Chris Bowers to Matthews: Obama Said He Would Govern In Bi-Partisan Fashion
By Heather Tuesday Dec 02, 2008 5:30am
From Hardball Dec. 1, 2008 when asking if the left should feel betrayed by Obama's appointments Chris Bowers from OpenLeft responds to Matthews by saying:
I don't think he's betraying it. I think, I mean first of all he hasn't become President so it's difficult to see how he's failed to deliver on any campaign promises so far but he, he didn't say he was going to govern from the left during his campaign. He had some progressive rhetoric, but he said he was going to govern in a bi-partisan fashion. He repeatedly said that throughout 2007 and 2008, so I don't feel betrayed.
Matthews moves on and changes the subject. It's always nice to see someone knock him off of his talking points if only for a moment. Matthews is desperate for a fight where there is none yet and Chris Bowers is right, it is difficult to see how Obama has failed to deliver on any promises since he's not President yet. Can we at least wait until he's sworn in and see how he governs before having this conversation Chris Matthews? The Villagers are just champing at the bit to skewer bloggers and the progressive wing of the Democratic party at every opportunity.
Login or Register to post comments.
....simply didn't pay attention to him during the long Presidential campaign.
I think having a few people around ya that don't agree with ya on most things is healthy.
I mean...look at what happened with all the damn yes men in the bush maladministration...not pretty
And this does represent "change"....even though some progressives hate it.
Besides...having a bunch of people around that agree on everything would drive me crazy.
Gotta have a few dissenters in the mix, if only to keep things interesting.
of course !unless its on here heh!
That made me smile. Good one, dude!
thnx calgary lady ! its ironic taint it?
It sure is :)
Good point though tyree!
im here to serve !every one loves a punching bag,
What's ironic is your last comment in this particular thread, tyree. That is supremely ironic.
I guess you missed the part about Obama not being president yet.
Too funny!!
[OK OK OK Stop. I don't want John to have to ask you two to knock it off again. Thanks-Sitemonitor]
no whats so funny is you missed the part where your saviors allready slipped one in you by voteing for fisa ect, but your doing a good job sweety keep the boys happy and have some corn!love hearing you bitch about your love life perhaps you could adopt a dog from the pound !
[OK OK OK Stop. I don't want John to have to ask you two to knock it off again. Thanks-Sitemonitor]
and some commenters have the same proclivities.
Bush also claimed he'd be a uniter and work with Dems. Fact is nothing knows anything until Obama actually starts working.
The lesson I learned from the 2006 congressional Dems is in politics, nothing said counts for anything. Save your breath and comment on Obama's actions.
bushies penchant for using words that end in "er" and if they don't exist...he makes them up?
Then his cronies start using them like they're hip or somethin...or...am I just crazy?
I think it's well known that you are crazy, but in this case so am I because I have noticed the same thing and it drives me nuts.
;)
Yes...yes you are.
But at least I ain't all alone.
Thanks you guys! You're the best,lol!
Obama's already done more to unify the country than that lying mass murdering mother fucker did in our eight years of hell. Please get a better analogy.
That's almost enough to make me pity boosh
I mean...
Have you seen his mother?
Bush was/is as full of shit as the day is long!
That poor excuse for a human has , with his appointees and fellow neo-CON anti-American buddies, ruined this country for years to come.
Obama's not even officially in office, and he's already WAAAAY more presidential than bush EVER was...and don't forget, Obama's not a sociopath.
So, he's got that goin for him.
Matthews, among others, is trying to justify his existence. There is no more political campaign for them to talk about so they are throwing things, in this case shit, against the wall and trying like hell to get something to stick. Bottom line our present president is doing absolutely nothing and our future president cannot yet do something, so that leaves a pundit void.
As soon as I hear one of these talking heads begin to talk about governing left of center or right of center, I stop listening because they are just pulling ideas out of their lower orifice.
I was thinking the same thing. Chris is so spun out after two years being completely immersed 24/7 in campaign partisan politics he doesn't know how to stop.
It's like the guy at the party who is raiding the bottoms of everyones left over glasses of booze saying 'come on! Don't Leave! The party's still going!!!"
And I can't stand to watch the news anymore.
I'm takin a sabbatical from the news for as long as possible.
If you are in need of life saving surgery and only one doctor can help you, you don't ask if that doctor is a democrat or republican do you? I think that's how Obama is approaching forming his cabinet. If he finds the best man or woman for the job, he isn't going to check that person's voter registration card.
As long as ya do a good job, political affiliation should not matter.
great comparison
I like bi-parties.
But only as an onlooker, of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFJqSeprgJE
oh I dunno...Alaska...would it be a bi-polar party then?
Drumroll please!
If Santa had a factory in the South Pole, operated by penguins, he'd be bi-polar.
Once again the right is manipulating the dialogue to their own ends. They want to make it appear that there is a deep schism within the democratic party over Obama's appointments and perceived manner of governing.
*
With help of certain "progressives" who comment on this site.
After 8 years of being told to watch out what we say by the conservative thought police. It is great to witness our own so-called progressive thought police telling us to mind what we say!
Alright, we get our own Kapos. So that is the change, I believe?
Good work by Chris Bowers. We can help blunt the MSM's soap operatic propaganda campaign by using the truth to call them out. It is imperative that we not let them control the terms of the discussion by assuming a defensive posture.
Need proof? When Bowers challenged Matthews he changed the subject. These saps will get the message if we push back on them.
Sounds like Matthews swallowed the "most liberal senator!!1!" lie hook, line, and sinker.
"[T]he new administration is off to a good start."
-- Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.
"[S]uperb ... the best of the Washington insiders ... this will be a valedictocracy -- rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes."
-- David Brooks, conservative New York Times columnist
"[V]irtually perfect ... "
-- Senator Joe Lieberman, former Democrat and John McCain's top surrogate in the 2008 campaign.
"[R]eassuring."
-- Karl Rove
"I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain ... this all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign ... [Hillary] Clinton and [James] Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for 'neo-liberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neo-conservativism.'"
-- Max Boot, neoconservative activist, former McCain staffer.
"I see them as being sort of center-right of the Democratic party."
-- James Baker, former Secretary of State
"[S]urprising continuity on foreign policy between President Bush's second term and the incoming administration ... certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush ... "
-- Michael Goldfarb of the neoconservative Weekly Standard.
"I certainly applaud many of the appointments ... "
-- Senator John McCain
"So far, so good."
-- Senator Lamar Alexander, senior Republican Congressional leader.
Hillary Clinton will be "outstanding" as Secretary of State
-- Henry Kissinger
Rahm Emanuel is "a wise choice" in the role of Chief of Staff
-- Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain's best friend.
Obama's team shows "Our foreign policy is non-partisan."
-- Ed Rollins, top Republican strategist and Mike Huckabee's 2008 campaign manager
"The country will be in good hands."
-- Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush's Secretary of State
President-elect Obama is inheriting crisis after crisis, all thanks to BushCo..
Over the past 8 years, Mathhews has been a major pundit flip-flopper, almost
as if it depended up which side of the bed he had gotten out of.
When did he tackle BushCo and not retreat? Never.
Also, Fact Checking isn't a component for him or his staff.
I find him to be one of the many weak links found at MSNBC.
I am pleased to watch our new President-elect work to his strength
(intelligence) in taking on our major problems.
Will I always agree with him?
No.
Will I write to him about my concerns?
Yes.
Do I trust him to make the Best Decisions possible even
when I am uncertain?
Yes.
Why?
He will explain his reasons for his decisions.
Refreshing.
looks like the repigs are glowing too!
Fall-out Radioactivity.
i suspect foxfire!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXaS2EQrX7Q
Listen today's show later..
or the date of 12.2.08
http://www.democracynow.org/
It gives a list of people who coulda or shoulda been picked
I voted for change, not same. Obama better be watching these people close. Wheres Bob Dreyfus, Bill Richardson, or Al Gore?
Bill Richardson's the new Commerce Secretary, and Al Gore is probably best where he is as a professional nag on the environment.
And Gore lost his taste for politickin in 2000.
And he was funnier on Futurama.
Gettin a tattoo of Bender on my arm...as soon as I ain't poor no more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98VT44zaCJg
Wheres Bob Dreyfus, Bill Richardson, or Al Gore?
----------------------------------
LOL, wtf, BILL RICHARDSON IS IN OBAMA'S CABINET! are you paying attention at all or are you too busy knee jerking?
It's a fair question to ask why Obama's cabinet does not represent the direction the country wants to go.
Yes, Obama says he will determine the direction his cabinet takes, and they will basically be following his dictates, but I sincerely doubt he will be able to micromanage them. And if he does, he may end up with the popularity of a Jimmy Carter, who tried micromanaging and ended up with enemies throughout.
There is a good reason why it has come to be accepted that personnel is policy.
