Free Markets, Free People

Breakin’ up is hard to do

Why are the Netroots so angry?  They won, right?

John Aravosis, another panelist, who blogs about gay-rights issues on AMERICAblog, reminisced about the heady early days of the left’s relationship with Obama.

"I honest to God thought I was voting for these guys and that it was going to be the first time in my lifetime that I’m finally in a position of power, where I could be working with the White House on a regular basis, saying, ‘OK what could we do this year on gay stuff?’ Wouldn’t it be cool, oh, ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell,’ this is great.’ "

But panelists agreed that it hasn’t turned out so well for progressives on overhauling health care or financial systems or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and a host of other issues.

Interesting – the naiveté evident is, well, not surprising.  These folks apparently actually believed they’d have both access and impact.

But it seems the “gay stuff” has been the bell weather issue to prove both of those assumptions wrong.   And, of course, there’s Iraq, Afghanistan, the environment, Gitmo, – in fact just about everything.

So what does that all mean?  Well let’s contrast it a bit with RightOnLine going on concurrently in the same city.  Motivated, enthusiastic, optimistic along with record attendance.  The difference in the “enthusiasm gap” is evident.  Jane Hamsher:

This is the time when Barack Obama has to care. This is the time when he needs your vote. So don’t give yourself away cheaply. Ask for what you need and what the country needs and this is the time to do it.

That reminds me of some on the right when John McCain was running.  It doesn’t sound like a very confident or enthusiastic group does it?

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

12 Responses to Breakin’ up is hard to do

  • Collectivists LIVE for their delusions.  Obama was the Delusional Dream-boat.
    Consider the pwning given them in the last few days…

    Punked by the Margaret Thatcher “thinks Palin is crazy” story
    Punked by the Lesbian Muslim blogger in the ME
    Punked by Obama on the War Powers Act

    ANNNNND, they just keep backing up for more.

  • Agreed, Bruce. And I’m guilty of building these guys up as much as the next person. If you follow politics, by the time you reach “a certain age” you should have learned that these guys always disappoint. And mostly it’s because we allow ourselves to build up unreasonable expectations of what is possible. The more I think about this, the more I conclude that it’s not about policy per se, but about principles. One reason Reagan has become so loved is because he hewed, for the most part, to a set of simple principles that proved out. Whoever said it, was it William Safire, the fox knows many things and the hedghog just a few. Wouldn’t you agree that most effective Presidents are hedgehogs?
    Ideology is practiced in the ether. Politics, governance is practiced among humans and institutions. Effective Presidents draw broad visions and govern/legislate within the nitty gritty of day to day. This President comes across as a super smart fox. But nearly everything he touches turns to dross. Why?
    We all know deep down that the true believers will trudge to the polls and vote for their clay footed hero. Probably with the same resignation as the Tommys on the Somme. Our best hope is voters will be mindful of the balance between results and promises.
    I predict a robust market for speeches, articles and books about “Why Barrack Obama Didn’t Win a Second Term”.

    • One of the MANY reasons I think Barry is not as bright as advertised is his LOVE of self-heightened expectations.  “Lowering the FLUCKING seas”…!!!???!!!
      HAD he a real, functioning, NON-pathological brain, he would have taken the OPPOSITE tack.  But, instead, we were exposed to the Greek temple of arch delusion.

  • Hope springs eternal, but reality bites.

  • Anyone, gay or straight, with less than a couple mil to donate probably won’t get far with in-office Dems (or Republicans, for that matter).
     
    The gay rights brigade’s plaints noted here sound a lot like what Latinos are saying. They want payback for their support, and they’re not getting it. One can only hope that people with views this execrable stay home in 2012.

  • This is the time when Barack Obama has to care. This is the time when he needs your vote. So don’t give yourself away cheaply. Ask for what you need and what the country needs and this is the time to do it.

    >>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    They’ll get nothing and like it, because Obama knows they’re not going to EVER vote Republican.  And they won’t stay home and allow a Republican to win either.  They prostituted themselves for nothing. 

    I never want to hear the Gay-Marriage crew EVER talk bad about Republicans.  Obama’s deomcrats had a filibuster-proof majority for over a year and nothing was done.

  • The memo will come out that The Big0 did not get everything done because he had to get re-elected. After he is re-elected he can do all the things that he feels like as he will not be able to run again (lame duck). I half-way agree with this. If he is re-elected we will see his true fascist self come jumping thru, we haven’t seen anything yet.

  • I am all about A,BO … (absolutely) “Anyone, but O.” That Pithy comment should become a bumper-sticker statement. Palin said that in her last tete a tete with the Judge over on Fox.
     
    That said, I am woefully concerned about the “mainstream” republicans who asked questions during Monday’s Q and A. They are thinking squarely within the box. There is a very real chance there will be a republican majority in both chambers thanks to the Tea Party Movement and I don’t see the RNC or any of the traditional republicans attempting to think that big. It is as though they suffer from a viral case of “incumbentitis.”
     
    Can anyone imagine a Bachmann/Palin or Perry/Bachmann ticket? Can Mitt not inevitably become “be-Doled?” The herd needs to be culled quickly.
     
    I think there is a theme emerging that combines success with family and the first one to jump on that, wins.
     
    No amount of gayness in money giving is going to compete with that theme after all of the years wherein they used the confrontational “politics of divisiveness” with such ruthless glee.
    O will put them under the bus so fast, it won’t even hurt.
     

  • At some point the ‘progressives’ will have to realize that government is not their friend.  It’ll be life changing when it happens.  If it doesn’t happen then they’ll continue to be disappointed.

  • Its too bad the GOP couldn’t run a slightly pro-gay candidate…just to give these guys a choice. How about Cheney? LOL.
    Cheney vs. Obama, and the gays would have to consider Cheney! (Their current excuse is “but who else would you vote for, Michelle Bachman? Rick Santorum?”
    That’s it! Cheney for President.

  • The Netroots will never be happy because what they want is more unreality, and then still more. They want, also, to have American values transvalued as a way of redistributing morality and to see it enshrined in the public orthodoxy.

    I consider the Netroots to be the candy-ass Left, the rah-rah vicious crowd who show up to screech at this or that event or march; they should be differentiated from the weanie-man Left, who are much duller but as easily confused.

    The hard Left are in the vanguard that the candy-ass and weinie-man factions follow, but they follow at a considerable distance. The hard Left is directed to its positions by the authentic commies, those who think their thoughts in Marxist terms. You can see how concepts of class struggle continuously seep down from them to the lower regions, where they get entwined with popular culture, which arranges for imbeciles like Sean Penn to be perceived as deep thinkers.

    My argument is that Obama is an authentic orthodox Marxist and that you underestimate him at your peril. The competency question is answered simply enough: he is uninterested in being judged by bourgeois principles. It’s as simple as that. He sees markets, for instance, as servants of the revolution, which in turn serves mankind. Any notion that markets serve “the people” directly is bourgeois ideology. Obama does not think his thoughts in terms of bourgeois ideology. He is a Karl Marx, Franz Fanon, Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright anti-capitalis, anti-American socialist. And this is not a condition that is defined by his half-formed, semi-conscious inclinations. This is a condition to which he has been trained and has trained himself. It is deliberate and formal. It is intentional and precise.

    Barack Obama has laid in enough damage to the American economy to last a generation; he came into a situation in which there was already considerable structural damage and weakness and he endeavored to make that worse, and has succeeded. He is not interested in prosperity; he is interested in ruin and dependency, and has struck repeated blows to assure that the  ruin cannot be repaired from the entrepreneurial capitalist paradigm.

    He played to get maximum damage in before the next election, in case he was not re-elected. But he will do everything he can to be re-elected because that would represent to him a humiliated America submitting to him.

    He is worse than anything his worst critics imagine, and as I’ve characterized him for a good long time, a character out of novel that Orwell did not live to write.