Greenwald - The baseless, and failed, "Move to the Center" cliche

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/29/center/index.html

"Republican Nancy Johnson of Connecticut was first elected to Congress in 1982, and proceeded to win re-election 11 consecutive times, often quite easily. In 2004, she defeated her Democratic challenger by 22 points. The district is historically Republican, and split its vote 49-49 for Bush and Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.

In 2006, Rep. Johnson was challenged by a 31-year-old Democrat, Chris Murphy, who ran on a platform of, among other things, ending the Iraq War, opposing Bush policies on eavesdropping and torture, and rejecting what he called the "false choice between war and civil liberties." Johnson outspent her Democratic challenger by a couple million dollars, and based her campaign on fear-mongering ads focusing on Murphy's opposition to warrantless eavesdropping, such as this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAwYe570PAc


The result? Johnson was crushed:


....So what, then, is the basis for the almost-unanimously held Beltway conventional view that Democrats generally, and Barack Obama particularly, will be politically endangered unless they adopt the Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism and National Security, which -- for some reason -- is called "moving to the Center"? There doesn't appear to be any basis for that view. It's just an unexamined relic from past times, the immovable, uncritical assumption of Beltway strategists and pundits who can't accept that it isn't 1972 anymore -- or even 2002..."

[RandomKoolzip]

1. I love Greenwald, but I don't think a Congress race in CT and the GE are

equivalent.

[slipslidingaway]

2. He addresses that further down in the article n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

9. The question is what is the basis of the apologist who claim moving to the "center"

(whatever that is) will be good politically for Obama?

Where is the data that shows a significant number of voters will move to Obama if he supports the bush administration on FISA?

I have heard this argument made repeatedly. Yet I haven't seen one piece of evidence to back up the assertion.


You bring up the GE. Well, what evidence can you provide that helping to trash the 4th amendment and giving corporate law breakers immunity for committing crimes that they benefited financially from will help the Obama campaign in the general?

It's a myth without any data or evidence to back it up, as far as I can tell.


I am not asking for proof here, I am only asking for any supporting data, anecdotal evidence, anything that might tend to suggest that Obama changing his stance on to now support FISA is a popular move with voters.


See, I can provide you with both anecdotal and with actual data that Obama's decision to support FISA is unpopular with many voters. I can't prove it will hurt him but I can show you evidence that suggests it might.

[fascisthunter]

38. exactly....

:thumbsup:

[babylonsister]

3. If Mr. Greenwald has another candidate he'd consider voting for,

I wish he'd share. All this hand-wringing doesn't help.

[slipslidingaway]

5. He has written about this along with his current criticism...it's

pretty simple really.

What I find disturbing is that criticism is now labeled as a smear, a slam etc.

:shrug:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/26/olbermann/index.html

"...It isn't that difficult to keep the following two thoughts in one's head at the same time -- though it seems to be for many people:

(1) What Barack Obama is doing on Issue X is wrong, indefensible and worthy of extreme criticism;

(2) I support Barack Obama for President because he's a better choice than John McCain...


...That's called being a rational adult who refuses to relinquish one's intellectual honesty, integrity, and political principles in order to march lockstep behind a political leader. Those who think that Barack Obama should not be criticized no matter how wrong he is -- or those who justify anything that he does no matter how craven and unjustifiable, including things that they viciously criticized when done by Dick Cheney or Harry Reid -- are no different, and no better, than those who treated George Bush with similar uncritical reverence in 2003 and 2004.

The real danger is that those who defend Obama the Candidate no matter what he does are likely to defend Obama the President no matter what he does, too..."

[madfloridian]

8. I find it disturbing as well.

[slipslidingaway]

10. Thanks and when the time comes to criticize another issue

nobody will want to say anything for fear they will be labeled in the same manner.

:(

Would you want to join the ranks of the 'hystericals'

:hi:

[babylonsister]

13. I didn't smear Greenwald and would never consider doing so.

I would just like to hear solutions instead of all the negativeness. I've read other articles and thoughts from people who understand why Obama is doing what he's doing at this moment. If he wants to win, does Obama have a choice but to move towards the center to entice more independents, even rethugs? There are not many people as progressive as Greenwald.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. Do you have any evidence at all that suggests that by Obama backing this version of FISA it

will help him get elected?

This is one of my biggest problems with the whole thing.

I keep hearing this assertian, yet I see no data or evidence that suggests that it is so.


In fact all the data and evidence I see suggests that it is harmful to the campaign.


Help me out here because I truly believe we are on the same side. We both want Obama to win.

