If you have "no place to go," come here!

"The stoopid should not attempt to reason"

Yes, our old favorite Boohooman has followed up on his venting with a thumbsucker on his deep spiritual dilemma: Whether to keep on being a fan, or try to figure out how to become an engaged citizen. I wish him well, and hope he feels free to take all the time he needs working things out.

(I especially like the lead, where Boohooman cringes to heel.) Here are the key grafs from Greenwald's piece, lest we forget:

Barack Obama has a massive communications team already devoted to that function. They even have their own website and blog that fills that role. The DNC, DCCC, and scores of other huge, massively-funded institutions already exist to justify whatever he does, attack the GOP, and generally promote the Party and administration line. Blogs which replicate that function can't add very much.

I've always seen the unique value of political blogs as applying outside citizen pressure on Beltway institutional political power -- which now resides primarily in Barack Obama and the Democrats -- to reject or at least resist the standard Washington influences. Every well-funded institutional faction is working feverishly using every means they have -- lobbyists, money, advertising -- to pressure the Democratic Party to serve their agenda. Why shouldn't "people on the Left" do the same? Shouldn't health care activists care more about the public option [single payer --lambert] than Obama's political standing? Shouldn't gay rights activists be agitating aggressively for concrete action rather than pretty speeches? Shouldn't civil libertarians be constantly protesting an administration that has stomped on their beliefs? Shouldn't anti-war activists and empire opponents be objecting to the obvious incompatibility between escalating a war and being deemed the earth's leading peace activist?

Corrente has been doing exactly what Greenwald recommends. Means we get the bare minimum of links from the A list and the OFB, even the recovering ones, but I have confidence that the best policies will win out, which is what matters -- even as those who pushed for the policies are reviled as hippies, Cassandras, dead-enders, populists, and all the other in-group/out-group terms for those who don't wear the right [and all to temporary] tribal tats (cf. Luke 6:22, at least the first part). It's the way of the world when you're "fools for policy" (cf. 1 Cor 4), and especially the way of the world for those who want to be part of the world of Versailles.

NOTE The subject line is actually taken from an old Boohooman post excoriating Corrente for some Hopiness Infraction or other, but as I pointed out at the time, it's the stoopid who most need to reason. Take Boohooman. Please.

UPDATE I forgot. This link contains my favorite Boohooman quote of all time:

[By embrace] 'I did not mean 'grab [Obama's] ass and shove your tongue down his throat.'

No indeed. That picture comes entirely from Boohooman's inflamed imagination. Will Doctor Freud please pick up the white courtesy phone?

No votes yet


Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

because it is predicated on an assumption that Bush governed "from the center" during his initial months in office, and that the GOP right simply fell into line behind Bush. That's not the case -- Bush governed from the far right. Indeed, Bush was pursuing such a radical agenda even before 9/11 that Jim Jeffords quit the GOP caucus in the Senate in May 2001, and started caucussing with the Dems, giving Democrats control of Senate (where there had once been a 50/50 split.)
Bush, in other words, was loyal to his party base, and that base had little to criticize. Obama, on the other hand, has pretty much ignored the concerns of the Democratic base, and the promises he had made to them to get the nomination.

Finally, Greenwald's analysis is flawed because (in most cases) those who were ostracized for criticizing Bush in the later years were "traditional/centrist" republicans --- the radical right remained loyal to Bush, because Bush remained loyal to them (even the Miers nomination was not an attempt by Bush to put a centrist on the court... rather it was about rewarding a personal friend.)