Saturday, August 25, 2012

Principles Matter

If you read nothing else today, treat yourself to this amazing conversation (via Shannyn Moore's blog) between law professor Jonathan Turley and actor/activist John Cusack. Turley destroys every single excuse "progressives" have been dreaming up lately in order to give Barack Obama a free pass on his abysmal human rights record and (dare to say it) war crimes.

Obama apologists have been coming out of the woodwork insisting that we should abandon all our humanistic principles, and pull the lever for lesser evilism. Turley counters:
... there’s a great desire of many people to relieve themselves of the obligation to vote on principle. It’s a classic rationalization that liberals have been known to use recently, but not just liberals. The Republican and Democratic parties have accomplished an amazing feat with the red state/blue state paradigm. They’ve convinced everyone that regardless of how bad they are, the other guy is worse. So even with 11 percent of the public supporting Congress most incumbents will be returned to Congress. They have so structured and defined the question that people no longer look at the actual principles and instead vote on this false dichotomy.
Now, belief in human rights law and civil liberties leads one to the uncomfortable conclusion that President Obama has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. But that’s not the primary question for voters. It is less about him than it is them. They have an obligation to cast their vote in a principled fashion. It is, in my opinion, no excuse to vote for someone who has violated core constitutional rights and civil liberties simply because you believe the other side is no better. You cannot pretend that your vote does not constitute at least a tacit approval of the policies of the candidate.
This is nothing new, of course for civil libertarians who have always been left behind at the altar in elections. We’ve always been the bridesmaid, never the bride. We’re used to politicians lying to us. And President Obama lied to us. There’s no way around that. He promised various things and promptly abandoned those principles.
So the argument that Romney is no better or worse does not excuse the obligation of a voter. With President Obama they have a president who went to the CIA soon after he was elected and promised CIA employees that they would not be investigated or prosecuted for torture, even though he admitted that waterboarding was torture.
So how does the Obama Administration get away with it? It all boils down to the charm offensive. The president simply presents us with a likeable brand. We  can't accept that a man so personable, so obviously devoted to his family, could be a cold-blooded sociopath. The frightening part is how skillful and manipulative the current occupant of the White House and his operatives are. We accept that he can kill anyone, anywhere, just on his monarchal whim because he has also "evolved" on gay rights and bailed out the auto industry and protects abortion rights and has given us corporate, profit-driven access to at least some health care, and best of all, might appoint slightly less right-winger justices to the Supreme Court. We have elevated the art of compartmentalization to stratospheric heights. The Orwellian cognitive dissonance is palpable.

And, says Turley, the silence of the lambs has been deafening:

Liberals and civil libertarians have lost their own credibility, their own moral standing, with the support of President Obama. For many civil libertarians it is impossible to vote for someone who has blocked the prosecution of war crimes. That’s where you cross the Rubicon for most civil libertarians. That was a turning point for many who simply cannot to vote for someone who is accused of that type of violation.
Under international law, shielding people from war-crime prosecutions is itself a form of war crime. They’re both violations of international law. Notably, when the Spanish moved to investigate our torture program, we now know that the Obama administration threatened the Spanish courts and the Spanish government that they better not enforce the treaty against the U.S. This was a real threat to the Administration because these treaties allow other nations to step forward when another nation refuses to uphold the treaty. If a government does not investigate and prosecute its own accused war criminals, then other countries have the right to do so. That rule was, again, of our own creation. With other leading national we have long asserted the right to prosecute people in other countries who are shielded or protected by their own countries.
Rather than feeling forced into the contrived Red vs Blue team sport extravaganza, Turley advises, we would be better off concentrating on local elections and protest movements. Yielding to the false dichotomy of the corporate political establishment only cements their grip on power, their control over every aspect of our lives.  If you thought the eternal presidential campaign of 2012 was torture, you wouldn't be exaggerating all that much. It's really a sort of mass hypnosis, an unrelenting psy-ops offensive taken to unprecedented levels. We're trapped in a labyrinthine series of echo chambers, with the media conglomerate as our guide to one wedge issue, one episode of manufactured outrage, after another. We can escape only if we can find our own moral compasses again.


Bonnie said...

Thank you for this post, Karen. I keep repeating to my friends, "The lesser of two evils is STILL EVIL."

On another note, it's fun to take these quizs (quizes?).