[babylonsister]

31. I think he doesn't want to give the appearance of being weak on

protecting the US, which is how he's going to be painted regardless and already has. I know McCain's camp has already thrown barbs at him; he's damned if he does...

And I of course don't want anyone granting the telecoms immunity and have e-mailed Obama with my objections. The Senate hasn't voted yet. I don't know what he'll do. I will be very disappointed if he votes with the likes of Rockefeller, but I already knew he'd do things I don't agree with. That being said, there is no alternative.

Finally, I also think we might see things get done with Obama at the helm. That to me is a refreshing prospect after the past 8 years.

[fascisthunter]

40. While Fearing That "Appearance" He May Very Well ...

appear weak on protecting our rights. He needs to come back out in favor of not passing this Bill. I hope he does, but I fear he won't because many here seem ok with his backing down. Not enough pressure is being applied on him to do the right thing... and don't you or any one else believe for a second he isn't being harassed by those who want this crap to pass. We are going to be this man's constituents, we should demand more, not less. If we stop, he will give into the more "conservative/corporate" voices lobbying for their kind of candidate. I say demand more and keep on him to do the right thing... that's real support. That's how it should be...

[scarletwoman]

19. Which group of voters WANTS the government to spy on them?

Obama is supposed to be the big "change" guy -- so why the hell doesn't he change the frame of the argument instead of capitulating to the same tired Republican frames for excusing the trashing of our Constitutional rights?

Since when is defending our civil liberties and the rule of law solely a "progressive" issue?

If I had wanted a Clintonesque triangulator, I wouldn't have bothered to defend Obama against the Hillary brigade.

sw

[eridani]

43. Bingo. "Changing the frame"

Obama has done well by frameshifting before (countering "experience" with "judgment"). Why would this issue be any different?

"Perceived" to be weak on security? Agree with Repuke perceptions and frames means you lose.

[slipslidingaway]

21. Never said that you personally smeared Greenwald or anyone

who criticized Obamas change of heart on this issue, but there have been some pretty nasty threads in GDP that try and spin any criticism as a smear etc.

As for solutions you speak out at the time, you do not wait.

How do you pull in voters from across the political spectrum who believe that this administration has crossed the line, you do not do it by moving towards the position of Bush & Co.

[mix]

23. Greenwald's solution is simple, elegant...

...defend the constitution and the fourth amendment

[slipslidingaway]

26. Now that is a simple and elegant post :) n/t

[Jakes Progress]

46. The solution

is for Obama to stop moving right. He will lose that way. A very good start would be to use any political skill, any sense of creating unity in the party, any leadership to convince a majority of Democrats to do the right thing on the FISA deal. Howard Dean and any Democrat with brains should be out there helping him with this. The FISA deal needs to go away.

It needs to never come up for a vote before the election. It is a republican wet dream. If he votes for it, he can be shown as a waffler, a flip flopper, a weak leader. It may scuttle his chances.

And yes, if he votes against it, they will try to say he is soft on terrorism. He will have to attack back. Use his oratory skills. He should do what he said he would do in the primary race - make government more transparent. This bill is the perfect example of the kind of chicanery he railed against which brought him so much support from those who don't vote because they are tired of the same old Washington. He needs to expose this bill, show how it adds not one second to our terrorist response time, but does rip away our right to privacy and does let the man who committed the crimes go free.

I think he should use the threat of exposing the stinking, white underbelly of the rotting bill as a way to get the Democrats in line. They should fear being exposed as the craven enablers they are. Then they can bury the bill, and we can get on with the election.

[Individualist]

14. I wish I could recommend your post.

:applause:

(See my sig line.)

[slipslidingaway]

17. You just did :) and that is a great sig line...

:hi:

[Jazzgirl]

29. I love that sig line!

Wild ducks flying backwards indeed!

[madfloridian]

6. Now wait a minute. There are real problems about this bill

just like there were problems with everything else they ran sharply to the right on.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. So can you show me any evidence, any data that suggest that Obama deciding

to switch and support the FISA bill will help his campaign?

It seems to me that you believe if people don't question whether that decision is helpful to the Obama campaign or is harmful to the campaign, then for some reason that's the best thing to do. Don't ask the question, don't think about it and just silently hope and prey that is is in fact helpful.

It seems that it then follows that Greenwald is at fault for bringing up the question.

I don't understand this line of thought.

[Jakes Progress]

44. Haven't read the article I see.

But you don't mind commenting on it. Not sharp.

All the hand wringing from the "My candidate is so hot, he should never be talked to without reverence" crowd doesn't help either.

