Cornel West, Liberal Sellouts and Critiques Agst President Obama

In recent days there’s been a lot of blow up about the criticisms levied at President Obama by Princeton Professor Cornel West.. Many have quickly circled the wagon and attacked West claiming his critique was more personal than principled. The end result has been West being dismissed and Obama being praised as if the critiques about him being a supporter of corporate and foreign policies that are harmful to poor people were not on point..Below are a two articles that excellently address all sides of this issue.. They weigh in on Cornel, look at Obama’s policies and offer up some solid points about Obamites.. Big shout out to Chris Hedges of Truthdig and Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report for these breakdowns..

-Davey D-

Why Liberal Sellouts Attack Prophets Like Cornel West

by Chris Hedges

Chris Hedges

The liberal class, which attempted last week to discredit the words my friend Cornel West spoke about Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, prefers comfort and privilege to justice, truth and confrontation. Its guiding ideological stance is determined by what is most expedient to the careers of its members. It refuses to challenge, in a meaningful way, the decaying structures of democracy or the ascendancy of the corporate state. It glosses over the relentless assault on working men and women and the imperial wars that are bankrupting the nation. It proclaims its adherence to traditional liberal values while defending and promoting systems of power that mock these values.The pillars of the liberal establishment—the press, the church, culture, the university, labor and the Democratic Party—all honor an unwritten quid pro quo with corporations and the power elite, as well as our masters of war, on whom they depend for money, access and positions of influence. Those who expose this moral cowardice and collaboration with corporate power are always ruthlessly thrust aside.

The capitulation of the liberal class to corporate capitalism, as Irving Howe once noted, has “bleached out all political tendencies.” The liberal class has become, Howe wrote, “a loose shelter, a poncho rather than a program; to call oneself a liberal one doesn’t really have to believe in anything.” The decision to subordinate ethics to political expediency has led liberals to steadily surrender their moral autonomy, voice and beliefs to the dictates of the corporate state. As Dwight Macdonald wrote in “The Root Is Man,” those who do not make human beings the center of their concern soon lose the capacity to make any ethical choices, for they willingly sacrifice others in the name of the politically expedient and practical.

By extolling the power of the state as an agent of change, as well as measuring human progress through the advances of science, technology and consumption, liberals abetted the cult of the self and the ascendancy of the corporate state. The liberal class placed its faith in the inevitability of human progress and abandoned the human values that should have remained at the core of its activism. The state, now the repository of the hopes and dreams of the liberal class, should always have been seen as the enemy. The destruction of the old radical and militant movements—the communists, socialists and anarchists—has left liberals without a source of new ideas. The link between an effective liberal class and a more radical left was always essential to the health of the former. The liberal class, by allowing radical movements to be dismembered through Red baiting and by banishing those within its ranks who had moral autonomy, gradually deformed basic liberal tenets to support unfettered capitalism, the national security state, globalization and permanent war. Liberalism, cut off from the radical roots of creative and bold thought, merged completely with the corporate power elite. The liberal class at once was betrayed and betrayed itself. And it now functions like a commercial brand, giving a different flavor, face or spin to the ruthless mechanisms of corporate power. This, indeed, is the primary function of Barack Obama.

continue reading article at Truth Dig

How Cornel West Did the Obamites a Favor

by BAR Executive editor Glen Ford

It is a shame that Princeton professor Cornel West did not stick to a disciplined critique of the corporatist policies that have made Barack Obama richly deserving of the label, a “Black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs.” Instead, the Princeton professor slipped into psycho-babble, musing on the president’s supposed “fear of free Black men” and associated personality deformities. The particularities of Obama’s racial background may, or may not, have contributed to his malignant neglect of the African American condition, but we will not forge a movement to defeat Obama and his Wall Street masters by putting the president on the couch.

There is no need to inject racial psychoanalysis into the (public) conversation when straightforward political analysis is more than sufficient to the task. In two and a half years, the Obama administration has expanded George Bush’s wars and national security infrastructure and budget, added a new theater of combat in North Africa, and proclaimed a presidential prerogative to assassinate and invade at will. He has out-Bushed Bush.

