's impoverished city is grappling with its mayor's obscene waste of public monies.)
And this is the nub of it for me with the Lefties: they do not truly understand who they are, nor what they are motivated by. They are confederates and not a unified body. The slightest bump in the road leads to anarchy or dissent: think of the absurd statement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently that he "does not work for Obama." Understanding that the legislative branch is a check on the executive is one thing. But what might Reid think he gains by saying this? Was his grandstanding necessary? What is the endgame? By flexing his muscles, Reid only diminishes himself, his party and emboldens the Right by showing a workable wedge between himself and the incoming president.
In just days Mr. Obama will take the oath of office with urgent, complicated problems to solve. But in the weeks leading up to this date, the public's been heartened not by the facts, figures and information that will equip people to understand their predicament, but rather, by a slew of tabloid-y stories. So Obama will have a double load to carry: to pry the public's gaze away from the car crashes all around them and show the highway ahead.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The points you are making is absolutely right and my contention now is that all dissenting opinions are 100% speculation anyway.
If and when Obama does not deliver on his promises is the time to complain but right now the great herd of cats A.K.A. the Democratic Congress needs to facilitate Obama's presidency as partners not erect a new Berlin Wall. Democrats including Obama already know and believe in the separation of powers so Reid is just being redundant and patronizing for restating that he doe not work for Obama. Obama has already shown he is a huge change from Bush and will listen to opinions outside his bubble and will modify his plans based on input from Congress. For the Dems in Congress not to recognize the difference is just as bad as not being the proper foil to Bush during his presidency.
Also those on the left need to put things into perspective that not all things are equal. To have several thousand posts on a blog about a Surgeon General and less than 100 posts on a blog about Obama's legal team that is about to restore the rule of law is a perfect example of the lefts lack of having proper prospective.
Perhaps he solicits opinions and appears to listen to those offering them simply because he is in over his head . He's a front man. Nothing more. And "restore the rule of law"? Please...
Never underestimate the Left's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Besides...
We're so morally bankrupt as a nation (world !) that "peace" is controversial.
It shouldn't even be up for debate.
The Democratic Party is better for its dissent, not worse. The hive-minded single voice party is a dangerous and stupid way to go. I have disagreed with Obama on quite a few things, but I trust he will make the choice he thinks is best. And I know he'll take the country down the better path. Better than it's been for a long time. When he does things like the insult of Warren a few weeks after the passage of prop 8, I will not be quiet, i'll squeal my little piggy head off. And guess what, he responded. No, sorry, I will not become Republican lite. I will stay a Democrat.
How dare the public criticize his appointments, economic plan, or war policy?
We should just trust the president to do whatever he wants to do and only voice our opinions after he has done it.
Indeed, why would anyone question anything?
Yes on second thought we shouldn't voice our opinions after he has done things either
After all the next congressional election is in 2 years, presidential in 4
Remember the goal is to keep the democratic party in power not to have good policy
Anybody who would criticise 'the lefties' ,and then use as an example of lefty obstructionism that milquetoast -in-a-sea-of-pablum guy Harry Reid is a person that cannot be relied upon to identify 'lefties', much less dispense advice to the Left.
If we don't have a government that can say f off to the defense contractors, who profit most when there is war and conflict, with their no bid contracts.
We do not have representation.
" I suppose too that the cocktail of what passes for news - the Ann Coulters, the Rick Warrens, the Rod Blagojeviches, the Caroline Kennedys, the Palins - make life interesting, but the net result is a narrative of special interest squabbles.
Am I the only person that thinks there is one person on this list who does not belong?
The fine art of slander has many forms. Guilt by association, only works when applicable.
When it fails, it exposes the writer.
So rather than focus on this list of tabloid stories, supposedly the only ones causing PE Obama any grief from "lefties", maybe the writer could cover the hard news that has "lefties" divided and upset.
Gaza, Iran, torture prosecution, and bailouts that reward big business while the people get nothing.
These are quite un-tabloid-y topics that will require more debate and open discussion.
If anyone thinks that an agenda of more war, lower taxes and more corporate welfare is going to sail through calm waters just because it is now being overseen by Democrats, they are out of touch.
These issues go to the core values of our nation.
PS. Harry Reid is not a leftie.
We are all individuals. Anyone who simply hitches a ride on right or left wagons and expects them to take care of what that individual cares about is a fool.
It's no worse than hitching a ride on the wagon of the Centre. That wagon doesn't even go anywhere!
The Dems suffer from that old adage "Crabs in the Barrel." If one tries to get to the top, the others will reach out and pull him back down.
Remember Will Rogers' line about not belonging to an organized party but being a Democrat, and that's a Democratic party far different than the current one.
Yes, a certain strength comes from being open to air grievences, but I think Dems also have a certain tendency more to call any compromise a sell-out. The GOP has their die-hards too, but I just see more Dems with the attitude that they won't play if they can't have the ball in party fights. I too would like to see a far more progressive party, but in a nation of 300 million we have to keep looking at whether this one demand or decision in front of us is really a line that cannot be crossed or a portion of a big picture we need to move on to.
Anarchy and dissent:
If the Dems in Congress want to end it, get out of Iraq.
1) End of wars for profiteering
2) National Health Care
3) Maintaining healthy environmental standards, key to the well-being of this nation and the people in it.
At least those three things appeal to liberal and even the so-called Centrists.
Where are we with any of those things? Note: Obama's plan is not single-payer Nat'l Heath Care. It's a subsidy to make health care more affordable when you use the same old tired HMOs, etc. Which is a help, but if not regulated properly (this remains to be seen) could end up just subsidizing private health care companies more than helping the people.
Yea, for a second there, I almost forgot Poland.... : ) I loved when he said, "we are the change we've been waiting for." He has said that if you have a better idea, he's willing to listen. Trot it out, let's give it once over. Dissent just to dissent looks ugly.
Obama has said over and over that he wants us to tell him what we think. Communication is what solves problems, not silence. Our voices will help him "show the highway ahead."
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
