Related: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/4/843138/-Lenos-Tonight-Show-Reality-Hacking,-adds-Laugh-Track-to-Sarah-Palin-Appearance

^ I'm starting to think you're only a libertarian because you're confused about what the left actually thinks.

This was crossposted on DailyKos and rocketed up to the top of the recommended list (like the Top 15 here).

>> ^NetRunner:
Incidentally, your description describes events not depicted in the video you submitted. The video only shows excerpts of Fox News coverage.
Personally, I never figured you for someone who'd beat me to posting a montage put together by DailyKos.
nochannel
news
politics
controversy
The lies channel might also be appropriate if you think these people are purposefully inventing a narrative.


Aye, I had been surfing most of the morning and that was the basic feel I got from the youtubes. This, indeed, only has the fox coverage. I think I would only ever post a news story that is mocking the news in general...I can't take any of them seriously anymore.

Incidentally, your description describes events not depicted in the video you submitted. The video only shows excerpts of Fox News coverage.

Personally, I never figured you for someone who'd beat me to posting a montage put together by DailyKos.

*nochannel
*news
*politics
*controversy

The lies channel might also be appropriate if you think these people are purposefully inventing a narrative.

More history for "tea partiers":

The real Tea Partiers didn't appear in public.

The real Tea Partiers met in secret.

The real Tea Partiers were engaged in an act of defiance, for which they already had been threatened with a military response.

The real Tea Partiers risked their lives and their freedom by committing their daring act of protest while literally surrounded by that threatening military.

The real Tea Partiers were in the midst of a burgeoning rebellion for which unarmed civilians of their town already had been massacred.

The real Tea Partiers were in the midst of a burgeoning rebellion, the initial victim of which, at that massacre, was a black man.

The real Tea Partiers were in the midst of a burgeoning rebellion whose first martyr was a black man.

The real Tea Partiers defied such danger that they performed their act of protest in silence, returned to their homes in silence, and in large part didn't even know each other's names.

The real Tea Partiers weren't merely whining about having come out on the wrong side of an election.

The real Tea Partiers were protesting the imposition of an economic monopoly by an unelected ruler.

The real Tea Partiers didn't enjoy the protection of their government as they whined petty complaints, in public, in peace.

The real Tea Partiers didn't enjoy a fancy celebration, with fawning attention given by their era's mass media.

The real Tea Partiers weren't gathered together by a corporation for the purpose of making a profit.

The real Tea Partiers didn't pay a small fortune to a dolled up nitwit to safely spew lies and concocted complaints from a public stage.

The real Tea Partiers sent their government into emergency meetings.

The real Tea Partiers had their government respond by closing their harbor.

The real Tea Partiers had their government respond by reducing their legal rights.

The real Tea Partiers had their government respond by ordering them placed under military occupation.

The real Tea Partiers had their government respond by replacing their civilian governor with a military commander.

The real Tea Partiers couldn't afford to publicly self-congratulate for acts of sniveling pettiness for which they should have been embarrassed.

The real Tea Partiers took great risks for a real cause for which they are celebrated by history.

(The above was shamelessly copy & pasted from this)

Also, in other news, the tea partiers seem to have decided that Ron Paul is too liberal.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
I could get behind liberalism if there was a movement within it to hold accountable those fellow liberals who sabotage the cause.
Liberals have plenty of sites like 'Crooks and Liars" or Mediawatch to keep an eye on the excesses of conservatives... why can't they do the same to keep an eye on the excesses of fellow liberals?
Such a movement is certainly under way. I think Chris Dodd would have been primaried if he didn't resign (incidentally, you should rent Michael Moore's Capitalism -- he trashes Dodd pretty nicely in there and raises more than a few doubts about Democratic resolve). Charlie Rangel is a popular target too. Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, etc.
If you want a liberal taking Democrats to task with no holds barred, try Glenn Greenwald's blog. I read it occasionally, but most of the time I find him far too depressing.
I don't read Firedoglake anymore, because they've, IMO, gone off the deep end (Jane Hamsher was pushing people to work together with the tea parties to kill HCR once the public option got stripped), but if you're looking for progressives critical of Democrats, they're another good resource.
Personally, I'm a big fan of DailyKos. It's probably the biggest progressive community on the net, so often it's the battleground upon which most left vs. left fights are played out. The main content is geared towards organizing activism and electoral strategy, and commentary on the day's political events, but the Diaries are usually a grab-bag of all kinds of interesting topics, not all of which are political.
They're starting to shift from a focus on "more Democrats" to "better Democrats", but I'm not sure how many opportunities we'll have for that in 2010. Most of those that they've talked about are House races, or Arlen Specter's ongoing primary.


That's good to hear that there are left vs. left debates. However, are these mostly just folks on the far-left of the political bell curve 'pushing harder even if it means we lose'? As long as that's the dominant liberal paradigm, they don't seem to me to be reliable societal partners who can be reasoned with.

That might sound very uninvolved, but I think any intellectuals who go into politics (i.e. not Moore, Olbermann, Huffington etc.) will find that the tail wags the dog: if intellectual figures don't tell the liberal masses what they want to hear, the masses will just find figures who will. Olbermann saying "I'm not a liberal; I'm an American" seems to be a good example of that kind of permanent intellectual simplicity.

I suppose this is an inevitable macrohistorical problem... perhaps any intelligent species on any planet would face it... the necessary legacy of human evolution is that the kind of interest in cognitive complexity that's advantageous in a complex modern society wasn't sufficiently advantageous during the last 10,000 or 100,000 years to be widespread today. In other words, any collection of social norms that must appeal to 50% of the population can only achieve a limited level of intellectual accuracy.

The take-home lesson for me is: that means an individual with a greater level of intellectual accuracy can out-predict them, and thus position themselves in the right place at the right time (for whatever opportunity is targeted).

>> ^chilaxe:
I could get behind liberalism if there was a movement within it to hold accountable those fellow liberals who sabotage the cause.
Liberals have plenty of sites like 'Crooks and Liars" or Mediawatch to keep an eye on the excesses of conservatives... why can't they do the same to keep an eye on the excesses of fellow liberals?

Such a movement is certainly under way. I think Chris Dodd would have been primaried if he didn't resign (incidentally, you should rent Michael Moore's Capitalism -- he trashes Dodd pretty nicely in there and raises more than a few doubts about Democratic resolve). Charlie Rangel is a popular target too. Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, etc.

If you want a liberal taking Democrats to task with no holds barred, try Glenn Greenwald's blog. I read it occasionally, but most of the time I find him far too depressing.

I don't read Firedoglake anymore, because they've, IMO, gone off the deep end (Jane Hamsher was pushing people to work together with the tea parties to kill HCR once the public option got stripped), but if you're looking for progressives critical of Democrats, they're another good resource.

Personally, I'm a big fan of DailyKos. It's probably the biggest progressive community on the net, so often it's the battleground upon which most left vs. left fights are played out. The main content is geared towards organizing activism and electoral strategy, and commentary on the day's political events, but the Diaries are usually a grab-bag of all kinds of interesting topics, not all of which are political.

They're starting to shift from a focus on "more Democrats" to "better Democrats", but I'm not sure how many opportunities we'll have for that in 2010. Most of those that they've talked about are House races, or Arlen Specter's ongoing primary.

I'm having trouble with the embed at the moment, original can be viewed here:

http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002467/

Apparently a deal was reached. Here's a DKos diary running down the changes.

For people allergic to the great orange devil, it includes:

• Annual and lifetime benefit caps are banned
  
• Insurance companies will be required to spend at least 80% of their revenue on medical costs (85% for large group/corporate plans)
  
• States may opt to ban abortion coverage from their state's exchange
  
• Public option is now a framework for privately run non-profit plans which can operate across state lines (but has to comply with the regulations in all client states simultaneously)
  
• People meeting certain income/cost requirements may be able to use exchanges, even if they have an employer plan available (big improvement, IMHO)
  
• A bribe to Ben Nelson, in the form of federal money to Nebraska's Medicaid program.
  
• Penalties for not carrying insurance are increased slightly for those making more than $37,500/yr.
  
• Lots of tax breaks/extra funding for adoption and teenage pregnancy programs
  
• Dropped provisions which would have revoked health insurance companies' anti-trust exemption (not sure if that was for Nelson or Lieberman, maybe some Republicans could offer that as an amendment *guffaw*)
  
• Most everything else like subsidy levels, bans on denials for preexisting conditions and recissions are still in place.
  

I'm not as annoyed as I used to be.

If we have 60 votes for this, I say pass it.

Hm - you're using the term 'neocon' badly in many respects. I'll illuminate...

The problem is their posterchild, George W Bush, spent more during his eight years than any president of any party before him. Therefore their arguments ring insincere because they only became concerned about spending when it wasn't their guy spending it.

In this bit you are not talking about 'neocons'. You are talking about 'fiscal conservatives'. "Neocons" are persons who believe in a strong military. GWB is a 'neocon' only in the sense that he supported the military as opposed to denuding it (ala Clinton). Bush was definitely NOT a fiscal conservative. Believe me they were very much concerned about Bush spending. Fiscal conservatives are also very concerned about Obama tripling Bush's debt in only 9 months - an issue neolibs seem to have no problem with incidentally.

The same goes with the constitutional argument.

In this bit you're talking about constitutional constructionism (CC) which is only related to 'neocons' in the most tangental way possible. People who are CC believe the document is critically important. The constitution supports a strong military. In that sense, a neocon COULD be a CC in regards to the military - but not CC in any number of other respects such as social issues, state's rights, and so forth.

They lie to their constituents when they say they'll fight to end abortion and gay marriage.

Here you are now talking about SOCIAL conservatives (SOcons) who don't give a patoot about the military per se. The are single-issue voters that fixate on social issues like abortion, gay rights, and so forth. Sometimes they latch on to military issues (gays in military) or spending (government paid abortion), but in and of themselves they are dominated by their desire to influence government towards socially conservative issues.

And the entire movement is primarily organized by two ENTERTAINERS (Limbaugh and Beck) who get more money when their viewership goes up.

And here you're just talking about people of all stripes that listen to conservative broadcasting as opposed to getting thier talking points from DailyKOS, Maher, MadCow, or Dolberman. I doubt Limbaugh or Beck spend any time 'organizing' the entire conservative movement. They just harp on whatever news story happens to be circulating around at the time. I don't see them driving issues as much as exploiting what issues are already in the public discourse.

Conservatives honestly could give a rat's ass what happens to America, they just want to be the people in charge

If you said "Republicans" then I would agree with you. But 'conservatives' are not Republicans. They are people who believe in conservative principles who may or may not vote Republican. Certainly the Republican party has stopped being conservative a long time ago. They pay lip service for voting blocs, but (as you say) they govern like liberals when they are in charge.
So there you go - you are mixing your terminology badly. Glad to help you learn how to be more specific.

So you are suggesting moderation then WP? You are.. a moderate?

Depends on what you mean. Both Democrats and Republicans like to co-opt the term 'moderate' when it suits their political purposes. Neither of them are moderate. I am a fiscal conservative, strict constitutional constructionist with libertarian leanings. I think we are in the midst of a "Government Bubble" that badly needs popping. Is that 'moderate'? I doubt a neolib who hears me say that government needs to be reduced in size and scope by about 75% would say that I'm moderate.

I read a diary at DailyKos that made an interesting observation about the Nobel Prize. The overall tilt of the piece is pretty partisan, but I do think they've got the right lens for sorting out the answer to whether the question of whether Obama deserves the Nobel Prize. The core argument goes like this:

The distinction between earnings and gifts is a key element in this moral analysis. Earnings implies an exchange of goods and/or services where, in theory, the exchange is deemed equitable by mutual consent. While the reality doesn't always match the theory - one party may not receive an equitable share because their bargaining power is very different - the underlying concept of an exchange of goods and/or services remains. Each party should get what he/she deserves.

Gifts are quite different. A gift does not imply an equitable exchange of goods and/or services. Quite the contrary, its status as a gift means that one party has freely chosen to bestow it with no expectation of any equitable return, except perhaps for gratitude. The necessary elements are that the giver is willing to offer it, and that the recipient accept it. It may be offered in the hope that the recipient will put it to good use, but ultimately that good use is for the recipient to determine. A gift with strings attached is not really a gift at all.

..snip..

Had President Obama sought the prize based on explicit or implicit promises - campaigning for it as he did the presidency - it would make sense for progressives to consider Fairness/Reciprocity. Then it would be earnings. But he didn't seek or campaign for the prize. It was a gift,

This makes a lot of sense to me, and actually fits with my initial emotional reaction to the news -- pleased surprise. The question "why?" was the next thought I had about it, but figured they undoubtedly would explain the decision.

In reading more, I think Rachel essentially has it right on their reasoning, coming as it is from an international/European viewpoint.

Bush had effectively turned the United States into the most dangerous rogue nation the world had ever seen, and Obama has entirely reversed that course. There's no more nascent resurgence of a Cold War with Russia. There's no more open disdain for the European powers. There's no more disregard for the UN. There is no more flagrant mockery of environmental issues. America has returned to being a citizen of the world.

There are still two active wars the US is engaged in, but one is being drawn to a close, and the other is under review, with a goal of establishing an exit strategy.

I do think it's more aimed at encouraging Obama to "stay the course", than a recognition of any tangible goal achieved, and it seems clear to me that Obama recognizes it as such.

Sounds like a good idea to give Obama a strong push to follow through on his promises. Again, I hope it works.

I usually read through these every day:

http://www.dailykos.com/
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
http://thinkprogress.org/
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

If I have time left over, I dig into these:

http://delong.typepad.com/
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/
http://www.balloon-juice.com/
http://pandagon.net/
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

I also like these blogs, but I don't read them on a regular basis:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
http://www.pollster.com/ (this goes back into my daily-read list once they start doing serious 2010 polling)
http://www.wonkette.com/
http://blog.indecisionforever.com/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/

I also peruse these non-politics sites pretty much every day:

http://www.autoblog.com/
http://www.joystiq.com/
http://kotaku.com/

It almost goes without saying, but I use Google and Wikipedia a lot too.

If I assume you're even vestigially a liberal (or progressive if you prefer), you find most of what Obama says to be moderate policy proposals draped in liberal-sounding rhetoric about why it's necessary.

If you're like me, you're mad as hell that he's still trying to work with Republicans at all to get legislation passed.

You're also mad as hell that Obama is apparently beholden not to the 50th most liberal member of his caucus, but the 60th "most" liberal member of the Senate, who was a Republican when he was sworn in.

Now, you can look at that situation, and place the entire blame at Obama's feet...or you can direct it at the people who're really standing in the way (i.e. Republicans, and more than a few sellouts in the Democratic caucus in Congress).

I have yet to see anything that really indicates to me that Obama's moderateness is anything like the limiting factor in getting a progressive agenda pushed, unless you're talking about prosecution of the Bush administration for war crimes.

So, when Arianna Huffington uses her platform to apply leftward pressure on Obama to try to get him to be more FDR and less Bill Clinton, she's going to use language like "Obama is just a tool of big business."

But I think a lefty who reads her articles, and comes away declaring Obama progressive enemy #1 is making a mistake.

Look at the things Elizabeth Warren is saying about the Obama regulatory reforms he's proposing (as well as this diarist).

It's not entirely clear that Obama is left-wing. In America he is left-wing. From a global and historical standpoint he is on the right. This is reflected here:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

But anyway, I wanted to ask which policies are neolib kook? Trying to pass healthcare reform? Is there something else? What is he doing that unpopular with normal every day citizens?

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Obama is not NEARLY as liberal as we would like him to be.

Heh - I always get a good chuckle when I hear this. Seriously, Obama is the most liberal kook to ever hold the Presidency... And he isn't NEARLY 'liberal' enough for the kook neolib fringe.

Obama really is in a catch-22 when he listens to the kook neolib fringe. They are his core. The ACORN guys... The DailyKOS freaks... The AFL/CIO goons... The left-wing freak shows are his base. And to keep his base happy, he has to do stuff that is WAAAAAAAY out there to placate them. I mean WAAAAAAAAY out there. If he doesn't do these total whack-job, Dr. Insane-O, kook-fringe things then (as this vid demonstrates) his core of kook fringe flunkies start screaming bloody murder.

But Obama ran as a supposed 'centrist' who would govern from the center. He can't run his administration on a far-left kook fringe neolib ideologue platform. If he does, then he alienates every single independant voter, moderate, or blue-dog democrat who voted for him.

What Obama has actually DONE with his presidency so far is unequivocally left-wing.He has not governed as a moderate. He isn't even slightly conservative. He's a neolib kook and his policiies are all in that philosophy. Because he is such a left wing radical, he's alienating the bulk of his supporters. Moderates & Independants drank the Kool-aid in the election. They really thought he was a moderate. They're alarmed that he is such a slavish left-wing kook, and they hate what he's doing. His numbers reflect the fact that Obama's neolib platform is unwanted and unpopular with normal, everyday citizens.

But they aren't left wing ENOUGH for the neolib kooks - so he's losing support among even THEM. He's 10 points away from being George W. Bush. Almost feel a little sorry for him.

Obama is not NEARLY as liberal as we would like him to be.

Heh - I always get a good chuckle when I hear this. Seriously, Obama is the most liberal kook to ever hold the Presidency... And he isn't NEARLY 'liberal' enough for the kook neolib fringe.

Obama really is in a catch-22 when he listens to the kook neolib fringe. They are his core. The ACORN guys... The DailyKOS freaks... The AFL/CIO goons... The left-wing freak shows are his base. And to keep his base happy, he has to do stuff that is WAAAAAAAY out there to placate them. I mean WAAAAAAAAY out there. If he doesn't do these total whack-job, Dr. Insane-O, kook-fringe things then (as this vid demonstrates) his core of kook fringe flunkies start screaming bloody murder.

But Obama ran as a supposed 'centrist' who would govern from the center. He can't run his administration on a far-left kook fringe neolib ideologue platform. If he does, then he alienates every single independant voter, moderate, or blue-dog democrat who voted for him.

What Obama has actually DONE with his presidency so far is unequivocally left-wing.He has not governed as a moderate. He isn't even slightly conservative. He's a neolib kook and his policiies are all in that philosophy. Because he is such a left wing radical, he's alienating the bulk of his supporters. Moderates & Independants drank the Kool-aid in the election. They really thought he was a moderate. They're alarmed that he is such a slavish left-wing kook, and they hate what he's doing. His numbers reflect the fact that Obama's neolib platform is unwanted and unpopular with normal, everyday citizens.

But they aren't left wing ENOUGH for the neolib kooks - so he's losing support among even THEM. He's 10 points away from being George W. Bush. Almost feel a little sorry for him.