Zee said...

@Karen and @All--

I have indeed read through the conversation between John Cusack and Jonathan Turley, and have the following immediate thoughts and questions on the topic. Doubtless, I will have more thoughts and questions as I have time to re-read and further digest the conversation, and I may even change my mind about what I have said previously. Such is the nature of internal, moral debates. Do any of you out there face similar indecisiveness or ambiguity on important moral issues? Just curious.

I like to think that I have a pretty strict moral code, and try to adhere to it well, strictly. As we have discussed before, I am strongly opposed the the “surveillance state” that we are rapidly becoming, the militarization of our domestic police departments, and the random approval by the Executive Branch of the killing of “suspected” terrorists, whether abroad or here at home, and whether U.S. citizens or not. Not to mention the casual acceptance of “collateral damage” if it means “getting our guy.”

Still, I am not losing any sleep over the “assassination” of Osama bin Laden, the self-confessed author of 9/11, or Anwar al-Awlaki, the likely “mentor” to the Fort Hood killer.

Does that make me a monster and/or traitor to the Constitution, or merely human?

Please do not mistake the foregoing question--and my following thoughts and questions--as excuses for Dubya’s and Obama’s transgressions against our constitutional rights and international obligations. Rather, they are rhetorical questions that I ask myself, even as I am asking you for your honest thoughts.

Turley and Cusack are likely discussing--or “armchair quarterbacking” -- their various issues from the safety and comfort of their homes. What happens when the threats are real and immediate, and despite every cry of your conscience, you are driven down an unconstitutional path?

“I don’t know how to bring myself to vote for a constitutional law professor, or even a constitutional realist, who throws away due process and claims the authority that the executive branch can assassinate American citizens. I just don’t know if I can bring myself to do it.” --John Cusack

Well, war secrets being what they are, I don’t know to a certainty that Franklin Delano Roosevelt ever authorized the assassination of anyone, but he certainly and unconstitutionally interned upwards of 100,000 Japanese-American citizens in time of war in the name of national security.
Amongst those interned, many lost all their property or died without ever seeing the sun again but through a barbed-wire fence. And the victims never really received anything resembling “fair compensation.”

Yet, FDR is the darling of Progressives: “He gave us the New Deal, Social Security, and saved us from the Great Depression! So what if he violated a few civil rights. It was wartime!”

Tell me truthfully: Who among you Progressives out there would NOT have voted for FDR in 1944, despite his egregious constitutional transgressions?
I have many more thoughts and questions, but I already find myself bumping up against my character limit.

My immediate point is, it’s easy to armchair-quarterback constitutional propriety from the distant comfort and safety of one’s own home, instead of when right out there in front when lives may be on the line. I find that the Cusack-Turley lacks this depth of discussion.

After all, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

Anonymous said...


Of course, you are only human, but that is no excuse. And that's the whole point. Humans are pretty miserable creatures when left to their own devices. They need civilization and socialization and law to keep them in line.

Turley and Cusack address your feelings about the hit on bin Laden. Cusack brought up the example of Mario Cuomo and what he said when someone asked if he would support the death penalty if someone raped his wife. Cuomo said, “What would I do? Well, I’d take a baseball bat and I’d bash his skull in… But I don’t matter. The law is better than me. The law is supposed to be better than me. That’s the whole point.”

They also point out that bin Laden was on the run and basically neutralized since 2001. There was no clear and present danger from bin Laden. There was no reason to kill an unarmed old man, regardless of how despicable he might be. We are supposed to be better than that.

The fact that you lose no sleep over the assassination of the "likely mentor of the Fort Hood bomber" is even worse. Where is your evidence? Just because you are scared of terrorists doesn't give you the right to take another man's life. You need to stand on much firmer ground. We are all on a slippery slope and sliding down now precisely because of the kind of handwringing rationalizations for evil that you have presented.

As Karen pointed out, the interview is excellent and addresses the ridiculous ways progressives excuse Obama's heinous policies. It is a deep discussion and worth reading more than once. But in the end, you will see only what you want. If you are mainly driven by fear of terrorism or a desire for revenge, you will find a way to talk yourself into falling in line with Dear Leader, facts and evidence and history be damned.

Valerie said...

Thanks very much, Karen, for bringing this important conversation to the forefront for discussion. It is good to read articles/discussions like this because they confirm what we know on a visceral level - that there are deep and serious problems with Obama. Rather than do what the Obamabots have done all along – chanting the same old, same old lines - Obama is the Lesser of Two Evils and fear of the Supreme Court - we are actually engaging in real discussions that bring up new and relevant points. It is why I come to this blog - to learn and to become truly informed.

I have sent this article along with the link to Shannyn's commentary to several friends who hate Obama but feel they have no choice but to vote for President Lesser of Two Evils. Hopefully, they will understand that if we vote again for Obama, we are giving our tacit approval of what he does.

I think each of us has our particular Rubicon moment - for me it was the addition three Free Trade Agreements and the appointment of huge corporate polluters, huge corporate off-shorers whose companies paid minimal taxes as advisors. You can tell a lot about a person by the people that person surrounds himself with.

But the NDAA was REALLY the last straw. As Chris Hedges has said - it was put into place to crush the Occupy Movement which up to this point has been the only organised effort to put brakes on the runaway plutocratic train. Those enjoying power - owning the media, the police and the politicians - couldn't quite silence what was a growing legitimacy of a Main Street movement. By giving the government the power to call anyone who threatens the rule of the plutocracy a terrorist, they gave those in charge Stalinist powers. I always said, we should be out there protesting while we still had the power to do so - before the government found a way to out-law it. And Obama - a constitutional professor who KNEW the ramifications of what he was signing into law – did just that.

Personally, I don't really think our votes count. I think they long ago found a way to manipulate the numbers - the machines - to put their own people into power. But on the slight chance that they do count, I think it is important that we who actually understand what is really going on speak up and vote against the two headed plutocracy. Only until a Third Party gains enough votes and therefore legitimacy and power to be included in the political discussion, will we see any change. The Democratic Party in general and the President in particular have disregarded our concerns. They have NOT represented their constituency and have from the beginning figured we Liberals have no where else to go. They have counted on our fear in order to get the votes they need to win. Why do we continue to play into their hands?

@Zee – The internment of Japanese Americans is a terrible blight on American Democracy’s history. There is absolutely no excuse for it. But we can understand it. We were at war with a country that had been the aggressor and attacked us on our own soil. People were afraid and suspicious and fear makes people do some really irrational things.

We Liberals love FDR because he turned his back on his own social class and acted on behalf of ALL AMERICANS, not just the rich people of the Roosevelt social class. Conservatives can criticise the programs and laws that were put into place under his administration all they want, but they made good sense at the time and Roosevelt and his advisors and Cabinet were acting in good faith. We can’t say the same about the Obama administration.

My father was an abused child so when it came to parenting himself, he made many mistakes. But he tried his best to be the good father he never had and his intentions were to be wise and loving. My brothers and I loved him for that and were able to forgive the mistakes he made because his heart was good. It is the same for Franklin Roosevelt. We forgive his mistakes because he proved through his actions that he wanted to do right by the American people.

d12345 said...

I think that Zee's comments are direct and forthright and show a questioning spirit...and deserve better than the dismissive commentary by anonymous.

I found A's assessment of human beings to be pretty alarming, and very much at odds with the foundation of all democratic and leftist philosophy. (sounds like Hobbes). But that is for another day. Maybe in a college dorm many years ago!

As far as the transgressions/crimes of Obama and Bush. Yes they are that. And Obama's actions are a tacit denunciation of his Nobel Prize and the esteem that some hold him in.

That being said—This is nothing new. The US government has always engaged in assassination, targeted killing etc. Ask the living Black Panthers about that. For 50 years, there wasn't a democratic or leftist 3rd world government that wasn't overthrown or placed under siege, (including assassination as a standard tactic....see Castro) by the US...

As for surveillance....New bottles...old wine. Consider the Palmer Raids, the Smith Act, HUAC era, and so on.

Just to say that it is heinous...I agree with the vast majority of posts here. And we have to struggle against it. But some write "what is happening to America?"

I would say...pretty much business as usual.

Denis Neville said...

