« LeGarrette Blount and Van Jones: Angry Black Men | Desidero's Blog | Health Care Cost: Channeling Bob Somerby »
Fuck Obama: Bring Back Van Jones
Let's cut to the chase. These "low intellect wingnuts" you see on TV? They're smarter than you. You may see them as knuckle-dragging Cro-Magnons. But you have the White House and both Houses of Congress. And they can still get anyone fired anytime they want. Say bye-bye, Van Jones. All R Bases R Belong to Them. Bill O'Reilly shut down Olbermann. Rush Limbaugh shut down Michale Steele, Glen Beck shut down ColorForChange and Van Jones.
Public option? Forget it. It's been given away. Your needs don't matter. Glen Beck's matter. Michelle Bachman's matter. Big PhRMA's matter. You, as Rahm told you a few weeks ago, need to "STFU" and get to the back of the chow line. Next time he'll tell you what that acronym means. Like he told Van Jones.
This is a government that signals defeat. "Sit down with no pre-conditions." Did you think Obama was talking about Iran? No, that was about talking to Republicans. And sure enough, they can go all ape-shit and he'll still negotiate with them.
So knowing this President only responds to threats, to bully tactics, to unhinged behavior, time to start threatening. I think an "Al Franken-Van Jones" ticket for 2012 sounds pretty nice - I hear first term Senators can get elected Prez these days. I think a well funded anti-Blue Dog movement for 2010 sounds nice. No liberals to run against Blue Dogs? Fund the Republican. Let the Blue Dogs come whimpering to you.
Remember when Congress censured Move On for expressing its written opinion in public - not comparing Bush to Hitler, mind you - for using a play on words, "Betray Us" for Petraeus. Well, we're still in Iraq, that's for sure, even upped the ante with Afghanistan. Even with a Democratic President. Fool me once, shame on you... BetrayUs holds the cards - we can't even make fun of his name. And now Van Jones has been pushed aside for calling Republicans "assholes". Oh my. They spend the summer shutting down public debate on health care, and a simple curse word is beyond the pale? Unlike those allowed Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck and scads more? (Even Rahm talking to Progressives?)
Face it. Any bill that comes out of this process is going to have the consistency of a warm bag of spit or a discarded condom. You can push back - it'll be hard, Obama dismantled the roots organizations, but you can still do it. Fight for the little things, build it up slowly, then once we're back in the game, we can talk about serious policy, some real bones with meat tossed our way. But for now, let's say "Bring Back Van Jones". Simple enough, 4 words, single syllables, fits on a placard, hard to misinterpret, shove it up Beck's ass. Because it's either his ass or ours, and I like my sex consensual.
Too many times I've thought of things Obama could say. "Van Jones is out there fighting for millions locked up in our rush to control crime, trying to help out the underprivileged caught in a bad jam, locked up more for lack of opportunity and poverty and bad public policy than any bad intent. Van Jones is out there fighting for green jobs that will make our planet healthier. I know I've watched the protests over the last 8 months and questioned a few people's sanity, and I questioned the wisdom of our rush to war back in 2003, so I'm certainly not going to toss out a good man giving his life, long hard work, to good causes just because of a cuss word or some doubt about people's competence in the worst security breakdown in US history."
But Obama didn't say that. I did. I keep waiting for those supposed words of wisdom. Obama said, "mush mush mushie kow tow kow tow thankee thankee thankee". And once you get used to eating shit, it's hard to shake your fondness for the taste. Thanks, but no thanks - time for a new course - non-cooperation, resistance, build back the spine. Reinstate Van Jones. We'll discuss the next step afterwards. But better to be dishing it out than to be on the ugly side of the feeding trough.
PS - inspired by a bunch of Jane Hamsher writing of late, including this one on the veal pen.
Public option? Forget it. It's been given away. Your needs don't matter. Glen Beck's matter. Michelle Bachman's matter. Big PhRMA's matter. You, as Rahm told you a few weeks ago, need to "STFU" and get to the back of the chow line. Next time he'll tell you what that acronym means. Like he told Van Jones.
This is a government that signals defeat. "Sit down with no pre-conditions." Did you think Obama was talking about Iran? No, that was about talking to Republicans. And sure enough, they can go all ape-shit and he'll still negotiate with them.
So knowing this President only responds to threats, to bully tactics, to unhinged behavior, time to start threatening. I think an "Al Franken-Van Jones" ticket for 2012 sounds pretty nice - I hear first term Senators can get elected Prez these days. I think a well funded anti-Blue Dog movement for 2010 sounds nice. No liberals to run against Blue Dogs? Fund the Republican. Let the Blue Dogs come whimpering to you.
Remember when Congress censured Move On for expressing its written opinion in public - not comparing Bush to Hitler, mind you - for using a play on words, "Betray Us" for Petraeus. Well, we're still in Iraq, that's for sure, even upped the ante with Afghanistan. Even with a Democratic President. Fool me once, shame on you... BetrayUs holds the cards - we can't even make fun of his name. And now Van Jones has been pushed aside for calling Republicans "assholes". Oh my. They spend the summer shutting down public debate on health care, and a simple curse word is beyond the pale? Unlike those allowed Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck and scads more? (Even Rahm talking to Progressives?)
Face it. Any bill that comes out of this process is going to have the consistency of a warm bag of spit or a discarded condom. You can push back - it'll be hard, Obama dismantled the roots organizations, but you can still do it. Fight for the little things, build it up slowly, then once we're back in the game, we can talk about serious policy, some real bones with meat tossed our way. But for now, let's say "Bring Back Van Jones". Simple enough, 4 words, single syllables, fits on a placard, hard to misinterpret, shove it up Beck's ass. Because it's either his ass or ours, and I like my sex consensual.
Too many times I've thought of things Obama could say. "Van Jones is out there fighting for millions locked up in our rush to control crime, trying to help out the underprivileged caught in a bad jam, locked up more for lack of opportunity and poverty and bad public policy than any bad intent. Van Jones is out there fighting for green jobs that will make our planet healthier. I know I've watched the protests over the last 8 months and questioned a few people's sanity, and I questioned the wisdom of our rush to war back in 2003, so I'm certainly not going to toss out a good man giving his life, long hard work, to good causes just because of a cuss word or some doubt about people's competence in the worst security breakdown in US history."
But Obama didn't say that. I did. I keep waiting for those supposed words of wisdom. Obama said, "mush mush mushie kow tow kow tow thankee thankee thankee". And once you get used to eating shit, it's hard to shake your fondness for the taste. Thanks, but no thanks - time for a new course - non-cooperation, resistance, build back the spine. Reinstate Van Jones. We'll discuss the next step afterwards. But better to be dishing it out than to be on the ugly side of the feeding trough.
PS - inspired by a bunch of Jane Hamsher writing of late, including this one on the veal pen.
Advertisement
I am tired of waiting for Obama to make his first good choice. Larry Summers? Tim Geitner? Rahm Emanuel??? Escalate the war? Is Gitmo still open? Any charges against the lawbreakers in the last admin? No public option? C'mon Obama--do ONE worthwhile thing!
September 8, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve Chu gave me pause.
September 8, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
who in the hell is that? is he in charge of anything?
September 9, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Token noble prize winner-the Secretary of Energy. Good man, great intellect. As to the rest of your question-at least nominally, but it ain't a large pie. Still, the choice gave me pause.
September 9, 2009 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
i remember hearing about him. one of the "science is back" picks. bravo, more like him please.
it is good he didn't get Dawn Johnsen'd (sp?)
I guess i didn't remember , b/c stopped caring about 2 seconds afterwards, because of Obama's "clean coal" love affair, and the inevitable cap-n-trade nonsense that will lavishly reward the biggest polluters.
anyways Saladin, thanks for droppin the knowledge!
September 9, 2009 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right in assuming that cooperating with people like Rahm Emmanuel means shutting up and taking whatever he decides and to hell with the Democratic agenda. The only thing important to Rahm is the DLC agenda and making sure he has a super cushy lucrative job when he leaves the White House. The Obama White House, far from being an agent of change and reform in Washington is the protector of the status quo on every issue imaginable. When 10 giant steps are needed, the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, led by Emannuel recommends two baby steps because they don't have enough votes in the Senate for real change, because the Blue Dogs are concerned about their reelection, because we need to achieve bipartisanship (meaning a Republican bill), etc. you pick your excuse or make up a new one because they always have an excuse why the actual Democratic agenda can not be approved. So yes, the time has come to be part of the vocal opposition instead of the compliant and manipulated squad of political lemmings.
September 8, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not even the status quo they're protecting. It's the radical and criminal policies of the George W. Bush administration!
September 8, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the new black.
September 8, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice. Racist much?
September 8, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF?
You've never heard that phrase before?
September 8, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
referring to fashion
September 8, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely right about that. I stand corrected.
September 8, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm guessing Van Jones doesn't want to come back. Whatever was said to him before he tendered his resignation must have been pretty unforgettably ugly.
September 8, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how do you know so much? I find your assumptions convenient and amusing.
September 8, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good! Glad to know I amused you! I'm always appreciative of a laugh myself.
September 8, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Van Jones was laughing at first himself. I'm sure he paused and said, "Seriously?"
September 8, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Witnesses report him saying, "Zounds! Holy Toledo, Batman! Where we goin' for lunch?" Who knows. Seems like someone who would take this better than I would, but that's pure surmise.
September 9, 2009 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you can assume that. No doubt he was encouraged to get off the bus though I doubt anybody chewed him up.
But Desidero's point is appropriate, and his post is really good. I wish Obama had said the lines above just about exactly as they were written.
September 8, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know very much about life, do you. Ever hear of being fired "without cause"? Most people don't take being fired without cause very well. That's just basic human nature.
Now combine basic human nature with the fact that Jones was dismissed from the job of a lifetime in the administration of the first African American president. He would be reluctant to go to say the least, don't you think?
So when you fire someone from the job of a lifetime for swearing, you have to be brutal or they won't believe you.
September 8, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting script but...not sure it plays. First and foremost, I sincerely doubt Van thought this was without cause.
In the world of HR, where you're apparently coming from, this would've been a without cause situation. But in the world of politics failure to edit yourself and causing a fracas gets you out the door. Would be nice if someone someday took a real stand against this kind of crap, as Desi recommends above. Maybe someday.
Meanatime, remember Samantha Powers. Called Hillary a bitch and was gone. Did you find that without cause too? somehow my recollection is you didn't.
September 8, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no cause. Jones is not even a "truther."
But liberals can't even be bothered to do the goddamn research to find that out! Arianna Huffington just accepts Jones's signature on a truther petition as fact and says it was a "mistake" for him to sign it.
But wait! I learned from reading the comments at The Atlantic that Little Green Footballs did the reseach and found NOTHING to smear Jones with. And they would have loved to find something.
So from all of this back-and-forth I realize that Charlie Johnson of LGF has more integrity than Arianna Huffington (not that I thought she had any).
Jones's only known offense is that he called Republicans "assholes." I read somewhere that he was talking in front of a group of former prisoners about transitioning into green jobs, but I can't find that reference. He called himself an asshole, too, in that speech after the laughter died down. But he gets fired for using the word "asshole" to describe how Republicans aggressively work the legislative process when they don't have enough votes to get the legislation passed.
Something is really wrong with this picture.
September 9, 2009 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Anna AM's point was they might have softly told Van Jones, "I don't think we can win this one and still get Health Care passed" and that was it, no drama, just that famed hand on the shoulder and he's gone.
September 9, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get what she's trying to say, and I'm saying I disagree. And the more I read about it, the more pissed off I get. There is no magic sacrificial lamb to offer Republicans to get any legislation passed, least of all health care legislation. That's what Van Jones was actually saying when he called the Republicans assholes: Republicans get behind legislation and then ram it through. Democrats, not so much.
Apparently, speaking the truth will get you fired in the administration. That's lovely. Because Jones's real crime was that he implied Obama doesn't have the balls to fight (Republicans are assholes, I'm an asshole, Obama's not an asshole, and we need assholes to get the job done). Maybe you've seen this clip already.
September 9, 2009 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Just for the record, Samantha Power called Hillary a monster, not a bitch.
September 9, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, only because the Monster Anti-Defamation League spoke up. Who would speak up for women?
September 9, 2009 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
:-)
September 9, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree we need to pressure the Dems to not be the pussies their opponents accuse them of being.
Prove them WRONG and stand UP (pussies!).
September 8, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trolls are having a ball today!!!
September 8, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the Hillary cluster fuck.
September 8, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, this is the Hillary cluster fuck? Thanks, I almost missed it. So this would be the perfect place to add this link. Danke!
September 8, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, that's informative. A crummy news aggregator site with no creds or validity. This is where you get your news?
September 8, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, no cred or validity. How do we know those videos are actually of Hillary and not some Hillary impersonator? We need some MSM pundit to validate those videos first. We can't think for ourselves. Brilliant come back worm.