But it's too late now, so I'll just hope until the data come in. It's possible he can pull off a left policy, I suppose.
Another possibility has been suggested, that I don't even want to entertain, is that Obama will govern from the right, but try to market (read spin) his decisions to progressives. Ergo the only progressive picks he has are public-relations type positions. If that's the case, he will lose the support of his base. Last time I checked, progressives are not gullible market-driven sheep.
i liken the american voters to the yankee prisoners in andersonville confederate prison stockade in the civil war ,thier was a stream that ran thru the yard that the yankee prisoners drank from and they allso used for a latrine, now every day many prisoners would search thru the fecies deposited there the day before by other prisones looking for undigested corn , and they ate it, thats what our politicians have become ,the corn and the voters the eaters!
New meaning to SOS.
And boucoup hepatitis.
That's a pretty damn gross analogy...but apt, nonetheless.
well reality does suck and the truths not pretty,
But it's lunch time, lol!
Twas said: ... it is difficult to see how Obama has failed to deliver on any promises since he's not President yet.
========================================
No it isn't difficult at all. Remember he ran on a platform of CHANGE? He's executing a platform of Same Old Same Old. He's not changing much of anything. He's surrounding himself with the same crummy Democratic Leadership Creeps that are anything BUT "change".
Will he be better than Bush? Of course he will. But that's not saying much as Bush is the WORST since Buchanan, IMHO, and we only narrowly averted a civil war had gramps and tina fey been elected.
If he gives lip service to the progressive wing, he, and this nation, are cooked.
Remember he ran on a platform of CHANGE? He's executing a platform of Same Old Same Old.
===========================
*shrugs*
I'm gonna wait until he's in office before I start hand wringing and saying what's going to happen BEFORE IT DOES
Boy, are you fairminded. Lol.
Sorry to nitpick --
It's "champing" at the bit.
Matthews needs drama and controversy, even if he has to manufacture it.
Always looking on the bright side, at least Tweety still has the Clintons. I'm giving 2:1 that by Feb. 1, 2009 one of his questions will be "Is Hillary stealing Obama's spotlight?"
Any takers?
A point regarding criticism of criticism of Obama at this stage of the game. Yes, yes, yes, he hasn't even taken office yet but he HAS announced his cabinet and if there were any other DLC hacks or AIPAC hawks he could have chosen then I can't think who'd they be. *Those* choices are fair game for progressives.
If the last 8 years have taught us anything it's that past behavior is an excellent predictor of future actions. That causes me concern.
1. I am disappointed in Obama's picks because I had hoped for better. However, I can't feel betrayed because I did not expect better.
2. Obama is a centrist who promised to govern in a bipartisan and, it appears we all agree, centrist manner. But if that's true, then there should be among his proposed appointees people clearly to his right and to his left. Who are those among the proposed appointees who are clearly to the left of Obama on the issues with which they would deal? I can think of one, which strikes me as pretty slim pickings. Who are the others?
3. Can we please retire the "he's not president yet" nonsense? The complaints people have made have to do with what he has done (the proposed nominees) or said since the election that in their opinion are different from what he pledged during the campaign. The complaints may be invalid but they don't have a single blessed thing to do with whether he's been inaugurated or not. Put it this way: If Obama were say tomorrow that "US troops will stay in Iraq until final and full victory is achieved," would you argue that no one should feel betrayed because "he's not president yet?"
My feelings exactly, especially point #3.
...for saying so.
1. I am disappointed in Obama's picks because I had hoped for better. However, I can't feel betrayed because I did not expect better.
----------------------------------------
why? when you say this: 2. Obama is a centrist who promised to govern in a bipartisan and, it appears we all agree, centrist manner.
he's a centrist and I expected him to govern as a centrist. He said he would go bipartisan. He's doing what he said he was gonna do. How can you be disappointed when you know better?
I would consider Obama's approach bipartisan, if he had included progressives in his cabinet. So far all I see are either moderates and some hawks, which is a bit of a change from the previous 8 years of hawks and moderates. But that can hardly pass for bipartisan.
The lack of progressives in the cabinet is what some of us find a tad alarming. Since it basically implies that the possibility of significant progressive policies is going to be very slim.
That been said, I expected Obama to follow the MO of the Dem party which basically expects liberals to be thrown under the bus whenever compromise needs to happen. I was not expecting to be thrown under so early on.
Alas, most of us I guess are operating under the solace that we have hit rock bottom under Bush. So things can't get any worse, which is somewhat reassuring as I expect Obama's presidency to be a certain improvement after the past 8 years...
I know... when Bush got re-elected in 2004 and continued to suck for an additional four years, I just went around telling people not to be disappointed.
Clearly, Obama will be better than Bush, but I think progressives who are concerned by his decidely non-progressive cabinet are justified in their concern at this point. Doesn't mean Obama won't be a great president, but I'd sleep a lot easier if he had some other folks working with him.
How can you be disappointed when you know better?
I said that we're getting what we expected (or, more exactly, should have expected). And I said, specifically, clearly, and precisely, that I was disappointed because I had hoped for better.
What in heaven's name is so hard to understand about that?
Like everything else, wait till it happens, because it may not, and all else is hypothetical.
You know that's not how we roll around here. We can see that the glass is gonna be half empty at some point so we're going to complain early and often!
That's the way I was during the primaries and there was all this yellin' for Hillary to get out of the race, although neither she nor Obama had the delegate count at that time, so I was urging patience.
Oh, and lest I forget:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w30K1GUpYwI
Sorry, but we waited to see what would happen while Bush blustered about WMDs in Iraq. We waited to see what would happen with his Supreme Court nominees. We waited to see what would happen to those who out CIA agents.
Waiting has gotten us zero. Bupkis. Nada. Wrong is wrong. You don't have to "wait" to know that. You DO have to try to do something about it.
Actually, there wasn't waiting. There was David Kay inspecting and finding nothing, Joe Wilson investigating, the AUMF was designed to slow boosh down and require him to present his case and evidence which he never did, but the republican controlled Congress didn't call him on that. Some Democrats tried by were marginalized, leading to hearings in the basement.
Like everything else, wait till it happens
No. Wrong.
We know Obama is getting pressure from his right. We know that the pundits are telling him this is a "center-right" nation and he'd damned well better run a center-right administration if he knows what's good for him.
So the time for him to feel pressure from his left, to strive to make clear what we want an Obama administration to do, is now, before it, whatever "it" is, happens. If "it" is something we would oppose, the best way to prevent it is to head it off, not to have to strive to undo a decision already made. We should not, must not, willingly put ourselves in that position - but too many are doing just that, and that is a big mistake.
"We know that the pundits are telling him this is a "center right" nation." So Obama doesn't think for himself anymore? Just make up a story and stick to it. Hilarious.
Dude, "the onion" is fake, Ok?
Although I certainly appreciate Obama getting all mavericky on the pundits and showing them by selecting a bunch of progressives to his cabinet... oh, wait.
...11-4-08. Hannity would be so proud...he's mad too.
....this shit for Sarah in 2012. Most of your points now are quite moot with the election being over and all...Lol.
So let me get this straight, so... you are accusing me of being a conservative because I don't like the lack of progressive members in Obama's cabinet?
Are some of you coming off this unhinged?
One thing is clear, it is amazing the tangential depths you are willing to go. Bringing Hannity and Sarah Palin
to this fray, LOL.
Who is "we" who knows that the pundits are telling Obama this is a "center right" nation? "We" is anyone who has been paying attention, including the blogs (such as this one, Hullabaloo, Atrios, TPM, and the Daily Howler, to name five off the top of my head) and their readers/commenters that have spent considerable time on just that point. You need to get out more.
So Obama doesn't think for himself anymore?
Are you suggesting that he has made his mind up about everything and that he is so rigid in his thinking he can't be moved? That he can't be affected by political or intellectual pressure? That he can't be swayed by what appears to be "the public mood?" And that everything he has decided and from which he can't be moved is good? What kind of ideologically-hidebound golden idol are you creating?
The difference between us is that you seem to think that now the election's over, the work is done. I think it's just starting a different phase.
....what I am saying is that you had your chance 11-4-08 and popular opinion said NO to you.
Seriously, come back in four years, maybe then enough people will give a shit :)
...it's Luke 9:5.
I never said the work is done
When you respond to concerns that Obama's cabinet and adviser selections are not as progressive as we might have hoped by saying to Tyler Durden "Most of your points now are quite moot with the election being over and all...Lol," that is exactly what you are saying. You're saying the incoming Obama administration has shown it will be as liberal as necessary and there is no need for any concern whatsoever.
What is utterly, utterly bizarre about your increasingly incoherent comments, with their references to "the party that came up short" and Sarah Palin and now "you had your chance 11-4-08," is that you appear to be of the mind that any criticism of Barack Obama, even if it comes from his left, must be coming from GOPpers. I'm incapable of plumbing the depths of that degree of nonsense.
