Glenn Greenwald is primarily responsible for the failure of progressive legislation since 2008.
The reasoning's simple: Greenwald's part of the left, just like Obama and the Democrats who controlled the House and had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for a while. Greenwald's side failed to pass enough progressive legislation, therefore Greenwald's primarily responsible.
If you don't like this reasoning, complain to Greenwald: he used the same reasoning to say voters will determine that Republicans are not primarily responsible for the failure to pass progressive legislation, laying responsibility instead at Obama's feet, especially with repeated reference to the 60-person Senate majority. Greenwald does some really good work on civil liberties but mixes it in with this terrible reasoning. Fault lies primarily with the Republicans, secondarily with the Democratic Senators (and some Representatives) who refuse to vote in defense of the middle class and for scientific reality. Obama is not a Prime Minister. Maybe somewhere Greenwald has laid out how he thinks Obama could've pushed legislation through, but he certainly didn't make that point when I listened to him.
That's not to say Obama is blameless - Greenwald rightly points to the HAMP mortgage modification failure as a self-inflicted wound. On legislation though, he and we have to deal in reality.
Speaking of reality and legislation, we might want to look ahead. A best-case scenario in 2012 elections will bring Obama back along with marginal control of the Senate and House. I'm guessing more likely that Obama returns and we only get one of the two congressional houses, and even worse scenarios are very plausible. The best case scenario, in other words, still has us in worse position than 2009-2010. Things generally get worse in mid-term elections for the majority party, and the majority party starts getting tired and often corrupt after many years in office.
I think the best chance to pass climate legislation for another four years was the one that we had before the 2010 elections. It really is a shame that many enviros failed to push for cap-and-trade, because as marginally, politically viable as it was, it was the best shot for years to come. A national carbon tax was not politically meaningful and will take a lot more changes of political fundamentals before it will be. Some enviros missed the boat last time. We can still work together though do things on a piecemeal basis and at the state and local level instead, and gradually enforce carbon regulation through the Clean Air Act and other laws.
Posts
40 comments:
So, Greenwald's a mite hyperbolic. So what? Obama reneged on habeas corpus and institutionalized the abuse of the Bush Admin. 1 head of state? Abuse. 2? It's tradition. So, the tradition stretching back to the Magna Carta has gotten shit-canned by a man who's suppposed to be a liberal?
Certainly weenying out as he has on some other big enviro issues is all the evidence we need that he did everything he could to pass cap-and-trade.
Also, unless I'm missing something didn't you just use the same reasoning you accused Greenwald of abusing?
You are cutting Obama way too much slack. He has made endless discretionary decisions in the conservative rather than progressive direction. He turned financial policy over to Wall Street agents, he took the progressive positions on health care off the table without fighting for them, he has been about as bad as Bush on state secrecy and prosecuting national security whistleblowers, he continues a hawkish and rather imperial military intervention policy, he refused to pursue criminal offenses of the Bush admninistration and Wall Street with the inexcusable 'let's look ahead not back' -- which leaves the powerful above the law and without accountability (Greenwald's most important point) -- his sellout on Plan B for political expedience is but the latest of now countless manifestations of blatant opportunism and questionable integrity, scientific and otherwise, and he won't even discuss climate change -- hasn't given a single talk on it to the public since he was elected. He was elected as a candidate with seemingly great rhetorical skills and with a massive and enthusiastic army of progresssive supporters. He demobilized this campaign army and turned off the public speaking as soon as he was elected and went behind closed doors to do deals with Republicans, conservative Democrats, and corporate interests. He was supposed to rally his majority support into a powerful force for changing the political equation in Washington. With Obama leading the charge and the Dems with a huge majority they should have come out combatively, rammed through an agenda, solidified public support for it with eloquent and principled leadership, and put the right-wing on the defensive for the next generation. Instead, they managed to squander an immense amount of political capital and progressive good will in a breathtakingly short time. Greenwald aside -- and I do believe he is one of the more significant political writers we have at this time --you should look at Obama with a more seriously critical analysis.
Jeff - Gitmo is Congress' fault. Back to the same issue. Obama does have some discredit on civil liberties all on his own, though, but it's the legislation side where Greenwald's wrong.
Steve - I'm probably hypocritical. Wouldn't be the first time by a long shot. Can you tell me where specifically though? Plan B was self inflicted if that's what you're talking about.
Rick - agreed he made bad appointments on bank regulation, although not all of them, and was blocked by Congress from appointing Warren. Same with Affordable Care Act, it was as strong as it was going to be while passing Congress. Civil liberties, yes although not as bad as Bush. Military intervention - he promised he would intervene in Afghanistan during the campaign, so that's hardly a surprise. I disagree with it, but there's no backsliding there. He has talked about climate change, you might recall he went to Copenhagen. He did play an inside game with Congress, but he thought Clinton's imposition style didn't work, and he still got dramatic health care reform through that can lead to single-payer on state level (e.g. Vermont). Again, Greenwald fails to distinguish between President and Prime Minister, and that's not a hard distinction to understand.
As I said in another thread, the lefties are asking for complete control ala dictatorship, because what they believe is right, everyone else is wrong and they should just have the power to act.
Brian you are going to be very depressed in mid November 2012.
"Fault lies with Republicans..." Stop blaming Republicans for the ineptness of Democrats. They were so weak with both houses of Congress and the White House (59 Senate seats for two years!) the rammed through Health Carer and the Stimulus and gave us almost three years of a bad economy that got worse.
Bush never had a 60 Repulicans in the Senate so I guess 2001-2008 was the Democrats fault.
You are a crack up Brian and thankss, now I et to blame those Democrats in the Senate (2001-2008) for what they did to this countrywhere I was blaming Bush and the Republicans. lol
Celery Eater
CE, you and your ilk remind Eli of a three year old who insists that they get their way otherwise Mom is a dictator and they are going to scream. As to the Dems from 2001-08, well they simply did not push it to the wall the way the Republicans have since 2008. When some were blocking more nominations than usual, why others from both parties stepped in and stopped it. Funny enough none of the Republicans who accepted that gesture in 2006(?) have stepped up this time.
It is clear with the Republicans behaving like spoiled children the US Senate will get new regulations. That, of course, is why we have all sorts of regulations, people behaving badly. Grow up.
Brian--
Obama has never, as president, given a speech, in the United States, addressed to the American people, in which he characterizes the climate change problem with scientific integrity and begins to bring the public along to support the strong mitigation and adaptation steps that will be necessary in order to limit global climatic disruption. (Nor has any other American president.) Diverting behind the 'clean energy' and 'green jobs' mantras is insufficient, because without an acknowledgement of climate change there is no real urgency about a radical transition in the energy system, nor about adaptive preparedness strategy. Before he was inaugurated he called climate change a matter of 'urgency' for global security -- but when 'leaders' fail to ACT visibly and consistently as though they were dealing with an urgent matter of global security, public opinion will remain squishy and unengaged. You seem to accept the 'Obama is being as progressive as he can be given the circumstances' model. I think perhaps the evidence of his presidency might be better explained in terms of Obama as part of the liberal-centrist wing of a corporate-dominated power elite, and as such part of the problem rather than part of the solution. In any case, he seems to peform better when subjected to critical pushing from the progressive side, rather than supportive excuse-making. So I advocate for civil society to keep pushing him.
Rick, he gave a climate centered speech in New York before the UN in 2009. Re "You seem to accept the 'Obama is being as progressive as he can be given the circumstances' model," no I don't - he could do more on small bore items on climate, and on other issues. If you want to push him, which is fine, then push him on the right things for the right reasons.
C.E. - I agree that Dems are primarily responsible for stopping the Republican legislation that the Dems successfully opposed, like privatizing Social Security. I don't think you were reading what I wrote very closely.
So I understand you Eli that the Dems of 2001-2008 were also inept.
Such a simple world you live in Republicans = always wrong and Dems = always right. Kind of like the way you view "team" and those who are skeptical. I think you projected your spoiled brat analogy onto me.
Why don't you grow up and un-delete my post about taxes on thhe other thread. How very immature of you to delete a post that I made using 2009 IRS income and tax numbers to prove you wrong. I mean speaking of crying children not getting their way.
Lame Eli very Lame.
Celery Eater
Celery Eater, did you complain about the evaporation of 4th amendment rights and habeas corpus during the Bush admin? If not, you've got a lot of damn gall talking about "dictatorship". (If you claim to have denounced it, please cite where.)
Jeffrey Davis,
Did you complain about the evaporation of 4th amendment rights and habeas corpus during the Lincoln admin? If not, you've got a lot of damn gall talking about "dictatorship". (If you claim to have denounced it, please cite where.)
Celery Eater
Jeffrey Davis,
Did you complain about the evaporation of 4th amendment rights and habeas corpus during the Grant admin? If not, you've got a lot of damn gall talking about "dictatorship". (If you claim to have denounced it, please cite where.)
Celery Eater
Jeffrey Davis,
Did you complain about the evaporation of 4th amendment rights and habeas corpus during the Roosevelt admin? If not, you've got a lot of damn gall talking about "dictatorship". (If you claim to have denounced it, please cite where.)
Celery Eater
Jeffrey Davis,
Did you complain about the evaporation of 4th amendment rights and habeas corpus during the Clinton admin? If not, you've got a lot of damn gall talking about "dictatorship". (If you claim to have denounced it, please cite where.)
Please do not waste my time with your tired BDS crap and your complete ignorance of US History to try to score political points. You want to argue about Habeas Corpus restrictions in general, let's go.
Celery Eater
Jeffrey Davis - I think CE's lack of a response answers your question.
Brian,
Please extend your arms over your head to catch the points people are making. The suspension of Habeas Corpus was not a Bush invention. And yes I had problems with that and no I do not have written record of such. I see you are as empty and partisan as Jeffrey and Eli. Like puppets on a string and not your own man. Lame very lame.
Celery Eater
It is indeed difficult to have a serious conversation with a clown. Celery, do us all a favor and take your meds.
Eli,
Yes Eli avoid the facts and throw the insults a losing strategy if I ever saw one.
Do you deny Habeas Corpus was suspended at the direction of all those prior Presidents I mentioned?
Do you deny that you need to raise the individual tax rate to over 90% on the top 3% in order to balance the budget (through taxes)?
The only clown is you Eli, you are not quite so failed, rather your failure is quite complete.
Celery Eater
Brian--
Obama's short speech at the UN Climate Summit in 2009 was addressed to the UN delegates, during daytime. Al Jazeera English covered the summit all day long and took seriously talks by multiple heads of state. US media gave it very little attention -- CNN cut away to show just the Obama talk, then cut away quickly, without follow-up comment, and went right back to Lindsay Lohan's bail revocation or whatever they had been talking about. That's not an address to the American people directly, from the White House, and besides that was more than two years ago. This year he didn't even give it one sentence in the State of the Union. In the State of the union the previous year, he said one sentence about the scientific evidence for global warming -- but when challenged by Republican chuckling and booing, he quickly backed away and said, 'well, even if you don't believe the science...' It was craven, spineless, a slap in the face to the climate science community, which he must know full well is under siege from denialists. I'm still waiting for him to stop evading. In the meantime, it's clear to me that this is not someone the science community can count on to have their back.
Eli denies he was of voting age during the Lincoln Grant ad Roosevelt administration. As to Clinton, WTF are you blathering about? Get real
CE:
"Did you complain about the evaporation of 4th amendment rights and habeas corpus during the Lincoln admin? If not, you've got a lot of damn gall talking about "dictatorship". (If you claim to have denounced it, please cite where.)"
I wasn't alive during Lincoln's administration, so I guess the point is that CE wasn't alive during the W administration.
Which means he not only *acts* like a 3 year old, but *is* a ...
I'd simply reply to CE that I objected -- using my real name -- to the suspension of habeas corpus during a Democratic administration. (Your assertion that I'm acting out of partisanship ... what does that mean to you?) CE avers that s/he behaved similarly. I doubt it. People who use a nom de net are mockable and, by their own hand, less trustable.
Lincoln's action re: habeas at least occurred during one of the Constitutionally prescribed events when it was permissible -- armed insurrection. Objecting to Roosevelt's suspension is trite and as bold as objecting to Sin. I have no idea what you're referring to during the Clinton administration. Waco?
Well, I had to look it up, and turns out the habeas limit in the Clinton years was an attempt to execute convicted prisoners more quickly by limiting the appeals process:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States#Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act
Unsurprisingly, Republicans were gung ho, and most Dems in the Senate (and Bill Clinton) went along as well.
Actually Brian, Clinton pretty much got exactly what he wanted in the legislation.
So Eli, that is WTF we are talking about. Why don't you retire you no longer know wtf you are talking about.
Jeffrey are you as ignorant as Eli?
You all should spend some time researcheing and learning rather than throwing your cutesy insults at me whenever I post.
I am laughing at your arrogance and ignorance.
Celery Eater
Brian,
Thank you for making the effort, even if we would diagree 100% at least you make an effort to converse.
Celery Eater
"People who use a nom de net are mockable and, by their own hand, less trustable."
You mean like "Eli Rabett"?
or "Dhogaza"
Stepped in that one Jeffrey now didn't you.
Stop trying to score and think man, think.
Well at least you all have learned today that Bush was not the only President to impact 4th Ammendment rights and restrict Habeas Corpus. Even Bill Clinton did, although the circumstances were different the result is the same. Even though you all had to learn kicking and screaming, because I had provided the information in the end it is enough to know that you all learned and you are welcome!
Celery Eater
Rick - careful, you're moving goalposts. We've seen denialists do that often enough.
CE - yeah I knew about that one back when it happened and disagreed with it, hadn't thought about it in this context where habeas disappears for virtually everyone outside the country. Worth noting that it sought to limit, not eliminate, habeas appeals. Bit of an apple-orange situation overall.
FWIW, Al Gore was one of the very few politicians honest enough to say that the death penalty could kill innocent people and that he still supported it. I'd like to hear that level of honesty from a Republican presidential candidate today. I'm not sure of Gore's current position.
And btw, Lincoln and FDR actions are pretty well known.
CE, you didn't answer my question about your accusation of partisanship. Not that I expected you to. Thanks for living down to expectations.
Your other answers were trivial. FDR's abrogation of habeas was objected to during his administration and the internment camps were broken up. The tradition didn't linger to the next administration -- it was an act of panic and when panic abated, habeas was restored.
There is no war now with terrorists. There is no invasion. There are perfectly good courts and jails and judges. It's a craven move all around. When the right wing accuses Obama of tyranny though, it's on nonsensical grounds -- health care! They support the erosion of habeas.
The Clinton habeas didn't involve holding people without trial or a public hearing on fixed charges.
As for Eli and other users of pseudonyms, I'd really prefer people to use their own names. There's the weight of responsibility. As it is, I believe people have figured out who Eli is so it's simply a question of consistently associating an opinion with a name.
No, Eli HAD looked it up and found what Brian and everyone else did, it was not a suspension of habeas but a limitation on habeas appeals after conviction. Thus WTF were you talking about.
“. . . I support the death penalty, . . . I think that any honest and candid supporter of the death penalty has to acknowledge that that support comes in spite of the fact that there will inevitably be some mistakes. And that’s a harsh concession to make, but I think it’s the only honest concession to make, and it should spur us to have appreciation for habeas corpus, for the procedural safeguards for the accused, and for the fairness that’s a part of the American judicial system and to resist efforts to take away the procedural safeguards.”
-- Al Gore to the San Francisco Bay Guardian.
Eli,
Nice moving of the goalposts, as Jeffery referred to an "evaporation of 4th ammendment and habeas corpus rights." You are the first to bring in the word suspension.
Retire you have no grip on reality or facts and your students should demand a refund from any your courses they attended.
Still waiting for you to un-delete my comment that destroyed your false notion that taxing the "1%" will balance the budget.
Again, you would have to tax the top ~3% at 90% to balance the budget. IRS 2009 information, go look that up.
Celery Eater
Nice to see all the bunnies clam up when faced with irrefutable facts that counter their mistaken beliefs and world views.
Tax the 1% to propsperity and balanced budgets hahahahahahahahaha.
Celery Eater
Rabetts have better things to do than abuse a bag of wind.
"Rabetts have better things to do..." Yes like make things up, lie, deny facts, delete comments. Yes you have been a very busy bunny.
I'll accept your lack of a response to my references to the 2009 IRS tax tables that shows how much taxes would have to go up to balance the budget.
Celery Eater
FY 2009, hmm wouldn't be much end point pickin there? Started Oct 2008. Remind Eli again what happened then he is a forgetful little bunny.
One argument used against nuclear power is that it can't completely solve our climate change problem, and therefore shouldn't be done at all. Sounds like CE's argument against asking the rich to pay more. Also used to argue against LED lighting.
Except Brian Eli said "Cel, let us try the 1% shall we, and a US tax increase on the top tenth would not be a bad thing either. Given rates that prevailed in the 1990s that would bring the deficit into balance PDQ, who is also a Bach."
Which is completly false. And thank you for completly misrepresenting my position, my point and has always been my point, is people who say returning to the tax rates of the 1990's will balance the budget is wrong and by just looking at the damn numbers any 6th grade math student can understand it. If there is $1.4 trillion in taxable revenue from the top ~3% and you are already taking ~$400 billion in taxes that lease ~$1 trillion? Yes or no? How much of that ~$1 trillion will you need to balance the annual Federal Budget?
Jeez I can not comprehend the lack of understanding on this issue. Sure raise taxes I agree, but do not do it without spending cuts or under the illusion that the tax cuts are gonna fix the budget.
Celery Eater
We use 2009 final tax numbers Eli, because those are the latest numbers the IRS has posted relevant to our discussion about taxing the top 1% will balance the budget "PDQ". Wrong!
More evasion, more denial, more blustering BS.
Oh you asked a question what happened in 2008, end of? A shyster was running around promising "hope and change" and fooled millions of Americans and now three years later we have record number of people on food stamps, record home foreclosures, record length of unemployment staying above 8% and all the hope and changers are still blaming the guy who has been out of office three years, pathetic.
Your hope and change hero (worst President in american history IMHO) will more than likely lose in 2012.
For Jeffrey Davis and I predict his silence and lack of outrage will be legend.
http://www.infowars.com/indefinite-detention-bill-heads-to-obamas-desk/
But please keep supporting Obama and all the current critters in congress, good plan.
Celery Eater
Celery Eater, possibly the charitable thing to do at this point would be to encourage you to seek some kind of help. Educational or otherwise. I began the thread by condemning Obama.
Jeffrey,
So you did, apologies, my last comment directed to you was wrong and uncalled for.
Celery Eater
Post a Comment