Feed the Political Animal

Washington Monthly depends on donations from readers like you.

Comments

• MBunge on June 08, 2012 5:56 PM:

  "Can you imagine President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney refusing year after year to go a few blocks from the White House and address the largest congregation of supporters"

  
  Republican Presidents have pretty hilariously refused to show up at the annual March for Life event, addressing the crowd by phone even when they are literally just outside the White House grounds.

  And, hey! It's good to know you're perfectly fine with Obama killing as many smelly brown people as he wants. Just so long as they don't have a U.S. birth certificate!

  Mike

• Proudhon on June 08, 2012 5:59 PM:

  maybe he's just afraid of being associated with "liberals."

• Beahmont on June 08, 2012 6:10 PM:

  If you are not 'blowing the lid' on something illegal, you are not a whistleblower, you are a traitor. It's really that simple. We have a system of government that rightly says that someone, such as a private first class in the army, is not competent to decide public policy or the classification level of documents. This means that if you show people things that are classified and they don't have clearance, you've committed a crime. Full Stop. Whistleblower protection laws are in place to protect the person who releases classified documents to expose an action the US congress has defined to be a crime.

  Deep Throat was a whistleblower, these guys are traitors. Not a one has revealed information to the press that was illegal for the administration to do. Not a one has done more than try and inflame a situation for personal or political gains. If you don't like the fact that Congress doesn't consider what the administration is doing as a crime, express that disatisfaction to Congress. Otherwise you're talking out your ass. Just sayin.

• Eli Rabett on June 08, 2012 6:31 PM:

  Thank you Ralph, you did such a good job in 2000 pushing the same load of crap. Eli wishes you a long and painful stay in hell.

• Doug on June 08, 2012 6:48 PM:

  While not underestimating the power of a sitting President such as Mr. Obama, don't "liberals" realize that he's NOT going to veto liberal legislation? If they want liberal legislation enacted, then its up to us to see that such legislation, or a fair imitation, reaches the President's desk.
  Greenwald's OPINION notwithstanding, there ARE differing views on the Alawki case. I can imagine the screams had the Obama administration "inserted" a SEAL team to capture, or kill, Alawki! And, face, that was the only other alternative as the Yemeni government doesn't even control all of its' own territory.
  Nor does anyone here KNOW how much of the Patriot Act's various bits are being employed by this administration as the actions are either classified or, because of the Act itself, not reportable; ie, warrants not required.
  If "liberals" are sooooo worried about these things, then it behooves them to help any and all GOTV efforts by the Democrats this year. The only way to get MORE liberal Democrats in Congress is to elect MORE Democrats. Perhaps the attendees at the upcoming conference could spend a little time on that topic?
  Just sayin'...

• lisette on June 08, 2012 6:51 PM:

  Oh lord, Ryan you are so precious.
  Why don't we all stay home and simple give the election to Romney.
  Grow Up!

• DJ on June 08, 2012 7:09 PM:

  Ralph Nader also sent a letter to -- get this -- the New York Yankees, complaining about the live commercials read by the radio announcers during the course of play. Notwithstanding the fact, as Keith Olbermann noted, such announcements have been part of baseball on the radio for the last 50 years.

  Ralph Nader is fighting a losing battle against his own irrelevance. Why should President Obama take time out of his already busy day to Nader's futile efforts?

• grandpa john on June 08, 2012 7:24 PM:

  Nader? Hell I keep wondering when is he going to publicly admit that indeed there was a dimes worth of difference between Bush and Gore and perhaps apologize to the nation for the 8 horrible years of the Bush administration. I am however not holding my breath until this happens. Self worshiping egos don't usually make apologies for being wrong.

• ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© on June 08, 2012 7:51 PM:

  Beahmont on June 08, 2012 6:10 PM:

  That comment was a giant load of fascist b.s.

  Why don't you see what Daniel Ellsberg has to say, rather than merely flapping your Obama cheerleader pom-poms?

  Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, used the occasion of the papers' declassification on Monday to defend Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused in the WikiLeaks case.