Obama engineered by far the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, funneling at least $12 trillion to Wall Street. At the height of his popularity, still riding the crests of post-election euphoria, and under no real pressure from a demoralized Republican Party, Obama eagerly placed Social Security and other entitlements “on the table” for chopping. He endorsed the corporate/Republican line that deficits were the nation’s biggest problem, effectively sentencing the unemployed to damnation and inviting the austerity reign of terror that has descended. And these are just the highlights of Obama’s tenure.

The resulting catastrophe in Black America had rendered Black Obamites all but mute on issues of policy; they could not defend the indefensible. In an MSNBC debate with West, Al Sharpton, the administration’s Black pit bull, was reduced to inane sputtering. The rationale for continued Black and progressive support of the Obama administration has been reduced to one factor: a primal fear of the Tea Party boogeyman. Yet, the sheer economic and political devastation wrought under Obama’s brief tenure has made it plausible to make the case – as we do at Black Agenda Report – that the First Black President is not the lesser of two evils, but the more effective evil, having facilitated more of the right-wing agenda at home and abroad than George Bush ever attempted or envisioned. What does it matter that Obama is not a white Republican, if he can tear down the social safety net, privatize education and wage aggressive war more effectively than the GOP?

Of course, Obama is empowered to act as Wall Street’s Trojan Horse by the acquiescence of the Left’s core constituencies – chiefly, Black America, without whose consent and active participation progressive politics is reduced to the fringes. For reasons that have everything to do with race, Black people have clung to Obama even as he has consistently pushed them away. But the agonzing facts of a community in historical free-fall can no longer be denied. The “Black Wall” that the African American mis-leadership class attempts to erect around Obama is cracking, if not crumbling, especially among left activists and intellectuals. Cornel West is a celebrity example.

The First Black President is not the lesser of two evils, but the more effective evil, having facilitated more of the right-wing agenda at home and abroad than George Bush ever attempted or envisioned.”

Melissa Harris-Perry

Unable to mount a coherent defense of Obama’s policy decisions, especially after his further, dramatic lurch to the right following last year’s midterm elections, Obama’s unrepentant Black politicos seethed in relative silence. It had become impossible to speak in policy terms without indicting the presidential icon. Cornel West’s foray into Obamanalysis gave them the opportunity to explode in reams of outraged words that had little or nothing to do with policy. Prof. Melissa Harris-Perry managed to write almost 1,500 words forThe Nation on West’s “personal attack” on Obama, offering only 130 words about her own position on Obama’s tenure at the end of the piece.TheRoot.com, a Black Obamite corporate hangout, gleefully reported that West had “’stepped in it’ with his controversial comments about President Obama,” with “Google News listing more than 100 stories.”

This is the kind of “controversy” in which Obamites revel, precisely because it allows them to avoid confrontation with Obama’s indefensible policies. If they can resurrect another version of the phony, diversionary arguments of 2007 and 2008 about whether Obama is “Black enough” to deserve African American support, then they can hope to coast through the 2012 campaign without having to justify support for the “Black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs.”

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted atGlen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

Comments

  1. West-Obama Narrative: Shows all Wrong with Black Academy and African Studies

    http://rawdawgb.blogspot.com/2011/05/west-obama-narrative-shows-all-wrong.html

  2. swaneagle harijan says:

    Just hope the core of what must be said about the corporate capitulation of Obama will be heard. Scary times as racism rises to a much more presentable level among too many. We must find ways to unify in opposition to the all encompassing destruction all humanity and all life faces now as the planet is systematically being taken over by well armed greed. Somehow we have to unite.

  3. e-scribblah says:

    west is usually on point.

  4. Ford nailed it.. Brother West brings 99% wisdom and DFW-style “This is water” essential commentary. I listen to the show he does every week with Tavis Smiley and love it love it.. But they’re always digging: Why? Why? After a while I think the psychoanalysis is inevitable (ask Prince Paul).

    Anyway, good links. Cheers, D!

  5. B_lo Tim says:

    I cringed when I heard Dr West go into his assessment of Obama’s blackness after nailing the policy critique.

    My question is, were he to have said only the substantive political analysis and left out the black on black angle how many Americans would have heard any of it?

    How many Americans ever hear Noam Chomsky’s spot on critiques which are always cold hard truths with nothing selacious enough to last a full news cycle in our society?

    I’m not going so far as to say this was intentional by Dr West, just wondering if the addition of a personal conflict angle to his critiques actually brought the substantive points to more people than had he not gone there.

    Personally I have had a couple conversations with people who could be described as “neo liberals” per the above article and yes they started out on the personal but then I was able to get them beyond that to the relevant truths. Had the nonsense conflict not put the statement in the mainstream those types of cenversations would not be happeneing.

  6. buddhaclown says:

    The assumption that liberalism = anti-power is precisely the same assumption that led to the failed liberal ideologies of communism and anarchism. The reason the successful liberal movements, on the other hand, prevailed — feminism, civil rights, now gay rights — is because they chose not to go down the dead end of the Malcolm X approach which was to make war with power, but rather the Martin Luther King approach of transforming power from within. It is because of the success of those movements that the liberal class is the way it is today and relies on positive energy of hope and love to facilitate change, over fear and hate.

    That is exactly what Obama is about, and the extremist left is too angry, too ugly, and frankly too clueless to the see the interconnected factors leading us in that direction. Like Netanyahu, without an enemy, and perhaps a war, you guys wouldn’t know what to do with yourselves! The problem with us so-called “sellout” liberals is that we didn’t take to heart from the 60s and 70s the themes of violence and hatred of the Black Panthers and the Weathermen, but rather the themes of love and peace of the hippies.

    To be a true liberal means to intuit the interconnectedness of events, and not to rely on the black and white thinking of a more conservative and hardened mind. But when one listens to the extreme left wing, though the values differ, the tone sounds like you are listening to the extreme right wing. The same sort of all or nothing, the same sort of you are with us or against us, the same sort of “anything short of complete allegiance to the party line amounts to treason”, the same sort of inability to see that a complex tapestry sometimes creates apparent contradictions up close.

    Making war on the rich and powerful does NOT make you a real liberal, it just makes you a cynical one. But the cynical ones have never lead to anything productive. The communist states were a disaster, the liberal terrorism of the late 60s only guaranteed the end of that amazing era. Slowly, but surely, under Obama a positive energy of cooperation and that we are all in this together is transforming the society in a more liberal direction, not by beating the power establishments over the head, but by transforming them gently from within. From Wallstreet reform to health care reform, gay rights in the military to encouraging the Arab Spring, all of these are transforming the power establishments in a non-threatening manner that results in genuine change over time. Obama’s own continuing example as the “last man of reason” in an age of screaming white people on all sides has had more long term benefits for minorities in our society than going down to the “hood” and hanging with the “brothers” as Mr. West seems to advocate ever would. What “policy” could he implement that would compare to the lasting cultural legacy of his dignified example?

    The fundamental problem is the extreme left wing’s world view, including Dr. West’s — who in contradiction to the poised character of Obama seems like a raving madman — is in this underlying faith that power is the problem, and if you could just bring it down everything would be great. The world just doesn’t work that way, and every day Mr. West makes money giving speeches or enjoys his powerful position at Princeton — rather than living on minimum wage in the “hood” — he remains a walking contradiction. West is able to inspire change BECAUSE of his power. Likewise, society can inspire change because of our power too, if that power is harnessed, moved, and controlled in a way toward goodness and away from evil. That doesn’t happen from making war with it, it happens from working with it toward a common goal. That is what Obama is doing imho.

  7. RobThomas says:

    BuddhaClown,

    I agree with most of what you say, in regards to how things will really be changed in this country without a revolution. But your choice of words caught my attention. You’ve used the following terms to refer to the “far left”:

    “mad”, “cynical”, “angry”, “ugly”, “clueless”, “raving”.

    Those to me seem like terms that would come from a “black and white, hardened mind” themselves, would they not?

