When George Bush said something conservative. (How our left pundits are failing us)

When George Bush said something conservative he had an echo chamber. Fox and talk radio would celebrate it. They'd frame the debate and push it into the corporate press. That was a good thing for conservative ideas because they were lent the credibility of the Presidency and received wider exposure.

What happens when Obama says something progressive? It's ignored. The corporate press won't talk about it because that would be "liberal media bias". Fox might mention it to criticize. And even progressive pundits and the netroots ignore it because we're not supposed to do anything but hold his feet to the fire.

Let's take the BP oil disaster speech as an example. Obama made a powerful statement for a strong climate change bill and moving America off fossil fuels. He also made a direct assault on the Reagan/Bush anti-government philosophy that allowed the disaster to happen. What happened next?

The progressives statements in his speech were ignored. Fossil fuel industry employee Keith Olbermann panned it. The corporate press, that's so closely tied to the fossil fuel industry, certainly wasn't going to highlight the better parts of his speech for us. There was frivolous commentary about his style not being strong enough, as if they never heard what Obama said.

So, this is when the netroots steps in to pressure the corporate press to acknowledge our issues, right? Nope. Most bloggers were content to follow the lead of our corporate approved spokespersons who told us that he wasn't feisty enough and then add the complaint that (ZOMG!) he dared to suggest we pray about it.

The result? We missed an opportunity to improve the chances for passing a strong climate change bill. We missed the chance to have a week of conversation about Obama's comments rejecting the conservative agenda against government regulation. We missed the chance for a national discussion about the many ways in which the conservative anti-government-regulation philosophy threatens our environment and human life. We missed the chance to make it impossible for the corporate press to avoid discussing our issues. We missed the chance to advance progressive ideals about the proper role of government.

Obama opened the door for us and we blew it. All because too many left pundits and bloggers are pathologically incapable of praising Obama or admitting that he might be a progressive ally.

This doesn't just hurt Obama. It hurts the entire progressive movement and the issues we fight for. This is why we just had a national election in which most of the public had no knowledge of anything positive or progressive Obama has done. We didn't force the press to cover it.

We need to keep holding Obama's feet to the fire. But failing to also praise the positive isn't working for us. We need a different strategy for the next two years.

To frame a proper picture about what our Democratic president has accomplished.

And yet another excellent case for screening all other media for bias that furthers their own agendas in order to spite the facts.

Yet, much of it finds its way onto DU.

You would think that we'd know better by now.

after the media's obsession with Monica, or the 2000 election, or the Iraq War, etc.

I'm disappointed in how often even posters at DU repeat false media narratives about Obama.

can subscribe to? FDR used the radio because he too, had a hostile media. Obama already knew that before he was elected, the ball is in his court. (& I wish du spellchecker would quit underlying his name as a typo)

instead of taking personal responsibility for pushing a progressive agenda? I can't go along with that. I believe in a grass-roots movement that doesn't depend on the President to do our activism for us. Your attitude sounds like a lazy cop-out.

Obama does his weekly radio address. What would it be like if the netroots actually wrote about or promoted that instead of going along with the latest exaggerated bullshit headline or blog post?

They did it to make sure to push one agenda and one agenda only. They get paid millions to lie to us. Billionaires paying millionaires to lie to the working class.

it's no surprise that GENBC didn't praise a speech that trashed Reagan's legacy AND the financial interests of their parent company. I love Rachel and Keith but they know who they work for.

General Electric's "news" subsidiary does the same thing that NewsCorp's "news" subsidiary does: disseminate corporate propaganda.

And we needed more from the netroots, since we will never get any of the M$M.

Shameless bump.

You got that part reversed. The voters opened the door for him in huge numbers in '08, and he proceeded to squander the best chance for true change this country will have in a generation by trying to play patty cake with the Republicans for two years.

Obama gave this big speech telling us that our job isn't over, that it takes more than voting, and that he needs our help to build a movement from the ground up. He said it frequently during the campaign. You must not have been listening. If you thought that simply voting for a President was enough to make change then it's no wonder you're so disappointed.

All wrong. Have a nice night.

I'm suggesting how we can better advance a progressive agenda and you respond by saying voters opened the door for Obama in the '08 election. Voting and then sitting back to watch does not cut it. Having a grass-roots movement of the people means we each take responsibility for making change happen.

LOL

Voting and then sitting back to watch does not cut it.

How do you know who is doing this and who isn't? And is this a skill you can teach the rest of us DUers, so we too can decipher who voted and then did nothing?

Having a grass-roots movement of the people means we each take responsibility for making change happen.

Gee, I never would have figured that out without your help here...

You wrote "The voters opened the door for him in huge numbers in '08, and he proceeded to squander the best chance for true change this country will have in a generation by trying to play patty cake with the Republicans for two years."

This reveals a mentality that you expected Obama to produce certain results and all that was required was that he be voted into office. I disagree.

And no, Obama did not spend two years playing patty cake with Republicans. Most of the compromises he was forced to make were with Senate Democrats. Obama spent two years pushing a progressive agenda and at least half the progressive netroots chose not to help.

This part is true.

...and all that was required was that he be voted into office."

This part isn't. And all this really reveals is that you'll find whatever you're looking for, whether it's there or not.

and you're apparently rejecting my suggestion for further action...what else is one to conclude?

Since you do support more than voting, what do you think about my OP? Shouldn't we be pushing the press to cover the progressive things Obama says and does? Wouldn't that help build public support for progressive issues?

Shouldn't we be pushing the press to cover the progressive things Obama says and does?

Sure. How much do think the media is on our side and do you feel they will report these things fairly, and in such a way that helps?

Wouldn't that help build public support for progressive issues?

Depends on how it's portrayed. To date, the media doesn't do very well on reporting these things fairly or accurately, so the message is rather distorted and diluted by the time it gets to the masses through the media. Due to this effect, quite often it doesn't help us to use the mainstream media. In fact, it's often been counterproductive for us to rely on the msm.

The problems with the media you mention are the entire reason why we need the netroots and left pundits to push them, as I suggested.

I'm glad to know you agree with my OP that the current dialog is counterproductive to passing a progressive agenda.

You avoiding an honest discussion? Check the entire sub-thread.

too? What, as private citizens COULD we have done differently?

we could have organized better to pressure the Senate roadblock instead of acting as though Obama is the only elected official in DC.

that's why those who continueously can only refer back to the last thing they actually did
was to vote 2 years ago obviously have less than a clue, no matter how sincere they try to sound.

It would be like Obama just going into the oval office and locking the door behind him, after announcing in December of 2008...."Well I won, didn't I? What else in the fuck could you possibly want?".....

Doh! :crazy:

Will I be seeing you when the new Planned Parenthood opens here? We need escorts for women coming here, and I'm just too busy bitching online and bragging about how awesome I was for voting two years ago....

:crazy: indeed.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Well done. I don't really even need to respond, as you're doing a good job of countering your own post! :rofl:

posted in wrong place.

It is true......the Leftist professional and their followers are as weak
as those they call weak, if not weaker. Doing nothing but yelling about being
"Disappointed" does not provide any strategy for the gains that we could
make if we at the very least followed up, as most feign interest in "issues" they claim to be
all so "Concerned" about!

Some want a "Partisan tough hard nosed take no prisoner pound that fist on the table you gansta'" President a la Bush (but on the progressive side), but most if any are even close to willing to do what those who prop the GOP up did on their part to make that happen without repercussion!

The so called "professional Leftists" and "Left Bloggers" for the most part
suck hard when it comes to actually doing anything constructive that could
actually help us. Seems like they only end up helping the opposition, and that
ain't nothing to be proud of. In fact, it is a shame.

and new bloggers who are political novices. It's not so good when their understanding of how politics and change work doesn't improve over time. Being angry doesn't cut it.

Otherwise, it means nothing.

Thanks! :hi:

Questioning one who has something personally negative
to say about a specific DUer without qualifications
to expand on their statement?


superduperfarleft (1000+ posts) Wed Nov-17-10 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. You lecturing people on being "constructive" = irony. n/t



So what do you call that post from superduperfarleft? Constructive criticism?

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

all I see is innuendo, but not any actual ideas.

nt

What is it time for instead of talk?

And WAAAAAAAAAY too tepid. That was the moment when Obama lost me. :(

Of course, I just listened to the speech without hearing all the pundits who told you it was tepid. He made an argument for getting us off fossil fuels and refuted the Reagan anti-government ideology. It was exactly what we needed.
I guess it was tepid if style and theatrics are what you're looking for. The substance of it was anything but tepid.

I was so angry I walked outside and ripped the Obama stickers off the cars, and he's done nothing to make me regret that since.

Which part made you so angry?
The part where he called for more government regulation or the part where he called on Congress to pass a climate change bill to get us off fossil fuels?

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

And I got a speech about maybe doing something about oil if we could get the votes and maybe doing something about the climate if congress felt like it.

more than substance. I can't help but think that Obama is usually criticized for giving inspiring speeches without enough substance. Damned if you do...

Obama said we would do some shit to lessen the chances of this happening sometime in the future. Not too much substance there, if you ask me.

that was my breaking point. I am relatively safe out there in CA, but it is one of a handful of make-or-break issues with me. And he broke it.

I think he could lose California in 2012.

Probably ditto for Florida.

He might still swing CA -- we have been protected from additional drilling so far. If he were to open CA -- there would be serious, serious hell to pay.

As for the traditional media failing to give Obama a fair shake, I think that's an inarguable point. The beltway does not want see not just Obama but anyone with a liberal viewpoint succeed. But the idea that the net-roots aren't giving Obama credit for what he has done is bullshit, its just that Obama also happens to make a lot of terrible decisions that the left also criticizes so it may be harder to find the positive stories with all the negative ones out there.

I get that you are trying to diss people like Cenk Uygur who refuse to play the game and only report on positive things that the dems do while ignoring all the capitulations and signs of weaknesses. The fact is that the democrats are NEVER going to have a media propaganda machine like the republicans and they shouldn't have one. Conservatives are totally cool with having a huge propaganda machine win elections for them regardless of the truth, but us liberals are a little different, we care about progress not political victory at any cost.

In order for any fundamental change to happen in the system, we have to move beyond parties and focus on right and wrong. That is what Cenk Uygur does, that's what Thom Hartmann does, that is what Glenn Greenwald does and that is what Rachel Maddow does to some extent. We need to change the way people report the news not just which political party gets the most preferential treatment.

You wrote: "I get that you are trying to diss people like Cenk Uygur who refuse to play the game and only report on positive things that the dems do while ignoring all the capitulations and signs of weaknesses."

Who is playing that game? The pro-Obama media is non-existent. There's no one reporting the positive and ignoring the negative. We only have the left, right, and corporate press ALL ignoring the positive.

I don't think you got the point. If what we care about is progress then left pundits and the netroots are doing a really, really bad job of making it happen. The knee-jerk values of challenging authority and holding Obama's feet to the fire are held so universally that we've left ourselves incapable of praise, even when there's good reason to do so. It hurts Obama's ability to pass progressive legislation and it contributed to the horrible election we just held.

No, I didn't ask for one-sided reporting of only the positive. I'm suggesting we need to tale a rational approach that acknowledges the good as much as we harp on the bad. That isn't happening right now.

They report positive actions right along with the rest of it. Amy in particular is very careful to do that.

And you're right. Their job isn't to be a leftwing Fox.