David Sirota Unhinged: Obama is George Zimmerman, Trayvon is Al-Awlaki

obama_zimmerman_sirotaThroughout the last month or so, we kind of forgot about Salon.com’s David Sirota. We’ve been so preoccupied by his counterpart, Glenn Greenwald, that Sirota had mostly receded into the background, barely detectable by the naked eye.

And then sometime around mid-afternoon on Monday 15 July, 2013, David Sirota not only re-emerged, but he did so in a way that utterly buried the crazy-needle on the Histrionic Seismograph. It was a downpour of self-satirical outrage-porn so massive in its ridiculousness that experts are still attempting to parse whether The Onion infiltrated Salon.com by hijacking Sirota’s log-in privileges. I’m awaiting the word from conspiracy theorists as to whether Sirota’s post was a false-flag to distract from Greenwald’s blunder about Snowden’s “dead man switch” threat.

Are you sitting down?

Here we go. Sirota posted an article on Salon.com titled “George Zimmerman killed the presumption of innocence,” in which he compared George Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon Martin to President Obama’s decision to take out al-Qaida terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki. Again, President Obama is like George Zimmerman, while Trayvon Martin, the unarmed African American teenager whom Zimmerman shot and killed, is like the terrorist recruiter and plotter Al-Awlaki, who was killed by a U.S. predator drone in 2011.

Comparing Trayvon Martin with an accused terrorist, while comparing the first African American president with a man who’s universally despised by, among others, African Americans on the day after that man’s acquittal might be the most outrageously tone-deaf thing Sirota has ever written — and there’s a huge litter of candidates for that dubious honor.

Before we go any further, though, I’d like to emphasize that this won’t simply be a dissection of Sirota’s article. That alone would be too easy. There’s a very serious point to be made about the Sirota/Greenwald faction on the left, so bear with me and we’ll get into it presently.

Okay, so Sirota’s primary goal was to suggest that America has become a rogue, lawless empire. No wait, that was Greenwald’s point the other day. Yes, really. Sirota believes that the presumption of innocence has vanished and we’re all presumed guilty. Therefore we’re all subject to the furious, aggressive judgment of, I suppose, vigilante-justice and a murderous chief executive. While I agree that the gun culture has bred an insidious, entitled shoot-first mindset among gun fetishists, Sirota and others completely fail to recognize the context in which the president uses signature strikes. Agree or disagree, the administration believes the U.S. is at war against al-Qaida as well as its affiliates per the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). And so these are military attacks against a declared enemy. I’m not exactly sure how a neighborhood-watch doofus with an itchy trigger-finger who pursued and killed an unarmed teenager correlates to the wartime pursuit of an enemy that’s sworn to destroy the United States, but okay.

Here’s the section of Sirota’s post that jumped off the screen as being hysterically blind:

Remember, in the same year that saw Zimmerman kill Martin, Zimmerman’s president, Barack Obama, extrajudicially executed Anwar al-Awlaki and then his 16-year-old son, without charging either of the two U.S. citizens with a single crime.

The phrase “Zimmerman’s president, Barack Obama,” is particularly egregious. Sure, Obama is Zimmerman’s president insofar as he’s everyone’s president, but, naturally, that wasn’t Sirota’s intention. His intention was to cut both men from the same homicidal cloth. Obama, Sirota implies, is a Zimmerman-like president. Actually, he doesn’t just imply it, he comes right out and writes it with the subsequent line, “Zimmerman-like aggression against the Awlakis.” But actually, Obama is far worse in Sirota’s view since he’s responsible for the deaths of considerably more people — innocent people, according to Sirota. I’ll circle back to this later.

That aside, I fail to see how a sociopath who’s on video calling for fellow Muslims to kill Americans is anything like a kid who was armed with nothing but a bag of Skittles and some iced tea. Or perhaps Trayvon was also carrying the Underwear Bomber’s exploding briefs at the time.

Sirota continued:

It is, of course, no coincidence that, whether African Americans like Martin or Arabs like the Awlakis, those most affected by the Zimmerman Principle’s presumption of guilt tend to be people of color.

Unbelievable. Here, Sirota writes that the president killed Al-Awlaki in part because Al-Awlaki is a “person of color.” So President Barack Obama, on top of being a murderer and war criminal, is also a racist. Our African American president. A racist. Of course! I’ve always wondered why Obama hates brown people, so thank goodness we have David Sirota to tell us how the president is so completely filled with racial hatred that he’s using America’s military might to kill all of the colored people he hates. You know what? Al-Awlaki’s a person of color in the same way I’m a person of color. I’m a black-haired, olive-skinned Italian. I guess the president hates me, too [checks the sky for Hellfire missiles].

The serious issue here is that a considerable faction of left is treading on rapidly thinning ice right now. The other day I suggested that perhaps these people ought to check their optics because some of these positions, when tethered together, are beginning to look really, really bad.

1) They’ve relentlessly criticized the first African American president. I don’t want to skew off on this tangent, but suffice it to say, the ongoing, crazy-eyed, fist pumping array of grievances from this group aren’t thoughtful or fair policy disagreements. For years now, the line has been that President Obama isn’t just a bad president, he’s worse than George W. Bush. He’s a homicidal war criminal who ought to be prosecuted and convicted for his crimes. Most recently Cenk Uygur said that the president should be arrested and tossed in prison. Others, especially Greenwald, have spent nearly every post outlining the charges, usually beginning with the killing of Al-Awlaki, the killing of Al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son and continuing on down a familiar docket of trespasses against domestic and international laws.

2) Related to the war criminal charges, they also couldn’t wait to “Stand with Rand Paul” on the drones issue. Yes, Rand Paul: the states’ rights, nullificationist, tea party conservative who’s hired at least two racist staffers and once said he opposed one of the most crucial chunks of the Civil Rights Act — just like his crackpot father. Again, I wrote about this last week, but it bears repeating. By “standing with Rand,” it doesn’t just help Rand on drones (the usage of which he actually supports, by the way) but it offers him a heaping bucket of political capital with which to pursue his other radical policy goals, including a personhood amendment and nullification. It simply appears as though some liberals are standing with a racist.

3) And finally, comparing the first African American president with George Zimmerman, as well as comparing Zimmerman’s victim, Trayvon Martin, with a notorious al-Qaida operative is not only in extraordinarily bad taste, but it helps to clarify any suspicions raised by the previous two factors in this optics issue. I’m not personally suggesting that Sirota and the others are racists — I don’t know him personally and I really don’t know if he is or isn’t. However, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if such a conclusion became increasingly prevalent, and not just against Sirota alone but the other high profile members of the anti-Obama left as well. Quite simply, they’re doing it to themselves.

In that regard, the inability of the Sirota/Greenwald faction of the left to engage in smart, rational accountability will surely lead to more than a few observers to connect the dots, if they haven’t already. What we’re hearing from mostly white purists on the left is that the first African American president — an historic role model and a monument to racial achievement in America — is a thuggish crook who should be in prison (or worse), and this faction is willing to align with a white conservative politician with a shaky racial record in order to achieve its prosecutorial goal.

On Monday, Sirota’s article represented another awkward and thoughtless lurch in that direction. The only thing that could make his ineptitude more appalling is if he did it purely for the traffic — for link-bait. But knowing Sirota’s work, he probably wrote it from the gut. His dreadfully misguided gut.

Nevertheless, Sirota stepped in it. Big time. And based on his Twitter feed he has no intention of walking it back.

(Also, check out Chez Pazienza’s take here. And here’s JM Ashby’s take.)

Bob Cesca is the managing editor for The Daily Banter, the editor of BobCesca.com, the host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Huffington Post contributor.

  • gnocchi

    You can clutch your pearls all you want, Bob. What you can’t do is rationally refute a single point Sirota made.

  • 624LC .

    Salon.com continues its reign as a useless piece of online shit. Congrats to all involved…

  • http://macklyons.blogspot.com/ Mack Lyons

    Since when has Sirota been good for anything other than highly-inflated self-importance and opportunism?

    http://macklyons.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-sirota-trayvon-martin-drones-and.html

  • BillAndersoot

    “I’m not personally suggesting that Sirota and the others are racists — I
    don’t know him personally and I really don’t know if he is or isn’t.”

    Nice touch, Bob. Really nice. I don’t know if President Obama is a Muslim. He says he isn’t, and I guess we’ll have to take him at his word.

    • gnocchi

      Bob’s too much of a coward to just call Sirota a racist. Just like his president, he wants to maintain plausible deniability that he ever stood for anything.

      • http://mosquitocloud.net/ aprescoup

        This site is, after all, but for the daily banter of raptly, and by cord, attached to party authority preschoolers.

        Sort of “Vampirery,” in an optimism and hope-sapping way…

      • BillAndersoot

        And you’re too much of a coward to say what you mean to the people you mean to say it to. So instead you hide your cowardice behind a comment to me. Nice try, pussy.

        • gnocchi

          Um…Bill? This is a comment thread, not a street fight. It’s not possible for anyone to “hide” behind anyone else.

          You might want to get your med levels checked, buddy. You sound a little unbalanced.

          • BillAndersoot

            Yeah, that’ll work. You’re a master debater. If you have something to say to Bob, don’t pretend you’re saying it to me. Coward.

          • gnocchi

            Hi Bob. Where’d you find this Bill guy? He’s kind of a douche.

          • BillAndersoot

            Maybe you should demand that I be kicked off the thread. I’ll bet that would work.

          • gnocchi

            Hi Bob. Bill seems a little too far down the autism spectrum for me to communicate with him effectively. Maybe you can clue him in that posters don’t get to set the rules for other posters.

            Perhaps a short primer on how comment threads work is in order.

          • BillAndersoot

            Not bad. I’d post it right at the top of the thread, though. It’ll get more attention that way. Just a suggestion. Good luck!

  • D_C_Wilson

    So, if Obama is George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin is Al-Awlaki, who is Gozer?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfdiXBA7f6U

    • M312

      Gozer is awesome! I think your question has been answered! You’re welcome.

  • Raina

    Back in my Salon Table Talk days (mostly lurker), Sirota was despised as much then as he is now. Don’t understand how he still has a following.

  • BillAndersoot

    Sirota is a lunatic-fringe lefty. The kind that tacitly (or explicitly) prefaces every opinion with, “Anyone with any intelligence knows…”. They live in a self-deluded bubble of confirmation bias and faulty thinking. Moral absolutists, whether on the left or on the right, represent two sides of the same worthless coin.

  • js hooper

    It’s gonna be really pathetic over the next couple of days to watch members of the Professional Left ODS Clique rally around Sirota and defend him from “Obamabots”

    IMO “Obamabots” has simply become a firebagger code for black people.I have long been suspicious of their use of terms like “Obama lover” which seems to have clear connections with the term “Nigg#r lover”.

    These brogressive haters are gonna be tripping all over themselves trying to agree with Sirota and dismiss the views of people offended by his article.I’ve already seen left wing internet memes being created about how Obama influenced the media to focus on Trayvon Martin in an attempt to distract from the Bradley Manning case.

    All I can do is SMH

  • Deoliver47

    I find that Sirota even wrapping his lips around Trayvon Martin’s name is totally offensive. Since when has he ever been a champion for anyone in my communities? Rank opportunism. He’s in the same class with the rest of the newly minted tinfoil left.

    • BlueJay

      I get disliking other liberals who disagree with you and whose views you find offensive or politically harmful, but I’m troubled by all the left-on-left hatred encouraged by this site. It’s just so pointless and unproductive. The newly minted tinfoil left? That’s such a conservative Republican type of smear. Just writing off a huge class of people because you disagree with their views, even though in this case you probably agree with MOST of their views. This accomplishes nothing and makes you look petty.

      • js hooper

        So are we supposed to play nice (and play dumb)…with people who spit in our face and urinate on our heads every chance they get?

        Are they the only ones who are allowed to call others names?

        You seem to be under the impression that these people are our allies.They have proven by their actions & words that they are not.

        If I was a conservative would I not be allowed to call Glenn Beck, Gohmert, Bachmann,Limbaugh etc the tin foil right?

        Lastly you are unaware (or maybe not) of the fact that MOST of these “liberals” are Paultarded Libertarians masquerading as progressives…who are more willing to “stand with” white supremacists and racist teabaggers then they are with black people.

        If you need proof of that…just go look at how they reacted to the issue of Ron Paul’s RACIST Newsletters.

        • BlueJay

          Whoa! Spit in your face and urinate on your head? What are you talking about? You have fashioned a war with allies and enemies and casualties and it’s clearly leading to nothing but vitriol for vitriol’s sake. This war is fictional. You’re talking about minor pundits and bloggers who want page views and ad revenue. Criticize them all you want but Paultarded? Is this political daycare?

          My basic point here is not to defend those who you call Paultarded. It’s to express that writing off swaths of people with bloggy insults like Paultarded and tinfoil left is infuriating to others and only leads to more vitriol and bickering and crappy blog posts.

          The “left” is not a unified front, obviously. I am discouraged by your and others’ willingness to disparage so many people simply because of their views–it’s what conservatives always have done to liberals and it pisses people off and degrades the whole discussion.

          • js hooper

            No offense…but you must have been in a coma for the last 5 years…or maybe you live in a different country and don’t follow politics that closely.

            But for those of us who have been engaged with these people for years now…we have long sense stopped pretending that they are our friends.No matter what political ideology they currently claim to represent. (Many of these ppl are “former” Republicans)

            We have been called “dumb motherfuckers”…compared to Nazi propagandists…told that we would support rape…Had black supporters of Pres.Obama compared to the KKK etc etc,

            All of that was done by Professional Commentators, Bloggers/ “Journalists” who are viewed as leaders on the left.

            If that doesn’t qualify as spitting in someones face or pissing on their head then I don’t know what does.

          • BlueJay

            No offense taken? I follow politics very closely, thank you. I vote, volunteer, campaign, etc. That doesn’t mean I’m engaged with bloggers who want to start flame wars. As to your being called dumb motherfuckers and Nazis, who hasn’t? That’s really my point–everyone is just calling everyone dumb blog insult names and scoffing. They call you a Nazi, you call them Paultarded, they call you a dumb motherfucker, you say they piss on your head. Are we getting anywhere with this BS? These Professional Commentators seem to be a lot more popular with those who revile them than with those who agree with them.

          • js hooper

            I really don’t see how being compared to a Nazi….or as a black person being compared to the fuckin KKK….Is similar to me referring to people who are supporters of Ron & Rand Paul as being “Paultarded”

            Considering that these people are willing to publicly “Stand With” neo-confederate racists who oppose everything progressives believe in…I think calling them Paultarded is treating them with kid gloves

          • BlueJay

            I guess I don’t really know who “these people” are then. Maybe you could clarify, but it sounds like a very small and irrelevant minority of reaction-baiters who don’t deserve your attention. In any case, people on the Internet calling you a Nazi probably shouldn’t result in much of a reaction. That’s as banal an accusation as there is online. Paultarded is just dumb. It doesn’t mean anything and it only serves to piss more people off.

          • nathkatun7

            Have you been on their site to lecture them to stop trashing the President and those who support the President? Sorry, I guess you must be ambivalent about that too.

            “These Professional Commentators seem to be a lot more popular with those who revile them than with those who agree with them.”
            Are you one of those who agree with them? If so why the pretense of being a detached observer?

            Sorry, but all you are doing here is nothing but passive/aggressive BS!

          • 624LC .

            Please… This is just some fake ass concern troll crawling out from under the bridge.

          • js hooper

            The person who used the Nazi reference was Guardian columnist (at the time at Salon) Glenn Greenwald.

            It wasn’t an anonymous internet troll. It was a semi-influential and for whatever reason “respected” Professional.

            You can either attempt to understand why this is problematic and outrageous….or continue to play dumb.

            The only people who should be offended by the term “Paultarded” are those who are supporters of the RACIST Paul duo.

            I could care less If I piss those people off.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            Yes. The liberal Progressive movement in the days of FDR included eugenicists. After seven years of hanging around with people who call themselves “progressive” I have no idea what that is.

            Every time there’s a liberal demonstration the ranks are filled with a host of people protesting their own pet issues that are unrelated to the purpose of having that demonstration. And there are often anarchist young men who make everyone look bad by behaving violently and wearing masks.

            It looks to me like at this point it would be best to work toward reclaiming the mantle of liberalism and the understanding of the good effects of liberal legislation— liberal victories in history and what they did to make life better for the average person and made the U.S. a stronger and more admirable nation.

            When right-wingers say, “You just hate America.”, they may think that they’re talking about liberals, but they’re right on the button about emo-progs.

          • BlueJay

            Can you explain what an emo-prog is? I’m new to this internecine left-on-left hate cycle. I ask this genuinely. What does that term mean to you?

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            People who are “disappointed” by President Obama (oh, they supported him wholeheartedly until he started actually being a President— sure, of course ) because he didn’t close Guantanamo (because Congress made it impossible), and he didn’t unilaterally pull the military out of Iraq and Afghanistan as if all the armed forces had to do was pack their overnight case and get on a plane and we had no other obligations, and Obama didn’t end racism, and he didn’t forbid the use of drones, and Obama didn’t act as a dictator to pass every single law the emo-progs thought should be the law of the land regardless of whether it was possible or even on the radar of most people… and now— he won’t dismantle the NSA and give Snowden a medal and a lollipop.

            He wasn’t a magic negro, he wasn’t “Their nigger” who thought every single thought they have. He turned out to be a president who acted within the laws set by a Congress which is half owned by right-wing, racist, religious extremists because the emo-progs were either to pure to vote or too pure to vote for any liberal who could win.

          • BlueJay

            Serious question: is it any former supporter who is disappointed by the Obama Administration? Or just a subset whose critiques strike you as unrealistic?

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            They critique every single thing he’s done. How have you missed this?

          • BlueJay

            I’m asking who “they” is. It is not self-evident. I’m asking if every Democrat/liberal who is unhappy with the Administration falls into your emo-prog label or if it’s only a subset of those people who are particularly galling to you.

          • blackdaug

            Because he is a 13 comment concern troll. Probably Jarek with a new screen name. God this is tedious.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            Gotcha. From now on, badgers will dance on the screen and I won’t waste space with replies.

          • 624LC .

            Troll was probably busy scrapping his Obama sticker through his fake ass disappointed tears.

          • DHaradaStone

            This comment is a perfect example of what Sirota and Greenwald are about. In their mind, disagreement with Obama on some issues requires that you trash him as a child-murdering fascist toady of imperialism and “worse than Bush.” They are incapable of nuance or perspective. They don’t see a president who inherited two wars and was confronted with a number of bad options for keeping Al Qaeda and the Taliban (collectively responsible for far more Muslim deaths than American drones) in check. No. Obama must be a racist, trigger-happy cop wannabe stalking brown children. Sirota might as well have illustrated his article with a cartoon of Obama wearing a KKK robe and hood. These are men who have never been responsible for the safety of anything more than their own families (if even that) and who are accountable to no one, blithely and grotesquely attacking a president who is not only smarter and has a much firmer grasp of history and constitutional and legal principles than them (something they obviously can’t stand), but is accountable to an entire nation for its safety. He has no ideological axe to grind here. He is a not a neocon like Bush, Cheney, et al. Yet, they attack him with rhetoric that would make a Tea Party leader blush.

          • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

            I just got back from a cab ride from an appointment— while in the car, we heard the news that Congress has gotten serious about procedure so a lot of Obama’s appointments could be voted on. I started with a neutral remark about Congress doing it’s job, and within two seconds we were talking about the emo-progs and libertarian “left”. He was the first to identify as an Obama supporter, then we were off. It was a great conversation, and not really Brooks-ian at all.

            It’s so reassuring, ya’ know? To meet a stranger in the world of grass and sky that’s paying attention and is unapologetically liberal.

          • nathkatun7

            I don’t think your question is serious unless you are forthright in stating the difference between the two. Are you that “former supporter who is disappointed by the Obama Administration”? If you are, why don’t you come clean and tell us why you are disappointed? While you are it, tell us your solutions of what President Obama did wrong within the context of the political environment he has had to deal with. speaking for myself, I intensely dislike people who think President Obama should have solved all they pet issues from day one. Such an attitude shows ignorance about how the political system works.

          • first last

            “While you are it, tell us your solutions of what President Obama did wrong within the context of the political environment he has had to deal with”

            Nailed it. Greenwaldia just doesn’t care to ever mention any of those facts, or mitigating factors, since they don’t support their narrative. Instead of a fidelity to the truth you have a fidelity to outrage, and then that outrage determines which facts are going to be taken into account. It’s entirely backwards, and not surprising given that Greenwald’s from a profession largely based on ignoring contradictory evidence.

            Basically it’s a divide between a left that thinks like a scientist and a left that thinks like a prosecuting attorney.

          • BlueJay

            If you’re just hating on Greenwald, so be it. I’m ambivalent, but I’ve gathered that the Daily Banter is a community for those who dislike Greenwald/Snowden/Sirota etc. So be it. I am not sure who these liberal Paul supporters are though. I am not sure if your criticisms extend to certain types of liberal voters or if you’re only talking about a few pundits and journalists.

          • kfreed

            LOL. The Daily Banter is dedicated to reporting on the issues. Unfortunately, half the job now comes down to correcting misinforamtion put out by people claiming to be “progressives”. It comes with the territory.

          • nathkatun7

            Your ambivalence is quite revealing! You have strong words of disapproval for the Daily Banter, but you ambivalent about Greenwald who says President Obama is worse than Bush and a war criminal. It seems to me that your silence on the way the people like Greenwald and Sirota and Uygur, have trashed President Obama implies agreement with their views.

          • first last

            It’s definitely a double-standard nathkatun7. In this case the double-standard can be resolved just by looking at who’s constantly making misleading statements, selectively omitting key details to present a one-sided ideology-based narrative, etc. In Greenwald’s case he not only constantly states things that are just flat untrue but then resorts to ad hominems on anyone who dares to point out the erroneous statements.

          • kfreed

            You understand that Bluejay is a Paultard, feigning ignorance as to why we won’t be manipulated by Paultards or their heros.

          • kfreed

            Individuals like Greenwald aren’t allies. Nobody cares anymore wha tPaultards think. We’ve seen enough.

          • nathkatun7

            “I am discouraged by your and others’ willingness to disparage so many people simply because of their views–it’s what conservatives always have done to liberals and it pisses people off and degrades the whole discussion.”

            What do you think you’ve been doing from your first comment? You’ve been disparaging the views of those who were outraged by the views that you want us to accept and tolerate. What do you think Greenwald, Sirota, Cenk Uygur, HamsherScahill, etc., etc.,do all the time? Why aren’t you on their sites lecturing them? These are the people, from day one of his presidency, have been hammering President Obama, sometimes as viciously as the tea baggers.

            No I will not listen to people who attack me for supporting President Obama calling me a mindless “Obot.”! No I will not listen to people who relentlessly denigrate President Obama and then pretend that they are on my side! No, I don’t buy
            your characterization of them as “minor pundits” when every
            time I turn on the T. V., or open the pages of major Newspapers, they are the ones out there, being given a national platform, to join the right wingers in trashing the first African American President.

            If you were really serious and sincere about toleration of different views among liberals then you should be on those site that preach purity and being “holier than thou” liberals. You should be joining in condemning Sirota for his denigration of the President. Obviously you are not serious despite your pretensions. You just came here to dump on this site; or to use your polite term, “to disparage” the authors and the people who comment here. So please stop your pretenses of trying to suggest that you are impartial.

          • first last

            Well said. Guest, the problem isn’t that these people constantly attack the president. It’s that these people constantly **make up things that aren’t actually true** in order to constantly attack the president.

            That’s the entirety of the problem in a nutshell.

            Right or left, you don’t get to make up your own facts and selectively omit other key facts in order to satisfy your emotional needs. That’s it, that’s the whole problem right there.

          • 624LC .

            They are not friends or allies. Fuck ‘em and their fee fees.

      • Lady Willpower

        Actually “newly mindted tinfoil left” is better than they deserve. Their hatred of Obama is palpable. It’s as bad as any freerepublic comment thread. It’s as bad as Breitbart. I even see these supposed “leftists” subscribing to the most pernicious Obama conspiracy theories, like that he’s secretly gay or that Michelle’s been secretly disbarred. All in the name of “seeking the truth” of course. These people are not my allies. They’re barely even pretending anymore.

        Here’s a quick thought exercise:
        Anwar Al-Awlaki: terrorist recruiter. Preached hate, jihad, violence and murder against America. Counseled and supported numerous suicide bombers, giving aid and comfort in their holy quest to kill innocent people
        Trayvon Martin: 17-year old kid whose only crime was walking home while black.
        Barack Obama: imperfect, yet well-meaning president trying to fight terrorism best he can. It’s a war that unfortunately needs fighting. There are casualties, and I hate that, and we all wish the war had never started, but there are actual people out there plotting to kill us every day. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are actual entities.
        George Zimmerman: Dirty Harry wannabe who profiled, stalked, provoked and shot to death an innocent teenager. Because he wanted to feel like a big man.

        Do these seem like good things to be comparing?

        • BlueJay

          Sirota’s comparison is dumb. It’s also irrelevant. David Sirota is not driving any discussion unless you let him, which you seem to be by exhausting so much energy on the topic. This is my biggest problem with this site as a whole. There is a hyper-focus on the types of “liberals” that are undesirable, most of whom aren’t especially important or influential.

          Washington DC has a big and controversial living wage/Walmart bill in the news right now. There’s filibuster reform efforts. These sorts of things are not discussed here. The site’s preference is to point out what some incendiary leftist wrote and call them stupid, at length. Why?

          • Lady Willpower

            David Sirota is considered a very influential liberal voice. David Sirota is the subject of the article because he made a complete ass of himself yesterday. This subject is not irrelevant. You don’t have to read the article if you think its thesis is pointless, but you certainly can’t criticize the content when it’s spelled out right there in the title.

            The fact is, a lot of supposed liberals have been dying to take Obama out by the woodshed for a long while now. With the NSA “revelations” of last month, most of these firebagger/Paultard types are no longer operating in secrecy. THEY are the ones making themselves known. We can’t just ignore them.

          • BlueJay

            By whom? David Sirota had some buzz like nine years ago. He’s just another political hack. He is not driving the discussion. Moreover, he needs people to get angry when he writes pieces designed to make people angry. You play into this and drive his page views. You CAN just ignore him.

            I don’t know what a firebagger is btw. But I don’t think a lack of enthusiasm about the President and his work makes one a bad–or good–liberal.

          • js hooper

            You think comparing President Obama to GEORGE ZIMMERMAN a day after the verdict in an incredibly emotional and traumatic trial for the black community…is simply expressing a lack of enthusiasm for Obama’s policies?

            GTFO with that bullshit…now I know you’re just concern trolling.

          • BlueJay

            I think comparing Barack Obama to George Zimmerman is a sensationalist attempt to garner page views and ignite profitable controversy. It has nothing to do with policy. Sirota is a hack, and I think writing about him is hackery too.

            I’m not trying to “troll” you, whatever that means. The bit about Obama’s policies was not related to Sirota. I’m trying to be civil and get to the bottom of why everyone here is so pissed at annoying bloggers and pundits and (I suspect) fellow voters and political enthusiasts. You guys are PISSED.

          • Victor_the_Crab

            And you say you follow politics closely. You fail at “not trolling”.

          • BlueJay

            Yes, I do follow politics closely. What I do not follow closely is bloggy Internet bullshit. I’m sorry if I have offended or annoyed the regulars of this site and whatever their orthodoxy is–that’s pretty much all I wanted to know, what the orthodoxy is here, what is the source of the constant anti-Greenwald/Sirota stuff. I will respectfully refrain from engaging with this site any further.

          • missliberties

            “…..what is the source of the constant anti-Greenwald/Sirota stuff.”

            The source of discussing what they say, is actually what they say. Comparing Obama to Zimmerman is beyond the pale, over the cliff and into the abyss. Sirota deserves to be called out on his BS.

          • kfreed

            So you’re here on this site engaging in bloggy Internet bullshit… for what purpose?

          • Victor_the_Crab

            Bull fucking shit you do! Nobody here likes extremes, whether it’s from the far right with practically anyone from the Republican party and the RWNJ, or the left with asshats like Sirota and Greenwald, who may just as well be peering from the right. If you can’t get that through your dense skull, then you’re too stupid to live!

          • Victor_the_Crab

            I will respectfully refrain from engaging with this site any further.

            Good! Don’t come back until you get a brain and some common sense, idiot!

          • sam stone

            Good show. I engaged here in a similar way recently and was met with the same reaction. This is not a site that welcomes critical discussion, no matter how civil and earnest. But I am very appreciative of the points you made here, and I think it does some good for the regulars to see that not all people who are willing to criticize the administration are crazy libertarian trolls, as much as would like to dismiss us in those terms. Other than that I think you’re right that engaging here is not productive. This place is for simple “yay team” and “boo those guys” reactions to politics, and not much more.

          • kfreed

            It has everything to do with policy. It comes dowm to shaping public opinion on gun control policy and revisiting ALEC’s “Stand Your Ground” laws. Which you know perfectly well, I imagine.

          • kfreed

            Pushing back on douchebaggery is a necessity. Of course those issues are discussed here. If you don’t think these people are that important why are you expending so much energy discussing them?

          • nathkatun7

            “There is a hyper-focus on the types of “liberals” that are undesirable, most of whom aren’t especially important or influential.”

            That’s an absolutely false statement! These people the Sirotas, the Greenwalds, the Maurine Dowds are given megaphones and print platforms to relentlessly trash the President. As far as I am concerned they aid and abet the right wingers who are frustrating the reform efforts. For you not to recognize their divisive and damaging impact is dishonest.

        • Deoliver47

          I was trying to be polite.
          What I call them in privacy is unprintable ;)

      • Deoliver47

        I’m not, and never have been “a liberal”. Activist, community organizer, radical – tags I’ve worn. I don’t waste any energy hating – surrounded by too much of it every day. A huge class of people? Who would they be? Certainly not folks from my neighborhoods who have never heard of any of these people you are leaping to defend.

        • BlueJay

          I’m not leaping to defend anyone and I don’t know who you or your communities are, nor really who you think I’m leaping to defend. Frankly all I see on this site is a handful of people who are really pissed at certain other people, but those other people, beyond Snowden/Greenwald/Sirota, are not clear.

          • kfreed

            This handful of people takes issue with another handful of people for their constant fact-challenged outrage peddling. The world at large gives not a damn.

      • JarekAF

        Sirota’s written so much about stop-and-frisk and racial profiling over the years. But if he criticizes this administrations “due-process free” targeted killing’s of people of color; he’s suddenly some White Privilege phony.

        • Victor_the_Crab

          Do go fuck yourself, dickhole.

        • kfreed

          Appropriating the murder of an inncent teen in order to direct attention to one’s personal self-serving agenda is pretty despicable, no matter how you slice it.

          • JarekAF

            Appropriating the murder of an inncent teen in order to direct attention to one’s personal self-serving agenda is pretty despicable, no matter how you slice it.

            Yah, except when that so called “self-serving agenda” is the killing of other innocent teens by our country, for largely the same reasons.

            The killer thinks they’re up to no good and such killer ends up being wrong.

            And everyone here just assumes that AA Jr. was a terrorist because . . . he lives in Yemen and his dad was a bad dude. What type of crap is that. That’s racial profiling as well.

          • first last

            A better analogy:

            Al-Awlaki is Zimmerman.
            The people on the plane and the boys talked into donning explosive clothing were Martin.
            Obama is the police, if they had found Zimmerman in the midst of pulling his gun to shoot Martin.

          • JarekAF

            The fact that you compared an innocent american child to Zimmerman kinda makes Sirota’s point, doesn’t it.

            Those people aren’t really people to you. If they die, they probably deserved it.

          • kfreed

            The fact that you’re a pet parrot for Sirota and Greenwald doesn’t help your disingenuous argument, or theirs.

          • Kerry Reid

            Still waiting for you to explain your support for bombing Cambodians — since you cited Richard Nixon as a “progressive” president. How about it? Why do you have such hatred for people in Southeast Asia that you applaud the man who bombed them as “progressive?”

          • JarekAF

            Ok, no, I don’t actually think Nixon was our most progressive president. I only snarked that because someone on this thread was criticizing me and saying that Obama is the most progressive president by far, which I think is ludicrous.

            Nixon was awful. We have the phrase Nixonian for a reason. But, to his credit, I can point to significant progressive policies under his helm. Seriously, OSHA, the EPA, the Clean Air Act, employer mandated health insurance, expanded medicaid and medicare, instituted affirmative action, proposed a state run public option for health care etc . . . .

            Whereas with Obama, I genuinely struggle to find any progressive policy that he’s championed. Seriously. Healthcare reform is close, but for the fact that it’s a huge give away to the health insurance companies and Obama never fought for a public option. It’s essentially Romneycare.

            Can you name any significant progressive policies Obama’s enacted? Repealing DADT . . . ? I mean, he was pushed into that by GLBT activists. He certainly didn’t lead on that. AND, he’s always trying to cut social security. He’s expanded deportations like crazy, decimating countless brown families. Watch this Frontline Documentary: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/lost-in-detention/

            And you tell me how you can consider our president “progressive,” in light of all the brown families his policies are destroying. Hard working people who just want to support their families and make a better life. And they live in perpetual fear. And for what! So he can brag about all his deportations so these imaginary “law and order” moderates will vote for him? He brags about the record deportations.

            What’s sad, is that Obama is still way better than the GOP.

          • Kerry Reid

            “A huge giveaway to the health insurance companies?” Riiiight. One that they spent MILLIONS to try to defeat. Look up “medical loss ratio.” Look up “rescission.” But I see that you are one of those magpie reformers who only learned to “Brap! Public Option! Brap! Public Option!” and ignore everything else. But hey, here’s a nugget: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/health/health-plan-cost-for-new-yorkers-set-to-fall-50.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

            Also, please show me where the votes were in the Senate to pass a public option. There sure as shit weren’t the votes to close Gitmo. Even St. Bernie Sanders refused to vote for the funding there.

            So if you don’t know that passing significant healthcare reform, after DECADES of being stymied, is a BFD, then you’re hopeless. Want a Canadian system? Me too. But unlike you, I know it took Canada 30 years to evolve that system. Oh, and you credit Nixon for PROPOSING a state-run public option, but not for PASSING one. Because obviously it didn’t pass. So Nixon is “progressive” for suggesting it, but not for “Fighting!” for it, but Obama gets a pretty damn good package through under unprecedented opposition and he’s a sell-out? You’re a headcase.

            So I ask you — AGAIN! — who you consider a great progressive president. Abraham Lincoln? Not only did he suspend habeas corpus, but he ordered the deaths of quite a few Americans without “due process.”

            FDR? Talk to the Japanese-Americans. Read up on how few “brown” people were covered by Social Security. That was by design so that Southern Congressmen would vote for it. Oh, and he backburnered federal anti-lynching legislation so he could also get their support for New Deal programs.

            JFK? A hawk who, by many accounts “led from behind” on civil rights and appointed an attorney general who worked with Joe McCarthy. In fact, JFK himself refused to ever publicly criticize McCarthy’s tactics, since his old man and Tailgunner Joe were buddies.

            LBJ? Vietnam. And like his predecessors, he too was unable to pass universal healthcare.

            Carter? Kwangju Massacre, for starters. And also — no universal healthcare.

            So I’m sorry you don’t understand the bloody disappointing history of the country you live in and thought that the first black president would make everything better overnight

          • JarekAF

            So if you don’t know that passing significant healthcare reform, after DECADES of being stymied, is a BFD, then you’re hopeless

            Did I say it wasn’t a big deal? I just said it wasn’t an example of progressive policy he championed. Championing Mitt Romney/Heritage (circa 1998) plan, no matter how significant, isn’t progressive.

            Also, please show me where the votes were in the Senate to pass a public option.

            We were a vote or two short of Medicare for All before Joe Lieberman scuttled it. And it’s not like Obama cared, because if he did, he wouldn’t be potentially rewarding Joe Lieberman with the head of DHS (he’s currently on the short list). But, we’ll never know, since Obama never pushed for it. But I guess you’re one of those “Obama is helpless” Democrats.

            So I’m sorry you don’t understand the bloody disappointing history of the country you live in and thought that the first black president would make everything better overnight

            Nah, it’s more the covering up of torture, the war on whistleblowers, the war on brown folk (immigration), the other war on brown folks (the war on drugs), the war on muslims (our war on terror), zero prosecution for senior executives responsible for the economic crash, populating his senior staff with banksters, accepting the frame that the deficit is the problem and thus pushing for cuts to social security, consistent negotiating tactic of doing the Republicans work first (first lob on the stimulus was way too friendly to republicans by focusing on tax cuts), not even fighting for the payroll tax suspension in sequester negotiations — which happened to be the most stimulative and least regressive form of taxation (IOW: the 99%’s taxes went up a lot, the 1%’s, very minimal).

            You still haven’t actually identified a significant progressive policy Obama’s championed. You’ve just pointed out a bunch of flaws by other presidents. Which were largely true. But irrelevant.

            I do have my hopes for Elizabeth Warren in 2016 . . .

          • Kerry Reid

            Uh, moron — passing universal healthcare IS a significant progressive policy. So yes — yes I did. And if you need more, lookee here! http://pctcblog.com/index.html/obama.html

            I see you’re one of those “If he would just say awesome stuff 24/7, the president could make people change their votes! people.

            I do hope Warren gets in — if for no other reason so I can see you here whining about how much she’s “disappointed” you.

            Meantime, stop dodging: Name. A. Progressive. President. In.The. Past. If you can’t, perhaps that should let you know that governing as a progressive isn’t as easy as screaming about how disappointed you are on the internet.

          • JarekAF

            I wasn’t the one making the claim that Obama was the most progressive president ever. I think it’s hard to make a claim that any one president is “the most progressive president ever,” but I think it’d be one for whom you can at least identify actual progressive bench accomplishments.

            I’ve seen that link before. It was prepared by the Obama campaign, which is why, they have ridiculous stuff in there like: “Offered $400 million to the people living in Gaza, called on both Israel and the Palestinians to stop inciting violence.”

            And it’s not like I don’t recognize that he’s the best that’s out there (or was in 2008/12). But he’s the president now, and if he’s engaging in bad policy, he should be criticized. The GOP fears their base. The Demos relish crapping on their base to demonstrate their “moderate” and “centrist” bona-fides for the beltway fanboys/MSM. Which is why the GOP pushes extremely right wing policy, and our president pushes moderate/republican policies.

          • Kerry Reid

            So you think you’re “the base?” That’s rich. And if you are, you deserve to be crapped on for your obtuseness and inability to understand how governing works, what whip counts are, etc.

            NO other president came in facing the same economic and foreign policy shitstorm that Obama had to face, with a uniformly antagonistic-to-the-point-of-insane opposition (including from alleged “progressives” who started beating the drums against him before he was even inaugurated).

            And yet, somehow there is a subset of “progressives” who think that if the first black president doesn’t DO exactly what they want, and use their scripting for his public statements, then he’s a “sell-out.” Despite the fact that some of these same “progressives” haven’t got much to show for all their bleating. If they were so good at organizing and winning elections and winning hearts and minds and votes — why the fuck didn’t they do it? I mean, they’re so much smarter and pure than everyone else, surely the world will see their goodness and reward them with presidents who say “how high?” when they say “jump!”

            So in your world, it’s not a progressive policy unless YOU say it is, and it doesn’t count as an achievement (DADT) unless it was achieved the way YOU say it should have been and on your timeframe.

            If you thought that Obama was anything but a moderate centrist in his approach to legislation, then you really paid no attention to anything he wrote or did (see his IL State Senate record) prior to 2008.

            And yet – he still managed to achieve more socially progressive legislation than any president in the last 50 years. Then again, since your country club progressivism uses the White President tee where Richard Fucking Nixon gets credit for PROPOSING something but not doing anything about it, and Obama gets demonized for passing historic legislation that doesn’t have every item that the EmoGressives demanded (he never ran on single payer — and again, you haven’t shown where the public option votes were. Were you a “kill-the-bill” idiot?), I suspect that you have issues with something other than policy.

          • JarekAF

            I largely agree with you wrote but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re unable to identify a single progressive policy achievement.

            And yes, Obama, on his own accord, has engaged in some extremely un-progressive policies. Shouldn’t he be dinged for record deportations? The crazy GOP didn’t make him do that. He bragged about when running for re-election. Are the thousands of hard working immigrants without papers and their families just fodder for his campaign? Think about that for a second and get out of the “Washington/Policy” process machine and just think about what’s happening. You’re scolding me for not seeing the inherent progressiveness in Obama, when he presides over a system, that systematically destroys thousands of families for no good reason. And some point, being better than the Republicans isn’t enough to deserve praise.

            So in your world, it’s not a progressive policy unless YOU say it is, and it doesn’t count as an achievement (DADT) unless it was achieved the way YOU say it should have been and on your timeframe.

            Name a progressive policy he’s championed. Please. Just name one. Do you think he deserves credit for DADT? I think he deserves credit for reversing his position on gay marriage. But the policy was a result of activists from the Left.

            Despite the fact that some of these same “progressives” haven’t got much to show for all their bleating. If they were so good at organizing and winning elections and winning hearts and minds and votes — why the fuck didn’t they do it?

            Well they did. On DADT, it was gay marriage activists that won out. Obama resisted; or rather, they forced his hand.

            Also, the Dreamers. He adopted the “Dream Act” as an internal policy because of all the progressive activism against him. Those, I think, are the 2 most progressive policies to come out of his White House and they were each a result of sustained political pressure and activism from the Left.

            And yet – he still managed to achieve more socially progressive legislation than any president in the last 50 years.

            Like what? Romney’s healthcare plan? We were close on medicare for all until Joe Lieberman (who Obama never punished and yes, he has the ability to punish Dems who step out of line . . . it’s not like he’s a Democrat from South Dakota). The votes were there if Obama pushed for it. It polled significantly higher than the exchanges.

          • kfreed

            You’re sincerely full of it. Where in America are there drones gunning down teenagers? Are you talking about a war zone? It happens in war zones, doesn’t it?

            So, all of a sudden the people responsible for carpet bombing Iraq without provocation are the vanguard of the anti-war movement? LOL.

            Give us a break.

            The people responsible for the Patriot Act are now up in arms about it? LOL.

            Give us a break.

            Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute has no idea that Cato provided the justification for what he now claims to be against?

            Here are a few entertaining factoids:

            “The Cato Institute advised the 2002–04 Republican-dominated Congress to commence military strikes in Pakistan in its Cato Handbook for Congress arguing, “Ultimately, Afghanistan becomes less important as a place to conduct military operations in the war on terrorism and more important as a place from which to launch military operations. And those operations should be directed across the border into neighboring Pakistan.”

            Another Cato Institute executive, Roger Pilon, vigorously supported Bush’s attacks on civil liberties. Pilon, Cato’s VP for legal affairs and founding director of the Cato Institute’s “Center for Constitutional Studies,” supported expanded FBI wiretapping in 2002 and called on Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act as late as 2008.”

            http://www.thenation.com/article/167500/independent-and-principled-behind-cato-myth#

            Patriot Act: “Sean Hannity On NSA Surveillance, Then And Now”
            http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/12/sean-hannity-on-nsa-surveillance-then-and-now/194437

            Ron Paul worshipping David Sirota and Glenn Greenwald can peddle their propaganda any old time, they don’t need to hijack the murder of an innocent teen to do it. It’s reprehensible.

            And P.S. Douche, President Obama ended the war in Iraq and he will end the war in Afghanistan. If idiots such as yourself wanted that to happen sooner, they could direct their efforts toward that end rather than engaging in media propaganda. But then, ending war isn’t what this is about, now is it?

          • JarekAF

            Where in America are there drones gunning down teenagers? Are you talking about a war zone? It happens in war zones, doesn’t it?

            Not in America. In the world. It’s ok when we kill children, just so long as it’s not in America. And NO, it’s not all in war zones. Most of the time it’s far away from any war zone. It’s people at BBQ’s (like AA jr), Cafes and the like. As well as large public gatherings. It’s killing people for “pre-crime”. It’s not actually killing people

            Here’s another professor making the point:

            If we do not come to terms with this history, we will continue to believe that the system just needs to be tweaked, or that the fault lies with a fanatical gun culture or a wacky right-wing fringe. We will miss the routine character of such killings: according data compiled by the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, a black person is killed by the state or by state-sanctioned violence every 28 hours. And we will miss how this history of routine violence has become a central component of the U.S. drone warfare and targeted killing. What are signature strikes if not routine, justified killings of young men who might be al-Qaeda members or may one day commit acts of terrorism? It is little more than a form of high-tech racial profiling.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-d-g-kelley/nra-stand-your-ground-trayvon-martin_b_3599843.html

            If idiots such as yourself wanted that to happen sooner, they could direct their efforts toward that end rather than engaging in media propaganda. But then, ending war isn’t what this is about, now is it?

            What media propaganda? Only person spewing propaganda here is you “This is in war zones”.

            I do spend my time criticizing the Afghanistan war. Ending the war isn’t what this is about? Ok genius, you tell me. I don’t like us killing innocent people. That’s my thing. But you tell me. Let me guess, this is really about smearing “Obama,” right?

            You’re clinical man. You blame Greenwald for the Patriot Act and the Iraq war. That’s nuts.

          • kfreed

            I think you seriously need to get a grip. Again, Sirota can drone on about drones to his hearts’ content. I don’t care. He doesn’t get to use a dead boy as a launching pad for his grandstanding schtick.

            Libertarian Glenn Greenwald of Cato Institute: http://exiledonline.com/glenn-greenwald-of-the-libertarian-cato-institute-posts-his-defense-of-joshua-foust-the-exiled-responds-to-greenwald/

            ” You blame Greenwald for the Patriot Act and the Iraq war. That’s nuts.”

            Is it?

            Greenwald’s benefactors at Cato are responsible for the Patriot Act, as noted in my comment above.

            Greenwald supported the war in Iraq as he notes in the preface of his book, “How Would a Patriot Act”

            Greenwald is libertarian Tea Party shill. His professed concern about war combined with his 24/7 outrage peddling against President Obama and his cheerleading for the Pauls tells me that Greenwald isn’t what he claims to be.

            Ta da!

          • JarekAF

            Greenwald is libertarian Tea Party shill.

            So this is what it’s like inside the bubble? You guys are like Birthers. Seriously. It’s pathological.

            Greenwald’s benefactors at Cato are responsible for the Patriot Act.

            It’s like you’re in an alternate reality. I’d blame Cheney, the rest of the Bush administation, the neo-cons, the military industrial complex and sure . . . if CATO lobbied for it, then they’re partially responsible too!

            Greenwald was a lawyer in private practice when the patriot act was passed and the Iraq war was debated and he never advocated for either. And yet, you somehow blame him? Just nuts.

        • nathkatun7

          “Sirota’s written so much about stop-and-frisk and racial profiling over the years.”

          Cite evidence please!

      • Raina

        You think it’s one-sided? Why not criticize those who have such contempt for Obama supporters and call them all kinds of names, like in the ones mentioned above, and many more. But no, it’s the Obama supporters who are “hippie punching” and hurting your wittle fee fees.

      • kfreed

        Not to worry, it’s not actually “left on left” hatred (most of the Obama-hate crew is libertarian). And this site isn’t responsible for producing friction. That is the purview of individulas who cannot comprehend why Democrats have no interest in Tea Party creeps like Ron or Rand Paul:) Lookin’ at you, Sirota, Greenwald. They just don’t like it when actual progressives start chiseling away at Bullshit Mountain.

  • i_a_c

    Addressing the point about the optics and the politics, even though Greenwald and Sirota liken their positions to that of most Americans, the fact is that they’re pretty far in the political wilderness, and they continue to isolate themselves with tripe like what Sirota put out today. What they forget is that the liberal wing of the country is really a center-left coalition including young people, well educated whites, and people of color, among others (single women, etc… I’ll never name every demo). We call it the Democratic Party.

    By using people of color as props (dead ones, even!!) to score political points and basically calling the Democratic President a racist murderer, they isolate themselves from the broad political coalition and do not do their issues–some legitimate and many I sympathize with–any favors. Politicians will have nothing to do with those on the far left oozing bile which is toxic to the coalition necessary to win. If they want to move the country left, they’re doing a piss-poor job.

    But let’s be frank, a lot of the isolationist, racist Paulesque shit that these folks dabble in isn’t liberal at all. So I don’t know what they’re all doing over there except getting reach-arounds from their personal fanbases. Some make a living on it and become professional “leftists.” It must take a bunch of reach-arounds to get to that point, though.

    • nathkatun7

      Great comment.

  • js hooper

    There’s something more revealing that goes beyond their unhinged hatred of President Obama…and their willingness to praise, defend and lend credibility to some of the most RACIST and REGRESSIVE right wing politicians in the country ( the Paul family)

    The fact that all these faux leftists seem to almost take pride in being extremely offensive to black people. They will attempt to hijack our struggle to use as a merit badge for their pet causes. (Snowden being compared to MLK, Rosa Parks etc)

    When the Ron Paul Newsletter issue got stirred up again in 2011…these Paultards on the left couldn’t wait to tell black folks how little they cared about his vile white supremacist views…To add even further insult they proceeded to tell us how Pres.Obama was the “real racist” because of drug policy & drones.

    Here we are in 2013 after an extremely emotional trial…and David Sirota & his crew are simultaneously trying to hijack the spotlight to push their political agenda…as well as dismiss the very real and deep pain,anger/outrage felt by the black community

  • Lady Willpower

    And with that, David Sirota has now blasted past Ralph Nader in the competition for The Most Tone-Deaf Thing In The World, As Told By Supposed Progressives.

    Seriously, every time something momentous happens to black Americans, good or bad, count on some pretend liberal to come along and take a massive crap on it.

    Lord spare me.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      Oh, deal Lard. Anyone claiming to be liberal who appears on Fox news has disqualified themselves, as far as I’m concerned.

      • Lady Willpower

        Oh, you can be a liberal and appear on FOX. Just try not to embarrass us.

  • blackdaug

    What will this magical, mystical, Greenwald, Paul, Sirota, Assaunge party be called?
    The Tea-o-crats?
    Is this the version of Groundhog day where I am stuck in November 2010?
    Just when I think this country might not be completly too stupid to govern…..
    Its happening again.

    • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

      I suppose this is the last time I should say that I didn’t see this coming. I’ve always been critical of what is called the “far left,” even though I’m to the left of them politically. I know my views aren’t representative and will be glad for any change that makes life better for people.

      I say we keep “firebaggers” and suggest “the unicorn party” for those who think we should dismantle our intelligence agencies and by pacifists. Personally, I’m anti-war for most of our military engagements but not a pacifist.

      • butterflybesos9

        exactly how I feel

  • HilaryB

    I never heard of Sirota or Greenwald until recently. Where were they during the Bush years?

    • Lady Willpower

      Oh, Greenwald was around during the Bush years. He was annoying even then.
      Funniest thing about Glenn back then, though, was that he didn’t have his legion of brain-dead clones at his beck and call. No one to jump in on comment threads to parrot all of his high-minded rubbish. So Glenn had to improvise, and function as his own biggest fan.

  • butterflybesos9

    I tweeted him asking him what he thinks President Obama should do about the terrorists so many on the left swear we’re not fighting cause they don’t exist and he said that he has talked about it a lot. And the solution? We should talk to the non existent terrorist and use intelligence ( no doubt approved by Greenwald of course) and good police work to stop future terrorist attacks. This was suggested to him by Chris Hayes….. I then tweeted back how exactly do you talk to a headless stateless group of killers who hide among civilians while also killing them. Naturally he ignored these points. I know I’m not a conservative but I now question whether or not I’m a progressive. I swear it seems both sides -and I REALLY hate that phrase- have lost their damn minds

    • first last

      No, you’re a progressive. You’re just not a radical pacifist. Which isn’t something for which you have to apologize, radical pacifism doesn’t have a good track record.

      • nathkatun7

        I don’t even think people like Greenwald, who go on and on about drones are pacifists. Didn’t Greenwald support the invasions Afghanistan and Iraq?

    • i_a_c

      I’ve entertained that question, too, but it’s not like I moved anywhere, these nutcases stole the “progressive” mantle for themselves and lectured anyone who didn’t subscribe to their extremism.

      I’ve dropped the “progressive” label to describe myself and went back to being a plain ol’ liberal. I don’t want to be associated with not-liberal isolationist or libertarian/anarchist philosophy.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        Me too. The drone issue is childish politically. I’ve asked some of them point blank if they’d rather we used fighter jets since drones offend them so much and even after saying “if it’s the bombing you’re opposed to, then criticize the bombing”, “if it’s the targeting you’re opposed to, then criticize the targeting,” but they go right back to droning on about the drones.

        They remind of four year-olds playing war or cops and robbers. It’s all about the props.

        • i_a_c

          Worse, they’re the types of cops and robbers players–and you probably encountered these types as a child–who always have some kind of bulletproof vest or immunity that lets them shoot (read: criticize) at will but never take any shots (read: criticism) from anyone else.

      • butterflybesos9

        that’s what I need to do. I’m more of an FDR liberal I don’t get these Ron Paul loving freaks who obsess only about one thing while ignoring more pressing, urgent problems. Thanks for the suggestion

    • nathkatun7

      Personally, I have never been comfortable with the term Progressive given the history of the Progressive Movement.

      The Progressive movement of the early 20th century included both Democrats and Republicans. What United them was their advocacy for change, and especially change breaking up trusts that were exploiting people, and allowing more political participation by the people (e.g. primary elections, and the use of people’s initiatives to by pass legislatures).

      There were two areas where progressives were not united: Foreign policy and Race. Some Progressives, like President Theodore Roosevelt were imperialists while some Progressives like Mark Twain were anti-imperialism. Very many Progressives, including President Woodrow Wilson and a great many Southern Segregationists, were rabid racists, while a few progressives, like Jane Adams and some of the white founders of the NAACP were anti-racism. Many Progressives supported World I, but some opposed it.

      After Republicans in 1980’s made the term liberal into a dirty word, many Democrats started calling themselves Progressives

  • Joyce M

    The talking heads making these insensitive remarks feel their status or race makes them immune to being shot. Patricia Cook was shot after she rolled up her window after talking to a police officer. There was an attempted cover-up, but the people in her town fought back. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSPhC916GQM

    • Jeremy Grunloh

      When I saw that “Behind the Truth” thing at the beginning, I had to check out the rest of xBehindthetruthx’s uploads. Only a grandiose self-righteous crank would put a bumper like that together… and sure enough: Gun-nuttery, climate denial, “sheep gives birth to half-human monster”, goldbug shit, Benghazi et al. I’m not saying the local news station he got this from is in the wrong here, but I never accept a conspiracy theorist’s interpretation or judgement. Local news will air absolutely anything, so I’m looking more into the claims of the people being interviewed here before I accept a thing. Much of the bits of news that conspiracy-theorists hold up as as “proof” of their claims are just long-ago-debunked items from the internet they’ve never bothered to corroborate, or they’re something they have selectively edited.

      • http://www.facebook.com/felonious.grammar Felonious Grammar

        Yes. I recently heard more details about a story I had previously read about a man in Texas who shot an escort for not providing the service he paid for, and the details made all the difference. Though it was wrong for him to use his gun, it was legal in Texas. He said that he had not intended to hit her, and was aiming at one of her tires. She died later in the hospital. It’s entirely possible that he killed her because he was a bad shot. It’s a good argument to not authorize people to walk around armed in public, but it’s not the same as if he had murdered her over $150.00 dollars.

        Not reporting stories such as these accurately hurts the cause.

  • Sabreen60

    Appears Sirota, Greenwald and their sycophants hope to depress Democratic turnout in 2014. These people are neither liberals nor Democrats. Whom are they attempting to turn against President Obama? There diatribes are awfully condescending. Evidently they believe most of us don’t know about drones. But seriously, this latest insult to President Obama is no different than those from Rush or Beck. I expect to see Sirota and/or Greenwald on FOX any day now.

    • butterflybesos9

      their obvious bullshit doesn’t make me not want to vote. It has the opposite effect. Overly sensitive emoprogs are the reason that Dems have no spine and couldn’t win elections for so long. People like them are the reason that Dubya became President cause it was more important to vote for Ralph Nader to “send a message” and also the reason we lost congress in 2010 and the nutjob Tea Party has taken over the country cause they told everybody to have a temper tantrum and don’t vote. Bottom line? They should be ignored and shunned at all times.

    • first last

      Greenwald and Snowden are both Libertarians, so yes they do regard liberals as an enemy to be defeated at all costs. Sirota’s a Green Party guy, same deal. Basically the people who are genuinely pissed off about this are the vocal minority who support 3rd parties.

      • nathkatun7

        My main quarrel is with the media for giving them the megaphones and a National platform to attack the President while falsely claiming that they represent the President’s base.

    • Victor_the_Crab

      If they do supress the Democratic vote, then I will to grab them by their throats, squeeze them until my fingers penetrate through their skin, and I will KILL THEM!

      • butterflybesos9

        and I’ll be your B37

    • nathkatun7

      I don’t watch T.V. news, but a friend told me Greenwald recently appeared on Fox to attack the President on the NSA hype.