“Sure, we as a nation have always killed people. A lot of people. But no president has ever waged war by killing enemies one by one, targeting them individually for execution, wherever they are. The Obama administration has taken pains to tell us, over and over again, that they are careful, scrupulous of our laws, and determined to avoid the loss of collateral, innocent lives. They're careful because when it comes to waging war on individuals, the distinction between war and murder becomes a fine one. Especially when, on occasion, the individuals we target are Americans and when, in one instance, the collateral damage was an American boy.” - Tom Junod, The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama,

Do we believe that Obama has the right to kill American citizens, unindicted, unconvicted of any crime, without any kind of judicial review or oversight, simply on the basis of assertions from his own staff that they are a threat to our security?

Are we the most faithful servants of authority? Residents of the Borg Hive?

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg

What propels authoritarian behavior? Why do so many eagerly accept evidence-free claims? Why are so many willing follow a chosen leader and walk in lock step with a chosen tribe?

Glenn Greenwald’s excellent commentary on the temptations and perils of blind obedience to authority:

Robert Altemeyer, in his extensive research on the psychology of authoritarianism, wrote:

“There is a universal authoritarian trait which predisposes some people toward a greater willingness to thoughtlessly follow authoritarian leaders in attacking enemies identified by those leaders. This trait is generally associated with religiosity, and produces mirror-image behavior between the most belligerent people on both sides of any given conflict. It illuminates similarities in attitude of hardline religious fanatics, no matter what their religion.”

According to Altemeyer, there was a strong correlation between right-wing authoritarians and religiosity. Right-wing authoritarians and religious fundamentalists have very similar mindsets. Right-wing authoritarians were more likely to use religion to erase guilt over their acts and to maintain their self-righteousness; be fundamentalists; be dogmatic; and be zealots. He writes, "They are not 'them' while the rest of the world is ‘us.’ Instead, I think they have just gotten an extra helping of some very common human weaknesses…They stand about ten steps closer to the panic button than the rest of the population. They see the world as a more dangerous place than most others do, with civilization on the verge of collapse and the world of Mad Max looming just beyond.”

Put such individuals together and, as Reinhold Niebuhr and Erich Fromm warned, you have a force to be reckoned with: a society at great risk of doing a nefarious leader's bidding.

Why are those who challenge authority in the minority?

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

Greenwald, “The temptation to submit to authority…bolsters an authoritarian culture by transforming its leading institutions into servants of power rather than checks on it. But worse, it conceals the presence of oppression by ensuring that most citizens, choosing to follow, trust and obey authority, do not personally experience oppression and thus do not believe – refuse to believe – that it really exists.

James F Traynor said...

I greatly admire Glenn Greenwald for his careful and articulate defense of the principles behind the Constitution, particularly those expressed in the amendments. It is obvious, in their very existence, that the founders knew that it was not an immutable document. To me the ninth alone speaks volumes while authoritarians attempt to deny it as meaningless.

As a pragmatist, I have a pragmatist's tendency to take short cuts, to bend, if not break, the rules. No, the Constitution is not a 'suicide pact' and with the Bill of Rights and the following amendments, it implicitly negates this intent. The one thing it does seems to do is demand a rule by law, but law that is not immutable.

Obama's apparent disregard for the principles stated in the Constitution is frightening. Bin Laden should have been captured if possible, and I think it was possible, and tried as a criminal, but so, I think should have been Cheney, and Rumsfeld et al.

Denis Neville said...

Re: Obama’s ignoring the sins of the Bush Administration

Reading the closing argument of Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, at the Nuremberg war crimes trial, Jackson’s words are eloquent and powerful:

“I must leave it to experts to comb the evidence and write volumes on their specialities, while I picture in broad strokes the offenses whose acceptance as lawful could threaten the continuity of civilization. I must, as Kipling put it, ‘splash at a 10-league canvas with brushes of comet's hair.’

“The central crime in this pattern of crimes, the kingpin which holds them all together, is the plot for aggressive wars. The chief reason for international cognizance of these crimes lies in this fact.

“The operation involves the manipulation of public opinion, the law of the state, the police power, industry, and finance. The baits and bluffs must be translated into a nation's foreign policy. Likewise the degree of stealth which points to a guilty purpose in a conspiracy will depend upon its object. The clandestine preparations of a state against international society, although camouflaged to those abroad, might be quite open and notorious among its own people. But stealth is not an essential ingredient of such planning.

“The measure of the criminality of the plan and therefore of the guilt of each participant is, of course, the sum total of crimes committed by all in executing the plan. But the gist of the offense is participation in the formulation or execution of the plan. These are rules which every society has found necessary in order to reach men, like these defendants, who never get blood on their own hands but who lay plans that result in the shedding of blood.

