Saturday, July 5, 2008

M.L.S., M.A.!*

*Most Liberal Senator, My Ass!

The National Journal, a magazine run by William Schneider and a bunch of political junkies who would have a hard time passing my Math for Liberal Arts class, put together their Senate rankings each year and Barack Obama was put at the top of the Most Liberal list by their measurement standards.

Note to Mr. Schneider: I've seen your methodology and it sucks. I'm both a liberal and a mathematician, and I know that Obama isn't really the most liberal anything, except the most liberal guy still running in the now two-person race.

Debra J. Saunders, token conservative for the S.F. Chronicle, wrote this gem of a sentence a few weeks back. " As Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said during a conference call, the problem with presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama is that he never tells the left something it doesn't want to hear." This was written during the middle of the FISA bill flap, when Obama said something the left definitely did not want to hear. But Ms. Sanders is important enough to be on a conference call with Lindsey Graham (read: not very important) and he said something quotable, so why bother fact-checking by say, reading the front page of your OWN DAMN PAPER!?!

Obama's not perfect by liberal standards. I didn't vote for him in the California primary. If I wanted to vote for the guy I agreed with most often, I would have voted for Kucinich, but I wanted to vote for someone I thought had some chance to be elected, so I voted for Edwards. As for sexism in politics, the sad truth is that the most interesting women in the presidential race this year from a liberal standpoint were the wives of Kucinich and Edwards, the two Elizabeths.

As I often said during the Clinton administration, I'd rather have a president who disappoints me rather than one who disgusts me. And I said that before George Walker Bush put his hand on the Bible in 2001 and told the biggest and most egregious lie of all his lies, that oath to God that he would faithfully uphold the laws of this country. I sometimes wonder if it's just a trick of memory that makes me think Bush the Lesser is worse than Nixon. The thing is, Nixon had some positive achievements. Everything Bush and his cronies have touched has turned to crap. This really is worse and the stakes really are higher.

This country has definitely moved very hard to the right in many ways in my lifetime. Views that were once only held by fringe groups like The John Birch Society and the American Independent Party, started by racists and continued by creeps, are now stated matter-of-factly by elected members of the Republican Party on the somber Sunday gabfests. Obama's not perfect; in politics, nothing ever is. But if for no other reason, we need a Democrat to clean out the judicial branch of the Federalist Society traitors to this land, who would hand us an imperial president and full citizenship rights to corporations, with a secondary limited definition of citizenship for actual flesh and blood Americans, and still call this nightmare a Constitutional democracy.

That's why I'm voting Democrat, and I hope you'll do the same.


FranIAm said...

Bravo Matty Bravo- great post.

Read this regarding his liberal ways...

sfmike said...

Agreed, and I find that Ms. Debra, in her writings, is reliably a disgrace to her race, her gender, and all of humanity. So I don't bother reading her, because as you point out, facts never get in her way to a polemical point.

Ed said...

No, Obama isn't really all that progressive, although he seems to have fooled most progressives into thinking that he is. But, if Wisconsin looks like it's going to be a close race, I'll hold my nose and vote Obama. If it looks like WI will be a blowout for either candidate, I'm voting for Nader.

Nixon? Liberal? Looked at from the proper perspective, I think you're actually correct on that one. Nixon was actually more liberal than every president we've had since Carter, including Clinton. Scary thought, isn't it? His administration also looks rather saintly compared to the Bush administration, and Nixon was almost impeached, probably would have been if he hadn't resigned first. Hmmm...

Lockwood said...

I agree with everthing you've written here. Had Kucinich been on the ballot here in Oregon, I would've voted for him- it was clear Obama would take the primary, but I believe Kucinich's voice needs to be heard, and taken more seriously.

Regarding Nixon, we have the clean air act, the clean water act, and ultimately the EPA (gutted under Bush). We have resumed and normalized relations with China. And so on. Nixon was in many ways criminally insane, but he did get a few things right. Can anyone say the same for Bush II? Anyone? Anyone?

Karlacita! said...


Matty Boy said...

Thanks to all commenters. Under Nixon, he hit at inflation with wage and price controls, which drove Milton Friedman nuts. Now it's hard to find anyone who doesn't light candles to Friedman's shrine. And there's the EPA and real diplomatic progress with China and the Soviets.

Honestly, I can't think of a positive achievement in the last seven years. I agreed in principle that we had the right to invade Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda, but these pathetic bastards couldn't even do that.

Matty Boy said...

If I may leave two comments in a row on my own blog, and since it's my own blog, I think I may, I wanted to say that sfmike is completely right about Ms. Debra. If we accept the conservative view that competition makes products better, it helps explain her situation. Given her talent level, she deserves to be homeless, but because the SF Chron can't find a better conservative, she keeps her job year after incompetent year.

Distributorcap said...

so well stated matt

obama has disappointed me as of late -- but you know, i expected that. and i can live with it - mainly because the alternative is FAR worse.

but what is sad is that we seem to be constantly relegated to the lesser of two evils. with the media constantly harping how bad it is to be liberal (because ALL Of the media is controlled by corporations - of which i work for one - that thrive on bushonomics) - there is little to no chance a progressive will enter the white house.

no_slappz said...

Since Obama is opposed to the expansion of oil drilling on US territory now off-limits to drillers as well as being opposed to the re-start and expansion of the US nuclear energy program, it is an incontestable mathematical fact that gasoline prices will go significantly higher if he is elected.

In addition to rising gasoline prices, the US would also experience rising prices for all refined petroleum products -- heating oil, jet fuel, diesel fuel, etc.

Thus, if Obama is elected, Americans face the prospect of a shrinking economy made worse by the impact of punishing energy prices. High fuel costs have already forced airlines to lay off employees. Another round of airline bankruptcies will follow.

The US auto industry -- GM in particular -- might have no choice but to submit to a Chapter 11 bankructy filing, which means thousands of workers will lose their jobs. Those jobs will not reappear elsewhere in the auto industry.

Like food and shelter, energy is a necessity. Cheap energy leads to an abundance of the other two. But Obama will change the equation by standing up against ALL Americans who will suffer due to the soaring energy prices his policies will inflict on everyone.

Apparently he thinks time will stand still while scientists and engineers improve and develop alternative energy industries. Only if time stands still will citizens avoid the conscious and painful awareness of paying today's high energy prices and tomorrow's still higher prices, a condition that will become permanent if we stick to our current practice.

But, that seems to be the goal of Democrats. High and higher energy prices, which means rising prices for EVERYTHING.

Matty Boy said...

Hearing an addict explain clearly and concisely why he should not have to change his ways is human nature in its crystalline form.

It is also disgusting. Thanks for giving us this quick reminder of who you are, no_slappz.

Matty Boy said...

No_slappz, as I have said before, if you want a long discussion on some topic that has nothing to do with what I wrote, get your own blog. Argue to your heart's content with the smattering of people who can swallow your dreck on a regular basis.

As for people seeing the world through their own distorted lens, you might want to look up the psychological definition of the term projection. It could open your eyes, but I very much doubt it will.

no_slappz said...

matty boy, yo wrote:

"But if for no other reason, we need a Democrat to clean out the judicial branch of the Federalist Society traitors to this land, who would hand us an imperial president and full citizenship rights to corporations, with a secondary limited definition of citizenship for actual flesh and blood Americans, and still call this nightmare a Constitutional democracy."

You further stated:

"That's why I'm voting Democrat, and I hope you'll do the same."

Therefore, you are voting for Obama, which means you are willing to pay much higher energy prices and pay the higher prices caused by costly petroleum to stick to your idea of high-mindedness. Okay. But electing Obama is going to cost every American a lot of money. He's even said so himself.

Matty Boy said...

Here is modern Republican logic in a nutshell. Things go to crap under conservative rule, and their only response is "It will be worse under the Democrats."

If we can lose the speculator surcharge on petroleum, which the current onwner of Unocal thinks is about 30%, prices might go down some. But petroleum is a diminishing resource, and we need to move away from it. It's going to get more expensive, and people will have to figure out how to wean themselves from it. Republican drilling proposals are more trickle down crap, handing cash to the oil companies who allegedly out of the goodness of their hearts will pass those savings on to us. A basic rule of economics is that when you have a commodity and you can sell every last drop of it, raising prices will increase profits. Until Americans change their driving habits, and better fleet mileage standards would have been a nice start any time in the last thirty years, the oil companies will continue to screw us, no matter where they drill.

We are in a hole, several holes actually, and the Republicans promise to dig deeper. More war, more debt, more of the national treasury handed over to cronies. It makes no sense to trust them.

Distributorcap said...


i actually love reading slappz, because he proves every time what a complete and total idiot he is.

even if mccain was elected and started drilling for oil the day he took office, we would not see one drop more of oil or the prices lowered one bit in the next four years

there is no other answer than getting off oil

and ignoring ignoramuses

Matty Boy said...

I don't think he's an idiot, Dcap. He's a lost soul, a proud sinner. One of those poor saps who think Milton Friedman's a genius and Ayn Rand was a great writer and thinker.

It's not a lack of brain power, it's a lack of self-awareness and the very natural human desire not to want to change the way things are done, taken to the pathological extreme of ignoring obvious signs at every turn.

What makes him not amusing is that he would probably think that last paragraph applies to us and not to him.

Watching a species dragged down the drain by selfish reactionaries is not my idea of a good time.

Matty Boy said...

Guess who has earned a month's vacation from posting comments here?

Did you guess? Good for you.