With the list of President Obama's policy and political successes growing daily a conundrum

[grantcart]

for the critics on the far left in the blogs and the internet.

The President's forceful move to script a new strategy for the Defense Department moving away from the 60 year old premise of a two theatre war and establishing sharp cuts into the DOD is just the latest of a number of major accomplishments.

A recess appointment to a Cosumer Protection Agency (a twofer - hard core critics confidently predicted that neither would happen), major increase of federal involvement into individual health care, ending DODT, removing all troops from Iraq, and so on.

The conundrum is now playing out for posters who are reflexive critics on various discussion boards, either these changes 1) are not actual substantial changes or 2) they are actual substantial changes but only happened because we typed really aggressive posts (while pressing on the keyboard really really hard) and held the President's feet to the fire.

The contortions that are involved are really quite funny. Its hard to tell which are parodies and which are actual pretzels.

Of course the more obvious option that their overheated hyperbolic criticism was wrong just never occurs to them.

If you missed it try and get the video, the WP update is here:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-announces-new-military-approach/2012/01/05/gIQAFWcmcP_story.html?sub=AR

[h1]
Obama announces new, leaner military approach[/h1]



The Obama administration on Thursday unveiled a new military strategy that shifts the Pentagon’s focus towards Asia and says the country’s dire budget problems necessitate a more restrained use of military force and more modest foreign policy goals.

The strategy will almost certainly mean a smaller Army and Marine Corps as well as new investments in long-range stealth bombers and anti-missile systems that are designed primarily to counter China’s military buildup. It explicitly states that America can make due with a smaller nuclear force.

. . . .

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters that a revamped U.S. military “will be smaller and leaner, but its great strength will be that it is more agile, flexible, ready to deploy quickly, innovative and technologically advanced.”

The document does not include details of what the Defense Department should cut as it seeks to meet the administration’s goal of trimming defense spending by about $480 billion over the next decade. If Congress cannot come to an agreement on how to cut the federal deficit, the Pentagon budget could be forced to shrink by as much as $1 trillion.

[Whisp]

1. (while pressing on the keyboard really really hard)

ain't that the truth

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. Excuse me, but those keyboard licks made Obama appoint Cordray and

reduce military spending! How dare you mock the keyboard pounders!

[grantcart]

3. They have gone from defcon two (typing with intentional firmness) to defcon three (typing really

really hard). Defcon four requires absolute conviction, light smashing and under no circumstances do you go back and use your spell check. The post has to stand as the fingers have rendered it. If it goes beyond defcon four things could get ugly.

[nofurylike]

4. "Of course the more obvious option [of their being] wrong just never occurs to them."

well said, grantcart!

LOVE the PERFECT characterization in the "typed ... feet to the fire" part

thank you for that!

[Number23]

5. !

[Number23]

6. I don't know why you think these folks at having a conundrum, Grantcart

These are the folks that have convinced themselves that every liberal hates the president and his policies as much as they do. So when they see poll after poll after poll and analyses after analyses that say the COMPLETE OPPOSITE, what do the do? Claim the polls and articles and analyses are "propaganda."

These are also the same folks that call the president Republican-lite despite the fact that the majority of Americans view him as too liberal. When faced with this data, what do they do? Call the American public, but only the part that disagrees with them of course, uninformed idiots.

So I don't know why you think that these folks, many of whom are happy to contort and distort news and history to fit their myopic views, are having a conundrum. They are way too busy moving the goalposts and pretending that they speak for far more people than they actually do.

[grantcart]

7. here is the connundrum

They have to decide if they

a) that the President's bold action is in fact bold action but only the result of their 'shaming' him into doing it


or


b) that the President's bold action is not a fact because he wasn't bold enough. He shouldn't have moved to decrease the military but done away with either the Marines or the Air Force altogether, and he shouldn't have made 4 recess appointments but he should have had every single appointed position resign so he could have appointed thousands.

Its having to decide between a) being successful in pressuring the President or b) being unsuccessful because the President is more conservative than Herbert Hoover, you can go on the internets and see evidence of both.

[zipplewrath]

8. Well, if you really mean the "far left"

Their "complaints" are basically true. They didn't get some Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, or Dennis Kucinich. And the successes that Obama has achieved have been by oppposing what they want and going for what he felt he could achieve. Heck, the truth is, if we are really discussing the "far left", there isn't a national politician that is far left. And there isn't. There are folks who want more regulation of various industries, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who was advocating for the nationalization of whole industries such as energy, or the banking system.

Obama isn't far left, never claimed to be far left, doesn't want to be far left, and doesn't agree with the far left.

[grantcart]

9. I would agree that even Bernie Sanders is not 'far' left.

The bloggers are not really 'far left' either but that is the best pejorative I could muster.

They are however in a quandry when the President does exactly what they wanted him to do because they either claim credit for the move by their exquisite igniting of flames onto his feet or whether to raise the bar and insist on even more dramatic action than was previously called for. Nothing irritates these bloggers quite so much as when the President does exactly what they wanted.

[zipplewrath]

10. Professional left

I suspect you are refering to what the administration called the "professional left". Basically, people who can only garner attention when they are discussing short comings. If you write a blog, or have some sort of marginal webcast, you're probably not going to get alot of attention saying "ain't this great". Unless one has unique or exceptional knowledge of a topic, they can bring little at all to the discussion. People whose daily activity is to comment, don't necessarily have alot of time for research into the topics upon which they comment. "True" professionals have staff to do their research. A guy blogging from his basement doesn't have that time so unless they already work in a specific topic area, all they know is what they can read from one day to the next. And they probably can't read very sophisticated sources either. So half of what they read is probably wrong.