As Mr. Greenwald shows pretty convincingly, he wants Obama to win, and he doesn't think this is the right way to win. He will not get republican votes by being just a little less republican than mccain. They like their fascists straight up, no mixer. He won't get the republicans who hate mccain, they will bote for Barr. What he will do is turn off the tens of thousands of non-voters, the stay homes, that he inspired with his progressive and Democratic messages during his primary campaign. When they no longer see him as an alternative to what the republicans will do, they will go back to their "what difference does it make" mode and sit it out.

We fanatics here on DU will be at the polls. We will vote Democratic. With Barr syphoning of enough mccain votes and with the newly inspired voters we can win enough to overcome the voting machine rigging. But if Obama starts being the thing he complained about during the primaries, we won't get the stay homes and we will lose. Many of us are urging Barack to stop the run to the center. Doing that is the kind of strategy that the beltway pundits revere as perceived common sense. I would rather Obama listened to someone other than the likes of David Broder.

Read the article.

[closeupready]

57. You are absolutely right. This is ultimately why Al Gore lose Tennessee, IMO.

Well, not just Tennessee, but why he won the US popular vote, but lost the electoral vote game. In other words, had Al just run as an unapologetic liberal, rather then Tweedledum, he would have won resoundingly.

[katandmoon]

4. Thank you, Glenn. I'm glad somebody is holding Obama's feet to the fire.

[slipslidingaway]

7. Me too n/t

[scarletwoman]

11. Happy to be your 5th rec. Greenwald is right on, and I'm so glad he's continuing to speak up. (nt)

[slipslidingaway]

12. Thank you scarletwoman :)) n/t

[kentuck]

15. The abused wife syndrome...

They don't believe they can leave.

[slipslidingaway]

25. They could have nailed the Republicans on the FISA issue

during the primary campaign and used that time to gain public support to defeat the bill.

I posted this old thread in GDP last week...

A party at risk - A country at risk
Posted by welshTerrier2 in General Discussion: Presidential
Tue Jun 19th 2007, 12:48 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6406062&mesg_id=6406062

"Here's the major point: You need to separate the legislative process from the "platform" process....

Passing legislation doesn't start in the Congress; it starts with the American people. If the Party really wanted to make this critically needed reform, they would be raising the issue every chance they got. They aren't...

The problem with the party is NOT about which bill they pass; it's about the party's message to the American people. You don't need a veto proof majority to put out a message..."

[jgraz]

20. The Democrats learned nothing from the liberal victories in 2006

They point to the few centrists who won office against terrible Repug candidates as evidence of their foregone conclusion that centrist politics (read: far to the right of most Americans) is the way to win elections.

What they miss is how many "far left" (read: truly centrist) candidates actually won after defeating the DCCC/DSCC candidate in the primaries. Once again, check out the results:

Check out these election results:

Bernie Sanders: First Socialist in the Senate.

Sherrod Brown: Unapologetic liberal beats incumbent DeWine by 12 points.

Jon Tester: Populist wins Senate seat after destroying DCCC favorite, center-right John Morrison, in the primary.

Amy Klobuchar: Democratic-Farm-Labor senatorial candidate wins by 20-point margin.

Sheldon Whitehouse: Liberal Democrat beats centrist Republican Lincoln Chafee.

Jim Webb: Beats George "Macaca" Allen with a strong anti-war, pro-economic justice message.

Jerry McNerny: Beats Richard Pombo after a primary win over DCCC-backed Steve Filson.

Keith Ellison: Anti-war Muslim wins multi-candidate primary, goes on to take MN 5th district seat.

John Hall: Musician and environmental activist wins Sue Kelly's house seat after taking 48% of the vote in a 4-way primary.

Carol Shea-Porter: Wins NH house seat after beating centrist and party favorite Jim Craig in the primary 54%-34%.

David Loebsack: Strong anti-war, pro-universal healthcare Dem beats centrist Jim Leach in Iowa's 2nd.

John Yarmuth: Progressive, independent newspaper publisher beats three moderates in the KY 3rd district primary, then beats Anne Northup with zero financial support from the DCCC.

Larry Kissell: Former Social Studies teacher wins a 4-way primary despite DCCC opposition. General against Robin Hayes still too close to call.

Zack Space: Wins Bob Ney's seat after beating three primary opponents including (wait for it...) DCCC-backed centrist Joe Sulzer.

Deval Patrick: Far-left Lefty McLefterman wins MA gubernatorial race after taking 50% in the primary against two center-right opponents.

Tammy Duckworth: DCCC-supported, ambiguously centrist candidate loses IL house seat to Pete Roskam.

Harold Ford, Jr.: Pro-life, anti-gay, pro-war Dem loses TN Senate race to Bob Corker.

