skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Excerpts from
his interview with TNR's Isaac Chotiner:
CS: [One] thing the Tea Party does is threaten their fellow Republicans. They actually threaten them. If you punched in—I used to do this—“Marco Rubio” when we were doing immigration reform, nine out of ten hard-right blogs were negative on him: attack after attack after attack....
[T]here are some on the far left who just have a visceral hatred of Wall Street. It’s counterproductive.
IC: ... Is this a problem for your party?
CS: You don’t want to go after them for the sake of going after them. The left-wing blogs want you to be completely and always anti–Wall Street. It’s not the right way to be.
IC: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case?
CS: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.
ADDED:
Kos bites back:
Left-wing blogs had credibility when they were helping Schumer's DSCC win control of the Senate. Now that we're criticizing Wall Street? No credibility! And we're just like the Tea Party, having cost Democrats a half-dozen seats and the Senate majority in the last couple of years.
Oh, you mean we haven't pushed the Democratic Party outside of the national mainstream? Weird, then. On the other hand, it wasn't bloggers trying to save Sen. Scott Brown's hide in 2012, like good ol' Chuck:
There is a good little story. [Looks to aide] I can tell this. I went to Scott Brown and said, “If you give us the sixtieth vote for the Citizens United rollback, we won’t go after you.”
If it was up to Schumer, he would've traded an entire Senate seat for one meaningless cloture vote on a bill that would've died a quick death in the House. God knows his Wall Street benefactors would've been thrilled at that!
From my perspective, intra-party relations have never been better. It seems odd that Schumer is trying to start an internecine war at this very moment, particularly with a tough 2014 up ahead. And as the number three Democrat in the Senate, his words carry outsized weight. But it's clear that the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party is feeling the heat from its resurgent populist wing: the Warrens, Baldwins, Browns and Merkleys.
Republicans are locked in their own bloody civil war. Schumer (and his Third Way allies) may have just signaled that we may be in for some bloodshed of our own. In fact, he appears eager to lead Wall Street's counter attack.
Posts
93 comments:
I don't know.
I think the New York Times has a bit of clout.
"I think the New York Times has a bit of clout."
Schumer was referring to blogs, and more to the point, left-wing blogs.
The New York Times is neither.
Less credibility and less clout with who? With me, sure. But let's see some numbers, Chuck. Especially on the clout part. Which has had more success affecting legislation lately?
Life is hard for Democrats funded by Wall Street. Don't those occupy kids understand?
Can't say where they stand today, but left wing blogs led the successful primary against Joe Lieberman just a few years after he was the party's VP nominee. There's a least some clout there.
Robert, the New York Times supports the liberal position on every major issue in the public debate and always has.
Just how far left does one have to be before they can be accepted in your fraternity?
Of course the NYT is a blog. And decidedly left wing.
Daily Kos and Slate hardest hit.
Move the center to the left.
Move the center to the left.
The batshit-crazy perspective so common to left-wing blogs probably doesn't enhance their credibility.
Left-wing blogs are my favorite waiting-for-a-plane light reading.
I draw great hope for conservatism from the lunacy of Alternet and Harpers.
I think Mr. Schumer is confused about what the word "credibility" means, unless he meant to say that right-wing blogs really ARE more worthy of trust than left-wing ones are.
Henry wrote:
Life is hard for Democrats funded by Wall Street. Don't those occupy kids understand?
Its not just the occupy kids. Obama himself was going after "deregulation" when he first ran, to win the votes of these exact kids. Even though it was Clinton who in fact deregulated banks.
Chuck Shumer was a big proponent of that deregulation, since we are on the subject of Chuck saying stuff.
Shumer is saying that the crazy tea-party blogs control the Republican party, while the crazy leftist blogs are the powerless far fringe of the Democratic party.
Schumer, of course.
And I should add that, at least as to the Democrats, I agree with him. The party clearly thinks that DU and the Kos kids, et al., are useful idiots.
They just have less credibility and less clout.
There's also major ideological differences between the Marxist & post-Marxist left wings & Democratic "moderates". Much less now than in 1968, for example, but still large.