As for the Supreme Court we have no justice Harriet Miers, and short of filibustering there's not much that can be done about Supreme Court selections, but voting up or down, and the republicans had the numbers.
And your premise has a flawed analogy: are you suggesting there's no difference between Obama and boosh?
No one here is equating Boosh and Obama.
Nice try though...
"Tue, 12/02/2008 - 10:36 — Different Anonymous
Sorry, but we waited to see what would happen while BUSH blustered about WMDs in Iraq. We waited to see what would happen with HIS Supreme Court nominees. We waited to see what would happen to those who out CIA agents."
that explains sooooo many things now.
Logically it's either a false analogy, or off topic, since boosh is not the topic of the thread.
Can you present any logical argument that such comments apply?
that you stretched the OP's comment in order to claim he was equating Boosh and Obama.
And that seems a tad intellectually disingenuous IMHO.
Then why did he choose to write an entire paragraph on boosh on an Obama thread? That's forming an equivalency argument, even if you could argue that it was an unspoken implication. All I did was cap two words that showed what his subjects were in those lines.
He should be around, it is dangerous to make extrapolation about what some people did or did not mean and use that as basis for your argument.
That's the express purpose of this entire site. Odds are his arguments weren't logically structured, few of us do that.
Both of you seem to be accepting the republican version of events,on what it means to be liberal (no centrists need to apply), and that all these appointments are satisfactory to the conservatives, and controversial with the liberals.
Additionally you seem to place ideology and loyalty above ability, since there's no question the new cabinet is able. And of course we've seen what loyalty over ability can do to destroy departments.
Ideology and competence are two different concepts and not mutually exclusive. Again, you try to make a false analogy to make your argument work.
I am sure there are competent conservatives, as I am certain there are plenty of competent liberals. As a progressive I would entrust competent liberals to make progressive policies work. Is that clear enough?
But the Obama option is to be bipartisan and neither strictly liberal nor conservative, but hopefully pragmatic. He seems to want to encourage an exchange of ideas in that manner. But since most of his Cabinet are Democrats, except for Robert Gates, we're not presented with a conservative/liberal schema, but rather people who know their jobs, have strong opinions, and a pragmatic inclination.
neither strictly liberal nor conservative, but hopefully pragmatic
The word "pragmatic" means "practical as opposed to idealistic." Okay, fine. But practical to what end? Pragmatism is a way of thinking; it is, if you will, a style of approaching problems. It involves no particular goal or outcome, has no preference for left or right or center.
What does having "a pragmatic inclination" tell us about, say, single-payer national health insurance? I can certainly make what I would consider a pragmatic case for it - but can't you see some right-winger making what they consider an entirely pragmatic case that an "unfettered free market" is the best option?
Being pragmatic says something about a desire for basic competence. But it tells us nothing at all about the goals that competence will be intended to serve. And that's what I want to know about any administration.
My point was not about Bush, it was about waiting for Congress to do something about Bush. We waited and they did nothing.
You've advocated "waiting" and my comment was that waiting only enabled more pillage time for the neocons. If history is any judge, "waiting" has not forwarded progressive causes. I would prefer not to wait to get out of Iraq, that's why a cabinet full of folks who have seen little problem with our stay there makes me nervous.
It's better they know progressives expect the same level of appeasement as the neocons. So far we've seen far less (as usual).
I suspect that's why Robert Gates has been appointed to work another year under Obama, not full-term. So once withdrawals from Iraq start they'll be more efficient than waiting for a new guy to get up to speed while we wait.
And I'm not advocating waiting indefinitely, just until Obama gets into office, and has been there a reasonable length of time. I'd give about six months.
I for one never bought the change mantra. The tripartite system of governance, with checks and balances, precludes that. It's also a traditional way of running for office as experienced (and can be accused of being an insider), while another runs as an outsider or agent of change.
some of us who have expressed dissenting opinions regarding the cabinet choices by Obama. We haven't questioned their abilities or competence. Which we all agree we can't evaluate, since Obama's team has yet to perform a single day of presidentin'. The questioning was regarding their political leanings. Which is something current, as it pertains to the appointing of the cabinet going on right now. And which is fully open to debate.
