« Most Americans Back Idea of Clinton as Secretary of State (Gallup) | truthseeker77's Blog | A few thoughts on the 45th anniversary of Lee Harvey Oswald's death »
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]."
Advertisement
Is this really that big a deal? His first reaction to Lieberman was off with his head, many wanted the same. I throw myself into that camp. He started reading and thinking and moved away from it.
And whether you agree with his mental gymnastics or not is irrelevant, it certainly isn't such a big enough deal as to call out individual diarist. Bad form.
November 21, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've had the pleasure of working for some really smart people. When my instincts disagree with them, I find the best response has been to challenge my own instincts. Sometimes, I decided my initial instincts were right, but more often than not, I found that there was a reason these people had earned my respect.
Obama has also earned my respect.
November 21, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think my comment yesterday actually addressed some of this, Liemaker...
I, too, was all loaded up with indignation over Lieberman's wrist-slap. And the words poured forth in a comment that was never posted because, as I got to the last few lines I realized my opinion about this issue is based on such a limited understanding of the situation, that ranting ab out it only added to the confusion, and did nothing to clarify, mollify or modify anyone else's opinion.
If you spent as much precious time seeking unity, and posing answers rather than fomenting dissension, I'd use your moniker instead of that Liemaker insult.
But you persist in divisiveness, with trollish reliability. Like a child who breaks things to get attention.
November 21, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tonnyb says:
Tonnyb is explaining that he/she is angry at the decision, and here looks at the question of whether that anger is justified. He/she concludes that it may be the result of focusing on petty issues, and maybe Obama is setting a new (and better) tone by forgiving Lieberman.
I have a similar reaction. I was very disappointed. Basically, I wanted revenge. Forgiving what Lieberman did is hard to stomach for that reason. But also because it's hard to believe Lieberman will "do the right thing" with that committee.
On the other hand as Ben says, Obama has earned my respect. And when I step back to think about this a little more clearly, I'm glad Obama isn't going to waste time on political grudges. And I'm glad he's not afraid to keep his enemies close. Whatever cooperation he gets from Lieberman would be more than what he'd get if Lieberman were booted from the committee and switched to the Republican caucus.
So back to your point. You note that tonnyb talks about both sides of this. But you say "Tonnyb wants us to believe he is upset". Well, yes. Do you have any reason at all not to take him at his word on that? You say "Can you sense the anger? I can not." And you seem to base this on tonnyb's last line: "The leader sets the tone." As if deferring to Obama's judgment, and being angry at the same time, makes no sense to you.
Maybe that's what you mean at the beginning when you say: "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."
But why such a narrow view? It's fine to support Obama on decisions he makes that you disagree with. It's fine to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't mean blanket approval of what he does, no matter what it is. I just mean a willingness to look at the fact that he's proven that he's very good at making level-headed decisions. He's very good at seeing what people can do and putting people where they'll do a lot of good. He's not afraid to have people he disagrees with close to him. (And all of these factors are magnified when you put them up against Bush's style of leadership.)
So I'm willing to give Obama a lot of slack and give him a chance to set the strategy, to set the tone, to make difficult decisions wisely. And I'm willing to do this in spite of not agreeing with him anything close to 100% of the time.
I don't see anything in tonnyb's comments to justify your remark that "Blog entries by the likes of Tonnyb should carry an expiration date". Why the scorn? You don't make a case that tonnyb is simply following Obama blindly, 100% of the time, as you seem to be implying. You end up suggesting that he's not being honest when he says he's still upset, and you don't have a good reason for doubting him.
As I see it, tonnyb is showing a willingness to admit that perhaps his gut reaction is not the best reaction. And although it's still upsetting to see someone like Lieberman stab Obama in the back and get away with it unrepentant and unpunished, tonnyb is willing to look at why his reaction is what it is.
Those are all good things, not bad things. There are bad kinds of flip-flopping, but you don't make a case that this is the bad sort. Just the opposite, really.
November 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I searched the threads you linked to, and I couldn't find a single instance where you participated in the conversation at the time. If you had a problem with something tonnyb said, why didn't you bring it up then and there, and on the thread where you disagreed? Why dredge it up now? These revenge posts are unproductive, childish and stupid.
November 21, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
hrebendorf, you are either lying or in need of glasses, because what you said is false. I made four comments in the "kumbaya" thread by Tonnyb.
Or maybe you simply don't know how to search.
November 21, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I know you did. And you made ZERO comments on the earlier threads that you have complained about here. And the reason you put up this post was because you were pissed off about your disagreement with tonnyb on the Kumbaya thread. And the reason you mentioned those earlier discussions (which you had absolutely nothing to do with) is because you went looking for some way to gain an advantage over tonnyb. So you did a bunch of stupid, pointless research and posted your "damning" evidence here. On this pointless, childish revenge thread.
November 21, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
ooh, i hit a nerve by catching you on a lie. Now you claim you knew that I commented on the "kumbaya" thread, and all of a sudden you substitute "earlier threads" for your original "the threads you linked to" comment. Very slick.
And you don't explain why I had to reply to Tonnyb's earlier comments before reading the kumbaya one. I read the kumbaya thread first and then wondered if Tonnyb was being consistent, so I went and read the earlier comments and confirmed my suspicions that he was flip-flopping, which prompted this blog post we're in now.
Can you explain what is the point your trying to make?
November 21, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Can you explain what is the point your trying to make?"
That you're being childish and petty.
November 21, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what I don't understand: You clearly have the skills to create interesting content that people enjoy reading. And you also seem to have a proclivity for careful, detailed research. So why waste your obvious talents on a post like this? A serious question.
November 21, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can accuse hrebendorf of using imprecise language as he fell into the trap (which we all do from time to time) of using a comparative ("earlier") without specifying what he was comparing to. You assumed he meant earlier than the current post, when in fact he meant earlier than the most recent tonnyb post you made reference to.
To call that a lie, however, is to not be willing to admit that you made an incorrect assumption. Part of the reason you made that assumption, I assume, is because you have preconceived notions of hrebendorf that you reinforce with further assumptions. Step back and examine your assumptions. As hrebendorf points out, occasionally you actually write worthwhile things. I encourage you to do that more often.
November 22, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
One other thing, although the reason for my post is not revenge, and you will say it is, this post is about Tonnyb's flip-flop, and you have contributed absolutely nothing to the subject at hand.
You engage in the fallacy of the attack on the person, which is not a way to effectively debate an issue (i.e., the OP is wrong because he seeks revenge; because he is childish, etc).
Changing the subject is your specialty.
November 21, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I think you should have disabled comments on this post. There's still time.
November 21, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez Louise, another molehill.
November 21, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope the Dems strip Truthseeker of his chairmanship of the dead horse flogging committee.
I've only been here for a couple months, so maybe I don't understand all the inside workings and various cliques, but who appointed Truthseeker to be the enforcer of consistency?
November 21, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am very encouraged by the responses to this thread. I often wonder how much of our intended meaning gets conveyed in the text. In regards to my conversion on the Lieberman issue, the commentators here nailed it. (with the exception of the diarist who posted this thread)
It is not my responsibility as a poster to abandon my humanness. That said, I have a heart and I have a mind. They are at times conflicted.
I am a flip flopper and proud of it. Why? Because I am here to learn; I am not an ideologue. So I will consider reasoned arguments from all sources including the diarists and commentators at TPM, that challenge my way of thinking. I will even allow them to change my mind. At times I will speak from the heart (Lieberman should go) and other times from the head (I think Obama was right after all). As my understanding on a topic matures, I will be able to speak from both.
A few highlights that underscore my sentiments:
"His first reaction to Lieberman was off with his head, many wanted the same. I throw myself into that camp. He started reading and thinking and moved away from it." Posted by jsfox
"as I got to the last few lines I realized my opinion about this issue is based on such a limited understanding of the situation" Posted by JEP07
"Sometimes, I decided my initial instincts were right, but more often than not, I found that there was a reason these people had earned my respect." Posted by Ben
"Tonnyb is explaining that he/she is angry at the decision, and here looks at the question of whether that anger is justified. He/she concludes that it may be the result of focusing on petty issues, and maybe Obama is setting a new (and better) tone by forgiving Lieberman. ...
As I see it, tonnyb is showing a willingness to admit that perhaps his gut reaction is not the best reaction. And although it's still upsetting to see someone like Lieberman stab Obama in the back and get away with it unrepentant and unpunished, tonnyb is willing to look at why his reaction is what it is." Posted by bobbobfofob
These revenge posts are unproductive, childish and stupid. Posted by hrebendorf
November 24, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink