Sunday, July 10, 2011

Cheap date

55ella2007k, a video blogger* I've linked to once or twice before,

calls attention to this dKos diary[ video link] from one Giles Goat Boy:

"President Answers Collective Bargaining Question with Right-wing Talking Points"

Here's a sample from his essay:

GGB:I said all through the Wisconsin protests that we did not need President Obama to come here to validate our movement. I said he needed us more than we needed him. It wasn't a criticism. I truly believed that we could handle this without the distraction of having the President walking the picket line with us. I thought it was strategically smart to keep him away. I still believe that.

I assumed he would do his part in Washington and elsewhere to fight for the right to collectively bargain. I thought he had our backs. Apparently he has been taken in by some truly ridiculous Fox News-style talking points. That's what I find disappointing. Here is his answer, with the truthy parts highlighted:

BHO:The first thing I want to emphasize is that collective bargaining is the
reason why the vast majority of Americans enjoy a minimum wage, enjoy weekends, enjoy overtime. So many things that we take for granted are because workers came together to bargain with their employers.


GGB:Uh, oh. He's praising the Labor movement first. Here it comes...

BHO:Now, we live in a very competitive society in the 21st century. And that means in the private sector, labor has to take management into account. If labor is making demands that make management broke and they can’t compete, then that doesn’t do anybody any good.


When I read something like this I am often skeptical, given the kind of mental contortions I've seen people do to rationalize voting for and still supporting Obama after the abundant evidence he's offered to anybody paying attention that he's just a corporate shill. In no particular order:

1.He has to say what he says because of how far right the country has drifted;

1b. because of the viciousness of the press, especially Fox News,

2. he's playing 'eleven-dimension-chess', deftly out-maneuvering his opponents,

3. he has to keep the Blue Dogs happy, or they'll bolt for the GOP,

4. I voted for him without illusions, because a more liberal candidate wouldn't have been viable, etc.


In Goat Boy's case, this bit stood out:

"I assumed he would do his part in Washington and elsewhere to fight for the right to collectively bargain. I thought he had our backs. Apparently he has been taken in by some truly ridiculous Fox News-style talking points."

So Goat Boy belongs to yet another camp, the one that believes that BHO is an impressionable naif. Michelle, don't let him watch so much teevee! I suppose if he's naive that explains why he doesn't seem to see any contradiction in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize and ramping up the war in Afghanistan, or starting one in Libya; presumably this would vex a more sophisticated sort of person.

Ella opines that maybe Goat Boy will be banned from Daily Kos for daring to criticize the president and pointing out that BHO sounds like he's essentially sympathetic with the goals of the GOP regarding worker's rights because the people who run dKos generally don't take kindly to lefties who rock the boat for team democrat. But I don't think he has too much to worry about, regarding possibly getting kicked off dKos. Maybe she didn't see this from the Kos comments(there were over 200):


I rec'd the diary, but can't tip the jar. (78+ / 0-)


At some point we progressives are going to have to ask ourselves, "How does guaranteeing our vote for those that don't represent us effect change?"
"What does 'holding accountable' mean?" To all those who whine, "But, look what happened in Wisconsin," I say, "Look what is HAPPENING in Wisconsin!"

by WisePiper on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 11:54:36 AM PDT

That's cool. (20+ / 0-)

My decision is based on a number of factors including the way our government is structured. I'll vote for him, but I understand why some people won't.It's not that easy being green.

by Giles Goat Boy on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 11:59:06 AM PDT
******


Yes, WisePiper, at some point progressives are going to have to ask themselves, "How does guaranteeing our vote for those that don't represent us effect change?"

Who can doubt this? Nobody!

And Goat Boy**, it's very big of you to understand why some people won't vote for Obama. I hope you understand why BHO couldn't care less about your opinions.





*or vlogger, if you insist.
**I wanted to create a sock-puppet commenting identity over at Kos as 'John Barth' and demand my title back , but it seemed like too much bother.

Labels: , ,

6 Comments:

At July 11, 2011 7:45 AM, Blogger Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Goat Boy reminds me of a comment I read through a link at BDR's post today. The person said our economy is doing poorly because "it's only as good as the economists advising policymakers, and current advisors don't understand economic matters."

If a critic thinks he/she is a merit-bound person, the criticism is always about "competence."

The naivete on display in such "competence" assessments makes me laugh. The "incompetent" economists are doing precisely what they're supposed to do: make excuses for destructive economic policies. That's what economists do. There's no "competence" in issue. A better bunch of economists would not fix things. We'd just have different official explanations of why things are bad, that's all.

Goat Boy thinks Obama is naive, which is a "competence" argument as well. Goat Boy can't imagine that Obama is doing precisely what Obama wants to do, and achieving the very ends he aims toward?

Seriously?

 
At July 11, 2011 5:56 PM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

No, apparently not. Because while polite middle-class people aren't supposed to talk about religion or politics at dinner(at least when I was growing up), apparently people who talk about politics aren't supposed to question somebody's motives, unless he's on the other team.

I guess.

 
At July 12, 2011 3:41 AM, Blogger Mimi said...

Got into a discussion about the wars with my niece, who considers herself a flaming liberal and is, of course, an avid Obama supporter. I said the bottom line in the military is you have to kill people. She called that "insulting" to the good folk who join up (her revered father was a career air force lt. col.) and pointed out the great humanitarian deeds they do. Not sure what she thinks the bottom line actually is.

 
At July 12, 2011 3:42 AM, Blogger Mimi said...

Hmm. It just occurred to me my comment is off-topic. Sorry about that.

 
At July 12, 2011 12:42 PM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

That's OK Mimi. Now I don't have to discuss the importance of hugging Al Queda or holding hands with the Taliban and skipping.

 
At July 13, 2011 9:38 AM, Blogger Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

people who talk about politics aren't supposed to question somebody's motives, unless he's on the other team.

I guess.


I think you guess correctly, Jonathan.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home