On the right, on the other hand, the ideological differences between the Tea Party & the Republican mainstream are simply not that large. Most of the differences are about how a shared ideology translates into specific policies, and when those policies should be implemented. An example -- shutting down the government over ObamaCare. The Tea Party supported it, the mainstream didn't, but they both want ObamaCare repealed as soon as possible.
The difference that Schumer elides is that there REALLY IS a small but vocal extreme (Marxist of some stripe) Left in the US. There really isn't much of a far right of any sort (Nazi, fascist, identity Christian, Klan, etc).
If you think there's an active far right, answer me this: when was the last time a far-right organization was publicly involved in organizing a large demonstration where Republican office holders attended? For the far Left, ANSWER was involved in the organization of EVERY anti-war demonstration in DC during the Iraq War.
The left-wing blogs have less clout because they are overshadowed by big media operating in the same niche.
Since there is so much less right-wing big media -- especially if you don't watch cable TV but use the internet -- there's a bigger niche for right-wing blogs.
My blog isn't really right-wing, but it's in a niche that turned out to be pretty good: being somewhat liberal but annoyed by other liberals. I'm kind of like Chuck Schumer that way!
This is interesting. Regarding Elizabeth Warren:
You know I helped persuade her to run. There is a good little story. [Looks to aide] I can tell this. I went to Scott Brown and said, “If you give us the sixtieth vote for the Citizens United rollback,1 we won’t go after you.” I spent a lot of time lobbying him, and met some of his friends and had them lobby him. He said yes. Then he said no. So I wanted to recruit the strongest candidate against him
Good for Scott Brown. Schumer bounces back and forth in this interview between grudgingly admitting how effective the Tea Party has been and complaining about their unwillingness to compromise.
Note Schumer's idea of compromise: Agree with me or I'll go after you.
No wonder the right-wing has more credibility. They're honest about their beliefs and goals. They don't pretend sucker-punching is compromise and sponging off Wall Street is holding them to account.
I have right-wing readers because they like seeing that, even as lefties enjoy seeing some rightish person like Dave Weigel or David Brooks displaying their antagonism toward the right.
I was just reading an old column by William Safire, bitching about Ronald Reagan.
tim maguire said...
Robert, the New York Times supports the liberal position on every major issue in the public debate and always has.
How about the Iraq war? One of the biggest boosters of the war, Judith Miller, was featured prominently and repeatedly on the front page parroting right-wing propaganda.
It's convenient to forget that one, isn't it?
Don't you idiots know that Wall Street is where our campaign contributions come from? You think you rubes paid for my reelection?
I couldn't care less about liberals being critical of other liberals. I'm here because you have the best group of commenters I've come across on the Internet. Even Garage is instructive in his poo-flinging way.
Schumer is a smart guy, though. Consider this one-liner:
IC: Who’s the most underrated senator?
CS: It’s hard to pick one.
"How about the Iraq war? One of the biggest boosters of the war, Judith Miller, was featured prominently and repeatedly on the front page parroting right-wing propaganda."
-- At the time, it was not right- or left-wing propaganda. Democrats were just as in support as Republicans, until it was electorally convenient not to be. Revisionist history is bad history.
Henry sez:
Schumer is a smart guy, though. Consider this one-liner:
Here's another Schumer jewel:
"So I would urge my Republican colleagues, no matter how strongly they feel — you know, we have three branches of government. We have a House. We have a Senate. We have a president."
Nope, AReasonableMan, I didn't forget that one. Neither did the head of the Socialist party in France, the founder of Doctors Without Borders or, wait for it!, the Democratic Party.
Iraq was a liberal war fought for a liberal cause. If you didn't support it, then you don't support liberal values.
Since there is so much less right-wing big media -- especially if you don't watch cable TV but use the internet -- there's a bigger niche for right-wing blogs.
This is news to lefties! They claim that FOX dominates the media! Right-wing media caused ALL of this failure and chaos! Zeke said so on FOX News!
FOX has about 3 million viewer at best! ONE percent of the population. Fewer than lost their policies to Obamacare!
Judith Miller was flushed out of the NYT in 2005 and now works for Fox. Try again, ARM.