Missouri Stem Cell Bill: Passed.

South Dakota Abortion Ban: Crushed.

Minimum Wage Increases: Passed by six states.

Parental Notification Laws: Defeated in two states.

Dallas, TX: 41 of 42 judgeships switch from GOP to Dems. Judgeships. In Texas.

Congressional Progressive Caucus: Gains at least seven new members, becoming the largest ideological caucus in Congress.

[slipslidingaway]

22. Thanks for the list and that is exactly what Greenwald is

trying to point out.

:hi:

[jgraz]

32. Please feel free to repost it when necessary.

Some people need continual reminding. You can find the original in my journal:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/jgraz/4

[slipslidingaway]

34. Thanks, it is now bookmarked...

finding it later is another challenge.

:D

[Greyhound]

28. They are not about learning. The DLC, authoritarian, ruling class, Apparatchik,

are about muddying the waters by creating these myths to hide the truth from the sheeple. Preserving their power by preserving the illusion of choice.

The pendulum may well swing back toward sanity, but we are in the end game and it may be too late. There exists a significant minority of willfully ignorant and hopelessly stupid people in the USA that will resist truth to their dying day.
:kick: & R

[Jazzgirl]

30. Greyhound, what really got me is how fast Obama

moved to the center after he met with Hillary. I wonder if there was a deal made where in order to get her support he had to adopt a lot of the DLC positions. It has made my head hurt.

[jgraz]

33. I don't think this FISA thing was fast at all. The quid pro quo was in the works for months

Why do you think Pelosi was so quick to back Obama? I think (pure speculation) that this was the price she demanded for the support of the superdelegates.

[lolly]

37. Yeah, it's all Hillary's fault

How long will this keep up?

Is every unpopular thing President Obama does going to be blamed on Hillary Clinton?

For Pete's sake, is it really completely impossible to admit that Obama made a mistake on his own?

If he really can't do anything without Hillary Clinton's permission, do we want him as president?

Think!

[CrispyQ]

49. Primary Over, Hillary Won

Primary Over, Hillary Won
by Dave Lindorff

snip...

Now that the primary season is over, we can see that the clear winner was Hillary Clinton.

Oh, I know. Barack Obama got the most votes and the most delegates, and he’ll be the Democratic presidential nominee this August, but increasingly, it’s becoming obvious that he’s just a pretty wrapper. Sneak a peak inside the wrapper and you’ll find Hillary Clinton inside.

Look at the facts.

No sooner did the last votes get counted in Montana, than Obama hied himself off to Washington to show his fealty to the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), where he promised to do whatever Israel wanted. You would have thought he was Bush or Hillary, so fulsome was his promise to unquestioningly back the worst policies and actions of Israel’s criminally insane right-wing government. Claim all of Jerusalem for the Jewish state? Fine by him. Starve and terrorize a million people in Gaza? No problemo. Attack Iran to prevent a merely suspected nuclear program from eventually producing a possible bomb? Okay. Negotiate with Hamas? Never.

Then there was the FISA and Fourth Amendment-violating campaign of spying by the National Security Agency. Some members of Congress and the courts have been trying for years to find out what Bush and Cheney have really been up to with this program, but they¹ve been stymied by the administration’s insistence that the phone companies, who enabled most of the spying, are immune from prosecution and don’t have to surrender records of, or talk about what they actually did. Congress, with the help of a spineless Democratic majority in both houses, came up in June with a bill that endorses the spying and gives retroactive immunity to the phone companies. 15 Senators - all Democrats - opposed that wretched sell-out of the Constitution and the American people. Sen. Obama supported it, just like Clinton.

more...

The joke, of course, is that this evocation by Obama of his inner Clinton is not going to win him many votes, and may in fact lose him far more than he gains. Being Clinton, after all, didn’t win it for Hillary Clinton. It was Obama¹s differences from Clinton that won him the primary votes.

more at link: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/28/9954/

[Zhade]

47. Look at all those facts that destroy the LIE that "centrists" (aka DLC conservatives) alone can win.

Thank you for this bit of truth.

(Oh, and ww? Eat it.)

[Papa Boule]

24. It's an important article and worth a complete read.

K & R'd.

[slipslidingaway]

27. Thanks and welcome to DU :) n/t

[Kansas Wyatt]

35. It's time for republicans to immediately MOVE to the center...

And this country needs to take a sharp left turn, because the policies of the last eight years have been a total FAILURE.

[fascisthunter]

42. undeniable truth for MOST AMERICANS

:thumbsup:

[highprincipleswork]

36. American History X

I suppose the Revolutionary War was a centrist ideology. And the Constitution. And the Declaration of Independence. Not!