September 8, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Darren is a "crummy news aggregator site"? And there I thought he was a gay black attorney trying to thread his way between Republican absurdity and Democratic hysteria.
September 9, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say, your German thank you did not go unnoticed. Nice touch.
September 8, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the Obama administration essentially Act II of the Clinton administration?
September 9, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got that right. TPM reads like a teabagger site these days.
September 9, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, a troll is someone just trying to incite. This reads to me as true frustration on desidero's part and others who supported Obama so much last year. There's a difference between spineless and one who works well with others. IMHO, Obama and company are tending towards spineless in how they've dealt with a myriad of issues.
Yup, I'll say it again, to me Obama is tending towards spineless.
September 9, 2009 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Aaron Klein, Jerusalem correspondent for the World Net Daily is claiming the Van Jones coup. They "exposed" Jones back in April.
You can read all about it and other fun Obama hate stuff after perusing the WND article that cites a Jones friend claiming that Van is now "liberated":
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109199
BTW...the worldnuts are birther central and hopeful for victory in that arena, too. They also have their sights set on several more Obama "czars".
September 8, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe I'm saying this but... I totally agree with Arianna. It's pretty clear that Van Jones can effect more change from outside the administration than within. Especially since this administration's M.O. is to cave to conservative criticism and tell liberals to STFU. Who knew that with a Democratic President, Senate and Congress that the most powerful person in Washington is Olympia Snowe?
And thanks for that "veal pen" Jane Hamsher link. It should be required reading for those who declare the biggest problem in passing progressive legislation is the Blue Dogs.
September 8, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
We might want to extend that thought. I fear change can only come from outside the party as well.
September 8, 2009 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And thanks for that "veal pen" Jane Hamsher link."
Jane Hamsher is a petulant child who knows fuck-all about politics. When she actually helps a candidate win, or has any influence on legislation, get back to me.
September 8, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
She did just organize a push that raised $300,000 for legislators supporting the public option in like 48 hours or something - and another $100K+ in the last week or so. One prodigious child there!
September 9, 2009 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, in other words, no, she hasn't. And her "progressives" are already backtracking on their pledge not to vote for a bill without a public option.
Look, she has the right to express her opinion. But the idea that it's somehow illegitimate of the Democrats to co-opt liberal interest groups (which is what the "veal pen" post was about) is so naive that it made me laugh out loud. Co-opting interest groups is what politicians do, ferchrissake. Pretty soon, it's just going to be Jane and her amen chorus manning the barricades on behalf of an American populace that doesn't give a shit what she thinks.
I'm not saying that's a good thing, it's just the way it is. And all this gnashing of teeth and stamping our feet in the blogosphere isn't going to change it.
September 9, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Politicians try to co-opt interest groups. Occasionally even reflect some of the beliefs of those interest groups.
It seems your big gripe with Jane and her "amen chorus" is that they didn't join the amen chorus. And yes, FiredogLake has played a significant useful roll in our politics the last 3 years.
September 9, 2009 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only real problem I have with all of the Obama-haters on the left is that they went loudly and proudly public with their declarations that he was a sell-out and a failure as a progressive force after a couple of weeks on the job. I think arguments in favor of the progressive policies he claims to support and against the forces opposing those policies would be a better tactic.
Unfortunately, too many in the lefty blogosphere will not rein in their righteous anger and let some actual legislation get passed before they convince themselves that Obama's presidency is simply a continuation of Geroge W. Bush's with an occasional rhetorical nod towards progressivism.
September 9, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, when he was flipping on FISA it was, "give him a chance, he's not even in office yet". Same with support for the original TARP. With his choices for different positions. A month in office with money funneled towards Wall Street, "too early, back off". Denying the bailout to Detroit while Wall Street made off like bandits. Upping troops in Afghanistan, backing off on Gitmo, defending Bush-era torture and non-transparency in court. But now it's, "the problem with you is you were critical too early". Which means I guess that I'm never allowed any criticism, and hopefully some big supporter will at some appropriate time in the future turn and criticize and then that will be okay.
Well he's not Pope, and I ain't Catholic, so thanks, I'll criticize my democratically elected representative as I see fit, which means not upholding the spirit and intent by which he was elected. And Rahm doesn't seem to have any problems with criticizing progressives. Top-down approach to democracy? Sounds like a monarchy to me, shit flows downhill.
