Dylan Ratigan: Is Obama Betraying The Left?

[democracy1st]

Run time: 10:58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89nZfavOQTM   Posted on YouTube: March 31, 2010 By YouTube Member: MoxNewsDotCom Views on YouTube: 546   Posted on DU: April 01, 2010 By DU Member: democracy1st Views on DU: 4487

 
Why drill for offshore oil when we know there's not much there?


The Dylan Ratigan Show

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/


http://MOXNews.com/

[NJmaverick]

1. The real question is the left betraying President Obama

[DJ13]

2. lol

Yeah, thats it.

[NJmaverick]

3. well I guess a "lol" is a sign of intellectual brilliance and any utterance made

after that should be taken on blind faith. On the other hand since you have the luxury of not having to produce any results you can take on a belief of personal moral superiority as you don't ever have to bend or compromise.

[progressoid]

11. Sure, sure, dontcha get it?

The teachers, the unions, the environmentalists, the homersexials, etc. etc. It's all their fault.

Oy. :eyes:

[NJmaverick]

21. You should see how all those groups are fairing under Republican Gov Chris Christie

then come back and tell me how helpful this ego stroking "he betrayed me" meme is.

[progressoid]

24. Huh?

It's not ego stroking. It's fighting for one's ideals. Hell, some might even say for Democratic ideals.

Or maybe we should just shut up and take one for the team.

[SkyDaddy7]

26. Some people simply want it all NOW!

Politics is nasty game of manuvering...Obama is trying to repair this nation & I think he has gotten far more done in one year than any President I have lived under. Has Obama done everything I want, HELL NO! However, I understand what he is doing & I know he has at least 3 years!

[Mithreal]

57. Yes, that is it, impatience. Way to misrepresent loyal opposition.

Do some people want what they want now? Sure. If it was simple impatience then maybe I could take your comment seriously.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

80. NOW was 40 years ago.

Think about it.

[bonnieS]

41. Christie cannot betray us

We did not work for him, we did not give him our money, we did not vote for him, we did not support him. He cannot betray us, he can only screw us, which he is. Obama, on the other hand, can betray us, which he is.

Stating the obvious does not have to be "helpful." Truth is truth no matter how helpful it is.

[tango-tee]

33. Don't bother.

Unless you're a member of "my Prez right or wrong" you're a member of the enemy camp.

[Mithreal]

58. +1 Sure seems true all too often

[no limit]

5. Says the guy that can't even say if he will be upset if this administration is torturing people

or if gitmo isn't closed by the end of Obama's first term. Or if DADT isn't repealed.

You're right NJ maverick, we're the problem, you're not.

[NJmaverick]

6. Hey you are the guy that plays to "what if" game to accuse Obama

of all sorts of imaginary offenses. I certainly remember you. Hey I hear President Obama is planning on betraying Harry Potter and Alice in Wonderland.

[no limit]

8. Why can't you answer a simple what if? What's wrong with that?

I am not saying it will happen, I am saying what if. And you can't even answer because you know there is a good chance all of this is true, and when it turns out to be true you don't want to look like a hypocrite.

Simple questions, I'll repeat them for you and I will continue to ask these questions every time you make one of your drive by posts:

If DADT isn't repealed by the end of next year how will that affect your support of Obama?

If it turns out we are still torturing people how will that affect your support of Obama?

If Gitmo is not closed by the end of Obama's first term how will that affect your support of Obama?

If we still have over 100,000 troops in Iraq at the end of Obama's first term how will that affect your support of him?

Simple question you can easily answer. Yet you are afraid to answer them, why?

[NJmaverick]

10. I don't play the what if game because it's not based in reality

and it's lacking in intellectual honesty.

[no limit]

17. You're the one that is intellectually honesty. And you sound like a typical politician

They are simple questions. And the fact you can't answer them only shows that you have no credibility what so ever, you don't believe in anything, you only believe what you are told to believe.

Again, I am not saying if these things happen, I am asking you is they will happen. I am very straigh forward about these questions, there is no wiggle room. If you aren't willing to answer them it's because you know you are willing to sacrafice all these issues for some guy with a (D) after his name. It's a real shame.

[NJmaverick]

19. "You're the one that is intellectually honesty"

If you say so:shrug:

have a good day

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kurtzapril4]

47. Hey, Mr. Perfect....

What's wrong with this sentence?

You should see how all those groups are fairing under Republican Gov Chris Christie.

[Mithreal]

49. Review those "10 signs of Intellectual Honesty"

The 10 signs of Intellectual Honesty by the mavericky one
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7170545&mesg_id=7170545

[liberation]

72. Again, may I remind you they get paid by the post?

And with this Friday push, our friend is getting all those miles he needed for that spring break getaway...

[Mithreal]

73. Ouch, wouldn't surprise me one bit. I do know how that grates on them though when its voluntary.

[Mithreal]

53. There is more than one reason some can't or refuse to answer

A couple possible reasons are obvious to most of us.

Another reason I like to think is that mavericky types are really corporations and are forced to be above and apart from our petty concerns.

Another is that of a simple triangulator, in the middle, on some sort of mythical ground, and above the petty concerns of partisan politics.

Clinton's "third way" was "triangulation," a term and strategy invented by his pollster Dick Morris. Triangulation is a candidate's attempt to position himself above and between the left and the right. A Democrat, Clinton insulated himself from Republican attacks by appropriating many of their ideas.

Obama is even more of a triangulator than Clinton.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/01-6

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NpINLHeo8rM/RgOrsOv0CXI/AAAAAAAAAaw/Fxgqu_nDlsk/s400/Penrose+Impossible+Triangle.jpg

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

9. The answers to that are...they aren't now...they never have been...and you know it.

It wasn't betrayal for the left to defend its principles. And, unlike you, the majority of Americans, even the "independents" don't actually despise the left or insist that it be ignored.

What did "the left" ever do to you, anyway?

[NJmaverick]

13. I would say you are wrong on all counts

believe it or not liberals are not above responsibility for their actions, if those actions allow the destruction of our nation by enabling Bush to get into the White House.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

32. Oh dear God...this is still about RALPH with you? Jesus!

That was a decade ago, and the Democratic party CAUSED Ralph by having spent the previous eight years moving so far to the right that you couldn't tell it was different from the Republicans anymore. And the party could have minimized the effect of it by agreeing to the "vote switching" proposal made by some Democrats and some Greens, which would have resulted in some Democrats in safe Gore states voting for Nader in exchange for Greens in marginal states voting for Gore. That would have given Gore Florida(and New Hampshire, and probably a few other states)in exchange for pumping up the Green vote in safe states in order to put that party over the 5% threshold for federal funding(which was the main Green goal for that year). It would have done the Dems no harm at all and could have created an entirely different relationship between the two parties, one that allowed progressive parties to push for new ideas without being accused of being spoilers and would have given the Dems a new source FOR ideas.

It was the rabidly anti-progressive "moderates" that need to take responsibility for their actions. They were the ones that made it feel impossible for millions of progressive voters to stay in the Democratic party. And they gained nothing for the party in doing that, since any Democrat would have beaten Bush in 1992 or Dole in 1996. The voters weren't demanding that Democrats repent for(sometimes)defending the poor and powerless in the 1970's and 1980's. And the DLC had no right to demand that progressives stay loyal to a party that wasn't loyal to them. Progressives, liberals and leftists were never the cause of the Democratic party's problems in the 1970's and 1980's, and we'd still have lost all those elections if we'd stayed with the Lyndon Johnson foreign policy and the Archie Bunker domestic policy that the DLC supports. The voters didn't want TWO conservative parties.

[rhett o rick]

38. Isnt that what you wanted? Your divisive posts seem to be aimed at alienating the left. Why? nm

[Mithreal]

54. -1 Pathetic

[tango-tee]

78. Joining you in an additional -1,

while I'm grinding my tooth enamel to powder. Good grief.

[skyounkin]

67. Thanx- but you can blame the supreme court for that.

Since you are history stupid I'll let you know- GORE WON.

But go ahead and blame the liberals.

[zipplewrath]

12. How?

What have they "done" to him?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rhett o rick]

37. Why are you baiting the left? What is your agenda? Are you trying to drive a wedge between the

left and moderates? Or are you just trying to stir up trouble here?

[Mithreal]

45. +1 Very good question. Since I have been asked that by the mavericky one or someone very similar

I eagerly await a response but won't hold my breath.

[rhett o rick]

52. This poster and others similar wont explain what they support. They seem to try to hijack

threads, but never explain their beliefs or agenda.

[Mithreal]

55. +1 They are relentless and seems to be the only DU approved trolling.

[Raineyb]

84. Because they have no beliefs other than demanding unquestioning loyalty to the

party regardless of how it actually governs.

Principles are annoying to these types.

[tango-tee]

79. Not to worry.

It's only one of the really vocal lock-step shills.

Never mind what, he and his buddies will find a reason why something is absolutely brilliant in a never-before-thought-of, 5th-dimension-underwater-basketweaving way. Know what I mean?

[Jackpine Radical]

39. Thank you for clarifying that point:

There is a profound divide between Obama and the left.

[Mithreal]

62. +1

[niceypoo]

40. Moderate Democrat 2010 = republican 1985

[Enthusiast]

48. Nailed it, niceypoo. nt

[Mithreal]

43. The real question is, why do we call those who represent the opinions of most of America, the left?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RnzGcjJEbYs/SHZJozmfoNI/AAAAAAAABD8/c6brJk0kOIM/s400/w+as+cheerleader.jpg

Both sides got um.

[Enthusiast]

50. Now THAT is a a good question.

The American people did not overwhelmingly elect Democrats in 2006 and 2008 because they thought they were electing moderate Republicans.

Now, however, in finding what these Democrats actually were, the electorate is disappointed and disenchanted. This is validated by the polls.

[Enthusiast]

44. Just the kind of suggestion

I have come to expect from NJMaverick.

[IndianaGreen]

46. Only in that topsy-turvy universe of yours

In case you haven't noticed, progressives are the ones under Obama's bus, not the other way around.

[wordpix]

65. no, real q is: where will US oil end up? Oil now sells on global markets

so when politicians say US drilling will increase US energy security, they're full of BS UNLESS Congress passes a law saying US oil can only be sold and used within the US. There is no such law now that I know of.

[Jim Sagle]

74. An even MORE real question is why the DLC still pays you five bucks an hour to dispense their

hogwash.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emulatorloo]

23. LOL - have you read any threads lately? n/t

[emulatorloo]

22. Is conservativish Dylan Ratigan "stirring the Pot?" Yes n/t

[laurel46]

27. I wonder about Jane Hamsher

It seems to me that she, as well as ratigan, may very well work for the GOP. Jane's ideas have a peculiar way of supporting the other sides needs via a different argument. I think it might be a good idea to follow the money from the income of people that protest too much. For instance, she advocated joining the tea baggers, killing the bill, obama is corrupt, etc.... This oil question hinges on knowing the information our beloved president was given. No doubt it will have a lot more detail then our assessment so we shouldn't get angry so easily, after all, we are not teabaggers. With Jane, I listen to the point she is making and wonder how it benefits the republicans. One example is her acusations about big pharma. There were a plethora of lawsuits, criminal and civil, amounting to about a billion apiece for each of 8 companies (see doj page). These fines were huge and I would imagine that pharma did want to talk to the president, but they were hardly in a position to play hard ball. Jane never mentions how this may have effected those meetings and only says that there was a deal.

Another issue is criticism of Obama. He has enough enemies and we are just playing into the hands of propagandists when we quickly judge without all the facts. concern and preparation are great, but come on! Obama is not going to sell us out, but is in a good position to fake out the other side when he does go for a fatal blow. This man has prepared for this all his life.

[tango-tee]

34. I want some of what you're smoking.

[Mithreal]

56. -1 Jane Hamsher is a Republican? Many will greet you as a liberator here.

Or you could be out of your mind?

Some good comments but too much to even begin discussing.

I hesitate to even respond but welcome discussion and you to DU.

[szatmar666]

76. Hamsher tells it herself: it's a move to keep democrats in office

which is perfectly reasonable and I am OK with it. I doubt Hamsher is "working for republicans" but if you read DU you can see a lot of libs who can't think strategically. They make nice speeches on corporations and corruption but have no real solutions as to how to fix anything in real life. They have plenty of theories, many would work with the Danish electorate, but not in the USA. Ask president Ralph Nader and president Dennis Kucinich ;)

[Mithreal]

81. -1 Strategy is always more important than governing Progressively or liberally

Unprincipled triangulating, that's all good.

[no limit]

28. conservativish? The guy is for a public option for starters. How is that conservativish?

[emulatorloo]

29. He was apparently all kissy face with a teabagger the other day

At least that is what DU tells me.

[no limit]

30. Sorry if I don't buy "apparently"

[emulatorloo]

31. Here's the thread

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x247267

[no limit]

35. I saw that thread, even posted in it. It has no audio, no video, no transcript, nothing.

To call him conservative is insane I think.

[Peregrine Took]

25. Ya think??????? n/t

[Peacetrain]

36. Dylan Ratigan is a Libertarian..and belongs squarely in the Republican Party

That is where 99.9 % of Libertarians are.. so his constant criticism of the President, does not surprise me in the least. It is fully tongue in cheek..

[Mithreal]

60. Libertarian means EVERYTHING they say is WRONG and CORRUPTED

This is ad hominem and directed at a Libertarian I am less motivated to object but why use an ad hominem when you could persuade fellow DU'ers with a well reasoned response? If you have got something good to say, why hide behind a fallacy? There is a lot of common ground between libertarians and Progressives. There exist stark differences of course too. Libertarians are as marginalized in their party as Progressives in our party and many Libertarians I have met are principled types and often reasonable conservatives even though I may enthusiastically disagree with them often.

I suppose if you had a better response you would have brought it.

[wordpix]

64. I don't think so. He used to slam Bush over lots of things---finance, the war & more

[liberation]

71. He only started doing so when it was clear Bush was a lame duck, and he needed a differenciator for

his new time slot and TV gig.

After all, the positions for "crazed out screaming jackass day trader" and "great hair Barbie babbling economic nonsense" were already taken up in the other *NBCs.

[graywarrior]

42. I hate that fucking guy

I won't listen to him.

[suede1]

51. Kicked and recommended. It is nice when something more than talking points make it to the news.

[bc3000]

59. I have the maximum respect for Obama. It's just that we have different political views.

I am a progressive. Obama seems like more of a conservative democrat or that rare and endangered species, a moderate republican. I don't feel betrayed. I never bought into the National Review "most liberal democrat" nonsense they pin on any prospective democratic candidate.

I respect him as a person and I respect him as a president, but I do not feel like I need to blindly support everything he does. I will continue to do my best to make my voice heard when I disagree.

[Mithreal]

61. After the strategic diversions that have become a pattern for some on DU,

can we get back to discussing the topic at hand?

Never mind, let's all just say whether we like the people in the video or not. Thinking is hard.

[Robeson]

66. My thoughts, too...

...they were actually having a significant debate. Oh, well...

[20score]

77. Well said.

[Mithreal]

82. Thanks.

:hi:

[wordpix]

63. why not recognize the repukes will NOT play ball unless it's THEIR game by THEIR rules!

Didn't O learn this with the health care debate/debacle? Bush didn't play footsie with the Dems, he just ramrodded his "policy" through to get Iraq's oil, mine the coal, drill baby drill and everything else that would make the energy industry happy.

Stop pandering to the repubs, Obama. You and I are parting ways over this.

[szatmar666]

75. last I checked Obama won the healthcare fight

and made the repukes look unreasonable by simply presenting a centrist solution. If he loses the Congress this fall I will have to reconsider but so far I think he is very good at what he's doing. None of this drilling makes any difference for GW, or the environment. if the US doesn't spend billions on a new grid and a new electric car fleet or new light rail system this new drilling is going to be a drop in the bucket anyway. If this is the political price to chart a completely new course, I have no objection.

[skyounkin]

68. Is Obama betraying the left.

Yes. Absolutely and utterly. Yes, yes he is.

[sulphurdunn]

69. It never was a question

of whether or not to use natural gas. Somewhere around 130 billion cubic meters of natural gas are vented or flared by oil rigs every year. The flares are visible from outer space. They amount to a quarter of the entire annual US consumption of natural gas. The waste is mind boggling when considered against the subsidies for domestic production and the externalized environmental and monetary costs of drilling to replace those losses. I enlightened myself somewhat about this topic with a quick Google search that took ten minutes. Can't the President do the same?
:dunce:

[liberation]

70. How can anyone betray a group they have never been part of (or agree with for that matter?

Obama is a "pragmatist" on his best days, and a center-right guy for the rest of the work week.

I think it is more of an issue of liberals being so desperate to be represented, that they did project their expectations on a moderate conservative guy... and now are wondering how on earth's name a moderate conservative is acting, quacking, and walking like a moderate conservative.

It takes two to tango though, Obama has been always rather unspecific on purpose, and liberals were desperate enough as to project onto that same lack of specifics.


There is nothing wrong with moderate conservative ethos, since for tastes there are colors. There is something wrong with liberals expecting moderate conservatives to further and implement liberal and progressive policies and stances. IMHO, It is insane for liberals continuing supporting a political party, like the Dems, which have been making it clear by active and passive that they are not only uninterested in progressive policies being any significant part of their political platform... but are down right hostile to the left.

[Mithreal]

83. +1