Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

This is disturbing. I have questions.

This is disturbing. I am disturbed. Disturbed is what I am. This causes disturbment. Disturbation emanates from this.

What are the topics that are generating the most response and the most agreement in the TPM Cafe these days?

-- Delegates committed to Sen. Clinton who make too much trouble should not be permitted to express themselves and maybe not even be allowed to participate at the convention.

-- People who criticize Sen. Obama's positions on constitutional and human rights issues should just shut up.

-- The New Yorker's cover is an abomination and should be placed at ground zero in some other country's next test of a thermonuclear device.

This is a LIBERAL blog? The people who post on this blog are people who think that there is no disinfectant for hate like the free exchange of ideas? That we resolve disagreement in a democracy through debate and discussion? When did Joe Goebels' philosophy come into vogue around here?

Was gibt, volk?


Comments (217)

truth, freedom and independence is now the enemy of getting elected. Welcome to the terror dome.

I find it distrubing as well. I guess coalescing around a candidate hasn't been good for TPMCafe. People were noting here during the primaries that the level of dialogue had cratered but I think most of us assumed it would improve once the campaign nastiness was behind us. Instead it's gotten worse. There's some sense around here that Obama can't take care of himself so that everyone here needs to either say nice things or say nothing at all. Also, it's like every little thing that happens to Obama is an outrage. That's gotten old fast. He's a tough guy, he can take it.

I am sure it will be fine but will it earn him votes or earn them for McCain. Presidential politics is a zero sum game.

avatar

Please. Don't flatter yourself. What gets discussed on this site won't affect the election at all. No one here has ever changed anyone's mind about anything.

You're right on this one. The mainstream media never uses on-line narratives to push whatever garbage they are selling. That never happens.

Also, on our side, Rachel Maddow has quoted this site and Olbermann has even had Josh on his show. Who's to say who is watching/reading this blog.

Yeah, but really the issue was never that primaries are making us hot under the collar. The issue is that the Cafe has become a monoculture. How often does anyone post anything not related to the election? To some extent, the problem is that Cafe users have collectively forgotten that presidents are only a relatively small part of politics. If there was an understanding that effective political analysis and activism requires thought about a wide range of issues not connected to the horse race, I think there would be a lot less 'shut up!' coming out in the threads.

He's a tough guy, he can take it.

You know, I agree with you. But whether he can take it or not -- whether it helps or hurts him -- stifle debate? Libs? Cheesh!

Yeah, it's really bizarre. Kept coming up during FISA, too. People would say, "You hurting Obama's chances!"

But who cares? This isn't a campaign site, we're supposed to be throwing ideas around. Also, I think people are confused about the impact of blogs, and of this site in general. Even a widely read Kos diary won't reach enough people to tip an election. Most voters don't read blogs. And of the people who do read blogs, the vast majority of them don't read TPMCafe. So relax everybody! Nothing that anybody says here will cause Obama to lose the election.

Here watch:

Barack Obama is a fist jabbing terrorist.

Nothing happened.

That's where you're wrong. Fifty-seven really cute puppies died of hearworm when you said that, and Sen. Obama lost Florida.

You remember the Bono clapping thing?

And a fairy lost its wings...

I'm very disappointed in the MSM for failing to run a far more elaborate obituary for the fallen Tinker Bell. Ms. Bell deserved far more respect.

Did you see that slinky outfit she was wearing? She was just asking for it - surprised it didn't happen earlier.

Hmmm....I had a little disturbulation over similar things a while ago, if you remember, and well...hasn't gotten better and it will probably get worse.

Now, you know, I'm not much of an optimist but I don't worry too much about how that Tuesday in November will play out. Despite it all I expect we'll be seeing a new day dawning with Obama as Prez.

Meantime...never shut up.

Cheers.

What? You think he's going to magically get elected? With a third of the Party slagging him relentlessly and refusing to support him? Give me a break. This is a tight race and getting tighter. If you want to see Obama in the White House, you'd better commit to it. Because he isn't going to get there without our help. And he CERTAINLY isn't going to get there with the base bashing him without mercy. The Republicans are laughing up their fucking sleeves. As usual...

What? You think he's going to magically get elected?

Oh boy...yeah, that's exactly what I think.


With a third of the Party slagging him relentlessly and refusing to support him?

A third of the party? Really? I did not know that!

Give me a break. This is a tight race and getting tighter. If you want to see Obama in the White House, you'd better commit to it.

Already have. And without falling into some weird cult-like trance. And all the while not shutting up!

Because he isn't going to get there without our help. And he CERTAINLY isn't going to get there with the base bashing him without mercy.

The base is bashig him without mercy? Damn. Did not know that either!

The Republicans are laughing up their fucking sleeves. As usual...

Who cares?

What you see as a "cult-like trance" some of us see as unyielding support for the man the Democratic Party has chosen as its candidate. It has nothing to do with what we personally think about Obama or his policies. In fact, we've chosen to set our personal agendas aside for the time being. Because this is not about me or you or whether we personally agree with Obama. This is about winning an election. It's really that simple. And if you want to win, you've got to fight. And you can afford second thoughts or self-doubt. Not even for a moment. Not when you're running against the Republicans. If our Party doesn't stay strong and focused, with our eye on the single goal of winning the election, we will lose. Is Obama perfect? No. Do I agree with everything he says? No. But Obama is my candidate, and I have made the decision to work to put him in office. Damn the torpedoes. Damn the hand-wringers. Damn the detractors.

I've fucking had it up to here with Republicans. I refuse to watch them steal another election. And I refuse to give even an inch on my support for the Democratic nominee. That's Barack Obama. If it had been Hillary (who I dislike intensely) I would feel exactly the same way. Obama is not the enemy. McCain is. You may think it's fun to spend your days criticizing and tearing down my candidate. I think it's despicable.

You may think it's fun to spend your days criticizing and tearing down my candidate. I think it's despicable.

This is amazing. What are you talking about? When and where am I despicably tearing down "your candidate?"


You're the one who made the stupid "cult-like trance" accusation. You don't want to piss people off? Don't say stupid shit like that.

Calling people like you cult-like is absolutely no reflection on Obama. Now, once again, when and where am I tearing him down?

And calling people like you assholes is a waste of time and energy.

As all trueisms are.

Still waiting...

God-DAMN Loki! You be one patient lad! Shit, lemme see.... 11 hours now.

Damn, I just woke up...did I miss anything?

Advice for you, Loki, to take or leave.

Don't pursue a cockroach. You can sqash him over and over and over. He barely notices, and just keeps coming back. He also scuttles away when someone turns the light on.

You're an arrogant piece of shit Tankard. And you just broke your pledge not to reply to me.

I believe he was replying to me.

No, he was using you to attack me. It's a chickenshit technique Tankard is especially fond of.

But if I attack Tankard THROUGH you, that would mean I'm REALLY attacking....

Oh fuckit. Brain... Cramping... Now....

avatar

That is good advice Loki. Don't pursue Tankard The Cockroach.

So we all should be good little boys and girls and speak only the party line? What is this, a Stalinist youth camp? Shut up! No, you shut up! Don't make me come over there and smack you upside the head now! Listen, Obama has done some things in recent days that many people find appalling. Some of us are struggling with whether we can vote for someone acting this way. Doesn't mean that our minds are made up to go with Nader or McKinney. I'm looking actively for reasons not to do that. But, let's face it, Obama has given me little reason not to wonder about him. For his supporters to respond by telling people who voice doubts about his commitment to the issues I hold dear to shut up doesn't do Obama any good. Why are you actively trying to drive support away. Silly fellow. Make some calm and reasoned arguments instead of demonstrating petulance. Shut up! No, you shut up!

I still say that if you are surprised by anything Obama is doing right now that you didn't do your homework properly.

Also, for many of us who support the guy, he tactics actually make sense to us if the goal is bringing the country together to get some pretty significant problems fixed. Things way bigger than some overseas phone calls.

Finally, while you are taking our pleas for rational and reasonable criticism as some Stalinist grab for power, the facts are the media would love nothing better than to scuttle Barack's candidacy over netroots chatter.

If we can't even understand and support our candidate, why should republicans and independents? That is what will filter out beyond our little echo-chamber here and could certainly be damaging enough to make a victory, if any, another 50%+1 win.

In other words: More gridlock, more partisan battles and precious little actually getting fixed. Is that more preferable to you than disagreeing with Obama on a handful of issues?

There are a number of things I don't agree with in how Barack would lead this country to change, but they are most fine details. The broad strokes are all there.

Meantime...never shut up.

I think you know that I will never shut up.

Yeah, we're all really, really looking forward to your fierce denunciations of President McCain.

Can we start using "Shut up shuttin' up!" now? I'll be happier once we're all quoting Foghorn & Bugs.

P.S. Tankard. You took away all the fun of putting "disturbing" in your title, by pulling the sting in the first para. Hell, I saw 83 people lined up to take a shot at you on that one. Next time, paint the target and just stand back. More fun for the whole family.

I always appreciate your writing advice, quinn.

Personally I've come to the conclusion that Josh Marshall deserves what he's going to end up with: another fucking pointless leftie blog. Look out DU and DailyKos--there's a new "special" kid on the block.

At least all you fierce, principled defenders of "free speech" will have a place to gather and whine about President McCain when this is all over.

It's so appropriate and revealing that you put the quotes around free speech - as though it's not something you believe in.

avatar

He doesn't. It's one of the Amendments Democrats are trying to strike down.

We don't like the way every decision Barack makes is characterized as Lying to The Democratic Faithful and Betraying the American Way of Life. We really take exception to the notion that the Evil Obama Raped and Plundered Our Fourth Amendment Rights.

Those are our objections, regardless of caricature or hyperbole.

You seem to dismiss the fact that these on-line soap operas get carried into the corporate media as: "Ruin in Obamaland - How can Barack win the general election if the democratic base thinks he betrayed his oath of office? More news lacking all context after this long commercial break."

Turn this into some Goebbels-inspired McCarthyism to root out the "wide-spread liberal dissent" in our ranks if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the overly-dramatic far-left critiques of Barack is what we all object to, not honest criticism from thoughtful supporters who disagree with this stance or that. We ALL disagree with the man about something.

If anything, it's the far-left ideologues are trying to quash any criticism of their methods and adding people to lists.

When Obama was running against Hillary, things were much easier. Now he's running against stupidity, and it's a much tougher fight. He's running against the very "latte-drinking liberals" that fought so hard for him when he was trying to win the nomination. Naive idealistic dilettantes who believe that winning an argument is far more important than winning an election. Well fuck 'em all. Let 'em sit on their pansy asses at the local Starbuck's and argue that Obama has abandoned them. Poor, spoiled babies.

The enemy of my friend is my enemy. This is war.

Obama '08.

Now he's running against stupidity, and it's a much tougher fight. He's running against the very "latte-drinking liberals" that fought so hard for him when he was trying to win the nomination.

No, dumb ass. He's running against John McCain. He doesn't give a flip about a ridiculous minority of Kucinich/Naderites screaming from their mommy's basement. Only you do! And you're looking more and more unhinged.

No, he's running against stupidity. That's what John McCain and the Republicans represent: stupidity. Massive, endless stupidity. I am sick and tired of stupid people like Tankard constantly trying to lead the conversation back to outrage over Democrats' attempts to stay focused and on point and win an election. Tankard, and people like Tankard, thrive on division and diversion. I'm tired of it. We've got an election to win. Nothing else. We've got an election to win. Later for the intellectual stimulation. Right now, we need to put our blinders on, take the bit in our mouths and haul the load.

But this isn't a campaign site! Some people are in it for the campaign, as you are. Others are in it to throw ideas around. A lot of us don't take kindly to being told what to say. You can do your thing while we do ours. It's a big internets.

True. It's not a campaign site. But I don't take any more kindly to being told what to say than you do. I won't censor you if you don't censor me, OK?

It's so appropriate and revealing that you put the quotes around free speech - as though it's not something you believe in.

I don't think that any of us here consider ourselves your enemy.

I'm being over-the-top on purpose. No Democrat is my enemy. But until Obama is safely in the White House, every Republican is my enemy and everyone who attempts to tear down my candidate is as well. This isn't some intellectual exercise. This election truly is a life and death situation. And, like it or not, Barack Obama is now the leader of our Party. And for the time being, that means that whether I agree with him or not, I support his decisions. 100%. Without question. Blindly. Period. Because there are only two options in front of us: President Obama or President McCain. I've made my choice and I'm giving all my energy to realizing the goal. Until Election Day, rest of this shit is nothing but a distraction.

avatar

Sometimes you remind me of the Monty Python bunny, hrebendorf.

Except duwing wabbit season.

:) Sill-we wabbit

Dude, if you hate cafés, what are you doing at this one?

hrebendorf I agree with you. Some parts of the Democrat have turned really sour since the primary have ended and they seem more with fighting for their own agenda than making sure we elect a Democrat to the White House, and there just stepping over our chance to try to get their way. If the Democrat's lose this election I'll know who to blame.

avatar

Does her name begin with an H and end with an illary?

i concur.

well said.

So what you're saying is that you're as deaf to obvious hyperbole as you seem to be to satire. Got it!

No, that isn't what I said at all, though, anyone who would cry satire as an excuse for hyperbole seems to not know the definition of either term.

OK, Jason. Now you're becoming HRE's evil twin. Have fun.

What the hell is this even supposed to mean? You are clearly coming unhinged.

New Rule: Nobody is allowed to compare the new FISA with the old FISA without citation to either or both statutes. That goes for folks who say that the new FISA is the same in terms of probable cause requirements and judicial review standards, and those who claim that the new FISA rule (not counting the immunity stuff) is fundamentally different than the old FISA with respect to probable cause requirements and judicial review standards. There're lots of bald assertions going around these parts--smart-sounding authoritative stuff, some of it from folks who passed the bar for gosh sakes, but just about all of it without reference. That dog don't hunt in real life and it shouldn't be countenanced here.

This seems like an issue that could be solved in one-fell swoop, and I ain't arguing about the merits anymore so I ain't swooping. People, I say put the FISA squabblin' to bed with fact; if new FISA is the same as old FISA, then folks who oppose new FISA have some explaining to do, i.e., where the hell ya been for 30 years? And, before anyone gets too excited, the converse is equally true.

To me, the most amusing thing about FISA is that Obama promised to filibuster the bill that he then went ahead and voted for. That, to me, shows that he's a politician like all the rest and I feel vindicated. With that knowledge, it makes it a helluva lot easier for me to vote for the guy because I can salve my wounds by poking fun at those of you who were mean to me, viscious at times, for having the audacity to support Hillary Clinton (hee). Hey, you can't blame me for being honest, can ya? :)

But then again, I'm an unapologetic political pragmatic hack, who begins and ends with the premise that a Democrat in the White House is better than a Republican. To me, blow in my ear with reference to the Employee Free Choice Act and I'll follow you anywhere. Some things are simple until you try to make them complicated.

I reiterate what I have previously written, and that is that anyone who thinks that intra-family squabbles at the Cafe are going to impact the election in any meaningful way has a dose of those good ole' plain and simple delusions of grandeur. It ain't so; we're just a data point, so relax.

And, oh yea, I don't like the notion that folks should be stifled because of their opinions, and I think as one of my heroes Artappraiser points out now and then, it's against the policy of the Cafe to stifle folks on the basis of their position on FISA or whether Bobby Murcer, rest in peace, could have been in the Hall of Fame if the Yankees hadn't traded him for Bobby Bonds in '75.

Bruce, that was a very eloquent way to miss the point on our critiques of the Sky is Falling crowd. No one is saying that we can't disagree with a candidate.

I also don't know anyone who claimed Barack wasn't a politician, but I take your point that Hillary was unfairly demonized for practicing the same sort of principled stands against the progressive base - it's just that I didn't really agree with the many of the stands she took.

Finally, Barack promised to filibuster a different bill with different language specifically because of the immunity clause, but never promised to do so in perpetuity. He made a personal decision based on the available evidence that this legislation was needed for national security reasons.

It's hard for me to disagree with that, despite my firm belief that we continue to treat the Constitution in ways that require a complete rewrite from the ground up. Otherwise, we might as well go ahead and throw the thing out as our guiding document.

Again, I am a Perfect World kind of guy philosophically which is why I supported Kucinich in the primary until he dropped out. This year's election has made me pragmatic in ways I have never been before politically.

Jason:

I was really just trying to have a little fun with friends who like to bicker. We're gonna be fine in November, and then you owe me a beer (I call it).

Bruce

That's a deal. You have been one of the people I have enjoyed debating these points with, even though we often approach them from different sides.

Actually, he did not promise to filibuster the FISA bill. He said he would support a filibuster of the bill. Which is to say, if Russ Feingold, for example, had decided to lead a filibuster, Obama would have supported him in the effort. A significant difference worth noting as it seems too many people are mistaking what they thought Sen. Obama said with what he actually said.

The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a supermajority of three-fifths of the Senate (60 Senators, if all 100 seats are filled) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture.[6]


[edit] Procedural filibuster
In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. This threat of a filibuster can therefore be as powerful as an actual filibuster. Previously, the filibustering senator(s) could delay voting only by making an endless speech. Currently, they need only indicate that they are filibustering, thereby preventing the Senate from moving on to other business until the motion is withdrawn or enough votes are gathered for cloture.


-- Wikipedia


He voted to invoke cloture.

You might have to explain to her what that means.

He voted to invoke cloture

Actually Obama didn't vote on the Motion to Invoke Cloture.

Of course, since he said he would support a filibuster of any bill that granted telecom immunity, not voting is the same as voting Yes on the motion.

Well, see, I have to respond even though I don't wanna. I mean really, I trust that Senator Obama would not twist himself into a pretzel by saying that, had someone else sought to filibuster the FISA, then so too would have the leader of the Democratic Party. Yikes some folks make poking this kind of fun... well fun. Our nation's future leader would have supported a filibuster if someone else had put his or her foot in the water? Now that's leadership!

avatar

Well said.

avatar

There are almost no liberals blogging or commenting on this site. There are even fewer democrats. What we seem to have is some sort of odd specimen called a "progressive" who thinks that "a new tone" in Washington is actually a good thing.

I am a Liberal. I think that getting things done is important. That is why one must be percieved as setting a new tone. You do not get long term change in either direction by appearing confron tational. It will work fo a cycle or two and then the other side gets a turn. I you want long term cnage you have to move the debate and make your oponents seem confrontational and you seem reasonable. Get radical things done by apearing centrist and moving the center. Apearing radical may feel good but it does not get things done.

Hey Bev:

Honestly, the check IS in the mail. I totally spaced. Sorry. How ya doing?

Bruce

Actually, the John Ashcroft-ish accusations that criticisms lend comfort to the enemy remind me so much of that 2003 mindset of the Bush-adoring 80 percenters.

With Bush-adorers being reduced to 20-percenters, the simplest arithmetic indicates that many of them are now progressives, but their discourse habits remain unchanged.

Come on, AdAb, it's criticism in the form of hyperbole and melodrama that comforts the "enemy" in this case, not thoughtful disagreement as a tool of political or social commentary.

I do think that there's an exaggerated level of anxiety in the left blogosphere lately about message discipline and media critique.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm all about party unity. I'm old enough to remember how stupid it was when the Left really ate its own.

Nor do I think this election is a cakewalk. I'm donating to several different candidates and committees, I've done some phoning, and I plan to do more.

But I also think we need to get some perspective. We're going to fight about issues. There are going to be dubious jokes and cartoons. It's not the end of the world.

I think it's a consequence of being out of power for eight years. One of the few things we've been able to do is media critique; we haven't been able to take a lot of concrete action. So, in my (genuinely) humble opinion, I think we've become slightly over-invested in media critique.

I think someone in Harpers said something about that. I'd send you the kink, but I'd rather blockquote 7 pages of it for my next post - "Is The Blogosphere Over-Invested In Media Critique?"

Obviously, intended "link." But fuckit. "Kink" works better.

Careful! If you do that, it may get picked up by the MSM, and support the stereotype of left-wing bloggers as talky and insufferably self-referential.

Stereotype?

Just tryin' to get a new meme out there... "Bloggers are KINKY and insufferably self-referential." Makes me sound more interesting.

Quinn: from a wordsmith like you -- "meme"? So hackneyed. Disappointed.

Hey! I LIKE Hackney! Hell of a Borough. London Fields, Columbia Road market, people running in and out of each others houses with each others things....

Truth is, I regard the widespread usage of "meme" as a VICTORY. Picked it up from R. Dawkins, early 80's, in UK - reading all that sociobio stuff. Later, we used very specific strategies to try & disperse various memes. Now, yeah, it's gotten overused & drained of much of its life. But I'd be pleased to hear if there's better ones emerging. Got any ideas?

Ha. Ha. Don't hold your breath waiting for anything creative from that one.

I think it's a consequence of being out of power for eight years.

I don't believe we're necessarily on our way back to power. In politics, overconfidence can get you massacred. I know many on the left believe that it would be fine to have a Democratic majority in Congress and a Republican president. That is pure self-deception. It would totally suck. Obama MUST be elected president. I'm simply stunned by people who think this is some sort of academic exercise in Democracy. If we lose the White House this time, we will have lost an opportunity that will not repeat any time soon. This election is the most critical election of my lifetime. If we lose, we're screwed.

See above. Totally agree with you. If Obama loses, I am going to have to take a LOT of benadryl and stay in bed, because I won't trust myself around bridges and knives for 24 hours. Seriously.

I'm not saying "relax," or suggesting that we should give the AP a free pass. I'm just saying that the importance of a single news story is easy to over-estimate. And the damage done by dissent on a left-wing blog is really, really easy to over-estimate.

The thing I worry about is the gradual chipping away. We've seen Obama's support slip in recent polls. This is not a good thing. People like Tankard use posts like this to sew the seeds of doubt and division. I find it incredibly destructive in a very covert, cowardly sort of way.

avatar

Agree Kitty with both you and Raider. Sometimes it does seem to me that it becomes more about the arguing than about electing a candidate who comes closest to what we need in our country. And I disagree with destor when he says that what we say here doesn't matter all that much. I think it matters quite a bit. We have a choice in this, as in all things. We can add to the communal goodness that is possible or we can add to the darkness that is always present. At this point, according to my beliefs about what is best for the country, Obama is the only choice because what McCain wants is not something I could ever want. And there is no one else other than these two who has any reasonable chance of becoming our next president. I don't try to steal away anyone's right to free speech, but I would like to appeal to our own ability to self discipline ourselves in the interest of the most good for the most people. I don't see this as a political game to be played out every four years in which we get to throw out every thought we ever had. I view it as a very serious endeavor to preserve the country and the world in such a way that the most people possible can have a better life. For me, at this moment in time, Obama represents at least a chance at that. McCain doesn't. If some of the posters tried to be as totally democratic in their free speech with their spouse as they have been with Obama, they wouldn't still be married. Relationships take commitment and kindness and caring. If we want the best and most effective president, we'll need to have a relationship with him. If we don't then he won't be able to accomplish many of our common goals in the shark pool that is Washington. I think the time for all the tearing apart is over and it's time for the building up if we really do hope for a better tomorrow than the Bush yesterdays.

We've seen Obama's support slip in recent polls.

Not so long ago I read posts at TPM Cafe ad nauseam about how the polls were meaningless so many months before the election.

avatar

Hmmm. You're off-message. You sound like you haven't had the Change chip implanted in your brain yet. TPM was offering them for free with easy self-implanting instructions, but the offer expired sometime around the FISA vote.

Classic.