Why I distrust the PL (professional left) ..experience has taught me well

[Peacetrain]

This is going to be one of those ops that disappears into the ether, but everyone has their say, and I will have mine.

I have a distinct distrust of the PL who write in newspapers and report on TV and radio shows and now media on the net and what they do to any Democratic canidate who becomes President.

They take it into their very marrow to find every fault and decry every movement. It is almost a "self loathing" aspect to how they report and a need to curry favor with the the right side.. almost moving forcing them further right.

I have lived long enough to see this happen time and time again. Jimmy Carter was eviscerated from the PL's ..

And they went stony quiet while Reagen reeked havoc on the economy.

Bill Clinton did himself in with his philandering.. but leading the charge to bring him down was the PL in newspaper after newspaper.. wrapped up in their self righteous indignation.

We got Bush the younger.. and the PL's sat on their hands as we were marched into a war and insane tax breaks were given.. but the best they could do, after a short stint of criticism of Bush is talk about how affable Bush was..(I heard that over and over with Reagan)

So you will have to excuse me, when I see the people who "claimed" to be Democratic supporters.. begin again to do anything in their power to bring down this President.

I have been down this road before with the Vichy Democrats who never were.

I do not trust them.. I have been burned too many times.

[FSogol]

1. K & R. n/t

[damntexdem]

4. What professional left 'who write in newspapers and report on TV and radio shows.'

I fail to find them, unless one counts Rachel Maddow -- which I would call borderline.

[RandomKoolzip]

14. That's the beauty of the "professional left" insult - it enables centrist and Obama

stalwarts to hurl invective at DUers they don't like - an then, when leftist DUers defend themselves, the centrists ask, "Getting defensive, are we?"

In fact, the term "professional left," as it's used on DU, can mean practically ANYONE who the stalwarts feel is worthy of ire that day - OR it could mean certain blog authors or pundits. It's a wild card term.

[Wilms]

2. Oh, so it's the "Professional Left" that are the "Vichy Democrats".

I've always known the only problem with the right-wing policies pushed by this Admin, is the complaints that Progressives make about it.

:eyes:

[Enrique]

3. "the PL's sat on their hands" as Bush went to war

that's false. Take it back please.

[sudopod]

38. OP didn't see it on the Telescreen

so it didn't happen.

[CakeGrrl]

5. K/R

When they get a segment of the left sounding as virulent as the far right, they've done their job.

And I don't care what anyone says, too many of these noveau "Progressives" with their TV and blog outlets have had their roots in Republicanism or still have affiliations with Republicans to be a coincidence.

It's a long-range attack from the Left - and people are being suckered in by the "Professionals" who know how to push the correct buttons.

[Wilms]

8. There's a long-range attack ON the Left.

Like I wrote above, some seem to be confusing the problem as being caused by the Left, rather than the Admins right-leaning policies.

I'm not following the logic.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. K&R

:kick:

[Bluenorthwest]

7. I distrust candidates who employ 'ex gay' hate preachers

and let me tell you why. It indicates what will later be a landslide to the right, it announces a calloused, deeply conservative and ignorant world view. In my experience, I have never met a hate preacher's pal who turned out to be worth a plug nickle, still haven't.
My Grand Dad used to say "A politician who shouts hallelujah is like a prostitute who says I love you, they both really mean 'I want your money' and the only difference between the two is that God will forgive the prostitute."
He was right. He had a few choice words about McCarthy that come to mind too, but I am late, and must go.

[CakeGrrl]

9. The McClurkin/Warren train has now arrived on time

What this has to do with an OP about the PL is anyone's guess, but apparently one tactic to completely distract from any criticism that isn't aimed squarely at the President is to bring this up.

Bizarre.

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. The PL do talk a good talk.

And I am forever grateful to them for their support of the Civil Rights Movement, but something has been floundering for a long time.

Like I said, they talk a good talk. Sometimes that's enough in the cyber age where e-mail blasts can make a difference. But frankly, I've been here for about ten years and have yet to find one that has convinced me that they are ready to come out from behind the rhetoric and follow a plan or strategy that will actually make a difference.

In that regard, I realize that Obama isn't a Liberal, but my heart goes out to all the young people who supported him in the last election and are wondering why.

[RandomKoolzip]

11. Obama's doing a fine and dandy job of bringing his own presidency down.

And if you think the "professional" (What the fuck does that even mean?! The blogosphere? Alexander Cockburn? The Nation?) left was silent during the Bush years, then you're being disingenuous.

[bvar22]

12. "the Vichy Democrats" are the ones who voted for Reagan,

...and are now cheering on the dismantling of the New Deal, The Fair Deal,
and the Great Society.

"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010

[libmom74]

32. +100

[Mimosa]

48. I used to know LOTS of 'Vichy Democrats'

BVar that's a great description. Vichy democrats were often in the arts and entertainment industry. They crossed over to vote for Reagan and Bush 41 and never looked back. I believe they left a vacuum in the Republican Party which was filled by the religious right and Newt neo-cons. They are now fighting to drag the Democratic party rightward. They have never been comfortable as Democrats. That's where we're getting all the new deal killers as appeasers to the Republi-CONs.

[Webster Green]

13. Yes, the liberal media is the problem.

What can we do about it? The left owns the friggin' media.

We're screwn! :rofl:

[RandomKoolzip]

15. Yeah, right?

This situation is sooooo fucked. During the Bush years, ANY left/liberal voice was encouraged, spread around, and promoted on DU, as if we were passing out Samizdat literature - which is what it indeed felt like at the time.

Now those same voices are demonized - and their accomplishments dismissed entirely - because they have the unmitigated GALL to remain ideologically consistent under a Dem president. HOW DARE THEY/US/IT?!

[Webster Green]

23. You cut right to the chase with that one.

"Now those same voices are demonized - and their accomplishments dismissed entirely - because they have the unmitigated GALL to remain ideologically consistent under a Dem president. HOW DARE THEY/US/IT?!"

That is precisely what is happening. It's very sad to watch.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Be specific - name some names, and compare their comments today

to what their comments were during the Bush/Bush/Reagan years.

Otherwise, this is nothing more than DLC/Third Way bullshit.

[tledford]

20. Those crickets are loud, aren't they? eom

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. CHIRP!! CHIRP!!

[jefferson_dem]

17. K/R

Thanks.

[Autumn]

18. Un rec

Vichy Democrats because they are trying to do "anything in their power to bring down this President."

Hey he has done a great job of that all by himself. But don't worry he will be fine. It's the poor and elderly that get to sacrifice.

[young but wise]

19. K&R.

[Armstead]

21. Why doncha name some names as examples?

Frankly, your definition of the "professional left" baffles me.

Are you talking about the mainstream media commentators and columnists in the NY Tinmes, CBS, NBC, CNN, etc?

Or the left oriented publications like The Nation?

How about some examples, so people can either agree or disagree with your point?

[Maven]

24. Preemptively shutting yourself off to skepticism

And you wonder why people suspect you have political support confused with religious devotion.

[Bluerthanblue]

35. preemptively shutting yourself off to

any way but "my way"- ie, "no compromise", "no bi-partisanship" sounds an awful lot like fundamentalist religious style of thinking to me.

It would be fine if we could just make those in this country who have political views that are the polar opposite of our disappear, but that isn't gonna happen. It's a presidency not a dictatorship.

The OP wasn't talking about reasonable skepticism in my reading of it. Much of what has been thrown at this administration goes far beyond "reasonable" and isn't about "skepticism" as much as it is about personal dislike/hatred- imo- from individuals on the left AND right.

[Maven]

25. P.S. Anyone who still thinks Obama wouldn't have voted for the IWR

if he had the chance, is either blind or stupid.

He probably would have offered to invade Iran as a gesture of compromise.

[Bluerthanblue]

34. I'[m neither blind or stupid, and I still believe that as a senator

Barack Obama wouldn't have voted for the IWR.

Your opinion to the contrary is just that- YOUR OPINION. You aren't blind or stupid because you disagree with me-

There is a vast difference between being a Senator/Congressman and being the PRESIDENT.

I was appalled at Bill Clinton's DADT and welfare reform for instance. As a Gov. he wouldn't have supported such crap. As President, he didn't have the same freedom to do what he would have preferred to do.

We seem to have forgotten that. Bush pushed through so much shit, with his signing statements and manufactured lies, we seem to have lost the concept of what a President is all about.


:shrug:

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. Did they pass over his veto?

Just asking.

[frylock]

42. i bought into that bullshit, and even argued against clinton supporters using it..

and yeah, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to believe that line of nonsense today.

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. lol

[ljm2002]

26. I'm sorry but your analysis fails badly...

...when you accuse the "PL" of being silent during the Reagan years and also during the Bush years. That is simply not so, and if you were paying attention during those tenures you would know that.

As for Bill Clinton, yes the left did attack him, loudly but quite ineffectually. That's because business was booming and jobs were to be had; therefore, people did not tend to get all worked up about merely (!) political issues.

Those who went out of their way to call Reagan and Bush The Lesser "affable" were most assuredly NOT the "professional left". It was the mainstream media who were doing that and again, if you were paying attention you would know that. Now if by "professional left" you mean "self described liberals who don't have a clue what the word really means", well then yes, maybe you have a point. But that is not the group who is usually being referred to with the "professional left" label.

So here we are, with another round of posts proclaiming "Ooh, those awful Professional Leftists! Can't they see the DAMAGE they're doing?" Meanwhile, the politicians in Washington DC continue to gut social programs, continue to pass so-called free trade agreements, continue killing the unions, continue to make mincemeat of the Constitution and individual rights, and continue to perpetrate unwinnable wars that benefit only the wealthy elites -- and we're supposed to just STFU for fear of being called out as the Professional Left.

No, thanks.

The fact is, the professional left has called it correctly for many long years: we've been against the endless wars, we've been for appropriate taxation and social programs that help insulate people from dire poverty. We marched by the hundreds of thousands (millions world wide) against the Iraq invasion (you do remember that, right? is that your version of "sitting on their hands"?). We've long decried the corporatization of government, to no avail: for here we are with a government that appears now to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the huge multinational corporations, whose interests they serve while pretending to be working for the citizens (aka "consumers" in Corporate NewSpeak).

Pffft.

[noiretextatique]

+1

the op has to be one of the strangest posts i've ever seen here.

[noiretextatique]

29. dupe

[RaleighNCDUer]

55. +1 for an excellent reply. You said everything I would say

but without the swearing.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[shellgame26]

28. K&R

[noiretextatique]

30. i'm alerting...not only is your post factually inaccurate

you are advancing rw talking points.

[noiretextatique]

36. how many of you cheering this nonsense VOTED FOR REAGAN?

a show of hands, please. thanks.

[Bluerthanblue]

31. K&R

it's an opinion that won't sit well, but understand much of what you have said.

We Democrats seem to have a tendency to eat our own- at the the expense of everyone sometimes.

[great white snark]

33. K&R

Thank you.

[PufPuf23]

37. The "Vichy" Democrats are the neo-liberal / Third Way pols

that have co-opted the leadership and brand of the Democratic Party as it existed during the first 40 years of my life and are culpable in destroying the New Deal / Great Society trajectory of a fair, generous, and leading world society in basic and applied sciences and education.

I supported Bill Clinton and, while Bill survived impeachment, horrendous legistation was passed in his 2nd term.

My absolute last candidate in 2008 was HRC.

I shifted to POTUS Obama from Edwards during the campaign and the election of POTUS Obama was the most satisfactory POTUS election of my life. Edwards had better rhetoric regarding the rural and poor. Sadly, I became idealistic about POTUS Obama.

Then POTUS Obama started making appointments. I wanted HRC out of government. The appointees (before inaugeration) to lead and implement policies of my education and career (natural resources, corporate finance, economics, and biological sciences / ex-Fed, corporate mgmt consultant, academic, entrepreneur) blew me away plus we got HRC and her crew in the mix. I left secure positions out idealism and disgust. My formula of stepping away in a new direction to take idealism deeper into the "belly of the beast" no longer works as I approach 60 and my heath problems are real.

The "professional left" is small compared to the "professional apologists" for the neo-liberal / Third Way agendas, especially regarding media coverage.

Stop the wars. Make a stronger health care system and social safety net.

I have been a Democratic Party member longer that POTUS Obama and a supporter since he was a small child.

[ZombieHorde]

39. "We got Bush the younger.. and the PL's sat on their hands "

You don't remember Micheal Moore?

You don't remember Keith Olberman?

You don't remember John Stewart?

You don't remember Molly Ivins?

You don't remember Tom Tomorrow?

[RandomKoolzip]

40. Shit, I never saw the whole of the left, from centrists to commies, so united

as during the Bush years. This author is being insanely disingenuous.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

50. That has got to be one of the more bizarre statements -

I have ever read on DU -- sat on their hands?!?! The "professional left" was all but created from the Bush Jr. years. And they have the Academy, Peabody, Emmy awards to prove it. :crazy: It seems the OP appeared here during the O years, so perhaps they are clueless about what went down during Bush Jr.

[frylock]

41. more hit n run shit flinging

unrec

[Zenlitened]

43. Unrec for rewriting of Democratic Party history. - n/t

[woo me with science]

44. ...

[PassingFair]

45. Rambling post that makes no sense.

I don't know whether to unrec or just ignore.

:crazy:

[craigmatic]

46. If our party doesn't have a strong left wing then we might as well all be republicans.

[Ignis]

47. "sat on their hands" -- What a load of steaming horseshit.

Did you somehow manage to avoid reading The Nation, Mother Jones, etc. for the entirety of the Shrub years?

If so, that would have taken quite an effort.

[Mimosa]

49. Vichy Democrats are the COLLABORATORS with Republicans.

Turd way democrats.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[Logical]

52. Maybe one of the most lame OPs I have ever read. It is funny how....

complaining about Obama = "Take Down The President"!

[rms013]

56. The Presidency

Because a president is democrat or republican does not indicate he is working in the best interests of the people. In our modern times it is indicative of the narrow views, opinions and politics sculpted from the wealthy individual and corporate monied interests being met under the false cover of left and right. Over my lifetime the right has moved towards a Fascist state and the left would be considered conservative right (in the context of Democrat/Republican).
Time and time again the American electorate expects they are electing a messiah (more an ideological mistake of the left and the right) instead of a representative of the people. They believe we enjoy democracy and freedom in our presidential elections but are given choices determined by the rich and powerful. What is promised or expected and what is delivered is usually worlds apart.
To expect our president to represent our interests is not only naive but is ignorant. Our current government is corrupted by money. Our military is a corporate division funded by the people. We will not end the occupation of Afghanistan because there is a pipeline being built to supply natural gas to China. We will not end the illegal occupation of Iraq because of Oil. We will not end the war on drugs because of the businesses of drugs and drug eradication. We will not have national health care because of powerful (monied) insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical supply companies. We will not enact legislation for finance reform because of powerful financial companies and so on.
As our economy burns our 'elected' representatives provide the hot dogs and marshmallows (our tax dollars) to support corrupt wars, financial institutions and governments.
Until Constitutional Democracy is rested from the interests of the monied few 'the people' will continue to be unrepresented in our republic. It is possible and has happened once...FDR.

[green917]

57. I call BS on every single line of your diary!

I am a lifelong progressive liberal Democrat! I have fought, campaigned for and donated to every Democratic Presidential candidate since President Bill Clinton.

1st of all...your supposition that anyone on the left wants to bring down the President is patently preposterous. We don't want him to fail, that's the purview of the Republicans! We simply want what he promised us...change that we can believe in (remember that catchy little tune from '08?).

You talk about those of us who "claimed to be Democratic supporters"...well, where I come from, no self-respecting Democrat could ever, in a million years, support some of the policy decisions of this President. Extending Republican tax cuts for the wealthy that have been proven to be disastrous for this nation's economy, for example, was something that no Democratic voter should be able to get behind. If this man cuts our social safety net programs (including Social Security which has NO bearing on the national deficit), he will have abrogated his duties as a Democratic President and he will have lost many of our support. If forcing our leaders to live up to protecting the very issues that make us Democrats, is all of a sudden out of line, then I for one, will no longer refer to myself as a Democrat.

As to how we allegedly conducted ourselves during the reagan and Bushes' terms in office. Many of us were in the streets protesting things like the school of the Americas, the multiple under the radar military efforts in latin America, etc. and don't even get me started about the warnings many of us gave the centrists of the party about Afghanistan and Iraq (Iraq in particular). Regardless, your entire OP is specious at best and inflamatory as hell...I guess I just don't see the purpose of blindly supporting any politician simply because he or she has a particular letter next to their name. I find it very ironic that this man asked us repeatedly during his campaign and shortly after his victory to "hold his feet to the fire" and you folks in the "amatuer left" can't seem to handle it when we do so by asking him to uphold the things that seperate us from the other side of the aisle.

[Dr Fate]

58. And in turn, I always trust far-centrists. Experience has taught us well.

The professional left has been wrong on WMDs, wrong on war spending, wrong on NOT extending tax cuts the Koch Brothers.

The professional left was WRONG on public sector unions too. What a waste of time that was.
They are WRONG to say Obama should be tough on BP or FOX.

WRONG WRONG WRONG on the PO- as voters obviously preferred the wildly popular mandates.

WRONG for not wanting to spend more money on our glorious freedom war in Libya.

Look at all the above and it's clear that they just cant be trusted. No credibility on the issues. Constantly making bad predictions too.

When the professional left can get something Right, maybe they can regain some of our trust.

[neverforget]

60. Well played!

[frazzled]

59. I remember canceling my subscription to The Nation during the Clinton years

I had been a long-time subscriber, but the vitriolic attack pieces-- the Mena conspiracies, the Whitewater repetitions, the betrayal of Welfare Reform (legitimate, but in the end overblown), and the personal attacks-- became too much to bear.

I also remember back to the era of the late sixties and early seventies. I went to help take over the Courant Institute of Mathematics at NYU to protest war contracts. Then I learned that the university had cancelled all such contracts before the sit-in even occurred. It didn't phase the protesters at all. I went home, but the occupation continued. Same during the bombing of Cambodia. Then I think the Weather Underground finally made me part ways with the dogmatic, hard-core left.

This doesn't mean that I haven't spent the last 40 years hewing as closely as possible to liberal principles. But in terms of strategy and technique and dogmatism and the dog-and-pony aspect, I've been out for a long time. It took me until the mid nineties to cancel that subscription to the Nation. I still read individual writers, but I don't feel I need the magazine alone: I temper it with a much broader spectrum of reporting, analysis, and opinion on policy and events.