Americans are way more Liberal or even Radical than conventional wisdom (circa Bill Clinton and since) indicate. Isn't that kind of thinking what so many progressives have been fighting, in the form of the D.L.C. and elsewhere?

How does it benefit us, or Senator Obama, if he veers in this direction, when that is precisely the direction that caused so many of us to consider and then accept his candidacy?

Bad tactics, bad strategy, bad governance.

High principles work. Emerson said, "the human heart resounds to that iron string."

[KoKo]

39. One wonders, these days, what the "true base" our Dems carry on about is?

Where and WHAT is it? :shrug:

[fascisthunter]

41. Damn... I Can't Recommend This Again

Standing up for the Constitution is something people are craving in this country.

[leftofthedial]

45. the reason for running to the cneter is

that's the way the actual rulers of this country want it.

to the limited extent "elected" officials have any real power, the super wealthy want to ensure that those officials' decisions do not disrupt the status quo.

[slipslidingaway]

48. Thanks for the replies and the recommends :)) n/t

[Time for change]

50. That's a very impressive and convincing story

What is the matter with all these "move to the center" people???????

[slipslidingaway]

51. Maybe we should call it moving toward the bipartisan

agenda???

That is what seems to happen all too often and they know people do not have a real choice in who is nominated and then elected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Women_Voters

"The league Education Fund sponsored the 1976, 1980, and 1984 presidential debates. In 1988, the league withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were to be conducted, which ultimately resulted in the Democratic and Republican parties forming the Commission on Presidential Debates which gave the parties greater control over the debate environment.

On October 2, 1988, the league's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:

“ The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

"The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties to establish the way that debates between candidates for President of the United States are run. The Commission is a private entity, funded entirely by corporate contributions.

The Commission sponsors and produces debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and undertakes research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, bi-partisan corporation, has sponsored each of the presidential debates held since 1988. The Commission has moderated the 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004 debates. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters moderated the 1976, 1980, 1984 debates..."

[pberq]

52. Outstanding article - thanks for posting

[slipslidingaway]

54. You're welcome. n/t

[mdmc]

53. I often wonder why people fear Nader

Nader wouldn't need to run if there was an opposition party to corporatism (read -fascism).

[slipslidingaway]

55. You are correct IMO, mostly I think he has been used as an

excuse for our own failings.

"Nader wouldn't need to run if there was an opposition party to corporatism (read -fascism)."

:thumbsup:


We forget what he has done for consumers in this country, people should watch the movie listed below and if they have Netflix it is available as a 'watch instantly' selection.

Here's the trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ycR36N68R8


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Unreasonable_Man

"An Unreasonable Man is a 2007 documentary film that traces the life and career of political activist Ralph Nader, the founder of modern consumer protection. The film examines Nader's advocacy for auto safety features, such as federally mandated seat belts and air bags, as well as his rise to national prominence following an invasion of privacy lawsuit against General Motors. It also examines the formation of independent advocacy groups (termed "Nader's Raiders") during the 1970s; organizations which carried out independent research on various federal agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration. Over the next thirty years, the film argues, Nader "built a legislative record that would be the envy of any modern president."

The second half of the film traces Nader's shift to a grassroots form of organizing focused on citizen power, including his eventual disillusionment with the two-party system following the rise of Reaganism. In assessing Nader's effect as a third party candidate, the film examines censorship in the presidential debates as well as Nader's disputed role as a "spoiler" in the 2000 presidential election.

The film makes use of interviews with current and former members of Nader's Raiders, including Joan Claybrook and Robert Fellmeth, as well as politicians and political analysts such as Phil Donahue, Pat Buchanan, and Eric Alterman. It takes its name from the George Bernard Shaw quote, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

[mdmc]

58. I got a 6 month script to netflix for my birthday

I'm "off" of cable (I rely on dvds and the internets).

I saw Nader speak at a packed madison square garden in 2000. It was amazing and I had tears in my eyes. The tears were from hearing a patriot speak, not from the pot smoke, which was plentiful at that political rally.

[slipslidingaway]

60. Enjoy your present...

and lucky you to have gone to that rally which is mentioned in the film. Unfortunately those who try to take on the corporate hold over our government are pushed aside :(

[closeupready]

56. "Moving to the center" turns off people on the left, and explains part of why they stay home, rather

than get out and vote. And this will be part of why Obama finishes as an also-ran, like Al Gore, if he continues doing this.

[jgraz]

59. Surprise, it turns off people on the right, too

Just watch all those "Obamacans" drift back to McCain unless Barack starts showing some spine.