McLaughlin Group blames "Professional Left" but this blog sets it straight

[mod mom]

The bad joke known the Mclaughlin Group's elitist pundits adds to Robert Gibb's disparaging remark & attempt to blame the left for the coming election, but Mr Palermo set it straight in this piece:


The McLaughlin Group: It's the "Professional Left's" Fault
Joseph A. Palermo Associate Professor, American History, California State University, Sacramento

-snip

Now I ask you to consider: If the country elected a Republican president and gave the Republicans control of both houses of Congress would they settle for a quarter loaf? Of course not. In 2000, after Bush "won" by the slimmest of margins, these same Washington pundits told us that he'd have to appoint "moderates" to his cabinet and govern "from the center." Instead, he appointed people like John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton, and he still bowled over his opponents in the other party. The McLaughlin Group and the rest of the media mob then proceeded to cheer on Bush as he ballooned the deficit, lied us into war, and set up a deregulatory framework that facilitated the collapse of the economy.

In contrast, President Obama often began his negotiations by asking for a half a loaf; and when he was told "No!" he quickly settled for a quarter loaf, or even an eighth. He became risk averse, pandered to Big Pharma and Big Oil. He sucked up to the big Wall Street banks and now they give all their campaign money to the GOP so a lot of good that did. After years of blatant mortgage fraud Attorney General Eric Holder can't find anyone to indict? I guess he's too busy sending the FBI to ransack the homes and offices of peace and human rights activists. Obama's State Department continues to ink contracts with Blackwater USA (Xe Services) and other war profiteers that had successfully wedged themselves into the middle of both wars. His tolerance of these mercenary corporations will make it harder to dislodge them later on. Their influence will only grow under the next Republican administration. Escalating the war in Afghanistan cost tens of billions of dollars a year that might have gone to helping those in need in the United States. It also erased any financial benefit of reducing the number of combat soldiers in Iraq.

To add insult to injury, the "professional Left" has a long historical record of being correct. Such as when it argued that NAFTA and the WTO would suck jobs out of the United States and lead to environmental lapses. It was also correct that de-regulating the Telecommunications Industry would lead to monopolistic control and strengthen the hand of Rupert Murdoch. It was correct that de-regulating the financial services industry and repealing Glass-Steagall would create banks that were too big to fail. It was correct that George W. Bush was going to be a disaster for the country, (recall the cover of The Nation magazine during the 2000 campaign that characterized Bush as Alfred E. Newman with a button reading: "Worry"). It was correct that Bush's Greenspan-endorsed tax cut for the rich would balloon the deficit. It was correct that the Republican Medicare bill in 2003 was a giveaway to Big Pharma. It was correct in arguing that Iraq was not a "threat" and that the Bush Administration had failed to make the case for war. It was correct that invading Iraq, toppling the government, and occupying the country was going to cost tens of thousand of innocent lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and become the greatest terrorist recruitment tool ever; et cetera, et cetera.

When Obama's agenda began to peter out under the weight of Republican obstructionism and his own tendency to play it safe, it was the Democratic base that worked the hardest trying to prevent him from succumbing to Washington's money-soaked ways. Now Beltway commentators like those on The McLaughlin Group blame "the professional Left" for the Democrats' woes in 2010. They find fault with the very people who tried their best to persuade Obama to challenge the culture of corruption, a culture these pundits are clearly part of. Priceless.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/the-mcglaughlin-group-its_b_769148.html

EXACTLY!

[treestar]

1. The professional left is ineffective

journalists pride themselves on "influencing" the voters - goes back to Hearst. They can "deliver" the vote through their influence. The PL is not nearly as good as the Prof. Right. And since 85% of liberals support the President rather than offer tons of nonconstructive criticism the PLeft does not even succeed there.

[mod mom]

3. "professional left is ineffective" thanks in big part to Telecom Act of "96

which btw was signed into law by (as Rachel aptly described him) the best Republican president since Reagan.

The left's voices aren't heard the way the right is. 600,000 people show up for an anti-war march and nil, but 25 tea baggers get full network coverage non-stop. That law has done so much damage.

[treestar]

16. The Republicans do have the M$M in their favor

Still the whole idea leaves a bad taste for me. That these pundits control the voters. True a lot of voters are mindless. But they'd do better to report the facts instead of using all this spin to try to control as many voters as they can.

[bluethruandthru]

31. The Telecom Act has been and will continue to be

the undoing of the Democratic party! The right knew this and they started with their "Liberal Media" campaign at about the same time that the bill passed. Now the "liberal media" has become such an ingrained part of the country's collective mindset that you'd be hard pressed to find many average democrats who would disagree with that statement.

[Forkboy]

14. It sure seems to get some worked up though, doesn't it?

[treestar]

15. If it were so effective, why are only 15% so far left that they can't stand the President?

In other words, not convincing many voters.

[Forkboy]

20. I never said it was effective.

I said for something so ineffective a lot of people sure get their keks in a wad over them.

[Ignis]

32. Keks, eh? I smell a Scot.

;)

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Strawman.

It is not the president they can't stand - it is the president's policies which enhance the right, and continue the war, and which do not hold the right accountable that they cannot stand.

Do you really think that the vast majority of the people in the country, seeing the blatant looting of the treasury by Wall Street, don't want to see SOMEBODY go to prison for it? That is what that 15% is asking for - for Obama to be the change he advertised himself to be. Why the difference? They are more mad than scared, and most people are fucking terrified by this economy, so when the president bargains away the treasury to the banksters they console themselves with the thought that he MUST know what he's doing, because the alternative is just too scary to consider.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Of course, to some, ANY criticism is 'nonconstructive'.

As the article points out, the 'professional left' is almost invariably correct in its criticisms and SHOULD be listened to - that is, I think, the definition of 'constructive criticism'.

It is not the left going around saying "Obama is a socialist" and offering no definition of 'socialist'. The left is saying "that policy caters to the people who caused the problems to begin with" and then spend pages and pages explaining exactly WHY. That is constructive criticism.

Of course, you have to be listening, not switching off at the end of the first sentence.

[ShamelessHussy]

23. they have been marginalized by the elite, however, the elite are on everyones shit list

And poll very poorly these days, which bodes well for folks looking for progressive change... They just need to keep working for it, as what goes round, comes round ;)

[librechik]

24. 85% of all appearances on the media are white male republicans

How do we assert any influence when they refuse to give us air time?

[mod mom]

26. and the other 15% are paid off shills like Michelle Bernard.

[NJmaverick]

29. The professional left is effective at hurting Democratic morale

although I agree the are ineffective in terms of making any sort of positive impact.

[Tippy]

2. K&R

[Nite Owl]

4. K&R

Excellent article especially the part about the Professional Left having a historical record of being correct.
We all started off with hope and it was so quickly squashed.

[mod mom]

12. Can someone explain Gibbs & rahm's logic in attempting to alienate the base w remarks?

I'm being serious, I simply can't fathom what would be behind it. They had to know it would alienate progressives and certainly wouldn't make the obstructionist GOP any more willing to work with them. It seems to me they would rather have the GOP win that admit progressives were correct (about the war, free markets, the banks, who they chose in the administration, healthcare etc) and give them a seat at the table.

[treestar]

17. They aren't getting the "progressive" vote any way

So they are appealing to the 85% "base" That bigger base that still supports them.

The professional left is not scaring them. That's too bad for the professional left, who like most journalists of today, wish to control Washington by controlling the voters. The voters left of center seem to be able to think for themselves.

Republicans don't do that as much, so that their media can control them. They simply march in lockstep and repeat the talking points. To the chagrin of the Professional left, the voters to the left won't do that in as great numbers.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Bullshit.

They ARE getting the progressive vote - but are publicly dissing it in a vain hope of drawing votes from the right - which is not going to happen. It's Rahm's failed strategy all over.

IMO, those who claim that the progressives are going to stay home are RW operatives who want to try to depress the vote - much like those in Nevada telling Hispanics to stay home as a 'protest'. It's bullshit, and progressives know better.

And, for your information, counting the blue dogs and Reagan Democrats as part of 'the base' is a fucking lie - the progressives are the dependable votes who have been there every election, who are not fooled by conservative lies and tricks, and the Democratic base is moderate and progressive Dems, not conservative Dems who abandon the party over a blow job.

Are you getting paid for your disinformation, or is it strictly voluntary?

[Hello_Kitty]

27. Treestar, large majorities of Americans oppose the DLC 'free trade' policies you embrace

Yet when the DLC's main idea of "moving to the center" is more outsourcing and offshoring. That gets them large contributions from corporations so that Blue Dogs and New Dems can hang onto their seats.

[NJmaverick]

30. That is incorrect, the DLC does not support outsourcing

[Hello_Kitty]

33. Many DLCers do. eom

[NJmaverick]

34. Wikipedia calls that phrase Many fill in the blank) a weasel phrase

[hfojvt]

5. well the left certainly never tires of hearing about its own greatness

"Now I ask you to consider: If the country elected a Republican president and gave the Republicans control of both houses of Congress would they settle for a quarter loaf? Of course not. In 2000, after Bush "won" by the slimmest of margins, these same Washington pundits told us that he'd have to appoint "moderates" to his cabinet and govern "from the center." Instead, he appointed people like John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton, and he still bowled over his opponents in the other party. The McLaughlin Group and the rest of the media mob then proceeded to cheer on Bush as he ballooned the deficit, lied us into war, and set up a deregulatory framework that facilitated the collapse of the economy."


Funny thing is to compare that paragraph to the intro to "Fahrenheit 911."

Start at the 7:16 mark after the description of the inauguration day near-riot.

"And for the next 8 months, it didn't get any better for George W. Bush. He couldn't get his judges appointed. He had trouble getting his legislation passed, and he lost Republican control of the Senate...."

[JamesA1102]

7. LOL very good nt

[whatchamacallit]

18. His initial difficulties don't change the fact that Bush had an uncompromising agenda

and a dictatorial style. He just required a jump-start. You know, something like the oh-so-convenient 9/11 terror attacks.

[hfojvt]

36. no, it was 911 that allowed him to roll over the Democrats on some issues

Obama didn't have that 'benefit'.

[Raster]

6. Thanks for posting, mom! This para speaks volumes:

"To add insult to injury, the "professional Left" has a long historical record of being correct. Such as when it argued that NAFTA and the WTO would suck jobs out of the United States and lead to environmental lapses. It was also correct that de-regulating the Telecommunications Industry would lead to monopolistic control and strengthen the hand of Rupert Murdoch. It was correct that de-regulating the financial services industry and repealing Glass-Steagall would create banks that were too big to fail. It was correct that George W. Bush was going to be a disaster for the country, (recall the cover of The Nation magazine during the 2000 campaign that characterized Bush as Alfred E. Newman with a button reading: "Worry"). It was correct that Bush's Greenspan-endorsed tax cut for the rich would balloon the deficit. It was correct that the Republican Medicare bill in 2003 was a giveaway to Big Pharma. It was correct in arguing that Iraq was not a "threat" and that the Bush Administration had failed to make the case for war. It was correct that invading Iraq, toppling the government, and occupying the country was going to cost tens of thousand of innocent lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and become the greatest terrorist recruitment tool ever; et cetera, et cetera.

[RainDog]

11. This needs to be repeated on CNN and Fox News every day.

but instead we get bullshit arguments that have been shown to be ineffective for economic policy, health care, a strong middle class and a strong democracy.

[whatchamacallit]

8. So Word! K&R n/t

[xchrom]

9. Recommend

[ProfessionalLeftist]

10. I didn't do a damn thing to cause this mess. n/t

[mod mom]

13. Take it up w Gibbs & the McLaughlin Group!

;)

[ProfessionalLeftist]

19. Gibbers is full of horse-puckey. n/t

[NJmaverick]

28. The professional left owns a large share of the blame for the Dems struggles

you can't spend 2 years mercilessly attacking the Democratic party and not see negative consequences.

[Raster]

37. You sure have your talking points down, eh?

No they don't. The Dems spinelessness and eagerness to wrap their arms around the DLC corporate schmooze are to blame for many of the Democratic Party's problems.

Dude, you are a one trick pony.

[NJmaverick]

38. Dismiss the truth as a "talking point"

how typical:eyes:

[Raster]

41. It's the truth as you see it. Don't assign anything more than just your opinion.

"how typical"? Yep, right back at ya!

[NJmaverick]

42. Actions having consequences is a truth

not an opinion

[Raster]

44. I'm afraid we disagree on the actual actions and the purported consequences.

Have a nice day.

[PVnRT]

39. Funny

Your buddy up thread just said the professional left has no influence whatsoever.

Which one is it?

[NJmaverick]

40. "my buddy"? I have expressed my opinions

What difference does it make what someone else holds? More importantly why do you insist on giving the professional left a free pass for their very destructive behavior?

[PVnRT]

45. Evidently, you believe that the "professional left,"

as you so deride them, have an enormous influence on the electorate as a whole. So why aren't you rebutting others in this thread and elsewhere who say that their influence is next to nothing and can be safely ignored? Do you honestly believe that the average swing voter has any clue who people like Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald are?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. The "Professional Left" is the 2010 version of "REDS!", "COMMIES!", "HIPPIES!", "OUTSIDE AGITATORS!"

Questioning or criticizing the bosses is always seen as a threat by the bosses and their sycophants.

[krabigirl]

43. Exactly. What i can't stand is the corporate wing of the Dem party.