The Lies of "Conservatism" and the "Center" are Immoral

By GottaLaff

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash, brought to you by Mark Karlin:

The modern "conservative" movement is nothing more than a massively funded and highly effective communications strategy to shift America into an oligarchy that functions for the super wealthy through tax cuts and for corporations through the elimination of safety regulations for the public good and the privatization of government.

That's not conservatism; that's highway robbery. It's a crime.

All this came about through the organized strategy and financing of wealthy financiers and corporations to build a network of think tanks, media-owned outlets, reporters toting the oligarchy line on the "benefits" of unrestrained "free trade," public relations initiatives, and front organizations to move America from an evolutionary society relying on the strength of innovation and a dynamic educated middle class to a relatively static society in which those at the top are in a members-only club growing obese with wealth while kicking others down from the ladder to the top and demanding tithes from them.

The most vital cudgel used to achieve this economic and social imbalance that stultifies the American nation and is immoral to its founding principles is the notion of "centrism." It is beat into us by Republican and Democratic politicians (Rahm Emanuel and the White House being current exemplars), the corporate mainstream media, and, of course, the relentlessly effective GOP echo chamber.

What is "centrism" other than an artificial metaphor, given that America is confronting so many issues and that the vast majority of society wants to move forward, not backward. What most Americans want is not static "centrism," but movement ahead. [...]

After all, so called "Conservatism" is the opposite of progress. [...]

America prided itself on breaking away from the fixed and stultifying inherited upper class rule of Europe, only now to have an interest group with such massive amounts of funds to create a "natural order" of winners and losers; in essence, to reverse the American Revolution.

That's not "centrist" or "conservative"; it is immoral, even treasonous.

[...]

The created fiction of the "center" is used as an excuse for inaction on behalf of America's obscenely wealthy interests.

Much more here.

President Cool: Where Clinton Turned Right, Obama Plowed Ahead

By GottaLaff

President Cool is using that unruffled demeanor to his advantage again... hopefully. Or as Barbie McCan'tDressMyself would say, President O'Cool:

[President Clinton's] move to the middle — arguably more rhetoric than reality — stopped Newt Gingrich’s Republican Revolution in its tracks. So why did President Barack Obama go a different route on Wednesday night, giving little ground and declaring that the problem was not his agenda but a deficit of trust in government and of pragmatism? If there was a defining line in Mr. Obama’s speech, it might have been “Let’s try common sense,” to which he ad-libbed, “a novel concept.” [...]

In the 2008 campaign, the Obama style was to ignore the passions of the moment. It has become the lore of the Obama White House that its candidate won by not letting hyperventilation on cable television, or predictions of impending political doom, drive his tactics, much less his strategy. In that telling of events, Mr. Obama’s coolness, even his seeming detachment, became a political virtue. [...]

In short, his message was that his agenda remains unchanged; only the timing is uncertain. That is the difference between the Clinton approach in 1996 and the Obama approach in 2010. Mr. Clinton clearly felt that he needed to get ahead of the political passions of the moment. Mr. Obama, rightly or wrongly, still is acting like he can control them.

Please read the whole thing here. Those were just nibbles.

Obama has always been a centrist, despite rumors to the contrary. He's proved that over and over again, and I'm not quite sure where the liberal label came from. I've posted about that many a time.

As for being Not Clinton, let's hope he doesn't veer right, because then I'd lose what's left of my own cool.

Lindsey Graham: Obama not "socialist" or "Muslim", he’s "an American liberal"

By GottaLaff

Lindsey Graham has confirmed it: President Obama is an American. Ding! Put away those lawsuits, Birthers!

He goes on to say that the president is also a "liberal". Buzz! Wrong! If he were a "liberal", he'd have me agreeing with him more often:

In an interview with The Greenville News yesterday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he “would say no” if someone asked him if Obama was a socialist:

Graham was quick to debunk accusations from some people that Obama is a socialist and not a U.S. citizen.

He saw the question coming a few words into it and responded: “If you asked me if the president of the United States is a socialist, I would say no. I think he’s an American liberal, that’s what I think he is. You know, Ted Kennedy was an American liberal, but we found ways to work together.” [...]

“I am not going to give into sentiments that I think degrade the office of the president and that degrade the debate and the culture of our country,” he said. “So if you come up to me calling the president a socialist, a Muslim, you’re talking to the wrong guy.”

That's okay, Linds, you degrade the office in other ways. Your reputation's still intact.

Obama puts pragmatism over promises

By GottaLaff

If you didn't already know that President Obama tends to be more of a centrist than a liberal, or if you didn't expect it, then you most likely haven't been paying attention. I'm surprised at the surprise of so many who believed that President Obama was a die-hard lefty. He never presented himself that way, as I've said in previous posts, and he has always maintained that he'd try to meet the other side halfway. That doesn't sound all that ultra-lib to me.

This article in the L.A. Times discusses his "flip flops":

Unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush, who styled himself as "the Decider" and took pride in sticking with decisions come what might, Obama is emerging as a leader so committed to pragmatism that he will move to a new position with barely a shrug.

Whether it's a long-standing campaign promise or a recent Oval Office decision, Obama has shown a willingness to reverse himself and even anger his most liberal supporters if he can advance a higher-priority goal or avoid what he sees as a distracting controversy.

William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former advisor to President Clinton:

"If he's basically faithful to the agenda he ran on, the reversals -- such as they are -- are going to be seen as tolerable exceptions rather than as leading indicators," he said. "If you are a single-issue person, what the president says in regard to your issue may be a bitter disappointment."

Now about those 180s:

The recent shifts appear to be part of a pattern of starting in a liberal position and then rerouting toward the center.

Surprise! (Only if you hadn't been paying attention for the past two years)

Though for the most part liberals have held their fire, the last week's events raise the question of how long they will tolerate the pattern. [...]

As the House debated war funding last week, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) compared his position to when, after being elected to the House as an antiwar candidate in 1969, he initially gave President Nixon's war policy the benefit of the doubt.

"I decided to give him a year. I'm pretty much in the same position," Obey said. "We have no choice but to give the president a shot. It's a miserable situation that he's inherited, and he does not have a good hand to play."

For those of us who are disappointed in some of his decisions, keep in mind that the alternative would have been much worse. Obama won the nomination. It was down to him or ::shudder:: McCain/Palin. He is light years better, smarter, wiser, and way leftier than they ever would have been.

When we disagree strongly enough with his positions, then we should make sure we are heard. Call or write your representatives, notify the White House web site, email letters to the editors of your local newspapers. But while whining and stomping our collective feet is a great release, it won't move those proverbial mountains. Only being pro-active will.

And if there is one thing we have learned, it's that President Obama is a very good listener.