Chronicle of a flip-flop
The news that Democrats allowed Joe Lieberman to keep his position as Homeland Security Chairman broke on Tuesday, November 18th, followed a couple of hours later by the revelation that Howard Dean (by Greg Sargent's understanding), suggested that this was the outcome Obama wanted.
Now to my point: It's fine to support Obama 100% of the time, or almost all the time if he happens to share your views always or almost always. Progressive Democratic politicians are right most of the time anyway.
But it's another thing to support a leader regardless of what his stance is on a given issue. That "whatever-you-say" attitude is incompatible with the workings of a critical mind.
Consider, for instance, the puzzling behavior of Tonnyb, a member of this community who 4 days before the decision on Lieberman, responded emphatically and unambiguouly to a blog post written by Greg Sargent in reference to Patrick Leahy's willingness to give Joe the boot.
The same day, still November 14th, Greg Sargent scolded Lieberman defenders, observing that there is good reason to strip Lieberman of his chair.
Tonnyb reacted positively to the post above, noting that Lieberman "embraced beliefs and values consistent with the politics of division as practiced by Atwater & Rove."
There is more: as recently as one day before the vote (Nov. 17), Tonnyb again reacts positively to a post by Sargent, who noted that even one of Lieberman's closest allies appeared to be turning on him, and that the political thing to do would be allowing Joe to keep his chair, while the "good governmental decision" would be to "give him the push".
Past this point,the "flop" begins. When Sargent announces that Howard Dean suggested that the decision was "what Obama wanted", Tonnyb is caught off guard (he was expecting Dem. leaders to boot Lieberman, as indicated in his prediction on the 17th, i.e., "I predict that Joe will lose his homeland chairmanship"). He now switches to protect-the-leader mode and downplays his previous anti-Judas talk. He now claims that he is not happy with the decision but decides to give Obama "the benefit of the doubt" because many times during the campaign he (Obama) "was accused of being wrong but turned out to be right".
This is what I will call a "180" degree turn, or "half-flip".
The full flip flop was completed yesterday, in a blog post entitled "The Obama "Kumbaya" Plan for D.C," Tonnyb, sees the light les than 24 hours after the vote, and wonders "why are so many of us angry (myself included)?" even though absolutely no anger is evident in his piece. Here, the member claims to be "still upset", an interesting thing to say in light of what followed: We are told that keeping Lieberman in his position is 'what we need".
That's right. At this point, Tonnyb wants us to believe he is upset while at the same time affirming that Democrats did what was necessary," opinion that he never entertained for the previous four days. His conclusion: "The leader sets the tone. "
Can you sense the anger? I can not.
Some of you need to develop an independent mind and more consistency in your beliefs.
Blog entries by the likes of Tonnyb should carry an expiration date, sort of like milk, reading "opinion best if sold before [enter the date of Obama's take on the same issue here]."
Now to my point: It's fine to support Obama 100% of the time, or almost all the time if he happens to share your views always or almost always. Progressive Democratic politicians are right most of the time anyway.
But it's another thing to support a leader regardless of what his stance is on a given issue. That "whatever-you-say" attitude is incompatible with the workings of a critical mind.
Consider, for instance, the puzzling behavior of Tonnyb, a member of this community who 4 days before the decision on Lieberman, responded emphatically and unambiguouly to a blog post written by Greg Sargent in reference to Patrick Leahy's willingness to give Joe the boot.
Tonnyb (11-14-08): Lieberman, an active member of the republican election committee, shouldn't not [sic=should not] be rewarded the chairmanship. The spoils go to the winner. He is part of the losing team.
The same day, still November 14th, Greg Sargent scolded Lieberman defenders, observing that there is good reason to strip Lieberman of his chair.
Sargent (11-14-08): Some folks have wondered aloud why people are so bent on "punishing" Lieberman by stripping Lieberman of his Homeland Security chairmanship when he's going to have severely diminished powers next year in any case. As Geiger makes clear, it's not that complicated.
On some of the most pressing issues we face, Lieberman simply doesn't share the ideas or values of the Democratic Party. And given his performance as Homeland Security chair, Lieberman foes think stripping Lieberman of his post is, you know, better for the country. Some seem incapable of imagining that the push to oust Lieberman could be about anything other than revenge or that anyone could possibly oppose Lieberman simply because of his ideas, values, and governmental failures.
Tonnyb reacted positively to the post above, noting that Lieberman "embraced beliefs and values consistent with the politics of division as practiced by Atwater & Rove."
There is more: as recently as one day before the vote (Nov. 17), Tonnyb again reacts positively to a post by Sargent, who noted that even one of Lieberman's closest allies appeared to be turning on him, and that the political thing to do would be allowing Joe to keep his chair, while the "good governmental decision" would be to "give him the push".
Tonnyb (11-17-08): "Lieberman could very well act to diminish Obama's favorability among Americans. Why give Lieberman the tools he needs to advance that?"Even at the time Sargent broke the news of the vote in favor of Lieberman, Tonnyb was for ousting the Connecticut senator:
Tonnyb (11-18-08): "Organizations sometimes preserve their integrity by removing disloyal members. Perhaps those of us who disagree with the democrats decision are political neophytes as opposed to hypocrites."
Past this point,the "flop" begins. When Sargent announces that Howard Dean suggested that the decision was "what Obama wanted", Tonnyb is caught off guard (he was expecting Dem. leaders to boot Lieberman, as indicated in his prediction on the 17th, i.e., "I predict that Joe will lose his homeland chairmanship"). He now switches to protect-the-leader mode and downplays his previous anti-Judas talk. He now claims that he is not happy with the decision but decides to give Obama "the benefit of the doubt" because many times during the campaign he (Obama) "was accused of being wrong but turned out to be right".
This is what I will call a "180" degree turn, or "half-flip".
The full flip flop was completed yesterday, in a blog post entitled "The Obama "Kumbaya" Plan for D.C," Tonnyb, sees the light les than 24 hours after the vote, and wonders "why are so many of us angry (myself included)?" even though absolutely no anger is evident in his piece. Here, the member claims to be "still upset", an interesting thing to say in light of what followed: We are told that keeping Lieberman in his position is 'what we need".
Tonnyb (11-19-08): "The Lieberman decision is making more sense to me now. I'm still upset, but the Lieberman issue was lite. Energy, health care, economy are monumental. Having an historical inauguration without the political infighting, that the Lieberman confrontation would have fueled, is what we need."
That's right. At this point, Tonnyb wants us to believe he is upset while at the same time affirming that Democrats did what was necessary," opinion that he never entertained for the previous four days. His conclusion: "The leader sets the tone. "
Can you sense the anger? I can not.
Some of you need to develop an independent mind and more consistency in your beliefs.
Blog entries by the likes of Tonnyb should carry an expiration date, sort of like milk, reading "opinion best if sold before [enter the date of Obama's take on the same issue here]."