  8. buddhaclown says:

    RobThomas,

    Don’t be mislead by the tone of my words, the point I am trying to convey is what matters. Cornel West often talks about love and brotherhood, yet his message increasingly focuses us around fear and even hatred for the powerful. Repetition of particular words can often divert our attention so that a very different message can sneak in unopposed by the conscious mind.

    The far left has a role to play like everyone else, and they speak truths the larger society needs to hear and doesn’t always want to hear. But they increasingly seem to stray from talking about their values, to talking about revenge and their hatred for power establishments. They seem obsessed with how evil the world is at times, and it almost is getting to the point where it is taking on a religious tone, one in which they almost stand as the chosen few who understand things while the rest of the world — including “sellout” liberals like myself — remain stained in a kind of corruption or sin.

    And it is with this quasi-religious fervor that they sometimes seem to sound like they are insisting on their way or the highway, like George Bush (also religiously inspired), where there is no longer any negotiation or compromise or working together. When the position of a group is such that it inherently makes it impossible for it to work together with the rest of the society, then they are hardened and prone to the kind of black and white thinking I was speaking of. Black and white thinking lies not in the choice of words, or even the tone — it doesn’t lie in accusing someone of being clueless or ugly — but in the assumption of dogmatic truth, and that those who stray from such “truths” represent failures in some way. That is the religious narrative, the essence of mythological thinking, and the root of conservatism. It is the narrative the Tea Party has used to remove all voices of moderation from the Republican party, and it is sadly the same narrative Mr. West seems to be trying to use on the rest of us.

    It is not the same as simple disagreement. It is not the same as simple criticism. Accusing Obama of being a fake, a sellout, a deceiver, is not to say Obama went down a path one disagrees with, it is to say Obama “fell from the Truth”. That is the language of the fanatic. For the rational person, disagreement lies in the underlying assumption that we don’t have all the truths figured out, that there is always room to learn more, and that there are many shades of gray. For the true believer, anyone who does not believe as they do is a sinner.

    My issue with the extreme left is not that they may criticize Obama or use harsh language to describe his policies, nor is it in their fundamental premise that power is a problem, but in the quasi-religious way in which many seem to be attempting to model the violent anti-establishment Marxist liberal as the “true” voice of liberalism and because Obama is not of that type of liberal that he is somehow a “sellout”. That anyone, for that matter, who does not subscribe to a violent anti-power worldview is somehow not a true liberal. It reminds me of extremists in the Arab world accusing their fellow citizens of not being true Muslims for refusing to take up a life of violence. And, of course, Dr. West disguises the violent nature of his rhetoric by always talking about love and brotherhood, but when push comes to shove he is (or, at least, seems to be) saying the powerful are evil . . . and when you begin to accuse people of being evil you are walking a very thin line.

  9. “…if that power is harnessed, moved, and controlled in a way toward goodness and away from evil.” – So who defines what is good vs what is evil?

  10. Ruesnak says:

    West is absoloutely correct and no need to wast energy & time pressuring Sharpton whom is just waiting for money from he Democrats in the 2012 election.

  11. RobThomas says:

    Buddha Clown, maybe the reason why America has trouble reaching the liberalism of places like, say, Canada, is because the establishment liberals in America, like yourself, have absolutely no tolerance for the far left in your country, whereas in Canada, the establishment left doesn’t throw the hard left under the bus, sort how how you wouldn’t throw a family member under the bus around others. While the establishment left and the extreme left disagree, they stay united, sort of like how the moderate right and the extreme right have been united in this country since the ’60s. And notice they’ve been no strangers to the oval office since. Just a thought. All the best.

  12. RobThomas says:

    And, with all due respect, Buddha, I feel I do have to take note of your words, because they are the words of the same “black and white”, “hardened” minds of the far left or right that you’ve criticized. Since you’re not a far left liberal, and a moderate, I’m sure you’re familiar with this phrase: If it walks like a duck…quacks like a duck….

    I think your choice of words reveal a hardened, black and white mindset from the moderate left. And if close mindedness is the problem, then maybe you’ve got some skeletons in your own closet you need to deal with before lecturing others.

  13. buddhaclown says:

    RobThomas,

    You’re right, that is the nature of discourse, one is always a hypocrite the moment he/she opens his/her mouth. That is the essence of modern post-structuralism. One will always contradict themselves, just as you did when accusing the moderate left of throwing the extreme left under the bus and then proceeded to throw me under the bus.

  14. buddhaclown says:

    “…if that power is harnessed, moved, and controlled in a way toward goodness and away from evil.” – So who defines what is good vs what is evil?

    Who do you think?

  15. buddhaclown says:

    “Buddha Clown, maybe the reason why America has trouble reaching the liberalism of places like, say, Canada, is because the establishment liberals in America, like yourself, have absolutely no tolerance for the far left in your country, whereas in Canada, the establishment left doesn’t throw the hard left under the bus, sort how how you wouldn’t throw a family member under the bus around others. While the establishment left and the extreme left disagree, they stay united, sort of like how the moderate right and the extreme right have been united in this country since the ’60s. And notice they’ve been no strangers to the oval office since. Just a thought. All the best.”

    That is exactly right. George Bush won the presidency because the far left threw moderates lefts under the bus and voted for Nader instead of Gore . . . “they’re just the same” I believe was the phrase. Likewise, far left liberals turned against Obama and sure enough in the 2010 election the Right Wing had record breaking gains in the congress. I think you actually have things backward, the only reason moderate lefties like myself are turning on the far left is because we are sick and tired of being attacked and beat up by them.

    But, again, the problem is that the moderate liberal position is that of plenty, that when the poor do better the rich do better, and vice versa; whereas the extreme left position is that of scarcity, that the wealth of the poor must come at the expense of the rich, and vice versa. The two sides are agreed that elevation of the poor is a central goal, but are basically at odds about how to do that.

    The problem is that the extreme left, after the Bush administration, is so angry that they are more concerned with punishing the rich than they are with elevating the poor, as seen by the recent extension of the Bush era tax cuts in order to extend unemployment. Moderate lefties were glad to see unemployment extended, and thought the compromise was worth it, but far lefties actually preferred to have the poor suffer just to stick it to the rich.

  16. RobThomas says:

    George W. Bush “won” the 2000 election? You don’t sound much like an Al Gore supporter to me, considering what that poor man went through to get all of Florida’s votes counted. No self respecting supporter of Gore in 2000 would ever mutter the words “Bush won”, because he didn’t. “Bush won” are the words of a Republican. In fact, you only left out the words, “get over it”. LOL

    We both made our points, Buddha. Clearly neither of us are changing our position. Peace.

  17. HomeGirl says:

    Maybe black people need to get over this idea that as a black man Obama owes them sort of special allegiance. Fact, if you thought Barack had any intention of slowing down the war in Afghanistan you were smoking dope. Fact, we must make changes to social security or it will collapse. Social security privatization is not a bad thing. My only wish for Obama is that he stay true to his center politics. The far left viewed him as some sort of Messiah without ever realizing he was about as left of center as Bill Clinton.

  18. HomeGirl got it goin on…!

  19. RobThomas says:

    HomeGirl says:
    May 30, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    Fact, if you thought Barack had any intention of slowing down the war in Afghanistan you were smoking dope.

    ………….

    Guess just about every Republican in 2008 was smoking dope, then, because that was their biggest argument against Obama, that he would be weak on terror. Rudy Guiliani better keep his shit stashed with those NY Rockefeller laws.

  20. RobThomas says:

    In the age of Goldman Sachs, the privatization of anything is a bad thing, especially social security.

  21. Obama killed bin laden. Well done. Now, bring the troops home.

  22. buddhaclown says:

    “George W. Bush “won” the 2000 election? You don’t sound much like an Al Gore supporter to me, considering what that poor man went through to get all of Florida’s votes counted. No self respecting supporter of Gore in 2000 would ever mutter the words “Bush won”, because he didn’t. “Bush won” are the words of a Republican. In fact, you only left out the words, “get over it”. LOL”

    Yeah, and only a Tea Party Nutcase would base their politics on conspiracy theories. Right back at you man . . . “peace”.

  23. buddhaclown says:

    “Guess just about every Republican in 2008 was smoking dope, then, because that was their biggest argument against Obama, that he would be weak on terror. Rudy Guiliani better keep his shit stashed with those NY Rockefeller laws.”

    We all know Republicans live in a cloud of irrationality, dope smoking or not. What is sad is to see how similar the reasoning of the far left has become to republicans. I mean, you guys were in some fantasy land thinking Obama was the Messiah, and you are not one inch less in that same fantasy thinking he is now some sort of Satan. If you were so wrong then, what makes you think you’re so right now? You need to come back to reality.

  24. I’m pretty much to where I distance myself from both extremes (left/right). Obviously, I can’t get down with neo-cons, but a lot of these folks on the “professional left” aren’t any better. I guess this whole ordeal got summed up when I was reminded of West’s cameo in one of the Matrix movies (during AMC’s marathon)…indifferent!

  25. B_lo Tim says:

    Budhaclown,

    I consider myself to be extreme left based on your definition of the term. According to your posts above anyone who doesn’t pick team Dem or team Rep and follow blindly is an extremist. Anyone who thinks the Patriot act is unconstitutional is extremist, same goes for torture. If you voted for Obama because he clearly stated on the campaign trail that he would end the Bush tax cuts, close gitmo, and not renew the patriot act and now you’re pissed because he did none of those things then you’re an extremist. Just support the candidate and when he wins expect nothing or you’re an extremist.

    Oh and nice revisionist history on the 60s. I’m sure you flower power drop outs were about to change everything right before the big bad black panthers came and ruined it by actually demanding rights. You baby boomers are the worst generation ever. THE WORST.

  26. buddhaclown says:

    B_lo,

    If your definition of extreme left is anti-torture, anti-patriot act, anti-bush era tax cuts, anti-gitmo . . . then by that definition I am extreme left. So, no, that isn’t what I am talking about.

    What I’m talking about is the whining all-or-nothing shrill voice of the teenager that excuses itself as “authentic” left wing politics, that gets upset because it can’t have every tiny bit it wants, that Obama isn’t acting like a liberal George Bush, that he isn’t declaring himself the “decider” and shoving a left-wing agenda down everyone’s throats (interesting that that is precisely what the Right wing thinks he is doing). You guys make it sound like he could just wave a magic wand and everything we want would just happen, as if he is in some sort of dictatorial god-like position, as if he can just bring down power establishments that have existed for hundreds of years just because he won an election and is the “president”. Of course, if I thought he had that kind of power I would be disappointed like you. Perhaps you just don’t understand how the legislative process and democracy works . . .

    If you just focus on politics with an all or nothing mind you will always see nothing, because politics involves compromise, inherently so . . . at least in a Democracy. When was the last time the far left wasn’t complaining about politics . . . like, never? The glass is always half empty for you. So you are upset about extended Bush tax cuts, but he did so only in order to extend unemployment benefits because Obama cares more about the poor than he does about sticking it to the rich. You see the half empty. He has repeated made efforts to close Gitmo, and at every turn has met resistance, it is impossible to close Gitmo now politically . . . ; he ended water boarding and torture — but I suppose that wasn’t enough for you because you consider Bradley Manning’s incarceration torture and until we hang George W. Bush just out of our heated need for revenge none of this will be official! And if you are actually pro-black panther, then perhaps it is a good thing we have the patriot act to protect us after all! And of course, let us ignore health care reform, which because it helps the private insurers you considers worthless, even though the net result as far as working and poor folk goes is exactly the same as it would be under a public option. And who cares about ending “don’t ask don’t tell”, too little too late, right?

    And, no, I’m not a baby-boomer, but it is good to see you throw the greatest liberal generation history has ever known — the generation that gave us civil rights and women’s rights — under the bus.

  27. RobThomas says:

    Ha ha! A conspiracy theory. Did the supreme court throw out a Florida recount, or not? I have not met one Al Gore supporter yet who chalks up Gore’s recount efforts to a “conspiracy theory”. You’re definitely not a far left liberal, Bhuddaclown. You’re a right wing Republican. I’m only sorry to have taken your bait. As your man George W. Bush would say, “fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on me…shame on you…but you get my point!”

  28. RobThomas says:

    More open mindedness from our resident well mannered moderate, who’s here to lecture us on our stubborn ways. Here are his descriptions of the “far left” liberal in his recent comment:

    “whining”

    “shrill”

    “teenager”

    “don’t understand how democracy works” (ha ha! Thanks, Ben Franklin)

    …..

    Anyone else notice that he embodies these characteristics as much as anyone? I mean, the Black Panthers should be thankful for the Patriot Act? Really? Now that’s a clear understanding of how Democracy works, isn’t it? lmao.

  29. buddhaclown says:

    I never said I was a far left liberal. But you see, that is the problem, for you anyone other than a far left liberal is automatically a republican. No wonder you hate Obama! Anyone who is a moderate liberal must be a republican in disguise, right!! Please.

    I get the feeling you didn’t even follow the 2000 election. Gore was considered a “moderate” back in those days, left wing liberals hated him, Micheal Moore declared he regretted ever voting for him and Clinton, and Nader split the vote by championing a more liberal Green party and declaring that Gore and Bush were essentially the same. Even moderate liberals were apathetic about Gore. It disgusted me then, and it disgusts me now even more seeing you twist the history this way, calling me a republican when I was a huge Gore supporter. The election would never have been close enough for the republicans to even get a chance at manipulating the florida count if not for the left wings constant undermining of Gore’s campaign — who, of course, they blamed for losing the election because he ran on too centrist a platform.

    The fact is, I’m well aware of the ugly ways the republicans manipulated that election. But you move into the realm of conspiracy when you talk about the election being rigged from the start. I hate to tell you this, but in American politics below the belt tactics are used, on both sides. Thankfully it is rare that a race is so close that these tactics matter. Below the belt tactics does not equal a rigged election. The fact is, the thousands of votes they were able to pervert paled in comparison to the millions of votes far lefties wasted on Nader, not to mention the apathy they created for Gore through their constant rhetoric that he and Bush were “just the same”. Of course they love this conspiracy that Bush rigged the election, it frees them from the responsibility that THEY elected George W. Bush by undermining Gore at every turn, just like they helped to do with the Dems in 2010.

    And aren’t you Canadian? WTF dude.

  30. buddhaclown says:

    “whining”

    “shrill”

    “teenager”

    “don’t understand how democracy works” (ha ha! Thanks, Ben Franklin)

    Anyone else notice that he embodies these characteristics as much as anyone? I mean, the Black Panthers should be thankful for the Patriot Act? Really? Now that’s a clear understanding of how Democracy works, isn’t it? lmao.

    ================

    All you are doing in this post is insulting me personally.

  31. buddhaclown says:

    In fact, that is all you have been doing, insulting me. Do you actually have anything to contribute?

  32. RobThomas says:

    “The election would never have been close enough for the republicans to even get a chance at manipulating the florida count”

    So you are now open to this “conspiracy theory’ as you called it earlier. First you say it didn’t happen, now you’re saying it doesn’t even matter if it did. You’ve got one part of your screen name right: Clown. Yes, that’s an insult. You’re a very rude person, and you’re completely full of shit. I call it fighting fire with fire.

  33. buddhaclown says:

    Ugh. Thanks, that was the push I needed to wake me up from the nightmare of this conversation. You are right, that is why the “clown” is there! You got it! But ranting away to a lone dude on the internet who doesn’t want to hear anything you are saying is quite the experience! I don’t recommend it. You warned me earlier that we should just go our separate ways, fair enough. Peace.

    ps

    Everybody knows the Florida count was manipulated . . . come on dude. Think a little outside the box! Be well.

  34. RobThomas says:

    Oh, now “everyone knows” all of the votes weren’t counted.

    First it was a conspiracy theory, then it didn’t matter because Gore should have won in a landslide, now it’s common knowledge! Can’t wait to see what you’ll come up with next, clown.

  35. B_lo Tim says:

    Repealing don’t ask don’t tell was easy as it had zero affect on wall street where Obama gets his marching orders. So yeah it was good but not politically risky in the least. Any voter that hates gays is never voting for a democrat anyway. Personally I think it’s the worst civil rights victory ever. “Yay now gay people can kill for America to, Aren’t we fair?”

