Cross-posted at ThomHartmann.com
I am just astounded at your continuous support for Obama, in light of the non-stop daily evidence of his fealty and service to the enemies of the country. A good example of this trend is your mantra of “circular firing squad”: Somehow we mustn’t “primary” Obama, or even speak against him, because doing so just attacks “one of our own”.
Riddle me this: If Sarah Palin joined the Democratic party, would you decry progressives’ attack on her because she carried our label? Look: A “circular firing squad” assumes that we are in fact attacking one of our own. But if a traitor to our cause lies his way into power–and actively subverts truth (how many lies has this administration told, about everything from Gitmo to getting out of the wars in the Middle East?), justice (Hello: The Fourth Amendment is deader than ever; Bush the Dimmer’s corrupt US Attorneys are still in place; Don Siegelman still has not been vindicated; the drugwar rages unabated) and the American way (checks and balances, habeas corpus, the rule of law, limited government–totally destroyed by the Unitary Executive, which Obama has embraced)–how can you say that he is “one of us”, regardless of the fact that he perfidiously got himself elected as a Democrat? Set aside the intangibles (a black former community organizer; an intelligent, stylish, well-spoken success story who came from the bottom to reach the top) and look at the evidence soberly and without blinders. How is this worse-than-Nixon character worthy of being called a Democrat? How can he be thought of as being anything other than what he repeatedly shows himself to be–a bankster tool, put into power by Goldman Sachs et al. and assiduously doing their bidding in every way possible?
Obama is “leading” us off a cliff. There is not a single good reason to support this man now: Wasting time on him will just mean that fewer true progressives will be elected in 2012, because if Obama is at the top of the ticket, then 2010 will be repeated and progressive Dem’s will stay home. I agree with Grayson: Democrats WERE “on strike” in 2010, not just complacent. And they were on strike because of the total balls-up that Obama made out of his 1st two years in office (beginning with his appointment of the Klinton Korporatists Summers et al. and his failure to push for reining in the filibuster). On the other hand: If there is a lively challenge to Obama, then we might see a truly-motivated movement coalesce that will carry many real progressives into power.
Obama will NOT win in 2012. The Crazies will never support him, and we true progressives won’t either. The only question is whether it will be a Republican (I agree, it’s very likely to be Romney), or if a miracle will occur and Obama is defeated in the primary and a real Democrat is available to vote for instead.
Please listen to your guests and listeners. Start calling NOW for a primary challenge to the Loser-in-Chief. Or watch what’s left of our country slide into fascist neofeudalism–or a horrific crash followed by revolution, which is a leap into the abyss. And if you won’t at least do that: Can you take a few minutes and try to coherently explain why not? So far, the only thing you’ve mentioned that makes any sense at all is the Supreme Court–but to believe that Obama will suddenly change course at the critical juncture when the 5th vote comes up (or that a Senate weakened by Obama corporatism will confirm such a nominee) is a fallacy, the triumph of hope over evidence, reason and experience. Obama has done precisely nothing to impede the corporatist takeover of America, and in fact has urged it along. Why on earth do you think he would change his stripes when that all-important position comes open?
Why SHOULDN’T we “primary” this drag on the Democratic Party?
Can you comment on this?