Skip to main content

Nothing the repugs say publically about President Obama is legitimate criticism (nor based in reality for that matter). From that you can largely conclude that almost no mainstream or corporate media criticism of the President is legitimate or based in reality, as opposed to being repug propaganda, frames and talking points.

Combined with the sorry fact that large numbers of our population treat corporate media outlets as legitimate sources of information, this can have a negative effect on citizens’ perception, especially in concert with pre-existing prejudices (which are deliberately encouraged). Dishonest negative ads must be considered a part of this illegitimacy, as should the business practices of parties who profit by selling airtime without regard for truthfulness and against the public interest. This type of criticism should be called out as the false, destructive and self-serving force that it is.

Legitimate criticism - from the left - for instance, of things like the executive death list, the persecution of whistleblowers, selling out on the public option, letting banksters off the hook with the “mortgage settlement”, continuing or expanding the NSA spying operation, escalating a useless war, buying into the austerity frame, etc. etc., won’t be found in the corporate media as those are topics that are simply not discussed in any kind of truthful way. They don’t fit with the narrative. These topics are nonetheless of extreme importance and the implications affect us all (as does the absense of truthful discussion in the public sphere).

The only place to find that truthful discussion is here at DKOS or Chomsky.info or on Democracy NOW – places, that is, that are frequented by people on the left, and that aren’t subject to the corporate filter.

Further, the realistic and probing discussion of these issues is required as an integral part of our duty as an informed citizenry. I believe liberal/progressive policies, morals, and ideas should withstand or reply to criticism, unlike conservative policies, morals, and ideas, which wither before criticism and thus must be shielded by friendly and compliant media outlets with no interest in truthful discussion.

Conservatives must shout down criticism because their ideas won’t withstand scrutiny. I don’t welcome such a concept on the left. If policies and ideas won’t withstand scrutiny, perhaps one’s support should be reconsidered.

This in no way advocates for voting for repugs or against President Obama, whom I support. But it does advocate for dragging the whole dialog closer to rather than further from the truth.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (16+ / 0-)

    when I see a republican on tv, I always think of Monty Python: "Shut your festering gob you tit! Your type makes me puke!"

    by bunsk on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 12:30:46 PM PDT

  •  well...as they say....perhaps on Nov. 7th (5+ / 0-)

    and then it will be another pointless exercise as the reality is the meanest SOBs take power and do whatever they feel they must to keep that power.

    •  This is exactly the thing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shahryar

      When? I mean when is it allowed to question? Should I wait until the seventh or am I allowed to criticize and complain at will?

      Heh

      There are no sacred cows.

      by LaEscapee on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 06:51:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  we can tell the truth now (5+ / 0-)

        but it won't do any good. I'm reconsidering the whole thing. We heard Candidate Obama use the "Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results" line, seen him then do the same #$^$& thing, given him credit for being smart so that we believe he does these things deliberately because he wants those results...

        and it makes me ponder what we do. We have no real effect on policy. We've called out the President whenever he's done something terrible. That's proven pointless. So, not wanting to be crazy, I'll have to try something else.

        And obviously proclaiming "I love Big Brother!" won't work. Much as I want to see a better world I just don't think it'll happen until society falls apart, if it ever does.

        Assuming this is it, what you see is what you get, forever and ever, I want to create my own world, my little slice of subculture, with like-minded people. Eventually I'm sure that will be outlawed too!

  •  Very cogent (8+ / 0-)

    and well stated argument.

    As they say, if not now when.

    There are no sacred cows.

    by LaEscapee on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 01:41:01 PM PDT

    •  and if not here, where? (7+ / 0-)

      when I see a republican on tv, I always think of Monty Python: "Shut your festering gob you tit! Your type makes me puke!"

      by bunsk on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 01:41:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well there are a few spaces (7+ / 0-)

        though as you point out they have become fewer and farther between.

        It's tough in an election year especially because there are so many well meaning folks that believe that discussing anything that might shine a bad light on ourselves is nothing more than defeatist. I for one do not believe this, I think that pointing out the why and possible remedies for the feeling of angst expressed by so many faithful Democratic supporters is the way forward to both a better party and world in general.

        Of course from the outside it's very simple to see that once again the party has fallen into the "circle the wagons" mode and not understand how supposed intelligent people can't understand that people will support a loser who fights jst for the willingness to fight. It should become obvious at some point that sooner or later those people you depend on will eventually get wise to the game and it takes action to retain the support that they are so willing to give.

        There are no sacred cows.

        by LaEscapee on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 01:55:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  thank you for being thoughtful... (7+ / 0-)

    and incisive.

    tipped and recommended accordingly.

  •  Yes, do we have any policy principles or not? (8+ / 0-)

    If we won't speak out for our principles because someone might look bad for betraying them, I don't think we really have any.

    That's mistaking a tactic for a goal - the goal [I think] is better, more humane, policies, hopefully a better world for everyone, not just following some Dear Leader?  Right?  Is this a democracy or is it not?

    Even pragmatically, by not speaking out, whoever it offends, we leave a vacuum in the public square where our principles and goals should be.  All that's left for people to hear is the Radical Right, then, and everybody moves a step in that direction.  Who can blame them if we won't speak up?

  •  I would like to point out (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, FG, TLS66

    that it is one thing to criticize the actions and even protest the actions of a leader. Obviously those are the right and indeed the duty of all citizens.

    However it is entirely another matter to ascribe nefarious motives, low character, cowardice, sloth, and ignorance to a leader just because he doesn't single-handedly accomplish every single thing that you want.

    I have seen all of these slurs applied to President Obama on these pages, all under the pretense of

    legitimate criticism..... from the left
    When criticism is blended with insults and questions of morality and character, it is hardly correct to refer to it as "legitimate".

    I presume the author agrees....

    OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

    by hillbrook green on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 03:30:10 PM PDT

    •  That's pretty much life. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bunsk, LaEscapee, Nada Lemming, wsexson, chipmo

      You see someone act out, do this or that, family member, friend, associate, acquaintance, even a politician, you see what they say, you see their actions, whether they back up what they say or not, and yeah, people do make judgments on people's character.  Politicians are no exception.

      Granted, no one can ever know what is is someone else's mind -- one can only judge what they see.

      •  well, it's also pretty much life (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wildthumb, for 6 too

        to give the benefit of the doubt to the people on your side and to ascribe evil intent and bad morality to someone who isn't on your side.

        Obviously, there is a disagreement around here about who are our friends and who are our enemies....

        OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

        by hillbrook green on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 04:46:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly. And I'm on YOUR side on this. (0+ / 0-)

          I was seeing what Adam had seen on the morning of his creation - the miracle, moment by moment, of naked existence. --The Doors of Perception, Aldous Huxley

          by Wildthumb on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 04:52:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  it is the "you're either with us or against us" (5+ / 0-)

          mentality that's driving the wedge in the democratic party...not the fact that there are people who place principle and the party platform over individuals and their ideology/ies (especially when said ideology is counter to the aforementioned ideals as espoused in the democratic party platform).

          •  Easy now (5+ / 0-)

            they waved at teh gays because they needed the vote, they waved at teh Latinos because they needed the vote, what they can't do is wave at the anti war crowd. Hard to blame something on the other guy when you're worse.

            There are no sacred cows.

            by LaEscapee on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 05:34:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  slight correction: (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LaEscapee, Nada Lemming, for 6 too, chipmo
              they waved at teh gays because they needed the vote cash.
              the glbt vote is pretty much a foregone conclusion (for the most part)...the administration just wanted to repair the gAyTM enough to be able to kick the necessary cash out of it.

              "evolution" we can believe in...

              •   forgone conclusion as is the left vote (5+ / 0-)

                when I see a republican on tv, I always think of Monty Python: "Shut your festering gob you tit! Your type makes me puke!"

                by bunsk on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 07:07:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I do not agree that the lgbt vote is a given for (0+ / 0-)

                Democrats. There are many gay people who would happily vote for moderate Republicans because many of them are small business owners. They felt ignored and bad treated by the administration, both symbolically (Rick Warren) and practically (The Presidents "evolution" on gay marriage and the appointment of Jim Messina as a contact person to the lgbt community.)

                The attitude was one of supporting local candidates of both parties  who support you on your issues and ignoring national fund raising. And the previous attitude of the HRC seemingly only being interested in cocktail party invites caused many gay people to lose hope that Democrats actually cared about issues of equality.

                And articles and comments on this web site like we need to do the important stuff first like health care and the economy were often worded in such a way as to make gay people feel like 2nd class citizens. So they withdrew their financial support.

                This began to change with a change of leadership at HRC and an effort to address lgbt issues from the administration. I do not care why the administration shifted but I am glad it did. And it proved that you can not take any groups support for granted in the Democratic Party.  

        •  I don't agree with this: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bunsk, Garrett, zedaker
          Obviously, there is a disagreement around here about who are our friends and who are our enemies....
          It's not black and white.

          Because someone doesn't fight for something that's important to someone else does not make that person an enemy.  There are gradations between friends and enemy.

          •  well, that was my point. (0+ / 0-)

            Many, many times I have seen people describe a leader, such as President Obama, as an enemy because of his level of support, or lack of support, for a particular position held dear by the person doing the complaining.

            It is not black and white. Difficult choices have to be made when you realize that "my way or the highway" is not going to work, that compromise is a necessity not an act of cowardice, that even your own supporters have a wide range of views on particular subjects.

            It would be very convenient if it were black and white but it isn't.

            And I agree that there are gradations between friend and enemy.

            My point is that some people around here think there are only two choices, friend or enemy, to describe people like Nancy Pelosi and President Obama (to use a couple of recent diaries as examples).

            OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

            by hillbrook green on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:59:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  No, it's not. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nada Lemming, zedaker, chipmo
          well, it's also pretty much life to give the benefit of the doubt to the people on your side . . .
          That's hypocrisy and cowardice.

          The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

          by Orange County Liberal on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 06:03:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So it is hypocrisy and cowardice (0+ / 0-)

            to admit that there can be a difference of opinion without resorting to name-calling?

            That is what the discussion was about: whether it is possible to disagree on some point with people on your side without calling them names. Do you call your friends names when you disagree with them?

            Do you mean that you can't make an argument or make a criticism without resorting to accusations of low moral character, hypocrisy, cowardice, sloth, and all the other seven deadly sins?

            Whatever happened to civil discourse and reasoned argument? Name-calling and questioning of moral integrity has to be a part of every conversation, even among people on the same side of the great divide?

            If everybody is worthy of being insulted for every mistake, who and what do you call your friends?

            OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

            by hillbrook green on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:11:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  that's where it gets tricky (0+ / 0-)

              some of these issues have moral implications or even suggest a moral conclusion. How do you defend the kill list or austerity from a moral perspective? Shall we set moral considerations aside? I hesitate to state historic examples of that being done.
              It's complicated. It's a sad state of affairs when speaking the plain truth about national issues seems like a political or personal smear and that speaks to the damage the right has done to our Dmocracy and our national dialog by smashing everything down to bumper sticker slogans and games of "either or" where the options are severly limited. Worse yet, masses of people have come to accept that as the norm and have no time for in-depth discussion of complicated topics. They simply accept the slogans and vote against their interests without understanding.

              when I see a republican on tv, I always think of Monty Python: "Shut your festering gob you tit! Your type makes me puke!"

              by bunsk on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:22:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't disagree with you. (0+ / 0-)

                However, in general I associate the left with intelligence and conscience and concern for their fellow-man.

                In general, I associate the right with duplicity and selfishness.

                These opinions are based on over 60 years of observation. I recognize that not every single individual can be classified solely by their political leanings. I'm not stupid. However, if you look at the policies of the right and the left in general I think the characterization is hard to fault.

                This is a time of political polarization and it is understandable for people to be polarized against the opposite side.

                But what is gained by insulting every move of the leaders who have been elected who are clearly not on the right, but just simply trying to undertake the extremely difficult task of governing a heavily polarized electorate.

                Compromise is a necessity, not a dirty word. Sometimes you lose and sometimes you gain, but the struggle goes on.  Nobody gets everything they want. It's a difficult lesson for a child to learn, but adults should be able to at least recognize it as a basic fact of life.

                And insulting people who hold beliefs that are close to your own is not the way to effect change. Criticize, debate, protest, yes. But if you condemn people for not being perfect, you're not being very realistic.

                OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

                by hillbrook green on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:43:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  life? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          chipmo

          no, that is hypetpartisanship.  

          ideas are ideas, no matter who has them.  that is life.

          ‎"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." --Frederick Douglass

          by Nada Lemming on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 06:29:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  the points here (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LaEscapee, for 6 too, zedaker, chipmo

          1. there ARE legitimate issues
          2. the right and corp media won't discuss most of them because they support the activities
          3. these issues involve things "the left" are typically concerned with
          4. President Obama is a democrat, that being a party that supposedly includes the left - he's our president too
          5. there are no left voices critical or otherwise in corporate media; this is where our voices are heard
          6. We're still democrats and will vote for President Obama
          7. I believe conservatives demand absolute loyalty, but we should demand honesty and a moral, rational and realistic approach. As harsh as that may sound, I believe it's the goal we should reach for.
          8. How can we advocate something without the courage of our convictions?

          There's no character assasination involved and no motives attributed when seeking a truthful dialog.

          when I see a republican on tv, I always think of Monty Python: "Shut your festering gob you tit! Your type makes me puke!"

          by bunsk on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 07:03:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And does a truthful dialog (0+ / 0-)

            need to include name-calling, accusations of cowardice, sloth, and lack of moral integrity?

            That is my point. Remember, I began this thread with:

            I would like to point out.... that it is one thing to criticize the actions and even protest the actions of a leader. Obviously those are the right and indeed the duty of all citizens.
            Hopefully your statement
            There's no character assasination involved and no motives attributed when seeking a truthful dialog.
            means that there is no place for character assassination and attribution of nefarious motives when seeking a truthful dialog.

            If so, we are in complete agreement.

            OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

            by hillbrook green on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:19:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  That is a comment (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      liberaldemdave, zedaker, chipmo

      and nothing more, just like this is a diary and nothing more. At what point do we judge which is more significant? Who is allowed to determine which opinion is relevant?

      I understand that Rmoney is worse but allow me to provide a scenario that complete support must address.

      Assume that I have been against war my entire life. Now picture me talking to others that also do not agree with dropping bombs on people. The majority of Americans remember them.

      Just imagine that we, both of us, would have the ability to honestly say they like war we don't. Do you think that would move the opinion? Imagine that we might be able to state without our fingers crossed that we honestly support that person that has worked their entire life in support of others, people that have taken the lick for years while being trashed.

      Meh, not "every single thing" pardner, just some would be shocking.

      There are no sacred cows.

      by LaEscapee on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 05:22:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Killing people without due process? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LaEscapee, bunsk, for 6 too, zedaker, chipmo

      That is an issue of character and morality.

      The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

      by Orange County Liberal on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 06:01:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unless of course (0+ / 0-)

        you believe that someone is trying to kill you.

        Let's say you have a gun, your companion does not. You are confronted by an armed person who states his intention to kill you or your unarmed companion. Are you obligated to allow the assailant due process before you defend yourself? An assailant, who has admitted his intention to kill you or your companion and is standing in front of you with a loaded weapon, is entitled to due process before you can defend yourself and your companion?

        Let's take it a step further: you are a police officer in a situation where you believe that a person is in the act of attempting to kill you or some other citizen. Do you, as a police officer, have to go to court to get permission to use deadly force to prevent your own murder or the murder of someone else?

        Is a police officer assumed to be of low character and lacking in morality in he kills someone who is trying to kill him or another citizen?

        All right, now let's go one step further. You are a police sniper on a building who has been informed that a known criminal has publicly stated his intention to kill a peaceful law-abiding citizen. You spot the known criminal on an adjacent rooftop with a gun in his hands and you know that the citizen is on the street below somewhere. You see the criminal sighting his gun at the street below. You can't tell for sure that the criminal is targeting the person he has threatened but he has a gun, he is ready to use it, he has stated his intentions, and there are lots of other innocent people that could be killed, so you shoot and kill the criminal.... without due process.

        Are you, the police sniper, a murderer now? Are you, the police sniper, lacking in moral character?

        Or are you just doing your job, possibly being a hero for saving innocent victims?

        Are you saying it's just a matter of how far you are from the assailant and what means you use to keep the assailant from carrying out his threats, that determines whether it is an "issue of character and morality"?

        OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

        by hillbrook green on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:51:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it seems like you're straining here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Orange County Liberal

          when I see a republican on tv, I always think of Monty Python: "Shut your festering gob you tit! Your type makes me puke!"

          by bunsk on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:33:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, I am not. (0+ / 0-)

            I present a logical progression from an individual protecting himself to a police officer who is directly threatened or very close to a situation where someone else is directly threatened to a police officer who is not directly threatened but has to make a choice to defend ordinary citizens against an individual who has threatened to harm some citizen.

            If all these cases are justifiable, then how is the President, who is by virtue of his office responsible for the security of 300,000,000+ citizens, morally reprehensible for ordering the killing of someone who has threatened the safety and security of the state, who has called for others to wage war against the state, who belongs to an organization whose only purpose is to wage war on the United States and its citizens and their allies, and who has weapons and has used those weapons to harm American citizens or American soldiers or their allies?

            Of course, it is a power that could be abused and obviously should be used with caution. But the act of using this power is not automatically morally bankrupt any more than a police officer using deadly force to protect citizens.

            OK. And now we begin the part of the show where we pull out individual words and phrases of the commenter to try to determine the "real" meaning of the comment.... let the games begin.

            by hillbrook green on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:10:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Really? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bunsk, hillbrook green, LaEscapee
      When criticism is blended with insults and questions of morality and character, it is hardly correct to refer to it as "legitimate".
      I'll remember this next time people around here start questioning the morality and character of the Republicans and Blue Dogs, but ONLY the Republicans and Blue Dogs.

      “America is just the country that shows how all the written guarantees in the world for freedom are no protection against tyranny and oppression of the worst kind.” ~Peter Kropotkin

      by chipmo on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 05:59:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, our ideas work (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zedaker, bunsk

    Wanna fix the economy of the US and EU, ask a lib.

    Want comprehensive energy policy for 50 years, ask a lib.

    Want to protect drinking water... ask a friggin Lib.

    Wanna protect corporations and the uber rich from their own self destructive greed... ask a lib....

    FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Sun Jun 17, 2012 at 11:08:50 PM PDT

  •  Also for those who argue that we should just shut (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaEscapee

    up - that we have no where to go just remember this. I am not advocating voting for a third party. I am a Democrat. But it is not my obligation to vote for anyone unless I am persuaded to vote for them. If you tell me that I must vote a certain way or risk being disloyal you run the risk of alienating me. That is no way to persuade anyone to do anything. The party needs me at the polls more than I need the party if the party is treating me badly.

    I could in theory skip voting for certain positions. Or I could stay home. Seeing that voting is not mandatory and that elections are conducted like selling products it is not good policy to insult potential customers.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site