President Obama not as distrustful of the "far left" as some of us are

Marc Ambinder, a blogger very well connected to the White House, reported Friday:



Although I would simply define Greenwald as part of "the left," his critics in the right and (some in the left) would like to portray him as a fringe "far left" ideologue. I can think of very few, if any, who have been more critical of certain policies carried out by Obama concerning State Secrets, prisoner detention, etc. Yet Obama welcomes this pressure.

There's some food for thought.

link to story: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/the_rubicon_of_indefinite_detention.php#comments

Glenn may ramp up the pressure if this is true. :thumbsup:

This would definitely provide support for those of us who believe that putting pressure on the administration is essential if we're ever going to achieve real change.

:dem:

-Laelth

Every politician needs pressure on both sides. If Obama wants to govern to the left - and people have been saying that he is a left-of-center politician, rather than the sort of centrist we've had before - then it needs to seem that there is popular demand for it.

that critic has a vote in the Senate, apparently.

*by the way, your link bypasses the article you reference. it goes straight to the comments.

correct old link- http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/05/the_rubicon_of_indefinite_detention.php

Do you see the comments only? That's odd. Perhaps there is some kind of technical problem in your computer. By the way, as far as I know, nobody posted this story the day it was written.

And even if It had been posted, I am refuting a view (i.e. that the "far left" undermines Obama) that was posted this week; therefore, my rebuttal had to be done today, and I use this story as support.

1. Every leader is going to have their sycophants- and in most instances, those who loosely toss around like "far left" (or attempt to rationalize everything the administration does -meets the definition; and

2. There are still quite a few who, desoite every piece of evidence to the contrary, still cling to and defend traditional Republican values and the failed policies (and pandering) that derive from them- generally doing so under the guise of "moderates" or "centrists."

The difference between the two groups is that the former is generally amusing or annoting- whereas the latter is insidious, and ends up hurting us all (and the party they claim allegiance to).

value the left's opinions. That's why it's not necessary to lie with 1/2 truths and be disrespectful when they're giving their opinions.

which as you said is the half-truths and distortions... and pretending actual honest criticism is the problem, instead.

I don't for the life of me know why they'd do that, though.

Oh yeah, you mean some citizens of the EU and a percentage of folks in South/Central America.

you're really transparent...

You've been a busy little repuke beever...

Beginning with a bit of beltway-unique self-delusion. Not a "scintilla" of attention paid to the right wing? The air and cable waves are not teeming with WH defenders and officials, legitimizing the blathering of torture promoters? Obama is not personally engaging indirectly in a "policy" discussion with cheney about his confessed war crimes -- instead of prosecuting?

The only thing "useful and helpful" to them about those who suggest that our laws should be followed and enforced -- oh sorry, the Extremely-Extreme Far-Leftist Purity Ideologues -- is the fact that they're all "outside" the Serious People Club and therefore can be dismissed for the (perpetual) moment.

---

he'll listen to glenn greewald, but he'll listen to arlen specter and colin powell more, you know, the serious people.

or nothing would be achieved.

I know it is a tough notion for some here, but I do not understand why.