Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Joan Walsh Divides Again

Just over a year ago, when Wisconsin was in the throes of protest against Scott Walker's proposal to eliminate collective bargaining, Joan Walsh wrote a column declaring that it was more important to organise for local and state elections than to campaign for the President.

This column was written on the day that the President announced he was running for re-election. It was filled with untruths (about OFA not getting involved with the protesters - they did), misquotes (the infamous misquote of Ishmael Reed) and not-so-subtle race-baiting. Here's a trip down Memory Lane for people just to remind them of a particularly "pernicious" race war which Joan's ignorant remark ignited on Twitter:-

I deeply resent people who insist that white progressives who criticize Obama are deluding themselves that they’re his “base,” when his “base” is actually not white progressives, but people of color. Ishmael Reed laid out this pernicious line in December, in the New York Times, after many progressives, of every race, criticized Obama’s tax cut compromise. Reed compared “white progressives” who wanted more from Obama to spoiled children, compared with black and Latino voters “who are not used to getting it all.” I’ve been getting a similar message from some of my correspondents, and it’s depressingly divisive.

Of course, Joan never once in her white privaleged life ever thought she could be divisive. The only thing that erupted and lasted from this is a permanent antagonism towards Joan's hypocrisy from people of colour and those of us who actually recognise a racist when we see one and who acknowledge that racism can emanate from the Left as well as the Right - it's just masked better under paternalism.

Well, one year on and on the day of the Wisconsin recall, Joan's at it again.

This time, she's castigating the President for making the "pernicious" (that word again) faux pas of not showing Wisconsin enough political love and going to bat continuously for Democrat Tom Barrett.

People have been blaming the President for Scott Walker since this ruckus started in January 2011 - mostly the lowest level of political minds demanding that the President "get his ass" out to Wisconsin or he didn't deserve a second term.

It's not enough that the President be the n-word in the woodpile for the Republicans, an attitude which entices the shallow-minded media to treat him with scant respect, the Progressive Left, of which Joan Walsh takes a stipend from MSNBC as some sort of political "analyst" without ever having any direct contact or involvement with politics directly, has to make him out to be some sort of inadequately performing house servant, their own personal Step'n Fetchit, who must be all things to all people and all places at all times, or else he'll risk getting a verbal tongue-lashing from his perceived betters.

Why, just yesterday morning, Chris Matthews chose the Right-leaning Morning Joe in order to castigate the President for what he perceived to be wasting time raising money from movie stars when he should be back-slapping and arm-twisting deals on the Hill to get business done or to show the country how and why the Republicans were stymying worthwhile projects and legislation. Beg pardon, but this is what I thought the President had been doing all along.

Walsh has weighed in, in the middle of an election year, with a thoroughly divisive article, laying the blame for what will probably be a narrow victory by Scott Walker, squarely at the President's feet - ne'mind the fact that Tom Barrett, himself, has said that he didn't feel neglected at all by the White House, that what happened in Wisconsin was a grass roots' movement for and about Wisconsin. And ne'mind that one inveterate Tweeter has sent this message to Joan:-

Some people seem to know the situation at hand better than this particular "political analyst."

Still, it doesn't surprise me, and it doesn't surprise me that her outburst comes simultaneously as that of her fellow Clintonite, Ed Rendell, who's using every opportunity imaginable to antagonise the Obama campaign message and undermine the President in an election year, in the undying hope that Hillary might rise like a phoenix from the ashes of what they will perceive and spin as a failed Presidential campaign (because the President never heeded their "wisdom") and challenge Willard Mitt Romney successfully in 2016.

This is what their ire is all about. It's vicious, vindictive and sly enough to divide and conquer, but for whom?

This President has been as ill-served by the Left as he has by the Right, and that's no one's fault but our own and the media types like Joan Walsh who led us by the short and curlies. But, of course, they will blame the President - after all, it's always easier to blame the black man.


  1. Ed Rendell just came out with a book, so he's hustling for face time on TV to get those sales up. If he can do a little Obama-bashing in the process it's a win-win for him.

  2. Many on the Left/PL are just as short-sighted as those on the far right. They want instant, short term results and do not look at things from a long-term perspective, and they don't think about the long-term damage that could result from impulsive actions. They talk about how GWB's impulsive actions were bad for the country, but won't give PBO credit for thinking/planning for long-term results. They refuse to think about what would have happened had PBO gone to WI. The RW would have bashed him for violating states rights, would have questioned whether he was the president of ALL Americans, and they would have used Fox News and their other media outlets to push more of their fake outrage. Why some on the Left/PL expect the president to babysit them goes against everything that a liberal is supposed to be. In my POV, a liberal doesn't depend on any politician to become politically motivated. When some on the Left/PL act as if one man can change everything they see wrong with this country, it casts light on the main problem--they seem to think they voted for a dictator to run a democracy.

  3. "...racism can emanate from the Left as well as the Right - it's just masked better under paternalism." Not only can racism emanate from the Left, IT IS where it emanates. Just take a look at the actions, besides words, that come from the Left. And upon closer look, the only thing racist coming from the Right is when they disagree with Obama - and for good, common sense reasons. Oh, and it's the radical, progressive left that has anointed itself as the final word on what is and is not racist - with the help of the liberal media. And there lies the problem - racism from the Left isn't just masked better under paternalism, the media covers it and is a partner in crime with the Left.