When Schumer says the left-wing blogs have less credibilty and clout, what he means is that the noble Democrtas are not swayed by them unlike his poor Republican colleagues who have allowed themselves to be become beholden to the "right wing extremists." Like everything he says or does, this is mere self promotion.
ARM, if all you have to counter the "NYT is solidly left" is Judith Miller who left the NYT in 2005, try again.
Okay, let me pretend I'm Robert Cook here for a minute and say this: When the far Left (which in this case means to the left of the Democratic Party) complains that they have almost no media presence, I have to agree with them. The MSM is unremittingly main-line Democratic, and they don't want some pissy lefty harshing their mellow. When's the last time you heard a real "all power to the worker's soviets" lefty on NPR? Hell, you know where you get to hear a hard lefty or two occasionally? Fox News, because, unlike NPR, they don't have a mellow to harsh, and love a good slugfest.
I think the relationship between the Far & Moderate Left is a lot like the relationship between swish & butch gays. Butch doesn't like swish because hanging around swish "outs" them inconveniently.
Jacksonjay,
O'Reilly has about 2.5 million viewers...
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/the-scoreboard-wednesday-november-27_b205709#more-205709
The main reason the left complains about Fox News is that it usually has more viewers than all the other cable news channels combined.
"Robert, the New York Times supports the liberal position on every major issue in the public debate and always has."
What is "the liberal position?"
"Just how far left does one have to be before they can be accepted in your fraternity?"
Well, for a start, they could condemn the financial institutions and the big banks for their crimes of fraud and theft committed against their customers and the American people, and advocate strongly for criminal prosecutions for the heads of these respective institutions, (Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, et al.), as well as anyone in those institutions at lower levels who participated or facilitated those crimes; they could have (or could still) advocate for criminal prosecutions of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, George Tenet, and anyone else involved in the war crimes of torture and the illegal invasion of Iraq, (and, for that matter, the prosecution of Barack Obama for protecting those individuals by refusing to investigate and prosecute them, as is his legal obligation and requirement); they could advocate for the adoption of Medicare for all, (i.e., single-payer health care), and for the expansion of Social Security benefits; they could advocate unequivocally for amnesty for Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, as well as for a blanket pardon for Bradely/Chelsea Manning, for their acts of heroism and public service in revealing crimes of state; and so on.
@RC,
Who do you think in the press does advocate for what you listed? The Nation? Mother Jones? Democratic Underground?
What conservative blog had annual conventions where Republican elected officials regularly spoke?
Because Kos ran one where Dems happily spoke.
and, for that matter, the prosecution of Barack Obama for protecting those individuals by refusing to investigate and prosecute them, as is his legal obligation and requirement
If you haven't noticed, our current POTUS isn't very big on conducting his legal obligations and requirements.
Ah Cook you're just another leftist sell-out, spouting the Dems talking points or a phoney. If you really cared about these issues you would have a different set of talking points.
The Dems' crimes have been much greater than your little parade of horribles. Obama authorized the assassination of a US citizen without a trial or any review by the courts or congress. Obama classified all adult and teenaged males as combatants based on their presence in an area designated hostile to the US. He waged an illegal war in Libya and flounted the WPA.
Corzine stole1.5 billion dollars. Holder designated a journalist as a criminal co-conspirator. The IRS and NPS are partisan agencies at war with the people. Shall I go on?
Just how far left does one have to be before they can be accepted in your fraternity?
Cook considers Marx to be right wing.
Robert Cooke wrote:
Well, for a start, they could condemn the financial institutions and the big banks for their crimes of fraud and theft committed against their customers and the American people, and advocate strongly for criminal prosecutions for the heads of these respective institutions, (Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, et al.), as well as anyone in those institutions at lower levels who participated or facilitated those crimes; they could have (or could still) advocate for criminal prosecutions of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, George Tenet, and anyone else involved in the war crimes of torture and the illegal invasion of Iraq, (and, for that matter, the prosecution of Barack Obama for protecting those individuals by refusing to investigate and prosecute them, as is his legal obligation and requirement); they could advocate for the adoption of Medicare for all, (i.e., single-payer health care), and for the expansion of Social Security benefits; they could advocate unequivocally for amnesty for Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, as well as for a blanket pardon for Bradely/Chelsea Manning, for their acts of heroism and public service in revealing crimes of state; and so on.
Just like socialism/communism there are wings in the left wing socialism movement.
Cooke is on the far left and anyone to the right of him is "right wing". But really, would any centrist or someone not steeped in the party view both Cooke and other lefties as lefties. it's just that cooke is a bit further out there.
Cooke and the not quite as pure liberals are still liberals, they just are at odds with the best way to express liberalism.
So too with communism/socialism/fascism.
Well, for a start, they could condemn the financial institutions and the big banks for their crimes of fraud and theft committed against their customers and the American people, and advocate strongly for criminal prosecutions for the heads of these respective institutions,
You mean like Bush did, and Obama doesn't?
So for Bobbie Cook its show trials for any who disagree, then an early morning appointment at the garden wall with Cook as Che?
Really, anybody who disagrees with Cook is a "criminal" who should be prosecuted. What an ego.
Cook's standards do have a certain weight on the mainstream left, the principle being: People we don't like who have committed no crimes should be jailed forthwith; people we like who have broken many laws must not be prosecuted.
Matthew Sablan said...
-- At the time, it was not right- or left-wing propaganda. Democrats were just as in support as Republicans, until it was electorally convenient not to be.
Complete crap. Only people on the left opposed the war, with the honorable exception of Ron Paul.
Bob Ellison said...
Judith Miller was flushed out of the NYT in 2005 and now works for Fox.
She was fired for uncritically promoting the lies of Chalabi and Cheney. Do you think she should still have a job after such a disastrous failure? Where's the accountability?
Cook is correct that the NYT is chronically uncritical of the finance industry.
@ARM,
Only people on the left opposed the war
For the AUMF against Iraq, the Democratic vote was:
Senate: 29 for / 21 against
House: 82 for / 128 against
MS said "Democrats" not "Lefties". His statement is correct.
As for Lefties opposing the war: of course, they opposed every American War after WWII. Wars by other countries, not so much. But the US, sure.
I don't listen to Schumer all that much. He's a nasty partisan hack. On the other hand, I'm always happy to tell him "Chuck You" Chuck.
I don't feel any need to defend the Dems but your own numbers show that a majority voted against the war.
@ARM,
Also, in the case of Judith Miller, you also might want to actually learn some history instead of talking points. The NYT demanded the appointing of a special prosecutor to investigate the Valerie Plame matter. Well, one of the first people the prosecutor went after was Judith Miller of the NYT, and she went to prison rather than reveal her sources. Christopher Hitchens said that the NYT, in demanding the prosecutor, had "forged a rod for their own backs".
Of course, since she was on the outs at the NYT, they basically let her languish in prison rather than fighting to the hilt to stop the Plame stupidity they had done so much to gin up. If they could get Cheney, it was worth having one of their reporters in prison, after all. The NYT lost interest when it turned out to be poor old Richard Armitage who was the source, who nobody gave a shit about anyway.
Accountability at the NYT? Get a grip!
@ARM,
Majority in the Senate, ARM. 2/5 of the Dems in the House. That's as bipartisan as bipartisan gets.
It was a bipartisan, multinational coalition of a war. That's just the facts.
"Obama authorized the assassination of a US citizen without a trial or any review by the courts or congress. Obama classified all adult and teenaged males as combatants based on their presence in an area designated hostile to the US. He waged an illegal war in Libya and flounted the WPA.
"Corzine stole1.5 billion dollars. Holder designated a journalist as a criminal co-conspirator. The IRS and NPS are partisan agencies at war with the people. Shall I go on?"
Sure, please do. I agree Obama and Corzine should be prosecuted for their crimes. Regulars here are probably weary of my calling out Obama as a war criminal and mass murderer who deserves to be prosecuted along with his predecessors in the Bush administration. I'm sure any other Dem politicians you could name who have committed crimes would get my thumbs up for criminal prosecution.
"If you haven't noticed, our current POTUS isn't very big on conducting his legal obligations and requirements."
I've noticed.
YoungHegelian said...
Also, in the case of Judith Miller, you also might want to actually learn some history ... one of the first people the prosecutor went after was Judith Miller
Completely irrelevant. Doesn't change the fact that she was tool of the right-wing agenda for war in Iraq. A propaganda mouthpiece for the right, right there on the front pages of the NYT.
YoungHegelian said...
Majority in the Senate, ARM. 2/5 of the Dems in the House. That's as bipartisan as bipartisan gets.
It was a bipartisan, multinational coalition of a war
A majority of Dems voted against the war. A majority of Repubs voted for the war. It was a Repub war. You wanted it, you own it.
@ARM
Doesn't change the fact that she was tool of the right-wing agenda for war in Iraq
No, ARM, she had her group of sources, who told her what they wanted to tell her. Just like any reporter. Her sources just happened to be people the left didn't like, and so she paid for it when the Democrats decided not to like the Iraq War any more.
The idea that Iraq possessed WMD was not "right-wing agenda" at the time. It was "received opinion" among a bunch of folks in a lot of countries, not all of them "right-wing" (Tony Blair was Labor, remember?).
By the way, I have no problem with "owning" the Iraq War, which I did support.
So ARM, I'd still like to know how Judith Miller means the NYT is not solidly "liberal"?
ARM: The left didn't oppose the war they opposed GWB. When GWB left the stage the protests stopped cold. The left did not give one shit about the war.
I ain't buying it Cookie. I thought you were the real thing. But no, you let your Guy Fawkes mask slip and showed yourself to be another tired old boring apparatchik for the Dems.
If the EPA determined that smarminess was toxic, Senator Schumer would be a one-man Superfund site.
He is the Senator from New York, for crying out loud.
Do Senators from Wisconsin attack the dairy industry?
Elect Hillary, Kos Kids, and you will also have the President from New York.
Think about this too hard and you might figure out that Democratic politicians were among the primary enablers of the 2008 financial crisis.
SteveR said...
So ARM, I'd still like to know how Judith Miller means the NYT is not solidly "liberal"?
You can't be serious. A majority of liberals opposed the Iraq war. It was a war of choice, not necessity, foisted on them by a cabal of right wing war mongers. It is however quite enjoyable watching the denial of this reality.
From my perspective, intra-party relations have never been better. It seems odd that Schumer is trying to start an internecine war at this very moment, particularly with a tough 2014 up ahead.
Success breeds comity. Failure provokes feuds. The Dems are starting to get scared with ObamaCare in trouble. If it continues to be a disaster you will see sone serious ruptures in the Dem party.
But no, you let your Guy Fawkes mask slip and showed yourself to be another tired old boring apparatchik for the Dems.
Funny how it's hard to tell the difference between statements from the Pope and OWS these days. The Pope is to the left of establishment Dems on economic issues.
Considering how often we've been told that Republicans don't have credibility to criticize Obamacare because they were against it, I'd expect to be told that no one has credibility to criticize Wall Street unless they personally helped mismanage a bank into insolvency.
ARM, she's gone, and for 8 years. What else do you have? That's it? Judith Miller's "support" for the Iraq War makes the 2013 NYT not liberal?
"For a start"?!?
I know I'm just joining the pile on at this point, but, holy crap Cook! Show trials for the wreckers is the minimum standard?!?
What does an actual full on liberal look like in your world?
"I ain't buying it Cookie. I thought you were the real thing. But no, you let your Guy Fawkes mask slip and showed yourself to be another tired old boring apparatchik for the Dems."
Ho hum.
"The Pope is to the left of establishment Dems on economic issues."
Only when viewed through the lens of the Left and assuming his rhetoric comes from the Left.
He has explicitly rejected Marxist approaches. His rhetoric is based in historic Christian teachings and comes from a conservative theological direction.
Of course, it's a failure of the historic church that an emphasis on helping the poor can only be understood as being Left. Liberation theologians note they had to adopt Marxist language because was where they found the emphases for helping the poor and treating them as equals. That's no longer the case and reading the whole of Evangelii Gaudium shows how it can be done from a theologically conservative position.
That's certainly not to say he's a conservative in American terms either. He does not fit into a binary approach or match American political divisions.
You will never hear an American politician offer something like this:
"I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: `Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs,'" said Francis, quoting the fifth-century St. John Chrysostom.
"Complete crap. Only people on the left opposed the war, with the honorable exception of Ron Paul."
The looney tunes are in high dudgeon today. If I remember correctly, Robert Novak opposed Iraq.
Personally, I think he was wrong but so are you.
Bill Clinton and Hillary supported it.
Cook omitted tarring and feathering Dodd and Frank in his rant. My list is longer but it would be a start. In fact, The "Friends of Angelo" would be a better start.
Credibility? Well after carrying Obama's water for 5 years I doubt they have any creditability.
So you see Schumer is right. The left, blogs or not, have zero credibility.
And those on the right that kept saying Obama was a lier and socialist were right, Hence their credibility is good.
Simple, no?
"The Pope is to the left of establishment Dems on economic issues."
The only economy the Pope is familar with is Argentina's. When you read his critic of free market capitalism, you have to understand tha he has never experienced it, and actually believes that Argentina is capitalist.
Ooohh! Robert Novak. How could we forget Robert Novak.
That was a stretch, but I guess we now have a quorum of Repub opposition to the war. Novak and Paul, two central pillars of Republicanism during the Bush administration.
Come on guys, you remember those huge antiwar rallies that condemned Obama for his continuing Bush's naked aggression in the Middle East?
Yeah, me neither.
ARM as others have pointed out, the left wasn't antiwar so much as anti-Bush. Once the war came under the direction of The Won, major organized opposition to it disappeared. Partisan politics drove the pseudo-moral outrage.
Chris Lopes said...
ARM as others have pointed out, the left wasn't antiwar so much as anti-Bush.
This is complete BS. I went to the initial rallies against the war. They were anti-war rallies not anti-Bush.
Everyone hated Bush by the end of his term. Botched wars and a Great Recession, collapsed housing prices and a collapsed stock market - wasn't much to love.
Kos is just cranky because he can feel his 15 minutes slipping away.
However Democrats are elected in the future, it won't be through coalitions dazzled by smartass college-age bloggers repackaging Marxist bromides as daring Win The Future Interpreneurship. Numbers suggest it's dawning on the rest of the coalition -- e.g. the poor, minorities, unmarried women -- that the frat boys have once again promised them a hell of a good time, but only got them drunk, fumbled down their panties (tearing the elastic) and then prematurely spooged all over the place, making one hell of a mess and fleeing for the door afterward, the cowards, mumbling about demographics, funky websites and the toxicity of Republican voodoo.
"we now have a quorum of Repub opposition to the war. Novak and Paul..."
Well, that's one more person than you've got for your claim that the NYT isn't a liberal mouthpiece.
So ARM what happened to those rallies under Obama?
ARM. and what exactly happened to,the anti war left when GWB left office? Crickets. You may well be a true anti war liberal but most of your cohorts were not. A social deal that warped into insane hatred for Bush.
On the whole the left is political and would blow up orphanages by the thousands if it got them into power.
Michael,
Perhaps the dead soldiers under Obama don't count because The Light Bringer has the power of resurrection. It can't possibly be because he's a member of a different political party than George Bush.
There is a certain invincible stupidity exhibited by those who opposed the Iraq war. For one thing, the assumption that it was partisan war. As if 9/11 never happened and state sponsored terrorism aimed at American cities was not a threat. A decade later we’re much more blasé about it but I saw the Navy patrolling the Norfolk harbor in armed Zodiacs after 9/11 out of fear of small boat attacks on our carriers. Paranoid? Right, because the geniuses who went to the anti-war rallies had access to today’s newspapers. It’s just amazing what you can do with a time machine. Democrats bailed when Iraq threatened to turn into a morass. They were for it before they were against it. They hated the idea of having won in Iraq so much that once they took over they turned Iraq over to the Iranians.
And of course that morphs into the belief that “everyone” hated Bush at the end of his term. Well, that’s only true if by this time “everyone” hates Obama who’s within a hairsbreadth of Bush’ poll numbers.
And then for the real low information passer-by we get treated to the summation of the eight years of Bush into the last 6 months of his second term, ignoring the economic recovery after 9/11, the low level of unemployment which will not even be approached during the current Democrat’s term in office. And then let’s load the bursting of the housing bubble on to Bush’s plate when it was actually engineered by Democrat housing policies which coerced banks into making risky loans underwritten by Fannie and Freddie run by Democrat scammers. And of course there was Countrywide, run by major Democrat donors who made below-rate loans to Democrat “Friends of Angelo.” But that’s probably enough of a stroll down memory lane for now.
Robert Cook wrote: Well, for a start, they could condemn the financial institutions and the big banks for their crimes of fraud and theft committed against their customers and the American people, and advocate strongly for criminal prosecutions for the heads of these respective institutions, (Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, et al.), as well as anyone in those institutions at lower levels who participated or facilitated those crimes; they could have (or could still) advocate for criminal prosecutions of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, George Tenet, and anyone else involved in the war crimes of torture and the illegal invasion of Iraq, (and, for that matter, the prosecution of Barack Obama for protecting those individuals by refusing to investigate and prosecute them, as is his legal obligation and requirement); they could advocate for the adoption of Medicare for all, (i.e., single-payer health care), and for the expansion of Social Security benefits; they could advocate unequivocally for amnesty for Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, as well as for a blanket pardon for Bradely/Chelsea Manning, for their acts of heroism and public service in revealing crimes of state; and so on.
This is what drives me crazy about the hard left, from which comes some of my best friends. What is on this list? Some show trials, some warmed up great society leftovers, and a personality test.
All of this is theater. None of this is a serious attempt to think through the deep structural problems we see in finance, economic well-being, and the power of the state. It is incoherent. This program would give the state power to aggressively prosecute with one hand while demanding that it randomly hand out pardons with the other. Imagine some future Edward Snowden who reveals that the state violated rules of evidence to prosecute the enemies of the people. You think that guy's getting a pardon?
There's a word for this kind of state power and liberalism isn't it.
"Everyone hated Bush by the end of his term. Botched wars and a Great Recession, collapsed housing prices and a collapsed stock market - wasn't much to love. "
I am certain you don't know anyone who disagrees with you. I even wonder of you have a clue about what caused the real estate collapse.
Since ARM doesn't seem to have a solution for "The Case of the Missing Protests", some history might help. In the 1960's, a lot of people protested the US involvement in the war in Viet Nam. Many of those people were genuine seekers of peace. Others just wanted to avoid dying in some awful jungle for no obvious reason (a very rational position to hold). Still others though saw a North Viet Nam victory as the natural historical progression of communism.
In other words, anti-war protesters come in types. While some who were protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were doing so out of principle, the organized variety (and their elected official backers) were clearly doing it out of partisan ranker. The proof of this is the disappearance of such people after January, 2009.
"Most egregiously, the Pope quotes from St John Chrysostom:
Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and
take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods that we hold,
but theirs."
So, it's established. garage is a Peronista.
"If you haven't noticed, our current POTUS isn't very big on conducting his legal obligations and requirements."
I've noticed.
I'll say this for Cook - I don't agree with any of his policy positions, but he's been consistent. Unlike nearly the entire left side of the spectrum he didn't give Obama a pass when the president did the same things for which Bush was criticized.
@Eric -- Agreed. It's always a better discussion when Robert Cook is involved.
"This program would give the state power to aggressively prosecute with one hand while demanding that it randomly hand out pardons with the other."
The President has always had the power to grant pardons at his own discretion. Also, the state has always had to power to aggressively prosecute...although it always tends to lean harder on aggressive prosecutions when the accused are the poor and powerless or perceived as "enemies" of the state, and much lighter when the accused are the wealthy and powerful and perceived as friends of the state.
> They were anti-war rallies not anti-Bush.
As demonstrated by the complete absence of effigies of Bush that were burned, dripping blood, and so on.
In other words, Not.
Note that these rallies disappeared when Obama was elected, even though everything since then has happened on the timetable that Bush laid out. (Not quite everything - both Iraq and Afghanistan were better off then, but you can't expect Obama to do anything about that.)
Post a Comment