The Rude Pundit- A Quick One Before Vacation: Fareed Zakaria Thinks Liberals Want Speeches

[meegbear]

This has stuck in the Rude Pundit's craw since Sunday, when author and CNN host Fareed Zakaria, on his show Fareed Zakaria Is Sick of Your Bullshit, took liberals to task for some kind of magical thinking about President Obama. Using a June New Republic column by Jonathan Chait as the basis for his tut-tut-tutting, Zakaria scoffed, "(T)here is a recurring liberal fantasy that if only the president of the United States would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry and enact his agenda." And then he defends Obama as a centrist who has gotten what he wanted (the facts of which were almost immediately disputed by Paul Krugman on the same show).

It's always good to have a reminder that Zakaria is not another liberal plaything; he's not just Hadji to Jon Stewart's Johnny Quest. In addition to having the most intelligent and consistently compelling Sunday gabfest, Zakaria is, like Andrew Sullivan, a reformed conservative, someone who watched the GOP go nutzoid and say, "Whoa, those bastards are crazy," and aligned with a left-center in America that is more like traditional (non-teabagging) conservatism. And he supported the Iraq War.

It's the reductionism of Zakaria's attack that is most aggravating. Of course, people write fantasy speeches. Chait chides Rachel Maddow and Michael Moore for doing so. And if that's all they ever did, it'd be worth mockery. But we're not idiots and we're not children. As Donna Brazile pointed out on CNN's website, Obama has powerful tools that he is simply not using to achieve what he seems to say his goals are.

We know that Republicans are the real villains here. We know that conservative and/or fearful Democrats cower at the feet of the Fox "news" watching voters and go along with Republicans. Obama apologists cite FDR working with Republicans, as Zakaria does, but he was willing to call the Republicans out. He was more than willing to say that assholes are assholes and, hey, aren't these guys assholes?

We don't want Michael Douglas in The American President. We want Harry Truman. We've got Barack Obama. And while compromise may be necessary in order to achieve anything, when the compromises end up doing more harm than good or in watering down whatever goals you may have had to begin with, well, then dissatisfied liberals aren't the ones living in a fantasy.

Later today: "What? The Rude Pundit on vacation? Whatever shall we do?" Fear not. The list of cool and interesting guest bloggers (including two active soldiers) coming up.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

[Autumn]

1. This Liberals Does NOT Want Speeches

This Liberal would like to see some action. Enough with the pretty empty speeches, although any more they contain too many right wing points to be pretty.

[eridani]

14. I'd settle for no Repuke talking points n/t

[bemildred]

2. Zakaria is a well-paid corporate tool.

The corporatocracy hates the threat of an articulate, charismatic President, and it hates populism in all its forms, left, right, or center.

[xchrom]

3. +1 -- fareed & sully are all the rage w/ moderates in dem circles these days.

can't stand either of them myself -- they say nothing original -- yet get glad handed by moderates effusively for 'having seen the light'.

[phantom power]

4. Let's talk about speeches. Speeches are a political and negotiation tool...

I know that to the extent that I "wanted fantasy speeches," what *I* meant was something like this:

(using HCR, just as one example)

Obama gets in front of the TeeVee and says "The Democrats and I have introduced a Medicare For All bill that will give affordable health care to all Americans. The GOP has promised to filibuster this bill. To those GOP congressmen, I say you are free to filibuster, and I challenge you to explain to your constituents and America why you stand against affordable health care for everybody."

So, you see, it's not just the speech. The speech flows from the willingness to stand firm and put the GOP on the spot and force them to own their lousy philosophy and policies.

[gratuitous]

8. Correct, and . . .

Not only do we want a pretty speech, which Obama gives away quite freely, we want follow through. Words are not enough; we're looking at actions and results, both of which the president has come up rather short on. Don't tell us what you want or what you're going to do, do it. And, when the Republicans try to stymie you, that's when the rhetorical guns (figuratively speaking) come out: "We want X, the Republicans don't want X. Make your Republican representative or senator explain why they don't want X!" Yeah, it's partisan; yeah, it's political; yeah, it's the game as written, and the Republicans are eating your lunch, Mr. Obama.

As a golfist, the president should know very well the importance of follow through.

[SusanaMontana41]

12. You know, he can keep the pretty speech. I'll have the follow-through

for $800, Alex ...

[phantom power]

5. d00p

[OHdem10]

6. Do not blame Liberals, Fareed. Liberals, are ignored. It is

the circle around him. If he had half way listened
to Liberals he would never had such a tanking in
Polls.

[tblue]

7. Zacharia has a recurring fantasy that liberals want another speech.

Those speeches don't move me anymore and they all sound the same anyway. Thank heaven for Rude!

[JackRiddler]

9. Fareed Zakaria was a key media endorser of the 2003 War of Aggression.

He helped sell the WMD lie to the people, and this advanced his career. He supported an international crime against humanity.

Never forget. Never.

He turned against the war once that became acceptable, in 2006. Today he is among those who pretend they were misled and deceived, and offer no apologies for their assistance to the 2003 crime. This is not credible.

Otherwise he has never presented anything of interest or courage. He caters slavishly to establishment thinking, and deviates from the conventional wisdom of the CFR set only in the attempt to anticipate what the establishment may want tomorrow. He is a court pundit, a corrupt pustule whoring himself for the money and fame, nothing more.

[Mimosa]

11. ^ True in every respect, Jack. How well I remember THAT propaganda. ^ n/t

[DCKit]

10. That has to be the least rude, offensive and cleanest post The Rude has ever written. nt

[DeSwiss]

13. K fuckin' R

“Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home–but not for housing. They are strong for labor–but they are stronger for restricting labor’s rights. They favor minimum wage–the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all–but they won’t spend money for teachers or for schools. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine–for people who can afford them. … They think American standard of living is a fine thing–so long as it doesn’t spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it.” - Harry S. Truman

http://www.stinque.com/2011/08/16/who-said-it/#more-42451">

[Skittles]

15. because Obama's purty campaign speeches fooled so many