  By Anna Mulrine, Staff writer / June 13, 2011
  ~

• ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© on June 08, 2012 8:05 PM:

  Doug on June 08, 2012 6:48 PM:

  While not underestimating the power of a sitting President such as Mr. Obama, don't "liberals" realize that he's NOT going to veto liberal legislation? If they want liberal legislation enacted, then its up to us to see that such legislation, or a fair imitation, reaches the President's desk.

  Another rocket scientist weighs in with a dollup of center-right pablum.

  Hey, Doug. Did you ever hear of "Social Security"? Last I checked, this is the most popular and successful government program ever. Let's listen to Michigan Congressman John Conyers:

  The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that.

  This President has been a disaster for the Democratic Party, and even more so for the people who voted for him. And the people he's helped the most, the banksters, are giving their money to Rmoney. Heckuva job, Mr. President.
  ~
  

• trog69 on June 08, 2012 8:33 PM:

  I see we lefties aren't immune to the temptation to shoot the messenger. Regardless of Nader's actions in the past, he makes a valid point here. If Pres. Obama doesn't feel comfortable meeting up with a large group of liberal Dems/Progressives, he mebbe shouldn't expect the same enthusiasm for his re-election campaign. I'm getting a bit tired of being marginalized with the "lesser evil" blackmail, because our policy wishes aren't as profitable to corporate interests.

• Tess on June 08, 2012 8:49 PM:

  When all is said and done, the Republicans "lock-step" mentality wins elections. In some ways the left is very childish. After a certain amount of years on earth you realize that everything is a compromise and you learn to take an inch when you can get it because you aren't willing to take five steps back. Which is exactly what will happen if the base stays home to mope and Romney gets elected.

  If this election is so crucial, and we all think it is if for no other reason than the make-up of the Supreme Court, then we had ALL better get on board and pretend excitement if necessary. If you don't have a seat at the table then you'll never get a chance to put forth even incremental changes.

  And don't get me started on Ralph Nader. I was one of those that cast a protest vote for him that likely helped cost the Dems the election. I will forever feel guilty about my contribution to the terrible years that followed. I don't know whether a Democrat would have been a better President, but I sure know that a lot of laws got passed and judges appointed during that time that have added to the woes in this country.

  You ask Obama to "play to his base", well maybe he would if he thought you'd have his back when the going got tuff. And maybe we should act more like sports team fans who fight loudly for their team through the whole season. What would happen if fans boo-hood and changed their team every time there was a trade made or a player missed a basket? You may hate those Raiders fans, but aren't they impressive;-)

• James E Powell on June 08, 2012 8:52 PM:

  @trog69 -

  Right, but what makes Nader the devil in so many eyes, including mine, is that the result of his message was the Bush/Cheney Junta and, if followed this year, president Romney. Now how exactly is that a good thing for any sober progressive.

  I mean, I know it's no skin off Nader's ass, but there are real-life consequences to Republican policies and real long term consequences of allowing a Republican to appoint three or four supreme court justices.

  If you lack enthusiasm for Obama, try to generate enthusiasm for Not-Romney. Those are the two choices.

• Cha on June 08, 2012 9:04 PM:

  Fuck Ralph Nader.

• mk3872 on June 08, 2012 9:45 PM:

  Really, Ryan, you fall for the "American citizen" line, too, on the killing of Aw Zawarahi? The next leader of Al-Qaeda, dedicated to killing Americans?

  That kind of weak crap is what gives liberals a bad name to the rest of Americans.
  

• smartalek on June 08, 2012 9:56 PM:

  "Why Won’t Obama Go to Big Liberal Conferences?"

  Ooohh, I think I know this one!!
  Could it be because...
  ...he isn't a liberal, and never was?
  And that (for once in their otherwise worse-than-useless lives) the wingers were actually right on this one, and a significant number of lefties just assumed he was, projecting onto him their desires for his candidacy, despite certain clear indications to the contrary, at least in part because of his ethnic heritage?
  Hmm?

• liam foote on June 08, 2012 10:08 PM:

  If an American citizen (naturalized or otherwise) acts in a leadership capacity, including propaganda and recruitment, for al-Qaeda or another terrorist group, most Americans would agree that airmen at Creech AFB should zip a Hellfire through his windscreen. And even "right to lifers" would push that button.
  

• Jo Hargis on June 08, 2012 10:12 PM:

  Ralph Nader? for real? LOL!

  And this: "(Or Obama could have, you know, not renewed the Patriot Act, avoided drone strikes on American citizens, and not prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined. Just sayin.)" This just HAD to be tagged on the end, right? See, I certainly don't speak for Obama, but hey, if I thought I was being invited to speak at a convention for the sole purpose of slam dunking me for everything I didn't do for your majesties, I'd decline the invite too. These people aren't interested in hearing what he has to say; they only want to criticize.

• castanea on June 08, 2012 10:26 PM:

  Emoprogs who think that whacking a terrorist is somehow a great violation of human rights turn my stomach only slightly less than members of the Tea Party.

  Let's face it, emoprogs--with no significant support in the electorate nor any money to contribute to political campaigns--seek to destroy America by eroding support for a President who inherited a crap pile and who has had to govern through a period of overt racism in the US that has not been seen since the days of Jim Crow.

  Unlike the idealistic nutjobs on the right, who have Ron Paul, emoprogs have no realistic candidate they can rally behind. They are nothing more than pissant purists, political anarchists who are trying to destroy my country just as much as any Tea Partier, and I pray to Perkunas every night that both groups meet the same swift and lasting fate.

• Varecia on June 08, 2012 11:20 PM:

  Remind me again who this 'Ralph Nader' is? Oh yeah, the guy who shows up every four years to screw things up and then disappears and who knows what the hell he does in between. I'm no Obama-bot, and I've experienced my share of frustrations with his Presidency, but if there is to be an alternative to the politics we have now, the far left had better get its act together and finally generate a viable, energetic, focused and disciplined party that actually resonates with more than 1% of the electorate! And when they do that, they had better physically take it to the people, door to door, get on the phones, etc.
  If the far left is true to form this election cycle, however, they'll petulantly abstain from voting, and the day after the general election when Romney wins and the Tea Bagger Takeover is complete, when we're all waiting for The Revolution the left always threaten to launch, nothing of course will happen, and we will descend even further into inevitable decline. And Tess is right; the only people who expect to get their way all the time are two year olds and debutantes.

• James E Powell on June 08, 2012 11:29 PM:

  @Varecia -

  Exactly. And I am amazed that anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman can be singing the "I'm tired of the lesser of two evils" bit so soon after the catastrophe that that attitude produced in 2000.

  Here's a pretty clear fact: your strategy will not produce the ends that you claim you desire. Voting Democratic will get you some of it and prevent much of what you value from being taken away. So why do you dither about the fact that there is no perfect world?

• pjcamp on June 09, 2012 12:29 AM:

  Because he's not a liberal?

  I mean, that's the obvious answer, and it has the virtue of being true.

• Patango on June 09, 2012 12:39 AM:

  Yes , lets talk about ADULT behavior

  You can not use the word NEGOTIATE for what obama does , he got a lame deal to extend the bush tax cuts , as a result he got to fight with the gop for a year about the budget , put soc security on the table and god knows what else , and ended up looking like a really ineffective leader....

  It was to the point his poll numbers tanked , even gop leaning independents were appalled at how gut less he was acting , and not fighting ..... I suppose there are ADULT sell outs tho

  And I suppose its Ralphs fault obama bragged about reading reagan and being a fan of his , and how he took a real shellacking , and he would listen to the minority nut cases there after

  And the al gore/ " mr gop lieberman " team was ralphs fault also , the contard wall st dems had gore wrapped up so tight in 2000 , he had to ask permission to smile and breath , maybe you all can enlighten us on how ralph screwed up 2004 for you gop light whiners too?
  

• James on June 09, 2012 12:49 AM:

  Oh boy. Some very satisfying responses to that jaw-clenching parenthetical and the Greenwald-Naderite whine -- emoprog, I really like that. Here I thought I was the only good Democrat that isn't holding up Manning and "citizen" al-Awlaki as heroes.

  Nader and his minions are not Obama's base. Obama's base is the Democratic Party. Nader and the firebaggers are not Democrats. They identify more closely with the Greens, a different political party than the Democrats. Just because the GOP base is full of batshit loons, that doesn't mean the firebaggers and Naderites comprise the base of the Democratic party. Unless I have the definition of "base" in this context all wrong. And I don't think I do.

• Sammy on June 09, 2012 2:47 AM:

  "If he can’t get the base fired up, it might cost him the election,..."

  Grow up and find a pair. Perhaps you have been living on another planet for the past three years are are not aware of the FACTS.

  That the republican party has obstructed President Obama since before he took office. How in the h*** could he have passed s single-payer health bill with the republicans fighting all the way. I must have flunked
  2nd grade math because when I add up the votes they come up short. Where was he supposed to find the votes. Pull them out of his hind end?

  Same with the stimulus.

  Stop whinning and support the team or just get off the bus. And stop making excuses because you sat on your hind end in the last election which gave the teabaggers an opportunity to destroy the country.

  Also, too, take a trip over to DailyKos to read the articletitled: "On January 20, 2009 Republican Leaders in Congress literally plotted to sabotage and undermine U.S. Economy during President Obama's Inauguration.
  
  In Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives" Draper wrote that during a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy".

  Check out the name of the people who attend the destroy Obama planning sesssion. After reading the article and maybe even the book, come back here and whine because the President didn't rub your little tummy ache.

  As to ""If he can’t get the base fired up, it might cost him the election ..."

  WHAT IS IT GOING TO COST YOU?

  Good God.

  P.S. Yes, I am an Obama supporter and I live in the real world.

  
  

• Forrest Leeson on June 09, 2012 9:29 AM:

  "How in the h*** could he have passed s single-payer health bill with the republicans fighting all the way."

  Have you googled the phrase "passed with no republican votes"?
  

• hildebrand on June 09, 2012 9:39 AM:

  The health bill was the best Obama could get through the Democrats, let alone the Republicans. If you think, for even a minute, that there were 60 votes (the new standard!) for anything to the left of what was passed, well, perhaps you should lay off the recreational substances.

  This was stated above, but it bears repeating - you want to swing Obama to the left, elected more and better Democrats in the House and Senate. You could have Bob La Follette as President and still get nothing that you want accomplished unless the House and Senate Democrats has the power and the will to actually do what the left wants. You can scream all day long about Obama, but the votes simply are not there. And if you feel like refuting this, tell me, who would have voted for something to the left of what was actually passed.

• FlipYrWhig on June 09, 2012 9:58 AM:

  As for the premise, how many times did George W. Bush attend CPAC?

• Patango on June 09, 2012 10:42 AM:

  I think obama is not only a good pres , but a great one , he is not perfect and no one expects him to be , and when people point out the flaws(that we all have ) it does not mean WE WANT EVERYTHING OUR WAY

  We can go with the aca as an example , no one can deny the guy up and disappeared for a few months while passing the aca , my imagination tells me his wall st handlers told him to keep a low profile until they get it passed , it was really bizarre ...

  We elected a fighter who WAS TO THE LEFT OF HILLARY , then all of the sudden we get a guy TRYING to make deal behind the scenes , and he is not a good poker player when it come to real negotiating ...I accept it all for what it is , no one can change that and there is no use in complaining

  
  People know who what and how obama is now , he is a consensus maker , not a fighter , he will give in generously from the get go to get a deal , which can be a good thing at times , but we are dealing with nazi gop who eat his and the dems lunch if they go that route

  As far as getting people to vote dem , just look at what obama campaigned on in 08 , and what people were enthused about , and why they are not enthused now , it is pretty simple , if a guy is not going to go in and fight for you , your not really going to fight for him when it comes time

  http://www.gallup.com/poll/153902/romney-obama-tight-race-gallup-daily-tracking-begins.aspx

  April 16, 2012
  by Frank Newport
  PRINCETON, NJ -- Mitt Romney is supported by 47% of national registered voters and Barack Obama by 45% in the inaugural Gallup Daily tracking results from April 11-15. Both Obama and Romney are supported by 90% of their respective partisans.

  http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/counterintuitive-theories-on-obama-and-supreme-court-run-against-polling-evidence/

  April 3, 2012, 1:09 pm

  Obama and the Base
  Mr. Obama’s approval ratings are now 84 percent with Democrats and 87 percent with liberal Democrats, according to the latest Gallup poll. Those numbers are fairly normal by historic standards.

  The reasons for support and opposition are complicated, but nevertheless the median voter is not a fan of the legislation. In most surveys, support and opposition to the bill among independent voters are similar to or slightly worse than the overall figures; CNN’s latest poll had 41 percent of independents in favor of the bill but 53 percent against it.
  

• Patango on June 09, 2012 10:57 AM:

  
  The 2nd link above , the 2nd paragraph is referring to polls on the popularity ACA

  Uploaded by jgrant85
  President George W. Bush came to speak at the Conservative Political Action Convention (CPAC).

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAWpPOVB-Kc

  Him and president cheney had no problem going on the rush limbaugh show several times also , but the liberals are a much more disgusting POLITICAL ANIMAL
  

• FlipYrWhig on June 09, 2012 1:05 PM:

  Obama hasn't skipped Netroots Nation either (or, say, Rachel Maddow Show or Daily Show). Nader's premise, advanced by Ryan Cooper, suggests that Obama is uniquely loath to appear at these events because he might find himself among liberals who criticize him. I think the simpler explanation is that few presidents take the time to attend these kinds of gatherings. Without a baseline level of participation, Obama's eagerness to appear can't be gauged, and since the baseline seems to be very, very low, Obama's behavior doesn't seem remarkable.

• Anonymous on June 09, 2012 1:13 PM:

  Also, how long has the "Take Back the American Dream" conference been running? Quick googling seemed to suggest that 2011 was the first one: when I search for take back the american dream 2010 or 2009, all I get are hits on 2011 and 2012. If that's true, why would Nader start out by saying that Obama's been ignoring it "year after year"?

• FlipYrWhig on June 09, 2012 1:15 PM:

  Sorry, "Anonymous" above was me.

• castanea on June 09, 2012 4:33 PM:

  Flip--

  Ryan's story unfortunately mimics the sort of sloppy "journalism" that caused me to stop reading TPM. Slap together a poorly reasoned article about Obama, top it with a headline that suggests he is betraying liberals, and call it good.

  A comparison piece noting the differences between Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Bush actually might have been informative. The tendency to compare Obama to some non-existent ideal is flat-out stupid.

• Patango on June 09, 2012 10:16 PM:

  Mr Ryan Cooper , you are doing a fine job

From the Blogs

Ten Miles Square

• Is Nuclear Winter Coming to the Senate this Summer? By Sarah Binder 05/20/2013 11:20 AM
• The Relevance of Statisticians to Researchers in Different fields of Social Science By Andrew Gelman 05/20/2013 11:14 AM
• Reform After the IRS Scandal? Don’t Bet on It. By John Sides 05/20/2013 11:06 AM

College Guide

• Fashion College, for Fun and Profit (and Just for Fun and Profit) By Daniel Luzer 05/20/2013 2:25 PM
• College Enrollment Declines, and That’s a Good Thing By Daniel Luzer 05/20/2013 1:59 PM
• The Importance of What You Measure By Daniel Luzer 05/17/2013 2:42 PM

Tilting at Windmills

• In praise of better government … Welfare for the Rockefellers … Whatever happened to truth in labeling?
• McCruzyism … Too big to jail … Wake up, Democrats
• Petraus’s demands … Fox News’s GOP ambitions … Washington’s merry-go-round

Get Your Free Interactive College Guide

Online or Mobile
Where does your school rank?
 

Follow WaMo

Facebook "Like" our Facebook Fan page.

Twitter Click to see a list of our Twitter feeds.