Skip to main content

View Diary: I Apologize, Profoundly. Update, a Thank You (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Commentators have been telling (31+ / 0-)

    Presidents what to say in their speeches since there have been commentators and presidents.

    Olberman didn't tell Bush what he should say because Bush was in the other party. Republican commentators had no problem saying, "What the President needs to say/do is this".

    It's bizarre, almost incredible, that you're unfamiliar with this rhetorical device.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:28:20 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Really (13+ / 0-)

      Criticism of the president is not always driven by racism. BenderRodgriguez fell into the same trap as Liberal Granny.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:40:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A citizen telling a President what he should say (19+ / 0-)

        or do is a feature, not a bug, of living in a Republic, not a monarchy.

        (Of course, people have been saying what kings should say/do since there have been kings, but they were more circumspect about who was in earshot when doing so)

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:59:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I am very glad LG is back, and accept her apology (4+ / 0-)

        heartily, but her position was in fact wrong.

        I ordinarily would never post this in an apology diary, but seems some folks have re-opened the original argument, so I'm going to state my position.

        I criticized Bill Clinton quite as much as I have criticized Obama.  This is not about race. This is about people who care most about electing Democrats vs people who care most about changing policy.  Everybody falls at a different point on that spectrum, and everybody draws the line at a different place.

        For me, the line gets drawn by my understanding of the political process we're in--a really ugly one that is taking us to the right--and my belief that it will never end unless someone challenges it and ends it.  And I figured that out with Kathy Hochul and Medicare, when the discourse on Medicare moved to the right, to a pro-cuts position, regardless of what happened in NY-26, to say nothing of the nationwide polls on Medicare, which show enormous popular support. None of that mattered.  The process continued rightward.  The process always continues rightward.  It wavered a bit and shifted, at least in terms of lip-service, leftward, during and after the height of the Occupy movement.  In other words, someone challenged it loudly, and it fell back a little.

        Unless someone really fights, the process will continue and we will move further to the right. And it's not a matter of accepting one policy shift on one issue.  It's a matter of accepting a continuous trek to the right on every issue involving money. Dealing with that, ultimately, is more important to me than electing Democrats.  For many, that's not so.  God bless 'em, I think many if not most of them are doing what they think is right and best for the country.  From where I stand, it's not.

        That's all.

        Being ignored is the difference between being a one percenter and an American.--sweeper

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue May 22, 2012 at 03:44:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  same here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TiaRachel

          I got so fed up with Clinton that in '96 I wouldn't vote for him - I voted for Nader! This after being thrilled with the '92 victory.

          He continues to disappoint - witness his attendance at a Pete Peterson cut social security thing, telling environmentalists to "chill," etc.

          sometimes he can be OK, but in general he exemplifies everything wrong with the Democrats.

          The idea that progressives only criticize Obama and never Clinton is simply not true.

          An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

          by mightymouse on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:27:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Actually KO (12+ / 0-)

      may not have told Bush what to say but he refuted and mocked most of what Bush did say. He was the one voice in a dark time who had the guts to publicly undress the emperor.  It's a democracy folks and no pol is above criticism, in fact it is healthy. When we get to a point where the lauding or criticism of an elected official by both sides is more important then policy and agenda we end up with dueling  propagandist's rather then any meaningful political discourse.      

      •  Telling a public official what to do and say (6+ / 0-)

        is merely a function that public officials are, collectively, our employees.

        Bender's statement is simply bizarrely amnesiac, but it's not unique.

        For example, a while back, it was claimed on DKos (I can't remember by whom) that the phrase "public servant" was racist when applied to Obama, because it evoked slavery, and the person claiming this also claimed to have never heard the phrase "public servant" before. Seriously?

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Tue May 22, 2012 at 09:10:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site