September 9, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, I'm agreeing with you on this. I'm getting impatient. I give Obama credit for what he has done, which is quite a bit, and I see the things he's fallen short on which you list above. BUt when it comes to HCR, I'm wanting to see what he has. It's put up or shut up. Anything less then a public option is a failure to me. It's simply refusing to address the issue in a meaningful way. A trigger option leaves the gun in the hands of insurers. It makes no sense.
September 9, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Van Jones = Froomkin? Could be.
September 9, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jane's been totally great lately. Thanks for the rant, Desidero, I feel exactly the same way.
September 8, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Bwakfat. I hope you are looking forward to President Cheney in 3 years. This need for the "left" to ride the president is quite honorable, in an academic, socialist, democratic, everyone gets a trophy kind of way. But this is war. So you have to choose a side, perhaps the lesser of the two evils. You want what we had? or do you want something measurably better, if not perfect and not pandering to all our personal needs? It seems to be a phony intellectual exercise that goes on here at TPM--everyone showing that they too can be angry at this new president, point out his flaws, ride his ass. Oh, how smart everyone is, how clever! Fun game in the short run, but when GAME OVER flashes on the screen--what then?
September 8, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I choose the LIBERAL side. The party hasn't delivered anything liberal in about 45 years. I have paid my dues. I have done the GOTV. I have made the calls. I have shown up at the primary and election day. What do I get? A party that delivers a healthcare bill about as good as Bush's Medicare drug bill. I get an escalation in war. I get a bail out of Wall Street and no action on labor.
Everyone has a last straw somewhere and this was mine.
September 8, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so tell me what a liberal agenda is. Just curious. And tell me how you get one passed when Congress is more conservative than the President and the president's own party is ready to throw him under the bus. Tell me how you get things done. I'd like to know what your answers are--specifics please. Enumerate what legislation has to be passed and how it will get done.
September 8, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a member of the Green Party but their agenda last time I looked would be pretty much mine.
The bottomline is that I no longer trust the Democratic Party and it has moved so far right that it more often than not works against what I believe in. Sometimes the "progressives" talk the talk but they always manage never ever to walk the walk. We will watch their glorious hypocrisy as they cave on public option trying to hide behind triggers and all manner of bafflegab. They'll want us to pretend to believe that pretending to stand for something is the same thing as actually doing it.
This isn't the old USSR. I'm not compelled to vote for a party I don't believe in just because I have no other alternative.
September 8, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just curious, Bluebell, is there a place on earth where the kind a party you feel you can approve is in power?
September 8, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are good compromises all around Europe.
September 9, 2009 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You'd need to build toward that here. That's what Obama's doing. Get ovewr that he hasn't gotten it done in 8 months. Babies.
September 9, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I see someone building a porch instead of a swingset, I get the idea I'm not going to get my playground. Yeah, maybe he's practicing building a porch so he can make a real cool porch-like swing.
September 9, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The evidence says otherwise.
See, this is the problem with the whole concept of faith. It's bad enough when you believe something without facts to support the belief, but it's far worse when you believe something that the facts belie.
You, sir or madam, are in a particularly unfavorable position to be calling folks "babies."
September 9, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The GOP base feels that the Constitution prohibits the government from developing programs dealing with health care. Sen Tom Coburn M.D. (R-OK) and Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) receive applause when they state this belief to the GOP base. Will the Democratic health care bill going to be perfect? No. Do I want the GOP in charge? No.
September 8, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happened to Van Jones is what I call neo-McCarthyism. The spirit of the 'red hunting' disgraced joke of a senator is alive and well. The more things change the more they stay the same...
September 9, 2009 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish Obama would have just called a press conference and said:
"Glenn Beck, FUCK YOU! You don't matter, you are a racist, and what you say or think doesn't matter to me at all."
why give them power? it's like our President is Charlie Brown, and if he throws Wright and Jones under the bus, suddenly Republicans won't give him a hard time anymore, and he can kick the football.
You can't appease radicals, they will not be swayed, only provoked by perceived weakness.
and the weakness is really just agreement on agenda - it is not a capitulation at all.
Beck and Obama fight for the same causes, they just pretend otherwise.
Hegellian dialect anybody?
September 9, 2009 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Desidero, from now on when you post a blog I'll have to take it as a given that I better allocate some serious time to reading your links that lead to other links. Thanks for that; I'm better informed. (Although in this case, it doesn't make me feel very good about an article I once wrote, a long time ago, extolling the qualities of calfskin...)
