The Most Boring Election Since 2000, Amirite?
Glenn, as if wanting to provide ammunition for the least charitable interpretation of his earlier Paul-curiosity, recommends this silly Gush-Borism from Matt Taibbi. Both premises of the argument — 1)that Romney can’t win and 2)it doesn’t matter, so boooooring — are too transparently wrong to require elaborate argument. If you think that, just for starters, something like the Ryan budget being passed by the Republican Congress he’d be working with* and a median vote on the Supreme Court to the right of Antonin Scalia don’t matter — nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise. And if you think Romney can’t win you are either way too optimistic about the economy or don’t understand voting behavior. I will add, however, that claiming that Mittens is a “calculating centrist” is a classic example of the “what he really believes” fallacy. Is the Mittens who governed Massachusetts the “real” Romney and the Republican candidate for president the “fake” one? I have no idea! But whatever he really thinks, the latter would actually be the president, and as head of the actually existing Republican coalition he’d govern somewhere to the right of George W. Bush.
*Just to pre-empt fantasies that Mittens would be constrained by a Democratic House, here is an exhaustive list of the previous cases of a party taking over the White House from an incumbent president while losing either house of Congress:
…UPDATE: In comments, Greenwald says that he didn’t mean to endorse the whole piece. Fair enough, although 1)my argument is with Taibbi, 2)I don’t know why Glenn thought his argument was worth citing, and 3)the specific point Glenn cites is profoundly wrong. He discusses the piece here; I get off the bus when he talks about “how trivial are most of the differences between the two candidates.” They really aren’t. This is classic Gush/Borism — whether in its centrist or Naderite variant, when pushed very few people would say that Gore and Bush were exactly the same, only that Bush was harmless and moderate enough and Gore conservative enough that it wouldn’t be a big deal either way. Wrong, and as applied to Obama/Romney wrong again.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, Scott. Just the other day Matt Stoller assured me that Mitt Romney is really a lot more liberal than people think.
I…am not surprised.
I’ve been saying nearly since the GOP primaries began: Romney will win the nom, and lose the general.
I’ve got a standing $100 bet on this for any takers.
I don’t understanding voting behavior? heh.
Care to put your money where your mouth is?
He didn’t say that he thought Romney would win. He said that it was wrong think he couldn’t win.
The only way he wins is if Jamie Dimon and the usual crooks manage to tank the economy again.
Scott’s not looking at the entirety of the situation.
Romney cannot tack to the center, because he hasn’t secured his right flank.
Furthermore, he’s exclusively chasing the straight white male vote, at the expense of alienating everybody else.
Demographics are a bitch.
adding it’s of course “possible” that Romney wins.
It’s also “possible” that the Seahawks take the superbowl.
I’m not holding my breath.
Why not? They’re a decent quarterback away at this point.
LOL.
And my unicorn brood-farm is coming along quite nicely as well.
Actually, I stand corrected: By snatching up Matt Flynn they probably already have a decent QB.
I think you’re underestimating the mediocrity of Tavaris Jackson. A strong pass rush and a good running game, paired with a good quarterback late of the Green Bay Packers, is pretty much the 2009 Vikings. In any case, the days of pointing and laughing at the NFC West are over.
Everyone underestimates the mediocrity of Tavaris. However much you think he sucks, in reality he sucks a lot more.
I don’t know…
When put to the test, Charlie Whitehurst sucks even more…
I probably am. I don’t follow sports much, but I have bet against the Seahawks numerous times, and never lost.
Didn’t the seahawks have Elway? wasn’t he supposed to be teh awesome? (I ask in earnest, as I said I don’t know)
FTR, betting against the Seahawks here is an easy way to make some beer money. There’s no shortage of punters.
I think there’s a fair chance that Romney will win (though it’s still likely that he won’t).
There’s no chance in hell that Romney would govern as a centrist, even with a Democratic Congress (which, if Romney wins, there won’t be anyway).
link please.
Here you go.
https://twitter.com/#!/matthewstoller/status/199924637616967681
Damn that is phenomenally stupid.
Matt Stoller is on year 7 or 8 of his jihad against Barack Obama. So many “progressives” in the blogosphere loathe him, they end up fluffing republicans. It’s not only pathetic, it’s fucking tired at this point.
The problem with this above-it-all, pox-on-both-houses posture is that it requires you to elevate the worst and tear down the better in order to maintain the storyline. Broderists, libertarians, Protest People, it doesn’t matter: their self-image as the ones who can see through the blind allegiances of the little people ultimately leads them to the same place.
Whoops, stupid joke name.
I want him to provide one instance of where Romney is “more liberal” than people think. Just one.
I don’t have too big a problem believing that Mittens could be liberalish, say, gays and abortion. He might be just a pure greedhead.
But I do have a problem understanding how a human being who has ever spent a little bit of time thinking about American politics thinks it would matter even a bit if he was.
To believe whatever Romney’s personal inclinations on state-sponsored gay- and/or women-bashing are important is to believe that he’d cross his own party on those issues. Which is phenomenally stupid. If he cared deeply about those issues, he wouldn’t be a Republican.
We’ve got Rick Snyder in Michigan as governor who seems to be moderately socially liberal on stuff, but shitty laws banning municipalities from having partnership benefits still get passed, because he doesn’t think it’s worth it to veto and piss off his screamers.
George McClellan didn’t think slavery should be abolished. It still mattered that his army, and not Lee’s, won the battle of Antietam.
As the South has indeed risen, I think we’re supposed to call it “Sharpsburg” now.
You win the battle, you get to name it. I’ll give them Manassas and Other Manassas.
Maybe abortion, but not gay rights. I remember Mitt’s term as governor.
After the Massachusetts legislature passed a bill creating an office to organize and support high school gay-straight alliances, Romney issued an executive order forbidding the organizations from using state letterhead.
While perhaps not the most important action, it’s a very revealing one. It’s the type of petty lashing out that is so easy to recognize in someone who is absolutely appalled at the thought of there being any connections between himself and gay people.
Look, we’re talking about a guy who thinks 1896 was a huge win for progressives and thought it was plausible that African Americans would be a major part of a movement to primary Obama.
Oh, shit. I missed that last one somehow.
That’s right up there with Rob Portman locking up the Hispanic vote for Romney.
The singular article being appropriate there. I think we need to find the Hispanic person who voted for Romney following the election and ask what happened.
He’s also one of the campaign geniuses behind Alan Grayson.
Who is this person who – based solely on his Twitter feed – went to boarding school, worked on Capitol Hill and now has a fellowship at the Roosevelt Institute, but is deeply upset about all of the “elites”?
Makes me wonder about the Roosevelt Institute.
Stoller’s been playing with an etch-a-sketch, has he?
Is there any evidence that Stoller could figure out how to operate one?
Having beeen in the unenviable position of having to “interface” with him on a campaign a few years ago, i can say with certainty that he’s not quite emotionally ready for an Etch-a-Sketch. Maybe some nice blocks, or even better, a pacifier. That would be best, I think.
bits of colored felt probably would make a nice change of pace, too
He’s got erasing the old picture mastered, even if he’s incapable of drawing a new one.
The harping on “Obamney” and “Robama” has made Naked Capitalism near-unreadable. They’re puffing the Green Party(!!) as the cure for what ails us.
Also, too, viciously going after Elizabeth Warren since the day she was reported to be considering going into the race. I don’t know what’s going on over there except that I wouldn’t be surprised to find a lot of hidden Romney supporters there.
This too. The fact-free theorizing has been ridiculous (paraphrasing: “It’s obvious Obama doesn’t want anything done about the financial industry and wants CFPB to fail, which is why Elizabeth Warren is wasting herself running for Senate.” Um, ok.)
Two words: lambert strether (you watch, this will bring him over here). Corrente’s coverage of 2008 was a sustained flip-out over an idea (Obama = Satan, Hilary= Jesus) that just made no sense from the git-go.
I have plenty of good leftist friends who say “I have no one to vote FOR.” To which my reply is always “And how would a President GWBush/McCain/Romney make that better?”
I have plenty of good leftist friends who say “I have no one to vote FOR.”
At age 46, Warren will be the first person I consider myself to have voted for. But since I was 18, I’ve always had the good sense to vote against the republican.
I was one month shy of 18 in 1980 and have always regretted that I couldn’t vote against Ronald Reagan.
I will admit that at 14 years old in 1980, I believed Carter was personally to blame for Iran.
In 1984 I began atoning for that error.
hah, I turned 18 in December 1979 and actually joined the Republican Party, so that I could vote against Reagan in the South Dakota primary. Sure he had the nomination wrapped up by then, but my sister and I were 2 of the 3 people in our precinct to vote for someone other than Reagan.
As far as voting for a Democrat in a major election, I’m not sure — maybe Tom Daschle in the early 80s and Wayne Owens in Utah in the late 80s. I guess that’s what living in South Dakota and Utah does to one.
That seems like a dick move on your part. Speaking as someone who routinely expresses the sentiment that he has nobody to vote for, as opposed to merely blocking the latest Republican atrocity, I get pretty angry when people act like I’m quasi-endorsing Republicans when I say it.
The sentiment is meant to express the idea that the Democratic party sucks ass, and that said suckitude makes me unenthused, disillusioned, and angry, and maybe we should do something about that.
Judging from his past electoral campaign, Obama seemed quite left-wings on civil liberties, but ended being quite the opposite (with a fully Democratic congress): why do you think that Romney electoral promises would fare better?
Obama seemed quite left-wings on civil liberties,
On what civil liberties issues is Obama to the right of Congress, or even the traditional congressional Democrat on?
I think there is a typo, and I am not sure I understood your question. Are you asking on what issue is *Obama* to the right of the traditional congressional Democrat on? I admit that I am not sure, but I would have thought that “trial first, killing after” was quite a centrist position.
Also, illegal eavesdropping seemed non OK for senator Obama (does he count as traditional congressional Democrat?), but OK for president Obama.
To clarify: “trial first, killing after” was quite a centrist position at the time of Obama’s election: now, it is a far-left one.
Actually, insisting that wartime enemies on the battlefield be given trials first is not merely left-wing, but actually a straw man the conservatives invented for the left wing.
Except, that is, among those who think it’s their responsibility to embody the caricature.
If by “wartime enemies on the battlefield” you mean “American citizens anywhere in the word”, then I apologize for my embodying the caricature.
Actually, by thinking “American citizens anywhere in the world” has anything whatsoever to do with this President’s beliefs, you embody it quite well.
Obama shot a man in Reno just to watch him die. Answer that, O-bot!
Maybe I did not explain myself: Obama openly killed American citizens inside a state with which US is not at war, without any semblance of due process. I thought that, before Obama’s election, that kind of action would have been a no-no: if you think that I am mistaken, can you give some other example,say, after WW2, when that happened (remember the word “openly”)?
More importantly: judging from his campaign promises, would you have thought that a few year later you would be here defending him for this kind of actions?
More importantly: judging from his campaign promises, would you have thought that a few year later you would be here defending him for this kind of actions?
Not speaking for JFL, but I’m not naive enough to believe that any American president in the last 75 years would hesitate to kill innocent civilians. I’m not, however, unaware of which party is likely to elect people who will kill more innocents, with less “need”. Going with a “both sides do it” routine, after the horror show that was the Bush presidency, is morally obtuse.
You don’t have to: your inaccurate, cliched argument is beyond “well trodden ground,” and now qualifies as “field trampled into mud.” Nobody misunderstood what you’re getting at.
A. Nice qualification, “after WW2.” Looks like somebody is quite aware that Americans who joined the Wehrmacht were killed by American forces in France and Belgium.
B. 2002, when the CIA blew up a car full of al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen, one of whom was an American citizen. You didn’t know that happened? Imagine my surprise.
Defending him? Why would anyone need to “defend” the President of the United States for properly using the military to fight al Qaeda, an organization that attacked us, and against whom Congress invoked its war powers? I’m not defending him: I’m applauding him, like any sane person would, for following through on his campaign promise to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda.
I will give you this, though: during the 2008 campaign, I never thought that the people who spent the Bush presidency saying that the invasion of Iraq was wrong because Saddam Hussein didn’t attack us would flip-flop so egregiously.
At least I know where you sit, Joe. Enjoy the next 10 years of war.
The qualification “after WW2″ was simply to avoid references too far in the past, and because FDR record was not exactly stellar with regards to civil rights.
On the other hand, I stand corrected about the practice of open extra-judicial killings: that predates Obama.
Finally, I was not implying that other presidents did not also kill innocent people far from any battlefield; only that they did it in secret, or at least with plausible deniability: but I was wrong.
Show me where you correctly predicted Obama would end the Iraq War, and I’ll consider paying the slightest bit of attention to this prediction.
Since nothing has happened to change the legality of shooting at enemy soldiers who were born in the United States since World War Two, this clearly cannot be the case.
Indeed, but for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with the legality of shooting at people of American birth who join the other side during a war.
Oh, now we’re pretending that Awlaki was innocent, and that the areas of Yemen outside of government writ are far from any battlefield?
I have a thought: perhaps it would be a good idea to have a better grounding in the facts before you develop your opinion.
Finally, I was not implying that other presidents did not also kill innocent people far from any battlefield; only that they did it in secret, or at least with plausible deniability: but I was wrong.
You have heard of World War II, right? Vietnam?
I don’t know why I bother, but still: if someone is guilty of something is up to the judiciary to decide, not the president.
And just to clarify: do you also think that Awlaki 16 y.o. son (also American citizen) was guilty of something?
People are not shot at in wars because they have deemed guilty of committing a crime. They are shot at because they are wartime enemies, and no judicial process has ever been required. Which enemy targets should be attacked on any given day is a decision that is given to the executive, not the judiciary. C’mon, this is fourth grade civics.
Awlaki’s son seems to have been collateral damage from an attack on the AQAP leaders whose HQ was the target of the attack, and who he had gone to visit.
But, once again, none of this has the slightest relevance to being “guilty of something,” for the reasons I just, for some reason, had to explain to you.
I’m most assuredly not siding with Manta1976 here, but goddamn I hate the use of that phrase “collateral damage” to describe a presumably innocent person killed by a military strike.
If we feel so justified in fighting the war in the first place (and just to be clear, I believe we are justified), there should be no reason to hide behind sterile phrases like “collateral damage” when we kill the wrong person.
Down the rabbit hole we go but I’ll bite.
We are not at war.
An AUMF has exactly the same force of law as a traditional war declaration, under both American and international law.
We are at war, both legally, and in practice. Even if you don’t think it’s a good idea for use to be at war, the legal situation remains exactly the same.
The Constitution is pretty explicit about the legal definition of war.
This is also about rejecting a AUMF that in practice says the US is at war everywhere with anyone that the President designates.
Clarification: Strike definition, insert declaration.
The only “explicit” language in the Constitution about declaring war reads: “Congress shall have the power to…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
There is nothing in there about how they are to do so, and nothing that forbids them from using their power to grant the executive latitude.
If we are to conclude that AUMFs are unconstitutional, then so is the Clean Air Act, because it, too, involves Congress using one of its powers (the interstate commerce clause) to authorize the executive to decide on when to use that power.
I can’t believe there are still people making this claim about AUMFs.
Clarification: Strike definition, insert declaration.
A clarification which eliminates your argument. Note–the Founders themselves went to war several times without declaration. Nothing in the Constitution says that the US can’t wage undeclared war.
Even if you read the 2001 AUMF to authorize attacks on, say, al-Shabbab in Yemen, it doesn’t supersede the Constitution or international law.
There is nothing in either the Constitution or International Law that forbids shooting at enemy personnel during wartime based on their citizenship. People who joined the other side during wars have been shot at in many wars throughout American history – several hundred thousand of them during the Civil War – and there has never been a single court case or single line in the Constitution that found fault with that.
Nor is there any comparable prohibition in international law.
Note also–the right to due process is not limited by the Constitution to citizens. Therefore, if we have to try someone in arms on a battlefield before shooting them, war is unconstitutional.
I’m not talking about citizenship. I’m talking about a law passed by Congress that, at least under some reading, authorizes a limitless war, without end or geographical limits. Just because Congress passes a law doesn’t mean it’s legal for the United States to violate the sovereignty of other countries (or enter into alliance with their dictators) as it pegs off alleged suspects based on “patterns of behavior,” killing scores of civilians in the process.
Really? Kindly quote the section of the Constitution that provides a “pretty explicit” definition of war. Article and Section, please.
Because the language of Article 1 Section 8 which discusses war says only “Congress shall have the power to…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
Not only does it not define war, it doesn’t even define how Congress is supposed to use its power to declare war. If there is another section that includes such a definition, I’d love to see it.
If “this” is defined as “your statement that we are not at war,” then no, “this” is not about that.
And further down we tumble.
I would think that the difference between a declaration of war by Congress and an AUMF by Congress was fairly obvious and simple, but I guess I will spell it out.
An AUMF is Congress not properly doing their duty under the Constitution. Its dangers include giving the President the authority to kill anyone, anywhere, at any time legally. It also allows him or her to attack a country for no reason because the resolution was foolishly jammed through six months earlier prior to Congressional elections.
A declaration of war is just that. The President is committed to the Congressional policy of war until the time that treaties are signed, etc.
An AUMF is two branches not working correctly because the Constitution wasn’t designed to have a huge 500 billion dollar military standing by to kill anyone in the world.
There is so much in this topic but I will leave it there.
I’m sure you will.
Yup, here you go, tumbling down even further. You’ve now managed to conflate the definition of an AUMF with your objections to the September 2001 AUMF. Tell me, Mr. Simple, was a there a great deal of danger that the AUMF against Iraq in 1990 gave the President the authority to kill anyone, anywhere, at any time legally?
An AUMF can be as specific, or as broad, as Congress decides. Your objection to how the September 2001 AUMF reads is 1) utterly irrelevant to your claim about its constitutionality, 2) utterly irrelevant to your claim about whether we are legally in a state of war, and 3) specific to that particular AUMF, and has absolutely no bearing on AUMFs vs. War Declarations in general. A traditional war declaration could be written broadly, and an AUMF can be written narrowly.
I certainly hope this is true.
If they were obvious and simple, you wouldn’t have mangled them so badly.
JfL and his interlocutors:
If I may state an obvious point here, the difference between you two is political, not legal. JfL thinks that (a) the AUMF after the 9/11 attacks was a good idea and (b) that the President’s expansive reading of it to include not just the organization that attacked us on 9/11 but also those associated or affiliated with it is also a good idea (just to clarify: there is an argument here about whether or not “Al Qaeda in Yemen” should be understood as the same group who attacked in 9/11). His opponents deny both claims, I think. The AUMF is a bad idea politically, particularly when it is levelled against a non-state group with, shall we say, amorphous boundaries. And the badness of the idea can be seen in the attacks in Yemen that killed American citizens. The attacks illustrate that “war” we are fighting these days is so expansive that it potentially includes everyone everywhere.
Anyway, I go through all this because I’m just really, really bored of seeing the damn legal arguments getting re-hashed, and because I believe the legal arguments consistently obscure the actual source of the disagreement. That is, the legal arguments are bad proxies for the actual disagreement: is it a good idea to think of the conflict between the U.S. and Al Qaeda as a “war”? And to reiterate, the disagreement on this question is not a legal one, but a political one about what sort of society we want to live in, or about how best to protect liberty, etc.
Actually, gmack, I don’t think the AUMF was “a good idea.” I dislike AUMFs from a policy perspective. Your point – that this is a policy difference, and has nothing to do with legality – is my point as well.
This, however, needs an answer
Yemen is quite possibly the worst possible example you could pick if you wanted to make the point that that the war against al Qaeda has been inappropriately expanded. Yemeni al Qaeda operatives, working under the orders of the bin Laden/KSM/Zawahiri leadership, were attacking American targets in Yemen well before 9/11 – and this was not a case of al Qaeda operatives traveling to Yemen for the Cole attack, but of a Yemeni al Qaeda branch. This was also well before the “splintering” and the rise of al Qaeda “franchises” like the one that sprung up in Iraq.
Better examples would be the “al Qaeda linked” separatists in the Philippines that Bush sent the Special Forces to fight back in 2001-2002, or even al Shabbab in Somalia.
Joe–
Thanks for clarifying. I understand your position much better now. I’ve been following these debates here, which spring up with enormous frequency, for some time, and I actually didn’t know that you were critical of the AUMF (I’m not blaming you; I may have just missed it or mis-read some of your statements). I will only add that I was pretty much opposed to the AUMF and deeply opposed to the whole idea of a “War on Terror” from the very beginning. It’s a bad (or dangerous) metaphor, and to the extent that Obama has continued policies consistent with the idea, I’m critical of him too.
As for the Yemeni case, I have nothing to add with w/r/t your analysis (I was only articulating what I take to be the anti-AUMF argument). Frankly, I don’t know the details of the case to have anything useful to say.
Thanks.
Well, the specific point, that they should have passed a war resolution instead of an AUMF, has never been the subject of a thread, and it’s such a relatively minor point that I’ve never felt the need to sidetrack a discussion to it. Since we’re there now: I think Congress should have declared war on al Qaeda, not passed an AUMF, and not used vague “the people, organizations…who…” language to identify the enemy.
I also think that Obama’s abandonment, both rhetorically and operationally, of the vague concept of a “War on Terror,” and reorienting us back to what we should have been doing from the beginning, waging war against al Qaeda specifically, is one of the most important ways he has differed from Bush.
It’s hard to say because Congressional Dems tend to move with the President on these issues, which is part of the problem.
We do know, though that many Congressional Dems — including, in some case, Obama, blasted President Bush for his lack of transparency, his attacks on whistleblowers,
his embrace of indefinite detention and sham military commission trials, FISA and general surveillance state issues…Obama has continued or intensified the Bush stances. To say nothing of his targeted killing policy, which is attack on both the constitution and international law.
Are you serious arguing that in the realm of counterterrorism, he hasn’t been bad on civil liberties?
He has been bad on civil liberties in many respects, of course, but that wasn’t the question.
No he didn’t. Remember, e.g., the telecom immunity vote in the summer of 2008.
I dislike Obama’s civil liberties positions as much as the next guy, but I don’t find them very surprising.
(And just to be clear: much as I dislike Obama’s civil liberties positions, he’s still clearly the lesser evil in this election.)
Yes – Mitt will channel his inner FDR and LBJ, and he’ll start a new 100 year Liberal Reign!
No, wait, he’ll more likely channel Friedman and “Baby Doc” Bush, and enslave people like serf’s for a 1,000 year Conservative Reich!
Nope, no discernible difference between Obama and Romney.
None at all!
The irony is that Mitt can indeed win, largely because of the stuff Taibbi writes about, when he’s doing real reporting and analysis instead of sucking his thumb while he types.
“Voters Give Romney Slight Edge Over Obama on Economy”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154598/Voters-Give-Romney-Slight-Edge-Obama-Economy.aspx
Gallup as of late, has been fudging to the right lately. It’s like they’re trying to chase Rasmussen. I don’t trust single source polling in any case. Far better to take all of the polling data and look at the mean in the aggregate.
Well, Quinipiac (spel) had a poll of Florida and Ohio giving Romney an advantage on handling the economy. Point is, with this crappy economy, Obama could lose to a carrot. If the election is a referendum on Obama’s performance, he’ll lose.
Yeah. He has to run the Harry Reid playbook and make the question in peoples minds be “Do you want Mitt Romney to be President?” rather than “Do you want Barack Obama to keep his job?”
As Grover Norquist has explained, it doesn’t matter if Romney is a centrist in his heart-of-hearts. If he’s elected, he’ll have no choice but to govern as a rigthwingnut. Republican majorities in the House and Senate will present him bills to sign, and he’ll sign them.
This.
And yet, the 27%ers are hopelessly demoralized at this point. Plus Romney seems to think he can outsource his GOTV ground game to India or something.
Elections are about two things. The economy, and turnout.
It’ll be interesting to see how many of the usually reliable voter crazies on the far right will stay home this cycle.
They won’t. They believe Obama is Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the Antichrist all rolled into one, and their vote is the only thing that can Save America.
i think that’s true; the 27% will be at the poles. the people who are demoralized are republicans who are not persuaded by abortion, planned parenthood equals genocide, obama equals hitler times stalin plus mao, god in the pledge of allegiance, etc. the so-called ‘sane republicans’, who may not exist at the politician level these days, but do exist in real life. people like my father, who didn’t vote for president in the primary, and who says he won’t vote for president in the election. and i think that as more and more information comes out about r-money, and more people start paying attention the closer we get to the election, the number of sane republicans turned off and demoralized will grow.
On a purely technical note, in 2000 the GOP gained the Presidency but (ultimately) lost the Senate. But the circumstances were so convoluted (lost the popular vote, Bush v. Gore, tied Senate, subsequent Senator leaving the GOP) that it proves the point. Such scenarios require very strange circumstances indeed.
As of election day, Republicans had the Senate. Jeffords leaving wasn’t inevitable.
Indeed, this is central to his point.
FTFY
It was a fifty-fifty Senate and, as of election day, there’s good reason to think that Al Gore got more votes in Florida.
The choice between center-right and extreme right is not the choice I would like to be faced with in November.
But that doesn’t mean it isn’t still a choice.
Whatever one would like American political culture to be, in actually existing American political culture Obama isn’t “center right.”
Of course, Scott — I was thinking more of the international context. You know, taking into account those wacky countries in Yurp where people knowingly and willingly cast votes for SOCIALISTS and don’t immediately burst into flames.
I was thinking more of the international context.
Exactly, from our perspective, both choices will mean the continued expansion of the American empire. Obama means less pain for Americans, sure, but it’s hard to care about that sometimes.
Speak for yourself.
I think Captain Splendid came out as a sociopath with that statement.
He could be President!
Or perhaps a non-citizen? Shocking, I know…
You know, I’m not a citizen of Greece, but I care what happens there. I worry about 25% unemployment in the UK. I care about Hungary, which may go fascist.
So, yea – not caring about people just because you live elsewhere is kind of a dick move.
Here’s the rub though: Being non-American and having to live your life under its military, economic and cultural shadow makes you care a lot about things that keep affecting you even when you have no power to affect it.
Guess I’m just a little burnt out at this point
Thanks for the downgrade from sociopath though. I can live with performing a dick move now and again.
I can live with performing a dick move now and again.
I don’t think I could live without it.
Of course, whoever wins, American militarism and imperialism will continue unabated regardless, and the brown corpses will pile up. Etc. Yet even here, there are differences. Mitt’s getting the neocon band back together, making another war ro two in the Middle East more likely.
+ 1,000
Yeah, but later tonight Bill Maher and Matt Taibbi can congratulate each other for being oh-so-trenchantly-insouciant in saying disgusting things about Bristol Palin, while some desperate-to-be-hip conservative like Nick Gillespe or Darrell Issa makes an ostentatious show of “getting it” and that Family Guy guy talks in funny voices.
So there’s that.
Just to pre-empt fantasies that Mittens would be constrained by a Democratic House
The amusing that is that if the Greenwald sympathetic were to start making that argument in defense of this Mitt-fluffing, it would be literally the opposite of their years of screaming “COWARDS” at democratic congressfolk.
Nice slimy use of “recommends” – as though my quoting a fraction of one of Taibbi’s sentence on Twitter and then linking to the article means the entire piece can be attributed to me.
To be clear:
(A) I never said either that 1) Romney can’t win or 2) it doesn’t matter;
(B) Your 2) is an inaccurate summary of Taibbi’s argument, as he never said or argued that the election outcome “doesn’t matter.”
(C) Digby – who obviously thinks the election outcome does matter – also recommended Taibbi’s piece, but – unlike you – had no trouble understanding his actual point.
Yeah, that sounds like a guy who gets it.
Well, I both agree with the statement but don’t believe that who wins doesn’t matter.
If you mean the bureaucracy part, I can understand that. But anybody who sees this as an election between two centrists has a political vision that’s as badly skewed as Allen “Socialism=Communism=Progressivism” West.
Exactly – Noam Chomsky, among others, has said for decades:
(1) the differences between the two parties are minute; and
(2) even minute differences, when translated into something as large as the US Government, can make such a big difference in people’s lives such that one must care about election outcomes.
Scott has no right to claim that Taibbi argued election outcomes “don’t matter” by virtue of his arguing (a much less severe) version of point (1).
So what’s the solution then?
Lobbing bombs at Obama at every opportunity doesn’t help anyone on this side of the border.
You rarely nut-pick on the repigs in congress, so they all get a pass I suppose.
It’s easy to point out problems. Anyone can do that. Without solutions, you have nothing.
Why does there have to be a solution?
And I don’t mean in Taibbi or Greenwald’s columns…I mean in American political life.
We are truly f**ked whoever wins in November. There is precisely no chance that the U.S. will adopt a sane foreign policy, no chance that we’ll do anything to slow global warming, no chance that we’ll rebuild our tattered social safety net, etc.
Saying all of that, however, doesn’t mean that there’s no difference between the two bad choices we have. Things get worse faster with the GOP in charge.
I’m don’t see how it’s “slimy” to say that you recommend a post you approvingly tweet, but anyway I’ll update.
At any rate, the point you quote is still very wrong for the explained reasons. Mitt Romney isn’t — or at least wouldn’t govern — as anything like a “centrist.” And the differences between Obama and Romney are far from “minute.”
You forgot to call him a “bot” who would no doubt enthusiastically cheer on Obama as he raped a nun on live TV
“You forgot to call him a “bot” who would no doubt enthusiastically cheer on Obama as he raped a nun on live TV”
Which is of course, the moral high ground compared when compared to my angry response about not taking him seriously due to him not having to live under the domestic policies he’d gladly impose on us, if given half the change. (Ron Paul 2012.. fart)
half the CHANCE.
If you actually lived here maybe I’d give a damn what you think.
Wow.
AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO ARE ON FURREN SOIL (because they’re forced by discriminatory laws to be there, and still must pay taxes) HAVE NO BUSINESS SPEAKING ABOUT AMERICA!!! -
Good Progressive Democrat
You have every right to spew your positions. And I have every right to not take you seriously.
you have hardly any skin in the game.
Plus the only two consistent positions I’ve seen you take is:
1. American Imperialism and Hegemony suxors – and I happen to agree, but then: – so RON PAUL.. (eg: PONIES!) You are not fit to wipe Noam Chomsky’s ass.
2. You’re position seems to be that whatever benefits guys named Glenn Greenwald is good policy, and fuck everyone else.
you have hardly any skin in the game.
This shows a stunning lack of awareness of American foreign policy and its effects.
Does this mean that Americans should feel free to comment on the politics of other countries now, simply because you can claim that pretty much *anything* the US does has an effect on the rest of the world?
I guess I’m not seeing how Gaz is a nativist anything-if anything, Gaz would rather have Glenn spend more time in America, to personally have more of a stake in the direction the country is headed, and to actually do grunt work to make change possible, rather than merely writing.
Does this mean that Americans should feel free to comment on the politics of other countries now, simply because you can claim that pretty much *anything* the US does has an effect on the rest of the world?
I don’t see people criticizing Krugman for writing about the Eurozone. Why wouldn’t people comment on what happens elsewhere? It is, as they say, a small world, after all.
Does this mean that Americans should feel free to comment on the politics of other countries now
(Psst. Look two posts down.)
This. Although I allowed by anger at Glenn’s glib bullshit get the better of me. So I’ll apologize for it yet again. I quit smoking pot recently, and it’s shortened my fuse a bit. If there was ever a time and a place for some good hash-oil, it’s when I encounter self-important glib idiots – the Kool Kids like GG.
Does this mean that Americans should feel free to comment on the politics of other countries now,
yes.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
I guess I’m not seeing how Gaz is a nativist anything-if anything, Gaz would rather have Glenn spend more time in America,
I think Glenn Greenwald should live wherever he likes, as long as they’ll have him, and he’s no less an American for it. The idea that he should feel normative pressure to either live in the US or shut up about US domestic politics is an incredibly nativist sentiment. We’ve never revoked American citizenship for simply living abroad, and that’s a very good thing. I hardly think it makes sense to suggest the informal duties and privileges of citizenship such as criticism of and vigilance over our political classes (that I don’t think GG does this particularly well much of the time is neither here nor there), should be stripped based on place of residence.
Perhaps I’m a hopelessly naive cosmopolitan, but I’m fairly shocked that someone who normally seems as reasonable and sensible as you would want anything to do with this line of reasoning. Long-term but not permanent migration is a moderately common and generally positive fact of the modern world.
You misunderstand me. GG doesn’t place nearly enough emphasis on domestic policies, or how his Ron Paul fetish would impact us domestically – AND HIM, were he to live here – considering Ron Pauls open bigotry towards gay people.
Also I never said his citizenship should be revoked. I never even said he shouldn’t speak about it. I said I wouldn’t take it seriously.
Furthermore, I apologized repeatedly for my offhand remark.
Now if Glenn would apologize for his Nun Rape comment…
You have every right to spemeanw your positions. And I have every right to not take you seriously.
You mean except for the fact that I am required to pay taxes to the US Government; that its discriminatory laws prevent me from living in my own country; that my work is the US; that almost all of my friends and family are in the US; that I’m in the US constantly, etc. etc?
Other than that, you mean?
I’m currently working with him on my next book – you should ask him if he agrees.
Great point. The reason I work so much on drones, indefinite detention, whistleblower persecution, anti-Muslim discrimination, foreign wars, torture, unequal justice, etc. is because all of those injustices directly affect me. If they didn’t, then I’d ignore them.
Solutions? You don’t haz em.
You’re just a dime a dozen bomb-thrower.
/yawn
Sometimes you win the internet, sometimes you lose.
But few lose it 20 times in a single thread. Gaz must’ve been sent here to make Greenwald critics look like reactionary morons.
“Work”? you call that work?
Next time you move a mixtec immigrant into your house so that you can help them get a domestic violence victim U-VISA, or help cover the rent of an immigrant family who’s primary bread-winner was deported, or sponser a 16-year old kid and get guardianship so he doesn’t get deported to a country he doesn’t know call me. Then we can talk about work.
Tierra Nueva does work. You write a bunch of whiny BS and get well paid for it. You have a funny idea of what constitutes work.
>So Thomas Paine doesn’t do it for you, either?
Glenn Greenwald is Thomas Paine now?
CLAP LOUDER
Replying to myself because the post below mine doesn’t have a reply button.
Gaz, Did Thomas Paine do anything else but write during the American Revolution? Did he help immigrants the way you did? By your standards, Paine has worked as little as Greenwald.
For starters, Thomas Paine served in our government, on a congressional post for foreign affairs.
As an author, his stuff was dramatically influential. He helped garner support for the revolution. He was INSTRUMENTAL to it.
He also lived here.
Glenn has a blog, and wrote some books. He influences his band of overwhelmingly white male flying monkey glibertarians, and his work has changed exactly fuck all.
You are foolish to compare the two. It smacks of a glaring lack of perspective, and a tenuous grasp of american history.
But thanks for playing.
Living abroad means the President can kill him whenever he wants.
Oh wait, Greenwald’s white. He’ll at least get a military trial then.
Oh, fuck off with this kind of shit.
That’s seriously fucking uncalled for.
If you actually had a substantive argument (and I emphatically don’t agree with Greenwald) maybe I’d give a damn what you thought.
We’ve been down that road before on the other blogs he trolls. I’m tired of legitimizing the arguments of a whiny bomb-tosser who argue in bad faith whenever it suits their purposes. He’s just another troll. With a platform.
Who you decided to dismiss with nativist bullshit.
Guy who follows someone around from blog to blog to tell him to go back to Mexifricastan, though? Definitely not a troll.
You’ve got it exactly ass backward.
I only encounter Glenn when he shows up on blogs I frequent to spew crap.
arg.. no edit
blogs I frequent to spew crap
Amply demonstrated.
LOL – yeah you know, I just pulled all of that out of my ass after a furious google search. Because naturally I’d have gravitated to talking about a group of migrant workers who most people in this country can’t even discern from non-”first nations” mexicans, or named a church that’s almost completely unknown to practically everybody outside of Honduras.
Logic. You haz’d it.
Yes, Dennis Miller, it was the self-congratulatory obscurity of the references that was objectionable.
mark f, you are mistaking my contempt for the cushy, abstract, and well paying “work” that GG is performing for self-congratulatory sentiment.
It was HIS self-congratulatory BS I was dismissing.
Again, Logic, you haz’d it.
Somehow your responses are getting stupider.
Let’s leave “worse solutions to bad problems” to Glenn.
Well, domestically its true, right? If you don’t live in the US, you are pretty much immune to shitty domestic policy being enacted. Sucks to be a poor American who can’t move to another country, but thems the breaks.
Not even domestically. You think that Ryan’s budget won’t hurt the ROW’s economy?
Not if the reason you live in a foreign country is because domestic law bars your sams-sex spouse from living there with you.
Not if – as is true of every US citizen – you are still required to pay taxes to the US Government.
Not if one’s work is in the US, along with most of one’s family and friends.
In other words, your statement was 100% false, based in pure ignorance.
Tell me when you’re in danger of losing government benefits if the GOP wins in November, or about how hard it is to be underemployed or one of the long term unemployed.
Whine whine whine. My state supports both SSM, and DP. We’ve got plenty of room.
Also too, much local protection against discrimination against transpeople in my local municipalities. Why? Because folks like me actually show up, vote on local initiatives, protest, etc. We’re here on the ground, making it happen.
Where are you?
Similarly, on the economic front, assuming you have Dual-Citizenship, you could just reneg on your US citizenship, pull out in your business interests, and move them locally, and sever ties when it all turns to crap.
Oh but wait, you won’t do this, because you’d love to benefit from the economy of a country under an administration you complain about ALL THE DAMNED TIME.
However, when the proverbial feces hits the high speed wind oscillating device, you can just pull anchor and leave.
‘Not if the reason you live in a foreign country is because domestic law bars your sams-sex spouse from living there with you.’
so..there is a substantive difference between obama and romney.
Not if the reason you live in a foreign country is because domestic law bars your sams-sex spouse from living there with you.
I’m somewhat mystified by this, speaking as a gay man who has lived in the US with his same-sex partner for 25 years. Nobdy has arrested us yet.
I took it to mean that Glenn’s partner is not an American citizen or otherwise approved to live here, the way a foreign spouse in an opposite-sex marriage would expect to be.
You could tell that to my grandkids, whose father can’t get into this country from Mexico.
It’s horrible, but it ain’t simply a gay issue.
Fair point. It may be true that in some individual cases it’s simply a gay issue, though, or it may be that the “same-sex” in his comment was superfluous and his spouse is unable to move here for another reason. Either way, I don’t think the specifics are our business.
If you actually lived here maybe I’d give a damn what you think.
This — like your arguments that Obama is a lock, but in a much more offensive way — is really, really dumb.
Yeah I know it was offensive bomb. I’ll apologize to everyone except GG for it, because I don’t feel he deserves it. He offends me by praising an anti-gay rights, anti-women, anti-equality jagoff like Ron Paul, so I don’t mind saying something to him in order to get his hackles up, however offensive.
As for the rest of you, I apologize, it WAS uncalled for.
FTR, I’ll be an expat for a few years myself, in mexico, while my wife teaches elementary down there. But I won’t be throwing bombs at the Administration while I’m at it. I’ll pay my taxes, vote, and show up to protest down there, just like I do here.
I’m not quite so arrogant to think that I’ll be just as beholden to american politics as I am now. For better or worse.
This is an appalling, reactionary position.
I was angry. I was glib. It was uncalled for. I apologized.
Unpacking what I said, explicitly This is what I mean:
It’s really easy for someone to ignore domestic policy and trump for jagoffs like Ron Paul, or to paint Mitt Romney as =/= Obama when you don’t have to worry about things on the domestic/social policy front.
I * am * sorry I said what I said, and it totally screwed the point I was thinking of when I made the statement, which was in essence, the above.
Glenn Greenwald brings out the worst in me. I find him to be shallow, self-serving and overly glib. In short, he pisses me off. I should not have said what I said, though.
But hell, I do know when I am wrong. I wish Glenn would. I’ve never seen him apologize for anything. Even the disgusting double down he made over the nun-rape thing on twitter.
I think Glenn needs to stop being too clever by half, and just flat out say what he wants (mythical libertarian shit pooping unicorn president who has a platform exactly similar to what he wants) instead of having to constantly backtrack and clarify what he said when liberal bloggers pounce on him.
I think innocent Muslims should no longer be killed by drones, that America’s elites shouldn’t be shielded from prosecution when they commit egregious crimes, that the US Government shouldn’t be able to invoke secrey to shield its actions from public scrutiny and legal accountability, that whistleblowers shouldn’t be persecuted and prosecuted as spies, that wars shouldn’t be fought without Congressional approval, that people shouldn’t be imprisoned without trials, that people shouldn’t be put in prolonged solitary confinement, that people who use medical marijuana (or any other drug) shouldn’t be prosecuted as criminals.
Those are all things your venerated leader is doing. I’m against those.
Does that help? I’ve never “backtracked” on any of those.
And I think supporting paleoconservatives who’d fuck me and most of the country over economically is a bad thing, even though you believe they’d agree with you on civil liberties.
cosigned.
Glenn never supported Ron Paul. He said that Ron Paul should be taken seriously by progressives as an alternative. In my book that’s bad enough. But there’s no need to continually insist that Glenn did something that he never did.
The idea that Ron Paul is some sort of “alternative” for progressives is so mind-blisteringly stupid that mere words cannot do it justice.
i don’t remember being given this option in the 2008 presidential election.
i don’t remember being given this option in
the 2008any presidential election.Fixed.
Glenn’s flirtation with supporting Ron Paul?
Ron Paul has exactly the same chance of securing a single electoral vote as my personal preference, the Socialist Workers of America.
The point is that influential pundits like GG can push the sentiments of well meaning but naive liberals in a direction of “pox on both your houses,” “Obama is worse than Bushitler”, etc. Even a little bit of support being lost can mean a difference in a close election.
And to be clear, I have nowhere in the post agreed with Greenwald. I’ve loathed Romney since 1992, when he was pretty much unknown, and pretending he is vaguely like Obama is silly.
I’d be surprised to ever see GG ever praise Bernie Sanders, because it wouldn’t garner the page clicks.
And actually, re-reading the subthread, I think I misunderstood your Paul reference. My point was that any electable candidate will use our military for god-awful ends, but only a fool does not see that one is more likely to be far worse in this regard than the other. The lesser evil is always less evil.
And I don’t think any of that is worth it if it means lots of people getting fucked over economically.
The thing is, I agree with all of that-shit, I was reading you as an Army interrogator back before you were well known, and a lot of that disappoints me too. From my perspective now, though, all I care about is the economy-living on the edge, well below the poverty line, those concerns are too abstract. A lot of the time, those concerns come across as bigger to people who aren’t struggling with mere survival, and in your case, it sorta rubs me the wrong way-you’re an affluent lawyer who can GTF out of here if need be. I mean, honestly right now, I care more about the plight of the poor and struggling than I do about civil liberties, and its just something that comes with the territory, I guess.
I apologize for the verbal shenanigans earlier, I’m a bit more calmed down now, and will try to not shoot from the hip as much.
That’s a false dichotomy, the economy v. security state issues. Fact is, the national security state is gobbling up resources; indeed, the war on Terror is part of the class war, enabling a massive upward transfer of wealth.
ok, i’ll take the bait and just come out and ask it: what’s greenwald’s end game here? i agree with the substance of his positions, but what do they gain, attacking the left from the left? does he not see that crumbling the coalition of the left does more harm, and in the long run will make the implementation of his ideas even more unlikely?
precisely
Glenn, you should stop by more often so that people get a chance to fling poo at you.
Judging by the reaction here, you’d think you killed a bunch of Muslim children or hired Tim Geithner or something.
Been hanging here regularly for a few months, and I’ve never seen this kind of vitriol directed at our political leaders.
I’ve never seen this kind of vitriol directed at our political leaders
You must not be reading Glenn Greenwald’s Obama nun-rape-related tweets then.
win
You project so much I wouldn’t be surprised if you really were a ratfucking wingnut.
I would be so much more inclined to like your stuff if you were less inclined to reduce criticism or disagreement from liberals to “Good Progressive Democrats” who can’t bear any criticism of “[their] venerated leader”. Because I agree with the things you just said.
I’m a registered Democrat who has given money to Obama and who plans to vote for him, and does not think the differences between him and Romney are trivial. I’m someone who campaigned hard for him in 2008 and doesn’t regret it. I’m also an Occupier who has protested problematic Obama policies outside the White House and elsewhere in the streets, who has significant long-term psychological symptoms now from police action. I’m someone who’s volunteered with the ACLU and donates money to them each month.
I know Internet discourse can be dumb, but the world, or the US left, isn’t reducible to you and similar types vs brainwashed leader-venerating progressive Obamabots. Every time you act like it is it reminds me why I go elsewhere for my civil liberties commentary.
I should also say: I elaborated on my blog about why Taibbi’s piece is worth reading and it has nothing to do with an argument that 1) Romeny can’t win or 2) the election doesn’t matter.
You mean, the part where you characterize the differences between the two candidates as “trivial”?
False.
(1) I said “most” – not all – of the differences are trivial.
(2) As I just explained above, observing that the 2 parties are overwhelmingly similar doesn’t remotely equate to arguing that one should be apathetic about the outcome.
Most of the differences between the candidates are not trivial and it’s embarrassing for you to say that.
It’s true that there are too many areas where the differences are too small, but on environment, labor, gay rights, abortion, etc., etc., the differences between Obama and Romney are gargantuan, even if I am to the left of Obama on all of these issues.
this right here. have we learned anything in the last 12 years?
a half measure is preferable to none.
^ Loomis and I are in 110% agreement. Issue setted.
What a bunch of gibberish. You say “false” that you called the differences between the candidates “trivial”; yet a couple of characters later, you call the two parties “overwhelmingly similar”.
Your parsing is pathetic.
Most? Really? I’ll spot you security state, war on terror, and financial regs (and even then, Romney would be far to the right); but that leaves things like Iran, immigration, the environment, all domestic social policy ever, taxes, social security, medicade/care, judge appointments, etc.
“that leaves things like Iran, immigration, the environment, all domestic social policy ever, taxes, social security, medicade/care, judge appointments, etc.”
I think it’s an open question whether Greenwald really gives a shit about a lot of things. It’s a mistake to think of Greenwald as a progressive, particularly on economic issues.
When someone reduces the entirety of “domestic issues” to one thing that effects him personally, and taxes, yeah, it’s probably a mistake to think that he’s a progressive.
This is a blatant falsehood, which is par for your course.
The last time I was here, you claimed I said that Obama was responsible for Occupy crackdowns – when I asked you for a link, because I never spoke a word on that issue, you just crawled away and moved onto to some other accusation.
This claim – that the only “domestic issue” I care about is gay rights becuase I’m gay – is even worse. It’s an outright lie.
I’ve written about Obama’s efforts to cut SS and Medicare (which I oppose); the far-too-tepid Financial Reform law (which I argued should be stronger); the empowerment of Wall-Street-loyal officials like Geithner, Summers and countless Goldman, Sachs officials (whom I oppose); the need for public financing (which I vigorously support), and so many others.
Those are just economic isuses. I just wrote a whole book on America’s justice system, dealing extensively with its repellently harsh treatment of criminals and protection of financial elites. I wrote a large paper on drug decriminalization and often on drug policy.
The reality is that I work overwhelmingly on issues – foreign and domestic – that affect me personally very little; conversely, I work very rarely on issues that affect me the most personally.
But whatever else is true, your claim that I only recognize one domestic issue – gay rights because I’m gay – is a slander and a lie.
Getting huffy about a “blatant falsehood” doesn’t work in response to a link backing up the statement. You did, indeed, limit “domestic policy” to those two issues, right in the comment I linked to.
Nor does digging into your old, irrelevant grudges. I have “course?” And a “par?” Tell me, Glenn, when does my facial hair look like when you dream about me?
BTW, if you were someone who was better at keeping your head, you wouldn’t have written “your claim that I only recognize one domestic issue” in response to a comment in which I call you out for recognizing two domestic issues.
But, then, if you were someone who was better at keeping his head, you wouldn’t indulge in language like “blatant falsehood” and “a slander and a lie” every time you’re challenged on something you wrote.
In that comment, I gave two examples of how US domestic issues directly and personally affect me even though I am forced to live in Brazil.
To take that and claim that I “reduce” domestic issues to those two issues — and recognize no others — requires severe illogic — and dishonesty.
You can rant all you want – it won’t negate the fact the claim you made about the range of “domestic issues” I acknowledge was an absolute falsehood (just like your claim from the last time that I accused Obama of responsibility for Occupy crackdowns).
Yes, Glenn, we know. “When I said this, I really meant that. And when I said this, I really meant that. And when I said this, I really meant that. Why does everyone willfully lie all the time about me?”
Here’s a thought: perhaps if, instead of getting your pretty little head in a tizzy and continuously howling about how everyone (except you) is a liar and ignorant and dishonest, you learned to use words for something other than venting your spleen at the infidels, you wouldn’t be so constantly “misunderstood” by we ignorant, dishonest people.
But where’s the fun in that?
I’ve criticized Obama for:
(1) proposing massive cuts to Social Security & Medicare (cuts I oppose);
(2) negotiating away the public option for HCR to please the insurance lobby (a public option I supported);
(3) proposing financial reform laws far too weak for Wall Street;
(4) empowering numerous Wall Street-loyal officials such as Tim Geithner and Larry Summers;
(5) spending so much on military and surveillance policies while creating and then succumbing to pressure to freeze government spending.
So if I’m not a progressive on economic issues, what does that make Obama?
So if I’m not a progressive on economic issues, what does that make Obama?
The first President to get any kind of health care, however flawed, out of Congress, in the middle of an economic catastrophe.
Glenn,
What is your position on labor organizing and unions? Do you support EFCA and the repeal of Taft-Hartley?
Before asking more questions, you should acknowledge that your claims about my positions on domestic issues are 100% factually false.
Since I doubt that will happen, I’ll answer anyway in a spirit of generosity.
I’m a huge fan of the role unions have played and think it’s vital they be strengthened. I worked with SEIU and other unions to support pro-union primary challengers. I’m in favor of EFCA.
Are you seriously arguing that there are no — or only “trivial” — differences between Obama’s position on economic issues and the Ryan budget, which Romney has endorsed? That’s insane.
I’m seriously arguing that the “position” a politician takes in a campaign is not indicative of the interests he ends up actually serving with the power he has. That’s true in general, and it’s particularly true of Obama.
Okay, but is it not better to elect someone who serves the sane billionaires, as opposed to the insane ones?
Even for somebody who acknowledges not paying any attention to politics before 2006, this is a laughably deluded statement.
That’s what Paultards do.
I’m seriously arguing that the “position” a politician takes in a campaign is not indicative of the interests he ends up actually serving with the power he has
This is true. Indeed, it’s precisely why you assertion Romney — as leader of a far-right political coalition — will govern as a “centrist” is spectacularly wrong.
You believe the differences on tax policy, Medicare, Social Security, health insurance, student loans, abortion, contraceptives, voting rights, gay rights, minority rights, women’s rights, labor rights, and immigration, are “trivial?”
It’s clear he does believe this is trivial.
The tragedy of Greenwald is that he could be just as livid about foreign policy and civil liberties and effective in slamming both parties for doing terrible things while also being able to tell the truth about the two parties being very different about not doing these things.
But then there’s not a lot of grey area for Glenn.
Totally agree with this. But for some reason (maybe it’s just human nature) Glenn inspires others to treat him the way he frequently treats Obama. This thread is full of all sorts of wild accusations about Glenn’s beliefs and motivations that are largely unfair and distract from the largely fair criticism of him for minimizing the very real differences between Obama and Romney.
rea didn’t say “all”
You parse when it suits your purposes, but complain when others do the same.
Of course he parses when it suits his purposes; he’s working with Noam Chomsky after all.
Not “trivial” but “mostly trivial”? Goodness . . .
I liked your work editing the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
aha! i thought i smelled the work of sirius cybernetics corp ‘bunch of mindless jerks who were first against the wall when the revolution came’ marketing division.
Aren’t you Canadian? You got no dog in this fight.
Yeah – only Americans should speak!!!! –
Good Progressive Democrat
I’m not a democrat. Thanks for playing though.
Oh, and I’m not a republican either.
I’m also flattered that Glenn responded directly to me. I respect most of what he writes but I get to have an opinion too.
With all of the time spent by GG trolling blogs, it’s a wonder he finds the time to pen his hit pieces against less-liberal-than-though progressives.
It’s really quite a feat.
Hell, at least he’s got a work ethic.
While Glenn is being wrong here, he’s not actually trolling. There really is a difference.
Ad hominems based on nativist bullshit, however, is trolling.
I’m no a nativist. I did say something that was for the singular purpose of offending GG specifically, and I’ll apologize again for it. It was uncalled for.
As for trolling? If the man doesn’t spend half of his day entering “Glenn Greenwald is wrong” into google, I’ll eat my hat.
Someone who parses words as annoyingly as you do should have noticed he did not say you could not speak about the topic.
I didn’t know GG was Canadian, but I find it pretty sad that a Canadian living in Brazil is one of the foremost critics of the Obama administration on civil rights/liberties.
I didn’t know that either.
I’m Canadian, if you want to dismiss my substantive arguments ad hominem.
I wouldn’t if you were ordinary Canadian, but with a last name like that I can only presume the worst.
I for one, don’t dismiss you, because you’re not always in search of the magic purity biscuit. You criticize the administration on substance, when they deserve it, and praise them when they deserve it as well.
For my part, I am well past angry with GG. And I allowed that to get the better of me. So I said something I shouldn’t have. I’d apologize again, but after three times, it’s already past excessive. =)
Your measured, rational responses to politics are why I keep coming back. It’s also why I’ve regularly held you up as the “Ungreenwald”.
Even when I think you are wrong, you are thoughtfully wrong =), and you don’t seem interested in grinding an axe.
I’d read you any day over Greenwald.
I think the better analogy is if you pontificated about Canadian politics, endorsing candidates and parties that, if they won, would have major, far reaching consequences for Canadian society, while living in the United States.
Scott would never do that.
That bastard! Why doesn’t Scott put down the blog and adopt a kid or something?
considering you’ve linked to that post twice now, I must have touched a nerve. LOL.
It almost seems as though you think I should be ashamed of it. I’m not. Go ahead and keep linking to it.
It’s important for people in other countries to understand what’s going on in the US and advocate one side over the other. We don’t get to vote on whether or not idiots destroy the the world, but I guess now we can help buy elections.
Welcome to America!
Rolling Stone should dig up Hunter Thompson again. The difference between their recent political writers and former ones is the current lot can write and the older guys could write and think.
i’m surprised by this from taibbi, actually. what i’ve read of his past work is actual journalism. this piece; ‘this election is boring’, is nothing of the sort. or maybe i’ve just read all the right taibbi pieces previously.
I was thinking the same thng. I thought it might have been some sort of experiment to see how many commenters would agree with him like sheep.
That post/article started with the idea that “This Election Is Boring Because Obama and Romney Are Basically The Same” and everything that supported that theory was included and nothing that detracted from it was excluded. It’s just an inane piece that contributes nothing except a few good one-liners.
Meant to say: Nothing that detracted from it was *included*.
FWIW, I think that the MSM’s idea that this is some kind of “hore-race” could use some countering. They’re in it for the eyeballs and the money.
That said, I’m disappointed in Tabbi because this piece could have been a whole lot better. I think he was phoning it in.
GG goes on and on with his “your venerated leader” shit and eventually someone, like normal human beings react to such shit do, gets pissed off and says something mean. Then, s/he has to genuflect about it. It’s tiresome b.s.
Ron Paul is lousy on a ton of things. This is noted and GG’s followers (I’ve seen it repeatedly in comments at his blog) get all huffy.
I said this more than once, I’ll say it again. You don’t like drones et. al.? Fine. get Paul to lead the way in Congress (where he votes with Republicans and unlike Sanders labels himself one) to overturn the 2001 AUMF which HE VOTED FOR as a way too open-ended measure that gives too much power to the President.
Meanwhile, give more press to actual consistent libertarians who care about the rights of women, religious minorities, doesn’t think Lawrence v. Texas is a joke, etc. These things don’t just affect U.S. nationals either. When his buddies in Congress strip foreign funding for contraceptives coverage abroad etc. because abortion is involved somehow, it hurts there too. See Michelle Goldberg’s book.
When GG is called out, he gets all pissy, which beyond his failure to show some more nuance while being such a bombthrower (doing a good job of it in various ways, which is why it’s such a shame), I had too much. I stopped reading the guy. He shows more of it here in responses to Amanda et. al. This is not the way to improve things.
Thank you for such an eloquent post. And props for not losing your shit the way I did, when he comes here to spew his drivel. I’m way past tired of it, and way past angry at it. I suppose soon, I’ll be tired of being angry, and thus tired of it again. Ahh, to be better human being. It’s a constant battle. I often fail, but usually I try to fail upward. =) cheers.
^This. You’d think we’d have learned this routine by now, especially after the last such instance when at least one commenter claimed that, for the sake of decency, people who were unfairly smeared by Greenwald could not take issue with it, but should merely shut up and agree with him.
You’d also think that, after so many instances of being forced to backtrack amidst disapproving reactions from his supposed fellow travelers, Glenn might have internalized the lessons a wee bit. This, however, would be to assume that the butthurt purity troll act wasn’t the whole point in the first place, which it clearly is at this point. This is now Glenn’s whole schtick: to throw bombs at liberals to provoke a reaction, then troll them after they respond to them.
So, reading these comments it is apparent that Taibbi’s piece is sh*t. Everyone f*cking hates Glenn. Gaz is a f*cktard. “Left” peeps shouldn’t denounce lefties. Erik hates Glenn. Glenn reads blogs and comments.
Honestly, Taibbi is right. This election is boring because (1) incumbent; (2) boring opponent; (3) wars that existed in 2004 election still going on now; and (4) media is off the rails, so corporate and so pandering. Currently, it seems Romney is behind in electoral votes. (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/09/obama-vs-romney-how-electoral-college-math-adds-up/) Popular vote? Who knows? But there’s a lot of time until November. But correct me if I am wrong, but the EC trumps the PV…
Loathe the fact that GG propped up Ron Paul ((shuudders)), but I geniunely appreciate a loud voice on the left railing against our civil liberties violations and positing that killing innocent (muslims) in drone attacks is a (PR) Problem. Because the Right doesn’t give a sh*t if brown people are killed. Anywhere.
May need to rethink this blog. Missing SEK. Farley diavlogs with MattyHackY.
There are “loud voices” railing against drone attacks out there other than GG.
The article is correct to say that “It’s just impossible to take Mitt Romney seriously as a presidential candidate.” Such is my opinion. Unfortunately, I don’t think the election is clearly in the bag. Come on. If Kerry won Ohio (he didn’t; I’m not into that), he would have won. The economy alone complicates things.
The fact it’s boring etc. is true. The problem is when he goes into saying the are just a bunch of centrists w/o noting that there are real differences. Even on foreign policy, given what is at stake, a small difference matters a lot. Domestically (particularly in the courts) there is a real difference.
That seems to be Scott’s beef.
Agreed. Well, agreed except for the part about this race being “boring” but then again I may be looking at it differently:
It’s fun to watch Romney whipsaw and get beaten like a rented mule by Obama. I don’t even have to get into substantive policy differences to enjoy the show. (And really, who knows how Romney would govern – other than stupidly – considering he’s taken every possible position on every issue that he’s ever been confronted on.
If anything, I’m amazed that the show doesn’t cause a critical shortage of popcorn.
I admit it isn’t totally boring but at some point it is. Romney is a joke & over and over again shows why. Rachel Maddow et. al. are great for letting us know, but even horrible things get boring after awhile. We need to watch out about “the show” business too. The trap is that people think it is just a show, forget the substance. Deep down, he’s you know okay. And, then we forget he was supposed to be the conservative one in ’08.
I for one, won’t forget.
If I couldn’t find a way to laugh, I’d cry.
In the words of the incomparable Charles P. Pierce: This is our democracy people. Cherish it.
Actually, when you think it through, the bigger problem is Congress vs POTUS. Sure, POTUS can set a tone, but Congress and the Courts d*ck things around, too.
Yes, foreign policy is at stake. Economic recovery, etc. But how many of GWB’s policies/people were kept? Bush Tax Cuts were extended.
Obama’s opening salvos/offers to Congress are not big/expansive, they are already trying to pander the the Irrationals.
Honestly, when you take a big step back and look around, Obama/Romney aren’t as wholly dissimilar as many whiners on this specific thread are trying to intimate.
It’s like all the b*tching over HRosen not adding “work outside the house” qualifier to her Romney comment. The truth is, we know get what Taibbi/Greenwald are saying and they aren’t as off the rails as the haters want to make out.
And, I will re-state, this election will be f*cking boring. I mean, it’s only been ON since January 2009…
Actually, when you think it through, the bigger problem is Congress vs POTUS. Sure, POTUS can set a tone, but Congress and the Courts d*ck things around, too.
The President appoints judges; Congress d*ck around some, majority confirmed. If Congress doesn’t change and delegates stuff to the President, who the President is matters.
Yes, foreign policy is at stake. Economic recovery, etc. But how many of GWB’s policies/people were kept? Bush Tax Cuts were extended.
The fact that no one president isn’t going to start anew doesn’t mean a lot of the details matter. Under that, Bush wasn’t important, since abortion is still legal etc. Gays, voting rights, Ledbetter law, etc. How many things, how many people does it take so that these things matter?
Obama’s opening salvos/offers to Congress are not big/expansive, they are already trying to pander the Irrationals.
You want a pony. Not to be sarcastic, but what do you expect?
Honestly, when you take a big step back and look around, Obama/Romney aren’t as wholly dissimilar as many whiners on this specific thread are trying to intimate.
Strawman. The basic point isn’t that they are “wholly dissimilar.” If you are going to talk about “whiners,” pls try to be a bit less knee-jerk yourself.
It’s like all the b*tching over HRosen not adding “work outside the house” qualifier to her Romney comment. The truth is, we know get what Taibbi/Greenwald are saying and they aren’t as off the rails as the haters want to make out.
Tossing out some stupid cable news tidbit and then the second mark as if they are the same thing is a bit off.
And, I will re-state, this election will be f*cking boring. I mean, it’s only been ON since January 2009…
The boredom is duly noted. Again, Scott’s point is that the two are different and Romney being elected will mean significant things will occur.
I realize the politics and media coverage is dull and all, but that bottom line isn’t any less true.
Honestly, I read a big, fat, DUH.
Presidents appoint Judges. Very true. Now, remind me of how many Congress is currently sitting on without confirming?
I don’t want a pony. I’m talking about the reality of Congress and how they do/don’t do things. But I feel just fine for critizing Obama of attempting to reason with those Irrationals in the first place.
With all due respect, whiners there are on this thread. I don’t like Romney. I think he has pretty much no ground for anything except what is politically expedient. And some of his LDS-faith.
But Obama talked a talk on civil liberties and has failed as President in that regard. Romney’s governing wasn’t as horrifying as other candidates he shared a stage with during the Primary season.
I’m no Romney fan. I’m liberal/progressive and will vote for Obama because of the Crazy/Evil/Stupids sitting across the aisle.
And, this election will probably be close re popular vote. Why, because many Americal voters are just as Irrational and many of our CongressCritters.
But ignoring that the system is the truly bankrupt issue and pretending like President Obama is going to rock it out is BS and demonstrably false. I’m not denigrating the awesomeness that is HealthCare, but *sshats in SCOTUS may nullify it. I’m proud that my President acknowledged marriage equality.
And I still hold by what I said re Obama/Romney in context of GG/MT.
Honestly, I read a big, fat, DUH.
What you “read” and what “is” might be two different things.
Presidents appoint Judges. Very true. Now, remind me of how many Congress is currently sitting on without confirming?
According to Wikipedia, he appointed 145, 34 await action, many more he didn’t appoint anyone in part (like Clinton) his focus is elsewhere. Then there are the two justices he appointed. President = very important.
Congress and how they do/don’t do things.
I’m not denying this given, so this is not telling me anything. My pt. is the President still is quite important & President Obama will be better in various ways that count over President Romney.
But I feel just fine for criticizing Obama of attempting to reason with those Irrationals in the first place.
They control the House and as to Blue Dog issues, control the balance of the Senate. Just ignoring them isn’t going to get him anywhere. He also was elected as someone who could “reason” with them. It is a “pony” to think he isn’t going to try.
With all due respect, whiners there are on this thread.
There are whiners everywhere. The point is that Scott is right to criticize. Setting up some strawman “whiner” class doesn’t change the fact.
But Obama talked a talk on civil liberties and has failed as President in that regard.
“Civil liberties” is a lot of things; his record is mixed, repeatedly blocked by Congress. On the last big civil liberty law, he in fact pushed Congress to pass a better bill.
Romney’s governing wasn’t as horrifying as other candidates he shared a stage with during the Primary season.
I liked Jon Huntsman myself but so what? The alternatives were horrible. Talk about “duh”
And, this election will probably be close re popular vote.
The article said that Romney would have no chance. The one you said was right. I noted that the election could be close. That isn’t really that “boring.” I’m glad you find this obvious though it seems to contrast with your first comment.
But ignoring that the system is the truly bankrupt issue and pretending like President Obama is going to rock it out is BS and demonstrably false.
I’m not sure who here likes the system as a whole though I doubt it is quite “truly bankrupt.” Who is pretending Obama is going to rock it out? The article actually. Said Romney had no chance.
And I still hold by what I said re Obama/Romney in context of GG/MT.
That the article was right and that there was little difference between the President who is for gay equality etc. vs. the candidate who doesn’t like civil unions and thinks the health care law should be overridden?
Uh okay.
Who are the other loud voices railing against drone attacks? I’m not doubting you, I just want to know who they are.
What am I, chopped liver?
You know, sometimes it’s the dog that doesn’t bark.
It seems to methecase in point here is St. Ronnie himself. Though he cam out as hard right in 1964, with his speech for Goldwater, when he got elected as governor of California, he ended up doing a fair number of moderate things, just because he couldn’t get away with not doing so.
Same with Mitt and Massachussetts. he was middle-of-the-road there because he had to be.
How is he supposed to tack center in general, or govern as a moderate when his right flank already LOATHES him?
I’m not necessarily saying you’re wrong, but I am curious as to how he’d handle it. No matter what he does, on the off chance he won the oval office, he’d be a one-termer lame duck. He simply has too many enemies, and no concrete base of support.
That is a lie!
That word falls too lightly from your lips.
Man, if only Ron Paul had the same last name as the former junior U.S. Senator from Indiana from 1999 to 2011.
Or if the senator had ever inspired any curiosity in anyone.
Na na na na.
Na na na na!
Hey hey hey,
Good Bayh.
From Greenwald:
“No matter how trivial are most of the differences between the two candidates and no matter how much each of them is a banal, status-quo-perpetuating imperial manager, the power of political manipulation is potent indeed.”
I can’t imagine why anyone would say that unless you were (a) A shill for the Republican party trying to trick moderates into voting for Romney, or (b) so blinded by some specific issue that the vast differences in outcomes by the two parties on a huge range of other topics mean nothing to you.
Which one is Greenwald?
He’s not a republican. I’ll offer up a theory:
He’d in no way be impacted by the giant leap backward in civil rights we’d see under Ron Paul, or even Mitt Romney. In other words, it’s Somebody Else’s Problem. If he lived here, I wonder if he’d feel differently about that.
For him, it’s all economics and foreign policy. Also, he can remain comfortably abstract, and lob rhetorical bombs at the one administration that’s done more to advance civil rights in this country than anyone since LBJ.
In fact, were we under LBJ right now, I suspect, he’d still be lobbing bombs from his little enclave in Brasil, focusing like a laser on the failed Vietnam war, while ignoring all the advances of the CRA.
That’s the only thing I can figure that squares with his Ron Paul fetish.
s/Brasil/Brazil
Perhaps, very early on Glenn was out to do something about what he saw as wrong — the NSA stuff.
But something happened along the way. He got attacked by the screaming monkeys and for some reason adopted many of their tactics.
I remember when her was shitting bricks because Hugh Hewitt got an interview with General Petraeus and he couldn’t. Even though he was associated with Salon. I don’t think things have worked out the way he thought they would, mostly because he doesn’t understand how punditry works.
He’s someone who doesn’t live here. There is no way any reputable media outlet would ask him about shit. He’s got his little audience and readership. He throws bombs like the nun rape comment and then behaves JUST EXACTLY LIKE the people who smeared him.
Disappointing is putting it mildly. I wish he would just butt-out. Supporting an old racist (I’m from Houston and have know about Ron Paul all my life) even by just pointing out a couple of things you agree with him on is just not the way to go about things.
Unlike my gay friend, Glenn has the ability to earn a living commenting on U.S. politics while living abroad. His victimization pleas fall on deaf ears for me and my friend. My friend could’t make a living and stay with his partner. They were lost to each other.
Glenn should count his blessings.
I actually think you have to be much more specific if you are to make statements like Greenwald did.
It’s not like we aren’t accustomed to voting for the lesser of two evils, and I can say without qualification that President Obama has been the most progressive president of my lifetime.
I reserve the right, however, to say that might not be good enough in either lack of peeling back horrible rightwing policies, or further inflicting new horrible policies like kill on command.
[...] "undefined"){ addthis_share = [];}I wanted to elaborate on what I think is the biggest error being made by Greenwald and Taibbi — namely, the idea that Mitt Romney is a [...]
What often gets missed in these kinds of debates is that we’ve always waged off-the-books wars, including Indian wars from the 1780′s through the 1870′s, the undeclared sea war with France in the 1790′s, and every Latin American intervention post Guadelupe-Hidalgo right through US v. Sandino in Nicaragua and DR ’65. Sadly what’s happening post WW II and now is more par for the course than a new development.
I don’t know all the details, but the Indian Wars were usually defensive and if nothing else, unlike the AUMF (against persons and organizations) were against actual sovereign entities. The ‘war’ with France had some congressional backing. The other stuff is a mixed bag, various stuff, some okay, some not.
The AUMF doesn’t — at least Obama doesn’t purport to have such power (notwithstanding the open-ended hyperbole of some who appear to simply don’t care what he says) — say “everyone” etc. can be killed. It has SOME limits. If we pretend it doesn’t, what is the point of actually trying? In fact, Bush wanted more power, but the Dems rejected it.
lolwut?
Shorter glen and – I fucking hate Brazil. Someone get me outta here pronto.
[...] he will abandon all of his campaign promises and govern as a responsible moderate. It’s particularly discouraging to see this thesis advanced by Obama’s left-wing critics (see Matt Taibbi and Matt [...]
[...] would, for the first time, raise the possibility that Obama might lose. See Taibbi making a similar argument here. You also see a form of this argument in the FDL community, of the “Obama represents the [...]
[...] on May 11, Scott wrote this post getting after Glenn Greenwald for his endorsement of an extremely insipid Matt Taibbi piece arguing that Romney was really a [...]