What I think you are trying to do, is to deflect the discussion of the political leaning of the cabinet so far. Which I assume it must be a tall order trying to justify a moderate to hawkish cabinet selection to a site that caters to liberals and progressives (as well as moderates/centrists). And thus, you make this into a quantitative evaluation of Obama's competence... which is not what we are (at least some of us) discussing.
Whatever you're trying to do I wont speculate, but it sounds very similar to the conservative MSM argument that these choices are controversial in Democratic ranks.
Otherwise, they'll have to go back to Brittany and Paris stories.
Um, these choices ARE controversial in the Democratic ranks.
Gates has a long and ugly history and association with ringmaster Poppy Bush. That old vampire now has a direct path into the Obama presidency. I don't like that one bit.
Gate's has only been appointed for a year, not four. And even those appointed for four are subject to dismissal.
yet another tangent.
What do term limits and termination possibilities have to do with people reflecting on the ideological leanings of Obama's selections.
can you write any opinion without having to use false analogies or attributions?
Is that it? is that all you have to bring to this discussion when proven you are full of shit... a veiled speculation about right wing MOing?
Pathetic...
I don't use such expressions as pathetic, which sounds like desperation on your part.
"What I think you are trying to do, is to deflect the discussion of the political leaning of the cabinet so far," was specualtive on your part, and the true example of the over-used accusation of argumentum ad reductio.
And as for "Ideology and competence are two different concepts and not mutually exclusive," congratulations on getting the inference of my implication. Except for Gates these are DEMOCRATS we're talking about. Just apparently those you're not enthusiastic for.
Earlier one commenter was complaining the Bill Richardson wasn't on the cabinet, when he is as Commerce Secretary.
I'm gone for the next few hours.
Again, I am a progressive liberal, and as such, I am not too thrilled with Obama's selections of mostly moderates and hawks to his cabinet.
I am not talking about their competence, I am not talking about their party affiliation, and sure as f*ck I don't need to wait time until any of the thought police deems is OK to express my own opinions regarding Obama's selections.
Now, please amuse me with yet another mental contortion in order to find a creative tangential line of discussion. Don't forget to sprinkle with plenty of pedantic babbling for good reassure.
You exhibit the same dogmatic behavior that you accuse us of having. Maybe you'll be proven wrong....impossible huh?
What the @#$@ does that have to do with me not liking the ideological leanings of Obama's cabinet choices?
For tastes there are colours, is that so hard to comprehend?
Get it: I am coming qualitative not a quantitative approach.
Obama may be a successful president. I don't know, no one can know since he has yet to preside. What I am/was saying is that I don't care much for the leanings of his selections. Period.
What, now that "our guy" won I have to relinquish all my principles and ideology?
now that "our guy" won I have to relinquish all my principles and ideology?
Yes. Haven't you figured that out yet?
I'm finding it bitterly amusing that based on available evidence, Barack Obama is prepared to accept more dissent within his own Cabinet than some people here are prepared to accept about him.
Okay Chris Matthews. I know you like your politikin' so much, but please, there is no news about this whole liberals/ progressives don't like some of Obama's nominations. Read all these posts and see the harmony.
Quick question...when was it deemed wrong for a person to have a differing opinion? I'm confused about this. I see good points on both sides of the nomination debate. Sure I may dislike the lack of progressive nominations, but unless I start predicting the future (FYI world ends in 2012), I don't know how these nominations will play out.
I'm just waiting for someone to bring out PUMAs. C'mon Hannity, I know you have it in you.
and there I was, silly me, thinking that debate and dissent are fundamental components for a healthy democracy.
Are now called trolls, Repub plants, and other famous names too numreous to mention, while the goose-stepping Dempublican scream "shut up" and curse ya out.
Tue, 12/02/2008 - 12:44 — Tyler Durden
"Is that it? is that all you have to bring to this discussion when proven you are full of shit... a veiled speculation about right wing MOing?
Pathetic..."
_______________________________________________________________
By this remark, among others, it's clear that it's the self-titled "progressives" against Obama having the power to select his own cabinet, that they are the ones trying to stifle debate and dissent from any views other than their own.
And as for my earlier comment about the MSM trying to frame this as an internal controversy, I should add that if C&L commenters (not the site,) are any indication, it's controversial here, and by extension perhaps other liberal blogs, but the rank-and-file Democrats and Independent voters it's no issue. Their issue is results in fixing the boosh mess.
I'm gone for the night.
<
{ Alright, this is over. This applies to both of you. SiteMonitor}
{Perhaps you missed my warning. Please Knock It OFF. SiteMonitor}
Login or Register to post comments.