September 9, 2009 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thought you were being rick-rolled, eh? I don't often write about veal, but I was recalling discovering my "shammy cloths" when younger were actually "chamois cloths", which I later mistakenly thought was "chameau" (camel en Francais), but turn out to be lamb and sheep skin. World of knowledge out there, ain't it? Wonder what kind of pen they kept my shammy cloths in.
September 9, 2009 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Possibly pillow shams, if they have not already been converted to ShamWows.
September 9, 2009 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
If that doesn't inspire you to a brilliant post...
September 9, 2009 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably only to a video of Rick Astley.
September 9, 2009 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
After reading that Obama jettisoned Van Jones, I removed my "Veterans for Obama" bumpersticker from my car and mailed it to the White House. Very disappointing to see Obama bring Van Jones on in the manner he did and then cave to the wingnut whiners who had initially targeted Van Jones due to Obama's supposed "stealth" appointment of him.
BTW, the lack of any real front page TPM coverage of the Van Jones controversy is also very disappointing. The right wing will be further emboldened to undermine Obama any way they can and have no reason to positively respond to any bipartisan gestures by this president. He needs to start being the kind of "assh*le" Van Jones said the Republicans were in explaining their great success when they were running Congress. Until then, he'll remain Bush-lite.
September 9, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glen Beck is going through all the "czars", one at a time. His meme is that they are not vetted and Congress has no control over the choices. But the choices Congress can control it has stymied, refusing to consider them.
The only agenda they have is failure. It's not about their country, it's about the GOP. They feel they are their own country.
September 9, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
WE WERE WARNED:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota/single
September 9, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great link, thank you.
September 9, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The article reminds me how starved we are for leadership that we would ignore our own common sense and start snorting hope dust.
September 9, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And when the call ended with his telling me he was committed to working with progressives, I was perplexed.
I always marvel that a single sentence can say so much. I read this and asked myself, "Does working with progressives mean that Obama is admitting he is not a progressive?" It certainly justifies putting some heat on him to advance a progressive agenda if that is not a perspective he advocates, but just one with which he works.
September 9, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice catch, GregorZap. That one slipped by me. Very astute observation that makes perfect sense in hindsight.
September 9, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Van Jones is a truther, would you raise a ruckus over a birther in the same position he held? Of course you would. How about if a Bush cabinet secretary said in public all Democrats are A-holes?
You guys are still clueless.
Keep up the good work.
September 9, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Context is not your strength. I get that.
September 9, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about if you had Karl Rove in the White House saying, “Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: we will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: we must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see ... Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags, and the killing fields of Cambodia.”
Do you think he would resign? Do you think Republicans would wring their hands and say, "that was uncalled for"? Take a hike, go look through some press clippings of the last 15 years, come back if you've found a clue. Republicans have said lots of nasty crap about Democrats and government and the CIA and the military over the years, and then play this hero patriot game if a Democrat questions the CIA or a general or whatever. All of the attacks on John Kerry and Max Cleland and Murtha and Wesley Clark. They've made an artform out of calling Democrats traitors and America haters.
September 9, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rove: "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
September 9, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see you're still ignoring the truther aspect. No surprise there.
Perhaps you should consider that attacking your opponent's policies is one thing and insulting them is something else. Yahoos on the message boards seem to forget that personal decorum in the real world is still required. Comment sections are not reality. In real life nutjobs are exposed to sunlight and usually go poof.
September 9, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I specifically addressed it several times. Your poor reading comprehension is not my responsibility. Nor in real life do your comments about decorum and nutjobs reign in the political sphere, as seen by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and a host of other Republican vitriol-spewers who make a career of being nasty and spreading false stories, untoward insinuations and plain insulting the opposition, including sometimes with terms like "major league asshole" or just resorting to "fuck you". Of course Van Jones said, "Republicans are assholes...I can be an asshole too... and we're going to have to start being assholes to, have to get uppity". Of course he was referring to Republican strategy in Congress - you know, like Tom "The Hammer" Delay was known for? Like Karl Rove is known for? He wasn't calling Ma and Pa Republican Voter assholes. Not that they shouldn't put a leash and muzzle on their candidates. And for guys who call each other names like "Turd Blossom", I think they can take an occasional "asshole" without fainting.
September 10, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink