"They have the same right to condemn their critics as their critics have to condemn..."

[ProSense]

Glenn Greenwald

Obama supporters often claim that those who object to this White House messaging are reacting emotionally and personally because they're "offended" by these criticisms. Speaking only for myself, that has nothing to do with any of this. I'm not the slightest bit "offended" when Obama officials and their apparatchiks voice these accusations. They have the same right to condemn their critics as their critics have to condemn them, and it's hardly a surprise that Obama officials harbor these thoughts about the "left." Contempt for the left is one of the unifying beliefs of the Washington establishment, which is why most conventional establishment journalists -- Maureen Dowd, Ruth Marcus, Dana Milbank -- cheered Gibbs' outburst about the "Professional Left." None of that is new; none of it is a surprise; and none of it is "offensive."

What is notable about it is what it reveals substantively. The country is drowning in a severe and worsening unemployment crisis. People are losing their homes by the millions. Income inequality continues to explode while the last vestiges of middle class security continue to erode. The Obama civil liberties record has been nothing short of a disgrace, usually equaling and sometimes surpassing the worst of the Bush/Cheney abuses. We have to stand by and watch the Commander-in-Chief fire one gay service member after the next for their sexual orientation. The major bills touted by Obama supporters were the by-product of the very corporatist/lobbyist dominance which Obama the candidate repeatedly railed against. Rather than take responsibility for any of this, they instead dismiss criticisms and objections as petulant, childish, "irresponsible whining" -- signaling rather clearly that they think they're doing the right thing and that these criticisms are fundamentally unfair.

"They have the same right to condemn their critics as their critics have to condemn them...they...dismiss criticisms and objections as petulant, childish, "irresponsible whining" -- signaling rather clearly that they think they're doing the right thing and that these criticisms are fundamentally unfair."

Yeah, Greenwald is right, the President and his administration has every right to condemn their critics, and they believe they're doing the right thing in terms of policy. The surprising thing is that it took him so long to come to this realization.

Still, that reality isn't good enough for Greenwald, he wants it his way:

The administration has every right to condemn its critics, but because I don't agree with anything they've done, they're failing to take responsibility for the disdain I have for its policies.

Does it occur to Greenwald that there are a lot of people who also agree that the administration is doing the right thing?

[jonnyblitz]

1. anbody who agrees with" what the administration is doing" must

not have been too upset with how Bush handled things.

[spanone]

2. so wrong.

[ProSense]

3. BS. n/t

[Catherina]

37. +1 n/t

[RainDog]

4. they may have the right but it's politically stupid

especially when the Republican party is overrun with absolute whack jobs.

Republicans who don't want to go to hell in a hand basket with Palin and O'Connell will not vote for them - if Democrats want to win, why don't the recognize this reality and stop whining about liberal critics?

If they just didn't say anything they would be doing something better than their current tactic of alienation.

[ProSense]

6. Actually, I don't think it's politically stupid

to call out people who are constantly declaring your entire Presidency a failure, minimizing everything you do and insisting that if you continue doing these things you're going to be a one-term President.

[RainDog]

11. we can agree to disagree

you seem to want to lump every liberal into the same pile. I think it's a little more diverse than that. but jmho.

[ProSense]

13. Actually,

no.

"you seem to want to lump every liberal into the same pile"

Those who constantly claim that the President is alienating the base are the ones doing that.

[RainDog]

19. again, that's your opinion. and you are welcome to share it

but simply claiming this doesn't make it true for everyone.

some people will vote for democrats in spite of their sense of alienation - this is a reality.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. The President has the right to worship Satan and deny the holocaust

Does anyone suggest that it would be a good idea for him to do so?

Of course the WH has every right to alienate constituencies.

Doesn't make it a good idea or admirable.

[ProSense]

7. And you have a right to make this point. n/t

[ProSense]

8. No other insightful comments? n/t

[kentuck]

9. It's all happening in a vacuum...

There is no reason for it.

[Marr]

10. I really don't understand your point.

Greenwald is saying the Washington establishment is on the right edge of the party, and does not like the left. Their policies and statements are bound to reflect that reality, which they do.

Of course you like those policies, and of course others who are with you on the right side of the party like them, too. Greenwald never said the entire party was disappointed, or that the Obama Administration is criticizing every Democrat. But you need to understand that advocating positions that are so far over on the right side of the party is bound to alienate a good portion of your potential voters.

[ProSense]

12. Really?

"Greenwald is saying the Washington establishment is on the right edge of the party, and does not like the left."
Another baseless point trying to link the President with "Maureen Dowd, Ruth Marcus, Dana Milbank."

What the hell does the President have to do with these media tools?

Here's the point, and I repeat:

"They have the same right to condemn their critics as their critics have to condemn them...they...dismiss criticisms and objections as petulant, childish, "irresponsible whining" -- signaling rather clearly that they think they're doing the right thing and that these criticisms are fundamentally unfair."

Yeah, Greenwald is right, the President and his administration has every right to condemn their critics, and they believe they're doing the right thing in terms of policy. The surprising thing is that it took him so long to come to this realization.

Still, that reality isn't good enough for Greenwald, he wants it his way:

The administration has every right to condemn its critics, but because I don't agree with anything they've done, they're failing to take responsibility for the disdain I have for its policies.

Does it occur to Greenwald that there are a lot of people who also agree that the administration is doing the right thing?

[Marr]

15. Again, I don't see what you think is new there.

Is it Greenwald's acknowledgment that the Obama Administration "believes they're doing the right thing"? That's hardly a revelation. Everyong *thinks* they're doing the right thing. Dick Cheney probably thought he was doing the right thing.

[ProSense]

17. Wait

if Greenwald believes they have a right to condemn their critics why harp on the fact that they do when he acknowledges, as if by an epiphany, that it is "signaling rather clearly that they think they're doing the right thing and that these criticisms are fundamentally unfair"?

At that point you criticize the policies and stop harping on the fact that the administration is taking issue with your criticisms (that is whining), especially under the disingenuous frame that it's directed at the base. It's directed at the critics.

[Marr]

23. I think the critics largely are the base.

Not all of them, and not all of the base is angry. But for the most part, I think you'd be safe categorizing Obama's most disappointed supporters as members of the Democratic base. Most of the angry Democrats I know volunteered for Obama's campaign last time around.

This is anecdotal, and I know you disagree, but that's my perception.

[ProSense]

26. Perception isn't always reality.

It maybe your reality, but other people may not see it that way.

All the polls show that the President still enjoys significant support among Democrats. While his health care plan and Wall Street Reforms are written off by people like Hamsher, a significant majority of Democrats approve these plans. In fact, Wall Street reform enjoys significant support among the majority of Independents.

[Marr]

27. If that's true, why do you care about critics?

They're an insignificant minority, right?

[ProSense]

29. They should ignore the critics? n/t

[EFerrari]

24. You don't understand her point because her paraphrasing of Greenwald

near the bottom is a bizarre self serving distortion of what he said, and then her final question is completely off her topic of how to treat your critics. IOW, she cheats her evidence and then moves the goal posts.

[ProSense]

30. You can't explain a point you obviously missed

I repeat: If Greenwald believes they have a right to condemn their critics why harp on the fact that they do when he acknowledges, as if by an epiphany, that it is "signaling rather clearly that they think they're doing the right thing and that these criticisms are fundamentally unfair"?

At that point you criticize the policies and stop harping on the fact that the administration is taking issue with your criticisms (that is whining), especially under the disingenuous frame that it's directed at the base. It's directed at the critics.

[EFerrari]

41. I didn't miss anything, sorry. And the issue is that the Obama White House has decided

the best way to win the midterms is to attack their own voters. There's nothing disingenuous about pointing that out.

[ProSense]

42. No, you missed the point

"And the issue is that the Obama White House has decided the best way to win the midterms is to attack their own voters."

Whining isn't going to change anything. Greenwald and Hamsher have spent a lot of energy whining, even digging up a campaign speech to spin their ridiculous meme.

Obama Mocks Public Option Supporters

It's hilarious to watch them jump into the campaign for Feingold after watching him falter for the entire summer.

See, effectively campaigning for Feingold would have meant to some extent acknowledging that Democrats did something right.

Then again, not in Hamsher's case, given her e-mail highlighted where Feingold, who participated in yesterday's rally with the President, opposed him. It then went on to refer to his teabagger opponent as Lieberman lite.

Maybe it's a good thing the whining distracted them.

[Catherina]

38. +1 n/t

[JNelson6563]

14. I think this nonsense is being blown out of proportion.

But I guess that is what the chattering classes do with all their time. Negativity is more exciting and draws more shit flinging monkeys (SFMs) that get all busy with every piece of red meat (stuff to bitch about) tossed to them by the Best&Brightest of the SFMs.

Julie--who is glad to be too busy to play SFM the tubes all day

[DainBramaged]

16. Another silence the crowd thread.......

:eyes:

[ProSense]

18. Actually

I welcome comments that make a point relevant to the OP topic.

[DainBramaged]

20. I made my point.

:smoke:

[Fumesucker]

21. It was the DC Village that drove the country into the ditch in the first place..

Recall just how little dissent there was from the DC establishment with Dubya's caudillo until the very end.

The Village is a deeply stupid herd that is almost completely disconnected from the rest of the country, for Obama to largely align himself with the Village is not a sign of wisdom, exactly the opposite in fact.

[ProSense]

22. "for Obama to largely align himself with the Village is not a sign of wisdom"

What does that mean? He's the President, he has to deal with the realities of Washington.

Still, the President hasn't been sitting around for 20 months saying "let them eat cake."

The notion that he has aligned with "the Village" (I guess that's Washington) instead of looking out for people is just flat out inaccurate. Everything from food stamp increases to student loan reform benefits Americans.

I don't understand it, either. The stimulus included not only the broad Making Work Pay tax cut that gave most families an $800 refundable tax credit but also the child tax credit and the earned-income tax credit, which were especially helpful to lower-income families.

If the child tax credit isn't extended, 7.6 million children who get the benefit through their families would lose it entirely, and the credit would be reduced for an additional 10.5 million children. The biggest losses, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, would be among families earning $12,850 to $16,333, many of which include a parent working full time for minimum wage. Also set to expire are expansions of the earned-income tax credit that have helped working families that include 14.9 million children.

Tell me again: Why is it more important to preserve millionaires' tax cuts than to continue helping these far more vulnerable Americans? Why are Republican leaders who argue that failing to extend all of the Bush tax cuts would constitute a tax increase not saying exactly the same thing about the Obama tax cuts? Is it blind ideology, an exceptional solicitude for people with very high incomes or the fact that Obama's cuts were packaged into the dreaded stimulus?

link

The Making Work Pay tax credit is still in effect for the 2010 returns.

[Fumesucker]

25. The point is that the Village hates on the left..

But the left is correct far, far more often than the Village about nearly everything when it comes to policy.

Invading Iraq was possibly the biggest foreign policy disaster in US history, the Village *loved* the idea and did an amazing song and dance to sell it to the rest of the country that was initially skeptical, the left was skeptical and remained that way even after the Village sales marathon. And the really irksome thing is that Iraq was a totally unforced error, it was completely optional and unnecessary.

You name the policy disaster in the last thirty years and virtually every time you'll find that the left was against it.

Oh.. And food stamps are now being cut..

http://minnesotaindependent.com/71597/the-real-impact-of-food-stamp-cuts

[ProSense]

28. "But the left is correct far, far more often than the Village "

"Invading Iraq was possibly the biggest foreign policy disaster in US history"

The "left" is lambasting the President for keeping his promise on Iraq, accusing him of a shell game for sticking to a time line he defined when he first took office.

As for food stamps being cut, it's a criticism that can be leveled, but don't pretend that they're being cut immediately.

Also the person responsible for the increases in food stamp benefits implemented in 2009 that will continue through 2014 is President Obama.

Anything can happen between now and then, and the potential to do more is still there. In fact, the President is determined to address poverty here and around the world.

[Fumesucker]

31. The point is though that Obama is criticizing the left and not the Village..

When it is the left that has been correct on issue after issue after issue over decades, the reason he criticizes the left is because it is popular to do so with those who have been dead wrong on issue after issue after issue over the same time period.

The wise person listens to those who have been correct, he doesn't criticize them because the "kool kids" don't like them.

[ProSense]

33. That isn't even close to accurate

A couple of comments by the President spun as dissing the base, doesn't come remotely close to the amount of times he has called out Republicans and the media.

In fact, he skewered Fox yesterday.

[Fumesucker]

34. Fox may be a part of the Village..

But it is by no means the entire beast..

High Broderism is what the Village is all about..

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=high%20broderism

The worship of bipartisanship for its own sake, combined with a fake "pox on both their houses" attitude. The main goal is the establishment of a permanent ruling class of Washington insiders, our betters who know better. It is their rough agenda which is sold as "centrism" even when it has no actual relationship with the political center in a meaningful way. The establishment of an aristocratic class in America. The belief that it all sides are equal and must compromise at all times. Regardless of the final outcome or the level of understanding or intelligence presented by each side.

Mark Foley had a bad relationship with pages; Sen. Vitter has visited Prositutes in New Orleans and Washington; Sen Craig tried to proposition an undercover officer; Newt Gingrich had multiple afairs; Duke Cunningham was bribed with Prostitutes; but William Jefferson had money in his fridge so both sides are clearly evil.

[ProSense]

35. Oh brother.

"The worship of bipartisanship for its own sake"

A definition is proof?

[Fumesucker]

36. Obama has not sought bipartisanship with people who would gladly see him destroyed?

When you split the difference between center right and falling off the edge of the world right you are not in the center.

The vast majority of the Republican party is falling off the edge of the world right, the Village wants to split the difference between them and the Democratic center which is really center right in terms of world politics and then they call that the center.

Twice as many Americans think the health insurance law didn't go far enough as thought that the law went too far, yet the Village opinion is that it was a radical move.

[ProSense]

39. Who?

Republicans?

What exactly is it about math that people don't seem to get?

Democrats need Republican votes to pass legislations. Ben Nelson is not a sure vote. Compromising with Ben Nelson is sometimes the same as compromising with Snowe.

You can complain about Democrats in general, but they are not all the same. There are not 59 progressives in the Senate Democratic Caucus.

Maybe the President can stop trying to get things done and refuse to compromise. He can stand on one side and the Republicans on another and stare at each other.

[Fumesucker]

40. This thread was about who the White House was dissing..

Not about how many votes there are in the Senate..

The simple fact of the matter is that the left has been correct time after time and the Village incorrect when it comes to policy.

And yet it is the almost always correct on policy left that gets demonized and told to STFU by the White House.

I realize you can't understand the frustration of people who have been correct about things for thirty years while being simultaneously ignored in favor of those who have been dead wrong for the same period of time.

[Scurrilous]

32. K & R

:thumbsup: