Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Poor proggies!
Glenn Greenwald on the health bill fiasco. You've probably already seen this video (which I first saw guess where), but if you have not, here it is. My questions:
1. What is Jay Rockefeller on?
2. The strange man standing behind Obama: Why doesn't he blink? I probably should recognize him, but I don't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I think that's Max Baucus, but he does look strange.
You're right! It's Max -- subject of two previous works of art published in these very pages!
Well, you have to feel sorry for poor Max. The Grinch makes him work VERY hard at this time of year.
Of course he looks strange - it's hard to look normal when you're being fisted by Wellpoint on national TV.
OK – this post is off topic (therefore violating commenting rule #5). I’m also violating rule #3 (don’t copy and paste much).
But I think it’s potentially important.
Work to stop war with Iran before it’s too late.
I noticed the following story at ABC News this morning:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-preparing-bomb-iran/story?id=8765343
In this regard, see the following 2004 Obama interview:
David Mendell, "Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran" Chicago Tribune, September 25, 2004:
"Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.
'In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,' he said.
'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.'
As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses."
A few additional links that I think are pertinent:
http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd12152009.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-11-14/obamas-dangerous-obsession/full/
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/12/deadly-liar-and-manipulator.html
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/will-last-%E2%80%9Cprogressive-obama%E2%80%9D-please-turn-out-lights
The first laugh I've had in days.
Max is hysterical - his botox injections (which the Federal Health Insurance Policy probably paid for) were badly done and now he's going to sue the doctor's except the Senate just voted for Tort reform.
Too bad, Max!
Regarding Progs. I thought I’d call people’s attention to a good essay by Sam Smith, the proprietor of The Progressive Review.
http://prorev.com/2009/12/flotsam-jetsam-moving-on-without-obama.html
Sam is an old-school liberal. Though he refers to himself as a Progressive, the positions he articulates generally align with what Joseph calls "Liberal" (in distinction from the current crowd of Progs). From Sam’s essay:
"Most of all, however, Obama represented a triumph of a generation of liberals dramatically different from their predecessors, most markedly in their general indifference to issues of economic as well as ethnic equality.
This heavily professional liberal class never once - in the manner of their predecessors of the New Deal and Great Society - took the lead in pressing for economic reforms. It wasn’t that they opposed them; they just never seemed to occur to them.
They, after all, had risen in status even as much of the rest of the country was slipping. Over a quarter of a century passed and the best the liberal Democrats could come up with was to slash welfare and raise the age for Social Security.
Obama was the epitome of this new generation: well educated, well connected and well toned in rhetoric. But far distant from the concerns of so many."
Sam does suffer from a bit of CDS. But it’s not the ultra-hating nutzoid variety – for one thing, Bill Clinton was just too conservative for him. Sam was pointedly skeptical of Obama from the start – recognized him as a con-man and harshly critiqued him. He ended up supporting Obama in the months immediately preceding the general election (though not in an adulatory "Rah Rah" fashion) – says his family (enthusiastic Obama supporters) prevailed on him, and he played "good boy" until the election was over.
You ask "what's Jay Rockefeller on"?
He answers you right there in the video: "I didn't get some things I want. So what. So what. There's a whole lot of things in there that I've been dreaming about for years and years."
Mrs. Alan Greenspan (NBC's chief foreign-affairs correspondent) looks ecstatic.
Extra-credit buffoonery: David Shuster vetting Senator Jay Rockefeller as progressive.
What Rockefeller and others have been dreaming of (for years and years) and what Greenwald doesn't like are the same thing.
Sam Smith suffers a full-blown ClintonS-Derangement Syndrome, from my readings in the past.
Not just Bill, but massively against Hillary from jump street. He was continually on her case from WH days going forward.
I'd guess many of his positions in that regard would have landed him in Joe's persona non grata category. They prompted me to post rejoinders on several occasions where I thought he was drinking the far-right koolaid line.
XI
Post a Comment