General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDana Milbank: Obama endures as the lesser evil for liberals
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote in response to a small anti-war protest near the White House:
As the president stood on the South Lawn to announce the bombing campaign in Syria, liberal demonstrators gathered on Pennsylvania Avenue on the other side of the White House to protest the man they thought was their ally.
It was the latest display of how Obama has neutralized the left.
He has disappointed liberal constituencies on immigration, on climate change, on Guantanamo Bay and targeted killings, and now on Syria. Yet this months Washington Post-ABC News poll shows him with 69 percent support among liberals, 87 percent among African Americans and 75 percent among Democrats. Liberals supported airstrikes in Iraq and Syria (64 percent and 54 percent, respectively), as did Democrats (67 percent and 60 percent).
If George W. Bush were launching wars with Congress out of town, oh, it would be flooded, longtime liberal activist David Swanson said, looking across mostly empty Pennsylvania Avenue They would be screaming.
Swanson, who voted for Obama in 2008 before switching to the Green Party, said liberals who condemned Bush look the other way when Obama does the same thing because hes more eloquent, hes more intelligent, hes African American, he bills himself as a constitutional scholar.
The most upvoted comment after this article:
"He has disappointed liberal constituencies on immigration, on climate change, on Guantanamo Bay and targeted killings". Targeted killings are the only issue on this list that Obama is responsible for. The senate passed a bipartisan Immigration Reform bill that the House refused to vote on (even though it was predicted to pass), Republicans don't believe in Climate Change, and Guantanamo Bay is still open because the House Republicans refuse to close it. How can Obama have let liberals down on these issues if he has no control over them?
Another comment:
Milbank is no right winger - he wrote an anti-Glenn Beck book Tears of a Clown: Glenn Beck and the Tea Bagging of America. But how much truth is in his article?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)Everyone knows that the real liberals and real Democrats all post on DU, and they have a completely different opinion.
"Swanson ... said liberals who condemned Bush look the other way when Obama does the same thing because hes more eloquent, hes more intelligent, hes African American, he bills himself as a constitutional scholar.
I'd like to hear Swanson's explanation of what Obama being African American has to do with the discussion.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And yeah, I'd love to hear a cogent answer on what Obama being black has to do with anything too. From him and Medea Benjamin:
Hes totally defanged us, she said, citing his party, his affability and his race. The black community is traditionally the most antiwar community in this country. Hes defanged that sentiment within the black community, or certainly voicing that sentiment.
Some choice quotes from these liberals, huh?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)money from things like education and food stamps. How do the majority of Americans think we will pay for all of these wars? Are they not paying attention or do they just not care? Just because the majority support what he is doing doesn't make it right.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... don't support it doesn't make it wrong.
I know there's a very vocal group here who have deluded themselves into thinking they are some sort of elite wing of the Democratic Party, who believe they represent the Party as a whole, and who think they are more intelligent and better-informed than everyone else.
They're not, and they don't.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)The people of this country desperately need money for education, SS, food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid, and many other programs. Programs democrats used to fight for. Now they fight for war and sacrifice social safety net programs in the name of bipartisanship. How will we pay for this war? Answer me that.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)Obama will be mailing the entire bill to you personally within the month, right after he unilaterally ends SS, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare, food stamps, shuts down all pubic schools, declares the 1% forever tax-exempt, puts dissenters in FEMA re-education camps, and finally declares himself a secret Muslim who was indeed born in Kenya.
Happy now?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)troll right? Sorry, I'll obey and shut up now. Yeah, right. I am anti-war and pro education and nothing you say will change that. My son is autistic, and is being forced to comply with Arne Duncan's crappy educational requirements. He doesn't have a single teaching assistant in any of his mainstream general education classes, and in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade he was forced to learn Common Core math. Then when he didn't actually learn the material they passed him through the system. Now in a different school system he is going back and learning arithmetic and pre algebra in 10th grade all the while being expected to pass Duncan's stupid standardized tests. So you go on pretending like there is no problem. Those of us in the real world will fight to put the money where it belongs, in the hands of the American people, not the war mongers. Have a good day.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... that it is now DU policy to accuse people of saying things they didn't say, and then respond to them as though they did.
If you actually operated in "the real world", you would know that when the majority of Democrats support Obama's current plans to deal with ISIS, it's not because they are "warmongers". They are people who believe that the situation requires the actions Obama has proposed.
Innocent people in the ME are being brutally slaughtered by ISIS. If alive during the Holocaust, would you have asked how much money it was going to cost for the Nazis to be stopped? Or would you have gone on pretending there was no problem?