Cenk Uygur a sell-out? 4 million little reasons

[pnwmom]

Last edited Thu Oct 9, 2014, 02:13 AM - Edit history (4)

Few would dispute that Obama hasn’t accomplished much of what his supporters wished. But recently, Cenk Uygur claimed that Obama didn’t even have any goals – that he was just aimlessly coasting through his second term. But Cenk knows as well as anyone else that Obama had very ambitious and clearly stated goals for his second term. For Cenk to say otherwise makes no sense . . . unless he has 4 million little reasons.

Oh, wait – he does. $4 million in “seed money” last April from a right-wing group led by Buddy Roehmer (a former GOP candidate for President) Plus an "option" for another $4 million, depending on . . . nobody knows, exactly.

Check out the evolution of Cenk’s views, below, followed by two other points of view: the WA Post on Obama's "incredibly ambitious second term agenda," and then liberal economist Paul Krugman's take on Obama's accomplishments, recently published in Rolling Stone.

4/16/14

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/04/cenk-uygur-just-took-4-million-from-a-conservative-source-but-hes-still-a-better-liberal-than-you/

Just a little while ago the Young Turks Network announced that it’s inked a deal to get $4-million in seed money from a group run by Buddy Roemer. . . . In addition to his retrograde views on abortion and gay marriage, he also supported Arizona’s draconian crackdown on undocumented immigrants, is pro-torture, and is for the repeal of the ACA, saying that it amounts to government interference in healthcare. In other words, the guy is the furthest thing from a liberal.

But as we know, a large-scale political bent isn’t as important or desirable as it used to be. These days it’s entirely possible to get away with treating politics like you do everything else: as something that can be split apart and consumed à la carte and on-demand. Pick which issue is most important to you, your personal sine qua non, and ignore everything else. Think drones and kill lists are the most pressing problem facing America right now? Congratulations, you can apparently #StandWithRand and still be taken seriously as a liberal, even though he’s kind of a racist asshole. Think NSA spying matters more than anything else in the whole world? Hey, Glenn Greenwald has figured out a way to overcome the cognitive dissonance that should plague you if you choose to align yourself with otherwise repugnant creatures who happen to be anti-surveillance.

SNIP

Buddy Roemer is by no means a bad person, but he holds an entire slew of beliefs that should be deal-breakers in the eyes of someone who proclaims himself to be a liberal. Or, in Uygur’s case, someone who proclaims himself to be a better liberal than you. Uygur spends so much time arrogantly haranguing people who dare to disagree with him from the left that his willingness to be Buddy Roemer’s bitch carries with it a tasty amount of schadenfreude. Granted, 4-mil is 4-mil, but it’s going to be interesting the next time he tries to hold somebody to the progressive standard he piously claims to represent.

9/15/14

http://www.mediaite.com/online/cenk-uygur-would-lay-money-on-rand-paul-being-the-next-president/

If I was a betting man, and I am… right now I’d lay money on Rand Paul being the next president of the United States.”


10/6/2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/what-has-obama-done-for-y_b_5939762.html

Can anyone tell me what President Obama's second-term goals are? What has he accomplished? What would he like to accomplish? . . . I've never seen a guy want to coast this much as president. Even Bush who couldn't wait to get out of office and be an ex-president was at least still trying really bad ideas to the end. What in the world is President Obama's agenda?!

______________________________________________________________________


Obama laid out his goals. Cenk just thinks we weren’t listening.
Or he's saying what Buddy Roemer wants him to say.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/12/obamas-incredibly-ambitious-second-term-agenda/

“Obama’s incredibly ambitious second term agenda”

Imagine, for a moment, that President Obama managed to pass every policy he proposed Tuesday night. Within a couple of years, every 4-year-old would have access to preschool. The federal minimum wage would be at $9 -- higher than it's been, after adjusting for inflation, since 1981. There'd be a cap-and-trade program limiting our carbon emissions and a vast infrastructure investment to upgrade our roads and bridges. Taxes would be higher, guns would be harder to come by, and undocumented immigrants would have a path to citizenship. America would be a markedly different country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/07/10/how-obama-has-used-executive-powers-compared-to-his-predecessors/

Obama has also signed far reaching orders on climate change in November 2013 – forcing power plants to cut their emissions by 30 percent by 2030 – which will be much discussed in this year’s elections. The president has instigated 23 separate executive orders on gun control, which have made information about mental illnesses available in background checks and expanded research into causes of gun violence. Obama has promised two new executive actions on gun control but again, there’s no sign of them.

Through his executive powers, Obama has slowly extended the rights for same-sex couples and raised the minimum wage for federal workers to $10.10. But for all the accusations of abuse of power, his actual uses of his executive authority so far aren’t that far-reaching: Not so much the smack of firm government, more nudging in a certain direction. George W. Bush for example managed to gut the Presidential Records Act (greatly reducing access to presidential records), limit federal funding for stem cell research and sidestep the Geneva Convention on interrogation techniques -- all through executive orders, even when he had Congress on his side. Interestingly, all of these orders were later rescinded by Obama.

SNIP

Of course, how far-reaching these orders are is subjective and many of Obama’s opponents would argue that combined with his efforts so far, his latest actions on gun control and immigration will go far beyond what his predecessors have done. But he’s certainly not alone among presidents who have used executive powers to get big things done.

_____________________________

Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman on Obama's accomplishments -- the ones Cenk says don't exist (after inking a $4 million contract).

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008

Obama faces trash talk left, right and center – literally – and doesn't deserve it. Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it's working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it's much more effective than you'd think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy.

I'll go through those achievements shortly. First, however, let's take a moment to talk about the current wave of Obama-bashing. All Obama-bashing can be divided into three types. One, a constant of his time in office, is the onslaught from the right, which has never stopped portraying him as an Islamic atheist Marxist Kenyan. Nothing has changed on that front, and nothing will.

There's a different story on the left, where you now find a significant number of critics decrying Obama as, to quote Cornel West, someone who ''posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit.'' They're outraged that Wall Street hasn't been punished, that income inequality remains so high, that ''neoliberal'' economic policies are still in place. All of this seems to rest on the belief that if only Obama had put his eloquence behind a radical economic agenda, he could somehow have gotten that agenda past all the political barriers that have con- strained even his much more modest efforts. It's hard to take such claims seriously.

Finally, there's the constant belittling of Obama from mainstream pundits and talking heads. Turn on cable news (although I wouldn't advise it) and you'll hear endless talk about a rudderless, stalled administration, maybe even about a failed presidency. Such talk is often buttressed by polls showing that Obama does, indeed, have an approval rating that is very low by historical standards.

But this bashing is misguided even in its own terms – and in any case, it's focused on the wrong thing.


SNIP

[SidDithers]

1. DU rec...

good post.

Sid

[Electric Monk]

154. A Little Correction On Cenk's 4 Million Dollars From Roemer...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5640352

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-young-turks-network-raises-4-million-from-former-republican-presidential-candidate/

[pnwmom]

159. Thanks. I didn't realize it had an option that could push it to $8 million.

But, of course, Roemer has no "editorial say." Wink wink.

"The seed money, which includes an option to go up to $8 million, came from the politician’s private equity fund Roemer, Robinson, Melville & Co., LLC."

[randome]

2. Why should we act surprised when 'one of our own' goes over to the Dark Side?

It happens. Good post, pnwmom.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[pnwmom]

3. You're right, this was predictable. But people should now take anything he says

related to Obama with a grain of salt.

Or 4 million grains of salt.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. LOL ... Nice! eom.

[Dawgs]

21. Who went to the "Dark Side", Cenk?

That's fucking hilarious.

Have you actually watched anything he's done in the past 6 months. The guy is great for our side.

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. if by your side you mean Republicans like Buddy

Roehmer...

[Dawgs]

90. I'll take that as a no. n/t

[zeemike]

39. This is a hit piece on Cenk.

He is probably being somewhat effective and so they bring out the knives...cut him, make him bleed.
And it is done over and over to anyone who embarrasses the status quo.

[pnwmom]

72. Yesterday someone posted Cenk's "hit piece" on Obama, falsely claiming

that Obama had no goals for his second term. Did you have a problem with that?

[sheshe2]

152. My guess would be no since....

You got crickets, pnwmom.

[zeemike]

158. Only until I checked back in.

I usually answer any questions when I can.

[zeemike]

157. Cenk is not a politician and is not in charge of our lives and our country.

And that is not a false claim it is his opnion...just as valid as any opinion the Obama is a wonderful liberal...but with more evidence for it.
Cenk is the messenger not the policy maker.

[marym625]

155. And the $4 million doesn't get a say

See WillyT's post http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025640352

[kelliekat44]

170. Don't you mean "the green side?" nt

[Dustlawyer]

4. You need to get out more. Buddy Roemer ran for President last time as a one issue candidate.

He ran on getting the money out of politics. Do you honestly believe Cenk would support any other of Buddy's policies? Cenk started Wolf-Pac.com to get the money out of politics. Your post is disingenuous for not bringing this up, but that would not go well with your attack, would it?
Obama has done a lot of good for us against terrible opposition, but that does not change the fact that he still did Wall Street's bidding.
The biggest problem we face politically is the legalized bribery of our politicians allowing them to control our government. By fighting this problem, which is not a partisan issue, Buddy Roemer and Cenk have this in common. By blindly supporting Democrats without looking to see who bought them, you add to the problem. We should have as our single focus to get Publicly Funded Elections and outlaw all campaign contributions!

[pnwmom]

5. I know how he ran. But he has many other positions that are completely opposed to progressive goals.

And since taking that money, Cenk is suddenly seeing Rand Paul as a winner and spouting off about Obama not having any goals. Just a coincidence? Four million dollars say no.

This was addressed in the first link:

But as we know, a large-scale political bent isn’t as important or desirable as it used to be. These days it’s entirely possible to get away with treating politics like you do everything else: as something that can be split apart and consumed à la carte and on-demand. Pick which issue is most important to you, your personal sine qua non, and ignore everything else. Think drones and kill lists are the most pressing problem facing America right now? Congratulations, you can apparently #StandWithRand and still be taken seriously as a liberal, even though he’s kind of a racist asshole. Think NSA spying matters more than anything else in the whole world? Hey, Glenn Greenwald has figured out a way to overcome the cognitive dissonance that should plague you if you choose to align yourself with otherwise repugnant creatures who happen to be anti-surveillance.

Cenk Uygur has shown over the past couple of years that he falls very nicely into this very exclusive category — a kind of category of one, where your individual or at the very least niche concerns are above all else and allegiances with just about anyone are possible. Uygur’s pet issue is campaign finance reform; he believes that money should be removed from politics as much as possible, and as it turns out that’s the one thing he and Buddy Roemer seem to agree on. Roemer, to his credit, slammed PACs and lobbyists when he ran for president in 2012, but the question remains whether that one good point about him makes up for all the other really lousy ones. Uygur sure seems to think so. No doubt a truckload of money helped ease any reservations he might have had about an alliance with Roemer.

Read more at http://thedailybanter.com/2014/04/cenk-uygur-just-took-4-million-from-a-conservative-source-but-hes-still-a-better-liberal-than-you/#wexT78b5LKSYH14Z.99

[frazzled]

6. "à la carte" politics

Boy, that phrase hit the nail on the head for me. It drives me crazy sometimes--well, almost all of the time--here and in the general blogosphere, where posters and pundits fail to embrace a coherent political philosophy, picking and choosing a single topic and then deciding that this topic alone makes them "progressive" (and no one else can claim that mantle). As if "putting all the banksters in jail" expresses the full spectrum of liberal thought. As if that will solve racism, sexism, foreign geopolitical conflicts, gun violence, or even the vast majority of economic issues we face.

Makes me want to pull my hair out. Call it selective hearing or selective politics. It's the attention deficit disorder of our day.

PS: That $4 million dollars can corrupt a media personality is hardly surprising. Especially when it's not a particularly intelligent one.

[RussBLib]

7. This OP smells like a hit-piece on Cenk

Politics can indeed make strange bedfellows, and I do not believe that Cenk is going to chuck his progressive stances for the sake of some seed money. The thing that ties Roemer and Cenk together is indeed a desire to get big money out of politics. To suggest that Cenk will now forsake his past for seed money is too simplistic. Not everyone who accepts donations is going to instantly adopt all the positions of the donor.

Smells like just another hit piece on progressives to me.

[randome]

9. I suppose you think Citizens United is a good thing, then.

Whether or not Cenk is allowing his opinions to be influenced by money from unlikely sources, it should be a part of the conversation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[merrily]

33. Roehmer sure didn't think Citizens United was a good thing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. No, it shouldn't ...

Whether or not Cenk is allowing his opinions to be influenced by money from unlikely sources, it should be a part of the conversation.

"Because I like, and agree with, him on this (or that) point."

[cascadiance]

124. A conversation maybe, but NOT propaganda, which is what that was.

The OP only tries to tie Cenk to being funded by a Republican, and NOT the substance of what both of them share views on, which is fixing the problems with campaign financing, which many here who call themselves "Democrats" have very UN-Democratic views on in allowing the rich to buy off both of our parties and buy favors from them.

You can start a conversation and ASK why did Cenk and Roemer have this relationship, and bring up how Roemer was only taking $100 contributions or less in his Republican run for the president, and how he was shut out of all of the primary debates there too. I wouldn't object to that. But trying to hide the details and just trying to make Cenk look like a bad guy because he's too close to Republicans is something most here will object too. Those that aren't bought off by the corporate elites that is.

[m-lekktor]

15. it is. at least they have moved on from Greenwald for a minute.

they scour the internet looking for something sinister to cobble together for a hit piece as punishment for criticizing Obama.

[WillyT]

16. That's Because It Is...

The 4 Million was an investment in "New Media" which is growing in leaps and bounds. It also came with a "No Editorial Say" clause in the contract. Roemer is part of an Investment company now.

He was also offered a ton of money to take a weekend spot at MSNBC, and he refused

Members like myself also know that Cenk has been offered 12 and 27 million to buy the company outright. Both times he refused to sell.

Some sell-out.

[Hissyspit]

43. That's because it is.

[beerandjesus]

46. Hey, we can do this too. From the Daily Banter site:

"BEN COHEN is the editor of The Daily Banter and founder of Banter Media Group. Ben writes for the Huffington Post and is a regular guest on the Huff Post Live and the RT Network. "


OH, the RT Network? So The Daily Banter is basically just another Putin propaganda organ, right? So this is a Putin hit piece against Cenk, right? So why do all you Cenk-haters love PUTIN so much??

[pnwmom]

70. Did you complain about Cenk's "hit piece" on Obama yesterday?

The one where he falsely claimed that Obama had no goals for his second term?

Or is it only a "hit piece" when your own favorite is criticized?

[Andy823]

97. Exactly!

Some love to bash the president on a daily basis, but don't you dare bash they hero's, like Greenwald, Snowden, Cenk, etc., because that is a no no!

[pnwmom]

73. Cenk's attack on Obama was a "hit piece," and some DUer posted it here.

This was simply putting that hit piece in context.

[Cha]

150. Oh, that's okay, doncha know.. But, mustn't expose Cenk or that is attacked with the trite

"it's a hit piece on Cenk" wah wah wah Leave Cenk Alone

[mmonk]

82. Agreed. He knows money is what prevents

Democracy and progressive legislation possibilities .

[Cha]

148. Oh poor poor little Cenk.. leave him alone! He's the one spewing shit and he gets called on it.

[MohRokTah]

8. Cenk Uygar gets in bed with Roehmer, sorta like Hamsher getting in bed with Boortz.

Obama hating is what's important. Obama hating makes money from both extremes.

[littlemissmartypants]

11. Astute. nt

[Cha]

151. Exactly, Moh.. the $$$$$$ they make from ODS is obscene. President Obama is a one man

economy booster for scammers.

[Hissyspit]

197. Oh please...

No, throwing ANYONE under the bus is what's important.

[sheshe2]

10. Excellent OP, pnwmom.

Thank you!

[G_j]

12. "Or he's saying what Buddy Roemer wants him to say."

I think that's a bit of a stretch. Do you think he gets memos or something?

[hedgehog]

13. News to me. Good to know! Thank you.

[GoneFishin]

14. Smells like a hit piece on Cenk to me also. I assume because he is not a BO cheerleader and calls it

like he sees it.

[beerandjesus]

18. +1

[RufusTFirefly]

26. +1

Just look at the gloaters on this thread. Seems pretty obvious.
The efforts to smear anyone who has the audacity to question the President are pretty desperate and pathetic.

I oppose drones.
Rand Paul opposes drones.
Therefore, I am Rand Paul.
QED

[pnwmom]

75. What he wrote was a "hit piece" on Obama, falsely claiming

that Obama was coasting and had no second term goals.

And someone felt free to post that here yesterday.

This puts that into context.

[sheshe2]

183. There is a lot of smell coming from the hit pieces

on Obama here as well. Here on good old DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUD! Do you have a problem with those as well?

Hmmm~

[Puglover]

199. And the posters trashing him

are as predictable as snow in Minnesota. LOL too funny.

[Dawgs]

17. OK. How many people here actually watch TYT every day?

Because I do.

And Cenk is constantly defending Obama and attacking Republicans. It's like 9 to 1, attacking Republicans versus criticizing Obama.

If this fool actually watched his show, instead of digging up something to attack Cenk because he got his feelings hurt, he might actually learn something.

[WillyT]

20. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!!

[roguevalley]

29. ditto willyT

[neverforget]

109. But Cenk said something bad about Obama and must be

destroyed! Destroy the messenger and ignore the message. Same goes for anyone who dares be critical of an Obama Administration policy. See Greewald, Michael Moore and others. Round and round we go.....

[Stand and Fight]

141. I agree.

I watch TYT every day and, while I don't agree with everything Cenk says, I do think most of the time he defends Obama and liberal ideals. You'd have to be a dammed fool or woefully uninformed to believe this post.

[OnyxCollie]

19. By your *logic,*

Newt Gingrich is a sell-out because he worked with Nancy Pelosi on a commercial sponsored by Al Gore.

This means what? That Gingrich is really a good guy?

Durrr...

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. No ...

it means that newt sold out for $$$

[OnyxCollie]

48. By your explanation,

these guys all sold out for $$$

Top Recipients of News Corp. contributions for 2012 election cycle:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000227&cycle=2012

DNC Services Corp $460,409
Obama, Barack $179,400
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $137,138
National Republican Congressional Cmte $56,505
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $48,350

I rule this school.
Always ready to duel.
Want to battle me?
Ha! Fool.

Thus ends our truce.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. Interesting that you would consider a mere response for me ...

a "duel" or signifying the "end of a truce."

But yes ... I consider 4 of the 5 organizations that took News Corps money, as problematic, if not having sold out. ETA: Though I doubt any of these organizations would be "influenced" by such a relatively small contribution ... Unlike, an individual response to their sole benefactor/investor.

[OnyxCollie]

61. Well, you cried "Stalker!"

and claimed I was a big, old meanie the last time I refuted your bullshit, so I agreed to leave you alone. A truce.

Since then, I've ignored you without putting you on ignore.

You couldn't manage to do the same, and now you're crying again.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. Done.

[OnyxCollie]

65. Huzzah!

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. Aren't you late for recess? ...

Or, are you staying in for the milk and graham crackers and nap time?

[OnyxCollie]

69. Can't deny me, always want to try me.

I thought you put me on Ignore. Why are you stalking me?

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. No ...

I prefer to allow others to see just how big an a$$ you are. Please keep it up ... your doing wonders for your presence!

[OnyxCollie]

74. Admit it: You love me.

Your puppy-like infatuation towards me is cute.

[tkmorris]

22. This is a flat out hit piece on TYT and Cenk

It is illogical, ignorant, and embarrassing. I sincerely hope that I NEVER become so emotionally invested in a person or idea that I am willing to chuck any pretensions of fairness or ethics in order to smear any detractors.

[merrily]

27. That emotionally or financially invested.

I do think, though, that Cenk could have waited a few weeks and I thought some of his remarks were over the top.

[pnwmom]

192. Cenk is the one who is financially invested.

He's already gotten his first $4 million, but that option for another $4 million is no doubt dependent on how things go . . . from Roemer's perspective.

[pnwmom]

76. What Cenk said about Obama having no goals was equally a hit piece. n/t

[tkmorris]

94. No it wasn't

It was an opinion. One which you disagree with, and that's fine. You could've easily made your own case why you thought Cenk's opinion was incorrect and left it at that.

The fact that you didn't, and the material you chose in taking it further, is what makes this a hit piece.

[pnwmom]

110. No, it was a lie. He's extremely well informed and thus had to know that Obama

had clearly laid out his second term agenda.

He's just counting on his followers not to know that.

It isn't a hit piece to put his recent comments about Obama and Rand Paul into context. And the context is he's taking money from Rethugs now.

[RussBLib]

120. give it up

I read Ezra Klein's "Obama's Incredibly ambitious agenda" and I read Cenk's "What has Obama done for you lately?" I basically agree with both of them.

To me, there is a point where you have to ask, so, how is that agenda working out? If you ask me, and you wouldn't, I'd say that Obama has not followed through on much of anything in his second term. He has a soaring second term agenda! Whoopeee! What has he accomplished? Not much. Sure, I know of the obstacles. FDR had trememdous obstacles and he got amazing things done. Obama makes excellent speeches, but he doesn't seem to know how to follow through. If he is any good at arm-twisting, where is the evidence? Cenk states it a bit stronger than I would, but that's one reason I like him.

Do I prefer Obama over any Republican? Sure. Do I wish Obama would take a strong stand and FIGHT for something? Hell yeah, but I don't see it. I would love to see Obama get pissed off for once. Is he afraid of being labeled an "angry black man?" Oh, well, don't rock the boat! Obama took millions from the banksters. Is he a sell-out? Maybe, but I still prefer him over any GOP.

Cenk has done a helluva lot of good. Teaming up with Roemer is not a huge black mark. Roemer is one of the few sane Repubs around, and the big issue for both is getting big money out of politics. Remember compromise? Working with the "other side"?

About the only good I see coming out of this thread is a list of people that I will probably put on Ignore. Haven't used that feature yet, but I think it's time.

[pnwmom]

125. What did Cenk say that I'm objecting to?

He said:

"Can anyone tell me what President Obama's second-term goals are? What has he accomplished? What would he like to accomplish?. . .

I've never seen a guy want to coast this much as president. Even Bush who couldn't wait to get out of office and be an ex-president was at least still trying really bad ideas to the end. What in the world is President Obama's agenda?!"

Cenk knows perfectly well what Obama's agenda is because Obama laid it out. He also knows that Obama has accomplished what he could, despite the Republican obstructionism, through his use of executive orders.

Also, Cenk recently predicted a Rand Paul win in 2016. I don't think that it's a coincidence that Cenk took the money from Roemer last spring.

[Man from Pickens]

23. I like Cenk

reviewing his body of work, I see no reason to toss him overboard. He deserves better than this.

[BumRushDaShow]

24. K&R

There are many like him (Cornell West, Michael Moore, etc) whose ideological hopes and dreams were not fulfilled to their satisfaction, and now they are running full speed to leftwing libertarianism.

[Spazito]

31. Yep, I watched Current TV's coverage of the 2009 election and...

one of the shows had a panel which included Cenk and Al Gore and Cenk was almost drooling over Ron Paul, praising him while slagging President Obama. Gore was NOT impressed.

[merrily]

35. West and Moore are libertarians now?

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Left wing libertarians ...

Moore, more so than West ... who seems firmly aligned in Westarianism.

[merrily]

41. Is that what they are actually saying they are? Or is that the assessment of some DUers?

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. As with much of what is discussed on message boards ...

it is some DUer's assessment ... but you know the saying, "A rose by any other name ..." or, "If it waddles like a duck ..."

[merrily]

50. Yes, and I also know my opinion of how some DUers reach their conclusions.

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. Yes ...

much the same as you do (and just about everyone else does) ... based on your/our personal stances.

[merrily]

98. Not really. Usually, I don't call people names just because they disagree with me about

Obama and/or the the Democratic Party or decide they can't possibly actually be Democrats.

Please don't try to hang that kind of crap around my neck.

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. Oh, really? ...

Democrats know? Obviously, DU's centrist loyalist posters know better.

DU does have a search function, you know.

[merrily]

107. Excuse me, but how is centrist loyalist a name? Every

descriptive term is not a "name." Nor is any individual singled out. No suggestion of not being a "real" Democrat, either.

Search function? Which term did you search? Centrist?

[1StrongBlackMan]

115. Nor is "Libertarian" ...

But "centrist loyalist" has a air of derision to it ... especially how it is used on DU ... don't you think?

[merrily]

119. Please tell me you can do better than that. Really, please.

That post attacks no individual, names no individual. It does not say anyone is a poopy head.

But "centrist loyalist" has a air of derision to it ... especially how it is used on DU ... don't you think?

Nice goalpost move attempt, but the issue was not how terms are used on DU, nor a descriptive term mentioning no one specific, nor an air of derision.

The issue was someone posting something about Obama or Democrats that I disagreed with and my responding by calling someone a name or saying they weren't real Democrats.

Why would anyone who thinks centrist loyalist is a bad term assume it applies to them? And why would anyone who thinks the terms applies to them think it is a bad term?

Seriously, if that is the worst personal insult you found under my name, I deserve an award.

BTW, do you have a link for that post. I am curious about the context.

[1StrongBlackMan]

121. Okay. (1SBM disengaging) eom.

[LawDeeDah]

54. If a rose waddles like a duck, it's a Libertarian.

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. Or ...

If a duck arose like a waddle ...

[whatchamacallit]

58. Idiotic

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. Such a cogent and convincing refutation! eom.

[whatchamacallit]

66. Befitting your "cogent evaluation" of Moore and West n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. Okay. eom.

[Maven]

163. Moore is so libertarian he supports a government sponsored single payer health care system.

What a maroon.

[1StrongBlackMan]

167. Not certain whether you are referring to me, or sarcasticly ...

referring to Moore; but, as has been demonstrated ...people pick and choose single issues on which they are liberal, issues they are conservative, and issues they are "libertarian."

Just as has been argued here ... because you agree with rand paul on one (or more) issue(s) doesn't necessarily make you a Libertarian; likewise, supporting government sponsored single-payer, doesn't necessarily exclude one from being a libertarian.

[beerandjesus]

42. Yes--in the sense that to the anti's, "libertarian" is a synonym for "asshole"

If you actually look at what the word "libertarian" means, of COURSE not.

But, with apologies to RufusTFirefly above:

Rand Paul is a libertarian.
Rand Paul is an asshole.
Therefore, libertarians are assholes.

Cornel West and Michael Moore are assholes.
Libertarians are assholes.
Therefore, Cornel West and Michael Moore are libertarians.

QED.

[merrily]

45. Did Moore and West actually say they were assholes, or is that the assessment of some DUers?

[BumRushDaShow]

57. Believe it or not

Wikipedia has an interesting page filled with source material and history on this (it includes folks who subscribe to the "Green Party", etc.) -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

There are many DUers who would fit these various iterative descriptions. Noam Chomsky is prominently featured as an example.

[merrily]

77. I believe it. Wiki has a page on a lot of things. That does not mean that Moore or West are

left wing libertarians, though, or that DUers can identify a left-wing libertarian correctly. Nor, even assuming wiki is always correct about such things, does wiki list Moore as a left-wing libertarian.



I don't know about West, but I do know that Michael Moore gets invited to Democratic National Conventions. So, someone must think he belongs there. I also know that in 2012, he argued that Obama had to be the Democratic nominee. But, he criticized Obama recently, so now, according to some DUers, he's not a Democrat anymore?

I have seen too many instances on DU of famous people who, AFAIK, do not post on DU thrown under some bus label or another for criticizing Obama or some other Dem or the Democratic PTB or for saying their Party has gone too far right. All fact and source free.

Maybe I am over cautious, but I think I'll wait for more evidence before marking Moore's departure from the Democratic Party.

[BumRushDaShow]

88. I think you're conflating social/political philosphy and party

by indicating " I do know that Michael Moore gets invited to Democratic National Conventions". I.e., you miss the point.

The 2 largest so-called "national" parties here in the U.S. are essentially conglomerates of many different philosophies, with those people willing to "swing" with one party or the other... In essence, while other countries formalize these different philosophies into distinct parties that basically (by choice or necessity) come together (in different combinations) to form a "majority" coalition for that particular government, here, the same things happen but in not so formalized a fashion, and mainly to gain a majority of votes.

[merrily]

95. It's not a matter of which party he is willing to swing with.

[BumRushDaShow]

99. You were the one who made the initial comment about "party".

I don't know about West, but I do know that Michael Moore gets invited to Democratic National Conventions. So, someone must think he belongs there. I also know that in 2012, he argued that Obama had to be the Democratic nominee. But, he criticized Obama recently, so now, according to some DUers, he's not a Democrat anymore?

[merrily]

101. Yes, and you were the one who decided my comment meant where Moore is willing to hang out.

That is not what the post of mine you quoted said.

[BumRushDaShow]

103. Here is my post

There are many like him (Cornell West, Michael Moore, etc) whose ideological hopes and dreams were not fulfilled to their satisfaction, and now they are running full speed to leftwing libertarianism.

It says nothing about "party" but suggests where his views appear to be aligning. You are conflating "Libertarian Party" with "libertarian" (of any stripe or side). But this is not surprising as a knee-jerk reaction.

[merrily]

105. Yes, that was your post about six posts ago. I remember it.

[Warren Stupidity]

195. Many of us here are left libertarians. We generally are just amused by the antics of the BOG in the

twilight of the Obama administration. They are however gearing up to be reborn as the HCG. Plus ca change...

[BumRushDaShow]

196. However there are those in the thread that deny such a thing as "left libertarian". nt

[Lobo27]

25. Cenk is trying to get money out of politics.

If he has to align himself with less then favorable people to achieve said goal. I think I and he can sleep well knowing said fact. Everybody takes money from companies. Obama took millions from big pharma it well documented. That doesn't mean I don't like the guy. Its called playing the field. If your opponent has 1billion, you would do what you could to get 1billion as well. Hence, the wanting to get money out of politics.

[merrily]

30. Roemer was also a Democrat and ended as a candidate, knowing he'd lose, but fighting $$ in politics.

In between, he was also a Republican and an indie. Nonetheless, I think Roemer is by far not the worst person someone could have allied himself with.

[pnwmom]

78. He left the Democrats in 1991 -- 23 years ago. He's a typical Rethug on most issues. n/t

[merrily]

83. Certainly not on his position on campaign finance.

Yes, my post said he was a Dem, a Republican, an Indie and a crusader against big money in political campaigns. That is an accurate description.

[pnwmom]

84. Not on that single issue. But that doesn't make him a good ally overall. n/t

[Lobo27]

93. But at the sametime you're painting Cenk as a sellout on a single issue.

Taking money. If that is the case everyone in politics is a sellout. Even Obama.

[merrily]

96. Doesn't necessarily mean he is a bad business partner either. In truth, you don't know, one way or

the other.

As you might guess, I am more in agreement with the people on this thread who see the OP as a smear piece in retaliation for criticism of Obama than I am with those who think it's a wonderful OP.

[elleng]

38. Roemer's not a typical repug.

As governor, Roemer worked to boost lagging teacher pay and toughened laws on campaign finance. State employees and retirees received small pay increases too, the first in many years of austere state budgets. Roemer was also the first governor in recent state history to put a priority on protecting the environment. His secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality, Paul Templet, repeatedly angered Louisiana's politically powerful oil and gas industry. . .

n 1990, Roemer vetoed a bill – authored by Democratic Senator Mike Cross . . .

The Cross bill sought to ban abortion in cases of rape and incest and imposed fines of up to $100,000 and ten years imprisonment on the practitioners, Roemer declared the legislation incompatible with the United States Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. His veto[31] alienated large numbers of his socially conservative electoral base. The legislature subsequently overrode Roemer's veto with an even larger margin than in the original bill – another slap at Roemer. . .

On March 3, 2011, Roemer announced the formation of an exploratory committee to prepare for a possible run for the 2012 presidential nomination of the Republican Party.[47] Roemer stressed that campaign finance reform would be a key issue in his campaign.[48] Pledging to limit campaign contributions to $100 per individual, Roemer appeared as one of five candidates at a 2011 March forum in Iowa sponsored by the Faith and Freedom Coalition.[49] But he was not invited to any of the Republican debates because he failed to meet the 7 percent minimum criterion for popularity in polls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Roemer

[pnwmom]

79. He is on most issues.

"Just a little while ago the Young Turks Network announced that it’s inked a deal to get $4-million in seed money from a group run by Buddy Roemer. . . . In addition to his retrograde views on abortion and gay marriage, he also supported Arizona’s draconian crackdown on undocumented immigrants, is pro-torture, and is for the repeal of the ACA, saying that it amounts to government interference in healthcare. In other words, the guy is the furthest thing from a liberal."

[elleng]

86. Not sure about that.

'The Cross bill sought to ban abortion in cases of rape and incest and imposed fines of up to $100,000 and ten years imprisonment on the practitioners, Roemer declared the legislation incompatible with the United States Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. His veto alienated large numbers of his socially conservative electoral base.'

[merrily]

104. He also fought pollution. Whether that was purely political or not, I don't know.

And let's not forget, this is Louisiana we're talking about.

But, ultimately, all that is beside the point. The real issue is whether Cenk is criticizing Obama because of Roemer's investment. There is a lot of evidence that is not true, even a little.

[bluedigger]

40. So taking money to get money out of politics must corrupt one's politics?

If that is the standard for evidence of corruption, we're fucked. Cherry picking occasional criticism when the overall tenor of Cenk's reporting on the President is positive just makes the argument pathetic.

[pnwmom]

87. If you take it from a right-winger and then go on to falsely accuse

a Democratic President, then you are suspect, yes.

[Lobo27]

122. Again I ask, if taking the money is the issue.

Then you're probably not going to vote for anyone in the upcoming elections or the next presidential election. Hilary has taken money from Goldman Sachs and Obama took money from big pharma. I'm almost certain the higher ups in those companies don't give a shit about liberals. So are you suspect of Hilary and Obama?

[pnwmom]

123. It's the COMBINATION of taking money from the Rethugs

and then going on to promote Rand Paul and attack Obama that makes him suspect.

[Lobo27]

126. For example, I'm a liberal and I can agree with any GoPer that is against war.

Nothing wrong with that. Does not mean I support on anyother issue. We happen to agree one or two.

[RussBLib]

129. this is not PROMOTING Rand Paul

from Mediaite

The Young Turks’ Cenk Uygur rarely has kind words for Republicans, but on Monday he said he would be willing to bet money that Rand Paul would beat Hillary Clinton and win the presidency in 2016.

Uygur credited Paul as a “voice of reason” on fighting ISIS, in contrast to Clinton’s hawkishness. He agreed that “our invasion of Iraq in the first place and all of the other bombings we’ve done in the Middle East… has in fact led to the rise of ISIS.”

And if it’s a choice between Paul saying that and Clinton’s foreign policy in two years, well, Uygur thinks the answer’s obvious:

“If you’ve got Rand Paul running on a ‘Let’s stop messing around in the Middle East because we’re getting killed, and it’s doing absolutely no good for us’ campaign versus Hillary Clinton’s ‘Let’s keep doing the same stupid shit we were doing before that you hated before’ campaign… If I was a betting man, and I am… right now I’d lay money on Rand Paul being the next president of the United States.”
Uygur bragged that he’s “never lost a single political bet in my life.”

original here

I don't like Hillary's hawkishness. Perhaps you do?

[Erose999]

44. Meh, I think if selling out was a motivation for Cenk he'd have stayed on at MSMBS. He was told by

Phil Griffin at MSNBC that it was in his best interests to play ball, and when he refused he was shown the door.

I saw Buddy Roemer on Democracy now once, he seemed like a principled guy. I think his positions on a number of social issues have either evolved, or are personal opinions he would not try to legislate.

Seems his main issues lately are campaign finance reform and ending ethanol subsidies.

[merrily]

62. ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/cenk-uygur-msnbc-leaving_n_905415.html

[Peacetrain]

47. Not a bit surprised by this..after all he is a libertarian..

You can trust a libertarian in the battle of issues for about 10 minutes.. and they they run to the other side..

[LawDeeDah]

51. Lousy sell-out. Anything for money, even dirty money, even if it's a few bucks.

Makes me vomit.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. I never liked Uygur

I hope everything he touches turns to meh and that in year a mention of him will only yield a "Who?"....

[SolutionisSolidarity]

55. Thanks for this, I forgot to renew my TYT subscription.

It's clearly a better use of my money than giving to the right wing sellouts running for office as Democrats who spend far more energy attacking their left wing critics than the Republicans.

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. Come on, Cenk just returned to his roots, as if he ever left 'em.

[Lobo27]

91. Then I guess you must not like a lot of politicians.

Obama and Biden have taken money from companies. Are they sellouts too? Or is them taking money different somehow?

[Tarheel_Dem]

108. But neither of them were ever Republicans, now were they?

[neverforget]

117. Charlie Crist is a former Republican running as a Democrat

for Governor of Florida. If you lived in Florida, would you vote for Crist, the Democrat?

People change right?

[Tarheel_Dem]

118. You're damned straight, I'd vote for him. Cenk's returned to his "Republican" roots, & that's okay.

See the diff?

[Dawgs]

131. How has returned to his Republican roots, or are you joking?

If not, you'd have to criticize EVERY Democratic politician, and every liberal in the media, for taking Republican money.

[Tarheel_Dem]

138. I know, Cenk has an awfully tough job. I mean, his job is MUCH harder than the President's.

That slack old President just sits around having to make life & death decisions that impact the world, and poor Cenk has to come up with "$4 million dollar words" to tell us how bad the decision is, and please his Republican paymasters at the same time. Trolling Democrats is a tough day's work, but somebody's gotta do it, even if it's for a measley $4 mil. Ca-Ching!

[sheshe2]

164. Ca-Ching~

Thank you Tarheel!

[Tarheel_Dem]

172. My dear Sheshe, nothing is more fitting than the clip you chose. $$$$$

[sheshe2]

175. So true Tarheel!

[neverforget]

137. Good Lord

[Tarheel_Dem]

139. Ca-Ching!!!

[neverforget]

143. What's that supposed to mean? Cenk shouldn't get paid to do what he does?

Should he work for free or only get paid to praise Obama?

[Tarheel_Dem]

144. And there's the money quote. I know exactly where you're coming from now.

[neverforget]

145. you can't even answer a simple question.

I know where you're coming from too.

[Tarheel_Dem]

146. Cenk: "I am the One Percent dammit, and I get paid for spreadin' haterade!!!!"

[neverforget]

149. How old are you? 10?

[Tarheel_Dem]

173. Yup. Can't wait to grow up & be rich like Uncle Cenk. I just hope I'm more discriminating.

[neverforget]

174. So you have no argument but you are envious of his success.

Got it. Enjoy your childhood.

[sheshe2]

177. Well...

IMHO the argument was made, you just did not like the answer.

[neverforget]

178. unless you call posting a picture of a kid in diapers sitting on a pile of money

an argument, then sure a childish argument was made.

[Tarheel_Dem]

180. 1%...1%....1%.....Occupy Cenk!

[sheshe2]

176. You are cracking me up, Tarheel!

[neverforget]

181. I know! Grade school debate is hilarious!

[Tarheel_Dem]

182. Can you imagine the poo flingin' if "3rd way, corporatist, Muslin, Kenyan, used car salesman..."

Obama had taken $4 million from Bob Dole? Girl, we'd be cleaning up in here for weeks. Talk about a mess.

[sheshe2]

186. Well ya! It sure would scare the heck out of me!

I would duck and cover! Tarheel!



Lion and Tigers and Holy Moly, oh my! Da Spin!



Police line don't cross...perfect Tarheel!

[Tarheel_Dem]

187. She, you're killin' me.

[Dawgs]

130. How often do you watch his show? Because I watch it every day.

If you did, you would know that he attacks Republicans 95% of the time. He also constantly defends Obama and rarely criticizes him. Why would you have a problem with him? I wonder.

[Enrique]

80. and before he took Roemer's money, Cenk was all pro-Obama?

not quite. Of more concern to me is the deal with American Express, given Cenk's outspokenness about banks.

I would encourage anyone to be as discerning with Cenk as with anyone else. But this OP does seem more like a hit piece than an honest critique, given that it claims an "evolution" but does not show any such thing.

[pnwmom]

81. Was Cenk's "critique" of Obama honest? The one where he ignored

Obama's clearly stated goals and insisted that he had none?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/12/obamas-incredibly-ambitious-second-term-agenda/

“Obama’s incredibly ambitious second term agenda”

Imagine, for a moment, that President Obama managed to pass every policy he proposed Tuesday night. Within a couple of years, every 4-year-old would have access to preschool. The federal minimum wage would be at $9 -- higher than it's been, after adjusting for inflation, since 1981. There'd be a cap-and-trade program limiting our carbon emissions and a vast infrastructure investment to upgrade our roads and bridges. Taxes would be higher, guns would be harder to come by, and undocumented immigrants would have a path to citizenship. America would be a markedly different country.

[deurbano]

89. Then criticize his critique instead of smearing him as a sell-out.

[pnwmom]

113. But I don't think it's a coincidence that he took substantial money from Roemer in April

and since then has made those comments about Rand Paul and Obama.

[merrily]

128. Cenk has criticized Obama for years, all the way back when he was on MSNBC.

I am not defending what Cenk said, but there is no evidence at all that he said that because Roemer invested in Young Turks and not because Cenk believes it.

There is, on the other hand, evidence that Cenk refuses to change what he says, simply because people offer him more money.

This is a guilt by association attempt.

[tkmorris]

112. Here's your problem: That's a SOTU speech

They are almost always filled with pie in the sky agendas, designed to sound appealing to the base (and hopefully swing voters) without usually spelling out clear pathways to achieving those lofty goals. It's an annual free opportunity for the POTUS to sell people on how awesome he/she is.

Now of course a President whose party controls Congress has to be careful here. In such a case they will be expected to deliver at least part of what they are selling. However, a President who faces a hostile, belligerent Congress (such as Obama did here) knows full well he won't be expected to deliver on much of anything so he can lay out any agenda he wants to. The purpose at such a time is to get the opposing party to go on record as opposing whatever you lay out there, so you design a speech that has them opposing rainbows, little girls, apple pie, and senior citizens or whatever else you can dream up. None of it means squat and everyone knows it but for those who only engage with what is going on politically on such rare occasions as SOTUs it might swing a few voters.

If you really want to claim that Obama has an ambitious agenda for his remaining years you are going to have to argue on the basis of what he has done to PURSUE that agenda. You may feel he is doing all he can, and if so that's fine. Others will assuredly disagree, and that is ALSO fine. The point is, at least try to make the case based on real things. Forming an opinion on whether Obama is "coasting" based on a SOTU speech is just as silly as forming an opinion of a corporation based on the blurb their PR department wrote to put on their "About Us" page.

[pnwmom]

116. That isn't a problem. The SOTU speech is where a President is supposed to lay out his agenda.

Which he did and yet Cenk wants to pretend that Obama doesn't have one.

I addressed the fact that Obama hasn't accomplished all he (or his supporters) wanted in the OP. I also addressed the subject of the executive orders by which he has been taking the independent action he could take.

[Dawgs]

132. Really? Every politician has goals, and Cenk knows this.

His problem is with the President not fighting for those goals.

And, if you don't know the difference I feel sorry for you.

[pnwmom]

133. If Cenk knows this, then why did he accuse Obama of having no agenda?

He said:

"Can anyone tell me what President Obama's second-term goals are? What has he accomplished? What would he like to accomplish?. . .

I've never seen a guy want to coast this much as president. Even Bush who couldn't wait to get out of office and be an ex-president was at least still trying really bad ideas to the end. What in the world is President Obama's agenda?!"

[Dawgs]

134. Because he has no agenda if he doesn't fight for anything.

It's that simple. How can someone be so blind not to see it?

[pnwmom]

135. He's been signing executive orders to get around the Rethugs obstructionism.

How can someone be so blind not to see that?

[Andy823]

140. It's called

Selective blindness. People can only see what they want to see and sadly many only want to see the bad in anything the president does.

[Enrique]

136. he's fighting for TPP

this is a flaw of Cenk's and it has nothing to do with Buddy Roemer. His criticisms are at times not consistent. Cenk himself has pointed out that Obama fights for a corporatist agenda. That seems to match reality as I see it. But here in this latest column he paints Obama as a progressive who doesn't fight hard enough for his values. No way Cenk believes that so why is he writing it?

But I love Cenk and watch TYT live nearly every day.

[sheshe2]

179. Question?

I would like to hear your opinion of the hit pieces on President Obama here on Democratic Underground.

[HughBeaumont]

85. While Cenk has been mostly useful . . . .

. . . this and his like for wingnut-in-disguise Gary Johnson remain sore spots with me.

[Jamaal510]

193. I'll never forget how

Cenk called GJ the "true progressive" in 2012 when he had him on for an interview on Current. I mean, come on...that guy (as a Libertarian) is about as far away as a person could get from being "progressive"! For example, where is GJ on workers' rights? On progressive taxation? Discrimination against minorities? Protecting earned benefits (e.g. social security)? I couldn't believe Cenk said that about him. And even on the few issues where GJ may "agree" with the left on, it's more than likely for different reasons, anyway.

[Rhinodawg]

92. He sold his soul for big bucks.

[JaneyVee]

100. Why does anyone care what Cenk says?

He's a blogger, not an expert on anything except maybe being a pundit. Big deal.

[Tarheel_Dem]

114. Excellent observation. Cenk swings with public opinion. "Hate Bush? So do I." Ca-Ching.

"Now you hate Obama? Well, me too." Ca-Ching. Now that we know his "opinion" can be bought & sold like Armstrong Williams, why would anyone care what he thinks about ANYTHING?

[msanthrope]

142. Armstrong Williams is a good analogy. nt

[TheNutcracker]

102. Don't watch or listen to Cenk. Then they won't give him money to BE a sellout.

[pnwmom]

111. Yesterday someone posted his attack on Obama here.

Did you say the same thing to that person?

[progressoid]

127. I shall lose a lot of sleep over this.

or not.

[Cha]

147. Cenk has alway been a profiteering whiny pos.. Oh, and he stupidly blamed the WH for losing his job

at msbnc..

Cenk Uygur Crying Foul Blames The White House For His Short Lived Career At MSNBC

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/21/996940/-Cenk-Uygur-Crying-Foul-Blames-The-White-House-For-His-Short-Lived-Career-At-MSNBC

Thanks Obama!



mahalo pnwmom for listing what Cenk is too lazy to do.. reminds me of Chucky Todd.

Let's give the President a Senate and Congress to help him and our Country! GOTV2014!

[Historic NY]

153. I remember that is was blame Obama then...

he wasn't never ready for prime time.

[marym625]

156. Not a sell out

And just because he calls Obama on things he should be called on, doesn't make him bad, wrong or a GOPer.

See WillyT's post about the money

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025640352

[pnwmom]

160. It's not because he called Obama on something, it's because he falsely said Obama had no agenda.

And he had to know it wasn't true, since Obama had stated his agenda openly in more than one speech.

[pnwmom]

166. Yes, I didn't realize that Cenk has an option to go up to $8 million.

But, of course, Roemer has no "editorial say." Wink wink.

[marym625]

168. What reason do you have

To make this proclamation that he's a sell out? He has been a strong, true voice on the liberal, Democratic side and hasn't ever done anything to deserve this.

What has the investor done for you to say this? The guy doesn't take PAC money, but lots of Democrats do.

How about posting this if Cenk ever actually sells out instead of throwing him to the wolves because he has a silent investor?

Damn. Obama has fucked up. Deal With it

[pnwmom]

169. Because of his false claim about Obama having no agenda, which was recently

posted here on DU, as well as his prediction that Rand Paul will win in 2016 -- both of which opinions have come out since his taking the money in April.

Given the constraints he's been under with Congress, Obama has been doing a good job, in my opinion. Paul Krugman laid it all out in the recent Rolling Stone piece. Krugman wasn't initially a fan of Obama's, but he's impressed with what Obama has accomplished.

Of course, no one's paying Krugman $4 million to say otherwise. In fact, the Nobel prize winner left a cushy job at Princeton to become a professor at City College of New York instead.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008

Obama faces trash talk left, right and center – literally – and doesn't deserve it. Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it's working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it's much more effective than you'd think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy.

SNIP

[marym625]

171. wow!

A good job?

Sorry, not an Obamabot. I don't like my civil rights being steamrolled over or war without Congressional approval, or big oil buying off any real penalties, or bank fraud and End Game Memos being ignored, or war criminals being allowed to slide, or tax cuts for the wealthy, etc etc etc. So many things that the GOP is criticized for but it's Obama, it's all good!

By the way, neither thing you stated shows he's a sell out.

[cheapdate]

161. Spouting off that the president has "no goals" is so transparently decietful

and manipulative that it's insulting and irritating. If Cenk has something to say, he should make his argument straight-up without the bullshit.

Great post pnwmom.

[flamingdem]

162. Wow, I never trusted Cenk

Remember how people would argue about him? He was transparent in his fake left act.

[ucrdem]

165. Arriviste millionaire buys McMansion, joins country club, backs Rand Paul . . .

Soon he'll be complaining about those damned iillegals and calling the IRS unconstitutional.

Sadly, we've seen this movie before.

[MFrohike]

184. Things I don't get

The Washington Post is a right-wing rag, owned by a notorious libertarian, that pimps a consistent line of getting rid of Social Security and Medicare. So, I don't get why anybody on this board would EVER cite it. It's akin to citing Fox or WSJ, except those two are a lot more honest about their motives.

[pnwmom]

185. If you don't like WA Post, how do you feel about the Rolling Stone?

Paul Krugman, the progressive economist, recently published this there.

He lays out Obama's accomplishments -- the ones Cenk says don't exist (after inking a $4 million contract).

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008

[MFrohike]

189. sigh

I was remarking the choice of source, not the thread itself.

That being said, Krugman is disingenuous, and he knows it, when he talks about Dodd-Frank. He implicitly derides Romney for saying the SIFI banks are guaranteed a bailout while never noting that they enjoy a big bump in their credit ratings because they are assumed to be guaranteed by the federal government. The bit about the resolution of Citi is also weird. He mentions that FDIC resolves banks on a regular basis, then tells us that he and Stiglitz argued for Treasury to take over Citi. Why not argue for FDIC to do the job since it has the expertise and the legal authority?

Krugman is generally a partisan cheerleader. Citing him when you're talking straight politics, and policy, is like citing the hometown announcer when trying to argue whether a given team will win.

[Mister Nightowl]

188. History will be very kind to Obama

Unlike our so-called "journalists," a lot of historians will acknowledge the racist obstructionism of the GOP-TEA in their assessments.

[Number23]

190. I don't give a flying fishstick about Cenk and have never understood why anyone of moderate

intelligence would, but I am DYING at the responses in this thread calling your response the "hit piece" instead of the pitiful hit piece that Cenk did on the president.

You have obviously touched a nerve. Repeatedly.

[pnwmom]

191. Wasn't that chorus interesting? It was almost like

a coordinated response . . . like those "bots" Cenk sees everywhere.

[Enrique]

194. you care enough so that you insult other DUers

well I guess your cause is so righteous, defending a politician, that insulting other DUers is justified.

[Number23]

200. If you see an insult against a group of anonymous posters on a little seen web site in my post

then I can understand why you seem so "agitated" about it.

[Hissyspit]

198. "Moderate"

Last edited Fri Oct 10, 2014, 12:48 AM - Edit history (1)

Cenk on the other hand is actually very intelligent.

[Number23]

201. "Crank"

I do believe you have Freudian-ly slipped right into the heart of the matter.

[Tarheel_Dem]

202. "Freudian-ly slipped right into the heart of the matter".

[Number23]

203. I couldn't have done that any better than if I planned it myself

[Tarheel_Dem]

204. It was, indeed, a thing of beauty. Cenk = Crank.