    His Healthcare plan doesn’t kick in until 2014 save for a couple parts of it. Talk to me in 3 years. If the right hasn’t completely dismantled or unfunded it by then I will buy you a beer.

    He tried once to close gitmo and did so without making his case. He allowed the media to frame it as if the prisoners there would be set free in the middle of kansas then backed off.

    He didn’t end torture he has simply stated that his administration wouldn’t do it. By not punishing the people who committed these crimes and framing torture as a “policy difference” as opposed to a crime he has left the door open to any future administration to start it up again. Obama says he doesn’t want to look back, unless you’re democrat John Edwards who Obama’s AG indicted this morning. See Obama loves beating up on his own to show how tough he is.

    I do know a bit about the legislative process. I know that there’s a thing known as the “Bully Pulpit” that a president has at his disposal to make his case to the people. I know he can support or not support elected officials when they run for re election based on their support of his policies. I also know that when you are negotiating with the other party you do not make all your compromises before you enter the debate since you will have to give away even more in the process. These are all tools in the presidential tool box and Obama has yet to use any of them against his political opponents, he reserves the tough stuff for his own party when they get too liberal for his wall street base. I don’t want him to be Bush but I think it’s fair to expect better than Jimmy Carter.

    Baby Boomers the most liberal? So defeating fascism, the new deal, GI college fund, setting aside millions of acres in protected federal parks, establishing Medicaid, Medicare, social security. those don’t make the baby boomer’s parents the most liberal? It wasn’t the baby boomers in congress when civil rights became law, again it was the previous generation doing that while the baby boomers were smoking their crappy weed on college campuses. When they did grow up and enter the real world they proceeded to destroy everything that was given to them. Let’s look at the leaders that came out of the baby boomers : Clinton, Bush, Obama, Newt Gingrich, Carl Rove. All of them wholly owned by corporate america and not .000001% as liberal as FDR in fact they’re all right of Nixon and Reagan on many issues.

    The 1900’s were also way more liberal, establishing unions, ending child labor, 40 hour work week, weekends, NAACP, Woman’s suffrage etc.

  36. RobThomas says:

    Great post, B lo Tim. About compromising…that’s one thing I always say to establishment Dems (like the clown up there is pretending to be, although we know now he’s just a run of the mill right winger here to bait people), it’s not compromise unless THE OTHER SIDE is giving something up as well. We’ll stop firing our bombs if you stop firing yours. That is a compromise. When one side ceases fire, while the other side continues to fire away, well, that’s not a compromise. That’s a surrender. And that’s all Obama’s done in the past couple of years. He’s not compromising. He’s allowing Republicans to walk all over him.

  37. Cornel West is another example of someone who is locked into an enclave of self feeding rhetoric at the expense of real productivity. If you want to do something radical, the next time a politician or bottle talker like Corney West stands up at a rally, hold up a big sign that says.

    “Shut up & go build something you pussy”

    And if you do that, please put it on Youtube so at least we can get a laugh out of all this absurd nonsense.

    Because that’s all these people are increasingly becoming useful for.

  38. RobThomas says:

    Yeah, and nothing says productivity like disrupting speeches and holding up signs with the word “pussy” on them.

  39. You made a great observance. I wasn’t planning on that one. You got me!

  40. I am writing my sign right now.. i’ll be at the next Nancy Pelosi speech!

  41. Cornel West seems more like a character in a Cheech and Chong movie than a legitimate “professor”.

  42. RealTalk says:

    Wake up! Duality is an illusion to keep you talking at each other and not looking up at the monsters that pull puppet Obama’s strings, and every other president.. Just look at his appointees. Dem vs Rep, Black vs White, its all BS! Obama doesnt care about you, just like Bush. They are funded by the same elite scum. Go look it up and stop snipping at each other over fake as arguments only meant to keep you looking down and not looking up. Peace

Trackbacks

  1. […] Cornel West, Liberal Sellouts and Critiques Agst President Obama (hiphopandpolitics.wordpress.com) […]