Tweety 10 times as smart as Obama?

by: Paul Rosenberg

Thu Nov 04, 2010 at 21:00


Chris? Matthews? Really?

I shit you not:

Not saying much, really.  But true.

Paul Rosenberg :: Tweety 10 times as smart as Obama?

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Never Thought I'd See That (4.00 / 6)
Is Tweety advocating a national industrial policy? Can you even imagine if Obama had gotten up at the state of the Union Address in 2009 and said this?

That would be something. The idea wouldn't last 15 minutes in Washington today but it might start a revolution.  


Wow, this is really good! (4.00 / 4)
Who'd a thunk it would be coming from such a normally DC-cetnric source. Is there a possibility that the drubbing that House Dems took could reawaken progressivism in the most unlikely corners?  

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

He worked for Tip O'Neill back in the day. (4.00 / 2)
If there's one thing he knows, it's the Old School Democratic Machine and how that worked.

In this case, he's also precisely correct.

Tweety's not a progressive, he's just drawing on what he's known his entire political life. He's from a Philly suburb and came up the Old School way. Back then, that was a powerful region to be from. Now? Well, the voters have spoken on that count. They don't like being dissed in the way they are being dissed.

Can't say I blame them.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
What else needs to be said? (4.00 / 4)
What's the line about a thousand monkeys in a room with a thousand typewriters? Or the fact that even a stopped clock is right twice a day? (Okay, enough of that)

But here's the thing: Tweety said that Tuesday night on the set and the only one who didn't look at him like he's off his meds was KO. Larry O was incensed and Rachel was merely dismissive--perhaps force of habit? Perhaps Rachel will rethink this point...

And here's the other thing: the elites in DC, of both parties, have investment portfolios that are filled with stocks and bonds from companies that have increased their profits and thusly dividends a hundred fold because of off-shoring. In other words, the elites aren't doing anything about it, because they're making too much dough off of the destruction of the US economy. Talk about a Conflict Of Interest.

These people are getting much richer off of the cannibalization of our economy. So where are the incentives for them to start thinking like decent human beings? They don't exist yet.

The Dems can and should write off the Bible Belt for the time being. They could make major inroads on the Gulf Coast if they acted like human beings, but that's too much to expect at the moment... apparently.  But I digress.

But the Dems need the Rust Belt. Most of those seats that were lost on Tuesday can be gotten back, if anyone in DC actually gives a shit. Tweety has so very many defects, but he has this one right. It's Old School Democratic politics and he's not wrong about this one... yet.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


"These people are getting much richer off of the cannibalization of our economy." (4.00 / 2)
You nailed it.  This White House cannot possibly address this effectively.  They are too busy participating in the feast.

I would add that a platform based, first and foremost, on an ambitious (optimistic) vision for the reconstruction of America is the only way to recover from the last 30 years of neo-liberal economic cannibalism.  But first we need a leader (leaders) who can articulate this vision and simultaneously expose the lies that mask over and corrupt the behavior of our current politicians.


[ Parent ]
Personally, I think Economic Cannibalism is pretty articulate. (0.00 / 0)
I'm not worried about articulation or message. But we do need people who can pick up the standard and charge it the opposition without fear. Methinks finding good candidates will be harder than actual organizing. It's tough out there and a lot of people probably aren't chomping at the bit to get torn into by GOP-dominated media.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
He said it very well (4.00 / 3)
regarding an issue I am personally very passionate about.

Off-topic: I noticed today that Roger Simon had a column in Politico asking whether or not Dean would challenge Obama for the nomination. This takes place against a backdrop of the natural questioning that would take place after the Democrats' drubbing on Tuesday.

Here's my quick comment:

A)Given that they just suffered a huge loss under Obama's leadership,
B)Given that we will likely have double-digit unemployment in 2012,
C)Given that the main political strategy of the GOP as stated by McConnell is two years of non-stop investigations that will make the Clinton years look like a love-in,
D)Given that a primary challenge in that particular environment would probably weaken Obama further,

Maybe the best thing for the Democrats to do is to approach Obama about declaring he will not run for re-election. In doing so, that:
A) Completely throws the GOP off their game plan, and forces them (in an economic environment that is what it is) to talk policy
B)a discussion on policy may create a split within the GOP,
B) such an action by the president clears the way for new blood (such as Dean) to lead the Dem ticket in 2012, giving them a fresh chance at success, without any divisive party squabble.

I would point out that stepping aside would be in keeping with Obama's own internal instincts to avoid splitting the country, and (once the discussion is forced back on policy) would give him an outside shot achieving enough legislation to save his reputation, even if it is as a one-term president.

Just a thought.


I think that if things are looking bad for him... (0.00 / 0)
...he will punt for the good of the party and the country.

He almost did it after the Reverend Wright "scandal".  He told his advisors that if he was too damaged goods, he would quit.  They waited a few weeks, and he recovered his standing, but he is willing to fall on his sword if necessary.

So, don't count that idea out... not at all...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
You can almost write the speech for him (0.00 / 0)
"My fellow Americans, when I first took the oath to serve as this country's President, I said that I would rather do the right thing and be a one-term President, than to do what was politically easy but would fail the American people. That has been my guiding principle every day since...because the problems facing us are too important for us to be distracted by petty politics. That's why today, I'm announcing that I will not seek another term as your President. I refuse to spend the next two years engaged in constant gamesmanship and political bickering; playing partisan politics in preparation for 2012. This country has issues that need to be addressed, and I invite both parties in Congress to work with me in making the hard decisions that will put us back on a path for the future..."

[ Parent ]
That's a completely idiotic idea, (0.00 / 0)
and I really kinda like it.

Let Obama run again in 2016 or 2020 or something. Imagine if he said, 'I'm aware that the Republicans are going to spend the next two years trying to prevent my reelection instead of doing the hard work of rebuilding this country. So fine. I won't run for reelection. Now let's start on that work.'

The only problems are:

1) Never happen.
2) They'd still obstruct, investigate, etc.
3) Not gonna be Dean, so what new blood, exactly?  


[ Parent ]
The only new blood that the oligarchs (0.00 / 0)
who control the Dem party will allow, is the same old blood we've seen before, packaged in a shiny new body.

There's a reason why the elites all came together to destroy Dean's candidacy; and why the elites allowed Obama to win.

This party of ours (?) is once again a bloated and fetid corpse that ought to be lanced and allowed to drift to the bottom.


[ Parent ]
New blood: Evan Bayh (0.00 / 0)
God, he'd actually make me miss Obama.

[ Parent ]
my 'thought' - (0.00 / 0)
Obama should give IT up - It's helpless - It's useless - He should take a Pause and let this country 'develop' - Watch it from over here -(I go to Venice next week and there is hardly a better place to watch America 'develop) -
But about this 'Dean thing'  you might be dreaming dude - You have to think more 'hardcore' less 'progressive' - We don't want to make the same mistake again? We need a real 'smart person' - Right? What's about this Bloomingdale or Bloomingford whatever his name is?

[ Parent ]
Bloomberg is terrible (0.00 / 0)
Union buster, service cutter, 3rd way bullshit.

For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin'. -- Dylan

[ Parent ]
Hey! - (0.00 / 0)
my NY 'progressive' friends really like'em - After being deeply disappointed by  Obama they seriously suggested - what's his name - 'Bloomfield'?
And I nearly dropped my Tea!

[ Parent ]
Listen closely (4.00 / 3)
Here's the transcript, if you don't want to read.

Matthews laments the loss of four Democrats by name.  In the House, two Pennsylvania Blue Dogs, Chris Carney and Patrick Murphy.  In the Senate, Joe Sestak and Alexi Giannoulias.  He speaks with disdain of the "bi-coastal elite".

Paul Rosenberg points out time and time again that there are a lot of people who believe in progressive policy points who do not self-identify as liberals.  One explanation is that people have been brain-washed by the corporate media to think poorly of liberals, but I think a better explanation is that people sometimes believe liberal things for non-liberal reasons.  The wrong method is to try to reason with these people and make them see that they are actually liberal.  The right method is to appeal to their non-progressive reasons for doing progressive things.

The argument that Chris Matthews gives is not some rational argument for an industrial policy.  It's an argument rooted in identity politics.  Americans are builders.  We should be building things like the Midwestern manly men of yore, a point he stresses by praising smash-mouth, old-school football.  We should be building super-trains not because it is environmentally sound but because it is an affront to American exceptionalism that France and China have faster trains.

Put in those nationalistic terms, that's probably not what you expect to come out of the mouth of a progressive.  And yet, it's argument that should be made.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


You're not giving Chris Matthews enough credit (4.00 / 1)
His reasons weren't just "hey, China has them!  I want them too!"  He also talked about uniting the country, creating jobs, investing in the future, and yeah, because building grandiose shit is cool, but not necessarily in a xenophobic or competitive way.

[ Parent ]
It's possible (4.00 / 1)
To be nationalistic without being xenophobic.  And what's wrong with feeling a bit competitive towards other nations?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
And I disagree that we should give up on making the case for liberalism (0.00 / 0)
as you seem to imply here:

The wrong method is to try to reason with these people and make them see that they are actually liberal.  The right method is to appeal to their non-progressive reasons for doing progressive things.

Because the belief system still matters a lot to me.  And what happens when their non-progressive reasons start supporting non-progressive things?


[ Parent ]
What I am for (4.00 / 3)
Is using a diverse set of justifications targeted at different groups of people.  That doesn't mean giving up on making the case for liberalism, but it does mean shifting gears and coming up with other arguments if standard liberalism doesn't seem to be working, instead of banging your head against the wall because people don't see the world the same way that you do.

Those people who have non-progressive reasons already support some non-progressive things.  Sometimes, people who share basic progressive intent have diverse policy ideas.  How do you deal with those differences?  I do value democracy and letting the electorate make mistakes.  If the non-progressive viewpoint wins out in a fair debate, then I accept the outcome as legitimate, even if I don't like it.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
Well said, Anthony. (4.00 / 1)
I don't need to "convert" people.  IMO, "proselytizing" isn't the way to approach this.  It'd be like insisting to someone, who self-identifies as an atheist, that since they're already following the 10 Commandments they need to accept their Christianity.  

Some people of faith (I am not one) will talk about how faith snuck up on them.  For others, they describe how they crept up on faith.  I'm absolutely okay with people being allowed to sneak up on liberalism, or having a liberal ideology creep up on them.  

In the meantime, we can "use the language" of what an ideology would do without necessarily pounding away at what that ideology is.  We need more of us willing to support the things we support.  We could call it anything, because what we call it is irrelevant as long as we're clear on where it leads us.


[ Parent ]
No! "Tweety ten times as smart as his audience" - (0.00 / 0)
I just wait for the day some of these 'Tweeties' turn to their audience and tell THEM excactly what he told Obama.
That would help -(a lot!)
But these 'Tweeties' don't want to tell their audience something like that - Right?
Because they are 'smart'!
(and the audience doesn't want to hear that the 'Tweeties' are 'smarter' than they are!)
And perhaps Tweety only is 'smarter' if you use the word 'smart' in a very American way! - You know what I mean - American Bankers are REALLY smart!

Tweety said it (4.00 / 3)
We need jobs to build America.

And who is not providing the jobs? Private industry. Why isn't private industry providing jobs? government can't provide the jobs to build America, that is the function of private businesses. Why has private industry failed America?

The current economic doldrums are the failure of private industry to act to build America.


Wow, that's a great way to frame it (0.00 / 0)
Of course, conservatives will come back and say that businesses aren't being "allowed" to build America because of all the stifling taxes and regulation, etc etc.

[ Parent ]
The two Corporate Parties believe (0.00 / 0)
that printing money and shuffling it around is industry!

But this isn't news, or helpful.

The only question that matters is when are progressives and libertarians going to rock the boat enough to get real change?

All other "musings" are onanism.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox