'No Excuses' for Liberals

[CrimsonWhite]

Outstanding read.

"I make no excuses, I only wear them." Remember that? It was the pitch made by Donna Rice for a pair of tight-fitting stonewashed jeans some 20 years ago. Too bad the brand is long gone, since we're at yet another No Excuses moment in American politics.

Specifically: a liberal No Excuses moment. With the election of Barack Obama and huge Democratic majorities in Congress, liberals must now practice something other than the politics of nostalgia and what-if.

This is a politics that has been in the making since at least 1968, though its real origins probably go back to 1944 and the first great liberal what-if: What if an ailing FDR had died nine months earlier, and been succeeded by the great progressive icon and polymath (and original moonbeam), then Vice President Henry Wallace?

In that case, perhaps, desegregation would have happened sooner, universal health care would be with us today, and the "century of fear" that Wallace predicted as the outcome of the Truman Doctrine would have been avoided by means of a more conciliatory policy toward the Soviet Union.

Bret Stephens: 'No Excuses' for Liberals - WSJ.com

 

[Jeepers]

I dont read WSJ since it became just another Ruppy rag. I do think that cons need to butt the fuck out when it comes to defining liberals... they cant get there ideology together ... what makes you think they will get libs right....

 

[midcan5]

The opinion pieces of the WSJ are outright hooey, that anyone reads them is amazing. Consider that this is a financial paper that was pretty much clueless of the recent financial turmoil, maybe they should try to stick to what they think they know rather than idle speculation about their philosophical foes.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I dont read WSJ since it became just another Ruppy rag. I do think that cons need to butt the fuck out when it comes to defining liberals... they cant get there ideology together ... what makes you think they will get libs right....

So do you agree that liberals should butt the fuck out when it comes to defining conservatives? Of course you don't.

 

[Jon]

So do you agree that liberals should butt the fuck out when it comes to defining conservatives? Of course you don't.

Welcome to the liberal world, Crim. They're right. We're wrong. Period. Goodbye.

 

[Jeepers]

So do you agree that liberals should butt the fuck out when it comes to defining conservatives? Of course you don't.

Nope.. way I see it.. when you cats finally figure it out, you'll let us know...

 

[Jeepers]

Welcome to the liberal world, Crim. They're right. We're wrong. Period. Goodbye.

See.. are we left or right.. You cats are all over the place.. this highlights my point...

 

[Jon]

That was a really stupid post. If it was an attempt at humor, it failed. If it wasn't an attempt at humor, you fail.

 

[Red Dawn]

No more excuses - Specifically: a liberal No Excuses moment. With the election of Barack Obama and huge Democratic majorities in Congress, liberals must now practice something other than the politics of nostalgia and what-if

These are confusing times indeed.

First, Obama was a radical marxist. Then his victory was a because of his center-right politics. There was no liberal mandate, because Obama ran as a reaganite. In 2006, I was told the only reason democrats took over congress, is because "so many" conservative democrats won. Hence, 2006 was a victory for conservatism of sorts.

Now, we're back to liberals having a stranglehold on power, and a massive mandate?

 

[editec]

The DEMS better shit or get off the pot.

I quite agree with the WSJ that it's their game to win or lose.

The WSJ is a great paper, but the editorials= section isn't designed to appeal to liberals.

 

[Murf76]

Count on libs to whine no whether they win or lose. Two more Senate seats and they'll have their filibuster-proof majority, and still they carry on like it's somebody's doing something to them.

They're like the 4th-string quarterback who finally gets the ball and doesn't know WTF to do with it.

The WSJ article makes an OBVIOUS point. There are NO EXCUSES for anything less than resounding success on the part of the Democrats, because EVERYTHING that happens over the course of the next two years falls squarely on their shoulders. Complaining that you don't like the source of the commentary doesn't negate it's truth.

The Republican party has been politically neutralized. It has no teeth. So... it's all on you libs. And you know it too. That's why so many of you are already pissing your pants.

 

[NOBama]

The last paragraph sums it up nicely:

Mr. Obama will get, and deserves, a period of political grace. Let's say a year. After that, it will become increasingly difficult to attribute whatever mistakes he makes to the legacy of his predecessor. American liberalism, such as it is, is finally being put to the test that fate has denied it these last many decades. Succeed or fail, this time there can be no excuses.

 

[editec]

Count on libs to whine no whether they win or lose.

What the fuck are you talking about?

The so called libs here are telling you that should Obama fail to live up to our expectations, we'll throw his ass to the wolves just as we'd happily have done to his Incompetence Junior (the W) Bush....your hero.

As you interpret that as whining?

The WSJ article makes an OBVIOUS point. There are NO EXCUSES for anything less than resounding success on the part of the Democrats, because EVERYTHING that happens over the course of the next two years falls squarely on their shoulders. Complaining that you don't like the source of the commentary doesn't negate it's truth.

Complaining? I was agreeing with that editorial.

 

[NOBama]

It will be interesting to see if we're all agreeing four years from now.

 

[Caligirl]

There's already broad agreement on a couple points that are negative about Obama:

the bailout was a bad idea

obama is picking washington pros instead of 'new politics'

But the basic message he ran on, that we have more in common than what divides us, and that we can, with hard work, regain a country with a strong economy and good global standing and one that is generally responsible in the world, is still the right message, and if he undercuts any of that core message is where he'll have screwed up.

Take Liebermann. If he had ecouraged dems to boot Lieberman, that would have seriously undercut his statement that there is more that unites us than divides us. Same with his and McCain's seeming willingness to work together. SO on those things, so far, it looks like he is going to try to come through, ie he hasn't just changed his tune overnight.

 

[editec]

It will be interesting to see if we're all agreeing four years from now.

My expectations about Obama's ability to turn things around, contrary to the myth that some of the right wing morons on this board keep insisting is true about many of us, are not especially high.

He's no messiah, that's for danged sure.

But he keeps us out of still another land war in Asia (that's beginning to look unlikely); if he does something about protecting our economy from FREE TRADE injustice (also looks unlikely); if he does something to help the middle class weather this economic meltdown ( this is doable) AND if he puts decent people in the Supreme Courts for a change, I'll be reasonably pleased.

Bush is already appointing cronnies to high positions in the Civil Service to insinuate his odious neo-cons into positions of power from which they cannot be removed.

There's not a hell of a lot Obama can do about that, either.

 

[Murf76]

What the fuck are you talking about?

The so called libs here are telling you that should Obama fail to live up to our expectations, we'll throw his ass to the wolves just as we'd happily have done to his Incompetence Junior (the W) Bush....your hero.

As you interpret that as whining?



Complaining? I was agreeing with that editorial.

My apologies, bud. I didn't realize that YOUR posts are the only ones we're supposed to reply to.