“We know that even the head of the state has the same limits to his senses and to the hours of his days as do lesser men. He must rely on others to be his eyes and ears as to most that goes on in a great empire. Other legs must run his errands; other hands must execute his plans….These men…often could control the information that reached him and on which he must base his policy and his orders. They were the Praetorian Guard, and while they were under Caesar's orders, Caesar was always in their hands.

“They stand before the record of this Trial as bloodstained Gloucester stood by the body of his slain king. He begged of the widow, as they beg of you: ‘Say I slew them not.’ And the Queen replied, ‘Then say they were not slain. But dead they are...’ If you were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say that there has been no war, there are no slain, there has been no crime.”

Denis Neville said...

“Nothing amuses me more than the easy manner with which everybody settles the abundance of those who have a great deal less than themselves.” – Jane Austen, Mansfield Park

Crossing yet another Rubicon…my unwillingness to eat Obama’s peas.

Obama: “I’m prepared to make a whole range of compromises. Everything is one the table.”


Social Security has gone from being the third rail of American politics to the low-hanging fruit. A Democratic president - Obama - made the offer to cut Social Security to Republicans, who see Social Security as a piggy bank to pay for their disastrous, failed economic policies.

Corey Robin, on Up with Chris Hayes this weekend, said that Republicans ran on balancing budgets that merely made them the ‘tax collectors for the welfare state.’ Democrats are now running on balancing the budget, that makes them the ‘austerity promoters for the starve-the-beast state.’

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!!!

Social Security has been one of the most successful antipoverty programs in our nation’s history. It was a compact between generations and a collective promise that American workers made to each other.

The idea of Social Security as social insurance and as a fundamental right has now been lost. It has become, in the public’s mind, an “entitlement” linked to “insolvency” of its trust fund.

Pat Robertson: Raising Retirement Age to 72 Won't "Hurt Anybody Because People Really Like To Work"

Or how about 80?

What about the plight of the elderly and their families, who may also be experiencing financial hardship? What is to become of these “folks?”

“Only the unknown frightens men. But once a man has faced the unknown, that terror becomes the known.” - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

I.M. Rubinow, America's greatest authority on social insurance, once wrote, “Only upon the foundation of fact and sense of economic security can there be built a normal social structure of a peaceful society.” Behind the threat of fascism, “Back of the paranoiac, religious, biologic and historical vagaries of the Nazis and it exploitation of anti-Semitism and other group antagonisms,” there was a “sense of economic insecurity.”

“Now see the sad fruits your faults produced. Feel the blows you have yourselves induced.” - Racine

Valerie said...

I know most of you out there already read TruthDig, but for those who don't, Chris Hedges has a good essay on the NDAA and why it is such a threat to our civil liberties. It segues nicely into our discussion of the Obama Administrations actions against the American people.

Zee said...

As usual, I should probably keep my mouth shut at this point, but a couple of issues have been raised by other commenters that, I feel, foolishly, require at least a brief response on my part.

Part I.

@Anonymous has demanded proof that Anwar al-Awlaki was the “mentor” for Nidal Malik Hasan, the “Fort Hood shooter.” I personally believe that the extended e-mail conversation that Hasan had with al-Awlaki is evidence enough, along with his extravagant praise of al-Awlaki's teachings directly to his Army colleagues:

But beyond that, let's look—in that same Wikipedia article—at some of the other terrorist activities for which there is some—or absolute—evidence that al-Awlaki inspired, either directly or indirectly:

» The Christmas Day “Underwear Bomber.”

» The “Times Square Bomber”

» Stabbing of former British minister Steven Timms.

» Seattle Weekly cartoonist “fatwah”(Molly Norris et al. )

This last call for the assassination of Norris and eight other international journalists/cartoonists is particularly evil, as there is every reason to take the threat seriously.

The author Salman Rushdie had a similar “fatwah” issued against him and went into hiding for years; there appears to have been at least one serious attempt to assassinate him which, happily, ended in the would-be bomber blowing up only himself. Though Rushdie has started showing his face in public again, the “fatwah” is, apparently, still in place.

After the “Danish cartoonist” incident, an attempt was made on the life of the most prominent of the cartoonists, Kurt Westergaard, by an Islamic militant.

So for exercising her First Amendment right in her own country, Molly Norris now has changed her name, moved, and gone into hiding, in fear for her life. All thanks to Anwar al-Awlaki.

Sorry, but I believe that the evidence is abundant that al-Awlaki was a traitor who not only gave aid and comfort to “the enemy,” but himself inspired the assassination of his own countrymen.

As for Osama bin Laden having been “neutralized,” well, now it's my turn to ask for the evidence. bin Laden was tracked down via a courier—one of several—who was delivering who-knows-what messages to who-knows-whom. Isolated? Neutralized? Show me the evidence. He clearly was in clandestine communication with someone.

Nor do I see bin Laden as a feeble old man; he was seven years younger than I am, and I am by no means physically feeble and unable to wreak havoc should I choose to do so.

Zee said...

Part II.

Now, perhaps both al-Awlaki and bin Laden should have been captured and brought back to the U.S. for trial. But let's look at that idea from James Traynor's “pragmatic” perspective.

Both were living in what amount to hostile countries, despite the BS that Yemen and Pakistan are our “allies.” Much larger incursions would have been necessary to “arrest” both men, with far greater direct risk to American lives.

And then, if they were brought home to stand trial, their trials would be turned into political circuses, at huge taxpayer expense, for incredible lengths of time, and at great security risk to whichever American city was unlucky enough to have to “host” the trial.

So if I have my doubts about exactly what this country should have done with these particular two men, I absolutely don't lose any sleep regarding what the President finally chose to do.

There was ample evidence that both had either instigated or plotted murder on American soil or elsewhere, and there really was no other reasonable option to exact some kind of justice once the men were located, except at great risk---IMHO--to many other American lives.

Finally, @Anonymous, yes, “The law is supposed to be better than [we mere humans]. That’s the whole point.”

But guess, what? It—the law—ain't. It's a human construct—not something handed down by God—and therefore often deeply flawed. As are the courts and their flawed humans who administer our often obscure and contradictory laws. And when those contradictions manifest themselves, even the very best judge has been known to take a pragmatic, middle-of-the-road, approach to her/his ruling.

Although Obama is most definitely not my “Dear Leader,” I can at least hope that in these instances—like a good judge—he understood the gravity of the decisions that he made in the face of enormous conflicting interests and values, and did not reach those pragmatic decisions easily. (Not often that I give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but there it is.)

That's called “being human,” and, yes, it is a viable “excuse,” your personal perfection and absolutism notwithstanding.

Zee said...

@James Traynor--

We seem destined not to agree on much, but I share your reverence for the Ninth Amendment, which, as you say,

"...speaks volumes while authoritarians attempt to deny it as meaningless.

I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the Tenth Amendment,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

(Bold emphasis added by me, Zee.)

Anonymous said...

“...Turley advises, we would be better off concentrating on local elections and protest movements.)

That is exactly what I have done and will continue to do. (always have, actually). But I’m still going to vote for Obama.

The system needs to be changed, but in the meantime, I cannot see my way to not vote at all or to vote for a republican.

Anonymous said...

"Hopefully, they will understand that if we vote again for Obama, we are giving our tacit approval of what he does.”

And it would be better to hope they “understand” why we would vote for Romney as an alternative. Not voting is surely a vote for Romney as well. Evil is a religious construct and I will be voting for the best choice given the reality of our political system. Call it what you will; I call it rational. I have no problem criticizing the President, but what is the point of this demonizing from the Left? It’s just as irrational as the nonsense from the Right.

You all need to get out there, pound the pavement and change hearts and minds instead of arguing minutae with the choir.

Karen Garcia said...

Note to Readers:

After okaying the last two anonymous concern trolls, I will no longer be accepting comments from people who can't even be bothered to use a pseudonym. Are the last two from the same person, or two different people? Who knows. It makes it impossible for those wishing to respond to the Anti-False Equivalence Priggy PragProg League do so "rationally".

Valerie said...

To the Anonymous who responded to my commment.

What good does it do to criticise Obama et. al. if you give him the only thing he and his camp want - your vote? Do you really think he cares what you and other Democrats like you think of him? That you criticise him? He is going to replace Geithner with Dimon - THAT is how much criticism from the Left has influenced his behaviour.

Actions speak louder than words.