Left Wing, My Eye!

I am really, really tired of hearing right-wing nutjobs call Obama and other elected Democrats “liberals.” I am tired of hearing tales of the mythical Liberal Media, which allegedly brainwashes us with left-wing bilge. And today, I heard the coups de gras: some dorkwad (O’Reilly or Hannity, I think) called Obama a “left wing radical.”

Please. Let’s just take a moment people. Left wing radical, seriously? Now, I know that the people spewing this crap day in and day out know darn well what a REAL lefty radical is like. But the poor, ignorant masses don’t. They lap up this sh*t like a kitten drinks milk. And then they vote these idiots into office because they are afraid of the “crazy muslim black man” running our country.

What’s the matter with Kansas? I’ll tell you what: they believe this baloney, and they would soil their drawers to discover what a REAL leftist radical wants.

Of course, they would soil themselves because they have been brainwashed (by corporate, not liberal media) to be very, very afraid of people like me. People who believe in the common good, who understand that taxes are the way a society pays for that common good. People who actually read books instead of watching non-reality tv night after night. (Do we really care what happens to the Gosselins? Really?)

Knowing many people who actually live in Kansas (and others who fit the bill), I believe that they just don’t know better. That they are not skeptical enough — either by nature or upbringing — to distrust what they see on tv. After all, CNN seems pretty reputable, right? Heck, even I used to think O’Reilly wasn’t so bad — until I discovered what a lying liar he is. But one only learns such things by reading dark, evil, lefty literature.

But I digress. My beef is not with the masses. It’s with the talking heads who repeat this same boring mantra day in and day out. I am tired of hearing Obama’s centrist ideas being called radical. I guess you could say I’m feeling a bit left out. After all, if Obama is a lefty radical, what then am I?

This is why I’ve decided to take up the mantle for true left wing radicals. No, I’m not going to accept the current Senate health care bill because “it’s better than nothing.” No, I’m not going to sit quietly as we continue to bail out Wall Street. No, I’m not going to let the O’Lie-lly’s (TM Al Franken) of the world defame my good lefty name. I believe in calling a spade a spade. Obama and most of the current Democrats are nowhere near being Left. They are maybe, just maybe, a tad left of center. That’s all.

You wanna see true Left? Listen to Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich. Read yourself some Marx. Watch some Michael Moore movies (Sicko, anyone?). These are the Real Lefties. And they are proud to say it.

Don’t believe me? Well of course, why should you. I’m just another Lefty Radical myself. But Thom Hartmann is the most reasonable, balanced human being I have ever encountered, and I have heard him repeatedly assert that “there is no Left in America today.” Look up today’s broadcast in fact, and you will hear him say just that!

I can agree to disagree. I can respect a True Conservative’s ideas (hail George Will and Andrew Sullivan). But I cannot tolerate the bigoted, bullshit scare tactics of the Right Wing Lunatics any longer. They aren’t even the fringe any more; they are the mainstream of the Republican Party. Sad, but true. I dearly hope the True Conservatives splinter off and form their own party. Because the teabaggers aren’t doing anybody any favors. Oh, except the rich, Wall Street fat cat corporate businessmen. You think Glenn Beck, who lives in a gated community, gives a shit about you, worker bee of the American blue-collar “middle” class? Think again.

All I ask is that we get real. Let’s discuss reality, not this fantasy world Fox News has created for us. Obama is not a left-wing radical. From where the teabaggers stand, sure, he’s pretty left. But just because they are far out in right field doesn’t make the Center left. In fact, most of Obama’s decisions thus far have only supported right-wing corporatist ideals (anyone remember the Wall Street bailout of last year? Anyone know anyone who’s benefited? No? Well gee, I do: the mega banks have posted record profits since then).

So please: can we stop listening to crazy teabaggers (btw, the lamest name ever — don’t they know what it means?) and start listening to actual facts? F-A-C-T-S. Google it.

Leave a Comment


Leave a Reply

Sam Allgood

Left, right, or whatever you want to call Obama, his policies and practices scare me. I think Glenn Beck cares more about me (and the rest of the people of America) more than Obama does. At least he recognizes that when people want a job they go to the ‘evil rich’, not to someone who is on the government dole.

Sure, taxes are required for the common good, but Democrats (and often many Republicans) seem to not realize that eventually you are going to run out of the other guy’s money and that we very quickly get tired of working our butts off so that the government can ‘spread the wealth’ to those sitting on their butts simply because they can and are too lazy to work.

I have never yet met a right-wing lunatic who was not willing to freely share of his own wealth with the less fortunate. Most however denounce the practice of the left to refuse to reach into their own pocket but instead insist on reaching into your pocket so that they can ease their conscience.

Speaking of facts and lies, did your fact-checking about the O’Reilly lies go beyond ‘reading dark, evil, lefty literature’ to checking actual facts?

Rob Ahern

Writers of ‘dark, evil, lefty literature’ tend (or feel obligated to) provide legitimate footnotes for controversial assertations, providing context by which a reader can assertain the basis of analysis; Glenn Beck et al. do not.


I concur w/ Rob in regards to my fact checking. Also, yes, I do check “lefty slanders” against O’Lielly w/ other news outlets. And frankly, most of the time it is rather obvious that the crap he spews is untrue.

I have to object to your characterization of social/common good programs as supporting those who are “too lazy to work.” Yes, such people exist — and they should be prevented from ripping off the system and penalized when they do. However, the numbers of these people have been greatly exaggerated by some on the Right. Most people “living off the government dole” actually need it.

Don’t delude yourself Sam, Glenn Beck does not care about you. Well, actually, maybe he does. He truly is a lunatic, in every sense of the word. He sounds like someone who needs some meds.

And please please PLEASE cite ONE example of a Neocon sharing his wealth to help others. Because the mantra of the Right is that everyone should pull himself up by his own bootstraps. Which is the opposite concept.

If we could wipe the slate clean of the massive debt created by W’s failed wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, and clean up the failed economy he left us…..if we could start fresh and institute some of these lefty socialist programs (along with the appropriate taxes to pay for them), we could set up a system that did not overly tax anyone or wrongly make anyone pay more than his fair share.


I would like to issue an apology of sorts, for being less erudite than usual. I kinda went off in this post. Usually I try to be more balanced and less inflammatory. But I had a bee in my bonnet. I hope I did not offend anyone. Other than Glenn Beck, maybe.

Cheryl Wahlheim

I agree with you GeekChick. I am wondering how old you are? I have daughters ranging in age from 35 to 19. The oldest daughter is a news junkie like me but the other 3 really don’t ever read ANY news. They don’t read newspapers, they don’t look at Google News, they don’t go to CNN or NPR. If we can’t get people, old or young, to look at anything other than the latest celebrity news, then people like Rush or Bill or Ann will continue to fill that information void. But who am I really mad at? Someone like Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska who I believe was elected to be a representative for the entire nation and instead is just getting the best deal he can for his state!

Cheryl Wahlheim

Oh and kudos to you for calling Bill O’Reilly a liar. Does anyone else remember that when George W. came out with his “weapons of mass destruction” scenario to defend his decision to get into Iraq and Bill defended him saying he would publicly apologize on the air if it turned out not to be true? Guess what? Bill never said another word about his error in judgement.


I am 40. I can’t stand too much news, because I know it’s mostly BS propaganda — but I do read/watch enough to stay in touch with current issues and events. And I seek out non-corporate sources, which are more likely to be fact-based.

Maybe your younger daughters will catch up. I know I evolved quite a bit politically during the college years — I started quite apathetic, but in the end was quite active. But of course, every generation is different in the way it responds to (or doesn’t) political issues.

For a second, I had to think about who “Ann” was! Maybe we should start calling her Mann Coulter. hee hee


PS, I have two young daughters myself (8 and 5), and I am raising them to be politically/socially active and engaged. My oldest is likely to turn out to be quite the activist.

Sam Allgood

Interesting … you consider news ‘mostly BS propaganda’, yet you rely on it for fact-checking. How do we know what news to trust, especially when we see how little fact-checking they do themselves? I think most of us tend to believe whoever agrees with out world-view and reports what tends to support that view.

I tend to take a very wary view of news reporters, especially those who present themselves as simply reporting the news when actually they are presenting what they want you to know with their particular slant on it. At least O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and Beck don’t pretend to be news reporters but are unabashedly commentators. In a huge majority of cases we have no basis for knowing what in fact happened without first-hand knowledge.

ONE example of a Neocon sharing his wealth to help others: me, and most other people I associate with, and that on top of what the government takes from me to do it on my behalf. That’s assuming you would classify me as a Neocon … I don’t know what your definition. I would be very, very, very surprised to find that most, if not all, of those hate-mongers you disparage, do not give more of their income to help the less fortunate than Obama, Pelosi, and Reid combined.

Cheryl, can’t confirm whether O’Reilly said another word about it or not … don’t get to listen to/watch all of his programs, do you? Besides, one major issue with that is what is defined as a weapon of mass destruction? Obama believes it can be hidden in one’s underwear .. I think the troops in Iraq found a lot more than that. Maybe Bush was mistaken about the existence of those weapons, but Saddam Hussein sure made every effort to make us believe he had them.


I didn’t say I “relied” on news for fact checking. What I meant was that I check stories out at a variety of outlets. Some are news, some are not. None of the news outlets are corporate-owned, which means they are not part of the corporate propaganda machine (though they may have their own political slant, of course). I am a scientist and am able to look at facts, statements, and other evidence…and to separate these from my emotions/politics….before making a decision. If the facts contradict my dearest-held political beliefs, I can hardly deny their truth — no matter how much I may want to. Like finding out just how much insurance-industry money Chris Dodd took.

As for O’Reilly being an unabashed commentator…..I don’t know about lately, but many years ago wasn’t his slogan “We report, you decide”? Meaning that no, he did not put his politics into it but was just reporting the facts. Sadly, I was somewhat taken in by this lie, although I could plainly see he was personally a conservative. But yes, I agree: if someone is not portraying himself as a reporter being balanced, then yes, he can say whatever he wants.

I don’t think I would call you a Neocon, Sam. A conservative, yes. A Republican, probably. But to me, Neocons are the crazy ones, way out there. You are too lucid for that. You and I disagree on socialized medicine, but I haven’t heard you make any statements about Obama being black, muslim, radical, or a non-native. Maybe I just haven’t caught your face at any of those teabag rallies…… ; )

I am happy to hear that you and your associates are willing to help out your fellow man. I guess my statement was more directed at the really rich ones — the ones who are out there on tv yelling and screaming about socialism and radicals and whatnot. When Rush donates to a poor single mother in need, I will print a retraction immediately!

I am really glad you continue to read my blogs, Sam, and to post comments. I enjoy the dialogue.

Gary Berg-Cross

On this topic one source to read is Eric Alterman’s “What Liberal Media?”
His thesis as summarized in a Nation article is :

“Social scientists talk about “useful myths,” stories we all know aren’t necessarily true, but that we choose to believe anyway because they seem to offer confirmation of what we already know (which raises the question, If we already know it, why the story?). Think of the wholly fictitious but illustrative story about little George Washington and his inability to lie about that cherry tree. For conservatives, and even many journalists, the “liberal media” is just that–a myth, to be sure, but a useful one. ” …

Given the success of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, the Washington Times, the New York Post, The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, the New York Sun, National Review, Commentary, Limbaugh, Drudge, etc., no sensible person can dispute the existence of a “conservative media.” The reader might be surprised to learn that neither do I quarrel with the notion of a “liberal media.” It is tiny and profoundly underfunded compared with its conservative counterpart, but it does exist. As a columnist for The Nation and an independent weblogger for MSNBC.com, I work in the middle of it, and so do many of my friends. And guess what? It’s filled with right-wingers.

Unlike most of the publications named above, liberals, for some reason, feel compelled to include the views of the other guy on a regular basis in just the fashion that conservatives abhor. Take a tour from a native: New York magazine, in the heart of liberal country, chose as its sole national correspondent the right-wing talk-show host Tucker Carlson. During the 1990s, The New Yorker–the bible of sophisticated urban liberalism–chose as its Washington correspondents the belligerent right-winger Michael Kelly and the soft, DLC neoconservative Joe Klein. At least half of the “liberal New Republic” is actually a rabidly neoconservative magazine and has been edited in recent years by the very same Michael Kelly, as well as by the conservative liberal-hater Andrew Sullivan. The Nation has often opened its pages to liberal-haters, even among its columnists. The Atlantic Monthly–a mainstay of Boston liberalism–even chose the apoplectic Kelly as its editor, who then proceeded to add a bunch of Weekly Standard writers to its antiliberal stable. What is “liberal” Vanity Fair doing publishing a special hagiographic Annie Leibovitz portfolio of Bush Administration officials that appears, at first glance, to be designed (with the help of a Republican political consultant) to invoke notions of Greek and Roman gods? Why does the liberal New York Observer alternate National Review’s Richard Brookhiser with the Joe McCarthy-admiring columnist Nicholas von Hoffman–both of whom appear alongside editorials that occasionally mimic the same positions taken downtown by the editors of the Wall Street Journal? On the web, the tabloid-style liberal website Salon gives free rein to the McCarthyite impulses of both Sullivan and David Horowitz. The neoliberal Slate also regularly publishes both Sullivan and Christopher Caldwell of The Weekly Standard, and has even opened its “pages” to such conservative evildoers as Charles Murray and Elliott Abrams.

Sam Allgood

In regards to Rush Limbaugh, according to The Giving Back Fund as reported on Free Republic, he was #10 in the nation in 2008 among wealthy celebrities with donations of $4.2 million to The Marine Corp-Law Enforcement Foundation and the Leukemia-Lymphoma Society. The first probably doesn’t qualify with any poor single mothers in need, but I imagine there are a few in the latter group. I assume that giving to organizations that help the needy is acceptable.

As far as my thoughts on Obama:
1) He is black, at least in part; that’s obvious. I have absolutely no prejudice toward him in that regard despite his supporters ad-nauseum claims that every objection to something he does is due to racism.
2) I personally have doubts about his religious commitments, sparked primarily by his decision to not only not participate in any national prayer day events, but also canceling the event at the White House, and then participating in a Muslim prayer event at the WH. The evidence is pretty strong that much of his childhood was spent as a practicing Muslim. From what I have seen of his ‘Christianity’, I would lean toward it being political convenience.
3) From my perspective, he’s the most radical President we have ever had, espousing values and implementing policies that are way out of line with mainstream America.
4) I do have serious doubts about him being native-born. He could easily alleviate mine and others doubts by releasing his full form birth certificate (not a easily obtained certification of birth) instead of spending over a million dollars on lawyers to prevent its disclosure and having sites shut down that post a Kenyan birth certificate. It’s such a simple solution … release the birth certificate! I don’t get involved in this debate a whole lot because its a done deal. No court is going to declare his presidency unconstitutional and attempt to oust him as they know it would quickly escalate into all out national race riots that would tear our country apart. I say just let him keep doing what he’s doing and he’ll be out in 3 more years.

Rob Ahern

Yeah, he’s pretty radical… taking personal responsibility for security lapses and saying the buck stops with him; I really hope that isn’t out of synch with “mainstream America”.

Sam Allgood

Wow, one little example from his latest speech, that’s real impressive. How long did it take him to take responsibility? I really hope that you don’t think that anyone would point to that as radical.

What I see as radical are things such as:
– Taking unconstitutional steps to pour money into (and in effect, if not taking over, overly influencing, financial institutions and the auto industry, significantly over-balanced to those institutions who supported his presidential campaign.
– Pushing for steps to take over the health care industry, turning it into European-style socialism programs that are proven to be ineffective everywhere tried.
– Apologizing to the world for America being such a bad country and bowing at every opportunity to foreign leaders.
– Creation of numerous ‘czar’ positions with no accountability to anyone but him and filling them with many radical extremists.
– Issuing an executive order to ‘extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL)’.
– Promoting the global warming scam. (Though this may be in line with a ‘majority’ of American beliefs, they are been duped by the media and Gore-hype). As part of this, he wants to allow the U.S. to be taxed by the U.N.
– Believing that radical Muslims committed to our destruction can best be dealt with using diplomacy.


Oh my, I’m not sure where to start. Sam, you are a birther? Wow. That might just put you in the crazy basket. ; )

On that issue: Did anyone ask for McCain’s birth certificate? He was born in Panama, which isn’t even a US State — so I would think that is just as offensive and questionable. Why is this only an issue for Obama? And frankly, his mother was a US citizen, so regardless of where he was born so is he. Honestly, the only reason this question ever came up has its roots in racism (whether any individual, such as yourself, has racist motives on the issue is not a given, however). He should not be required to provide any further proof of birth. A Hawaiian cert. has been provided, end of story. To quote that movie where a female VP candidate was slandered for faked photos of her having sex in college: “To answer the question [of whether or not the pics were faked] would have implied that it was ok for the question to have been asked in the first place.” When all presidents are required to provide proof of birth, then I will agree w/ you on this issue.

As for your bullet points, please allow me to respond one by one:
– I agree w/you about the bailouts. I don’t know that they are unconstitutional, but they are f’d up. If we are so devoted to “the invisible hand of the market” then we should let them fail. I don’t know about the campaign-fund relationship, so I can’t respond to that.

– Every president has pet issues; Obama’s is health care. Bush’s was privatization. So what. As for Eurpoean-style socialism being “proven” ineffective, that statement is false. On the contrary, they have been proven highly effective in many cases (I won’t say “all” because I don’t have enough facts to support that 100%).

– We have much to apologize for in the world. For 8 years, America was the big bully on the block, and many of us were embarrassed by our governments self-serving and superior attitude. (What would Jesus say about that?). As for bowing, Obama did it ONCE and it was a cultural issue. Everybody knows bowing is a customary greeting in Asia. Just watch a kung fu movie, geesh.

– What czar positions has Obama created? What radical extremists fill them? Dude, unless they are like me, they ain’t radical or extreme.

– Please provide some facts or a link about INTERPOL. I am unfamiliar with this issue.

– Global warming is not a scam. Regardless of what you think of Gore, Obama, or any other politician, it has a long long history of very good documentation. And no, I do not believe this because of my politics. I believe it because I, as a trained scientist, have read the scientific literature and know it to be true. The fact is: the earth’s temperature has gone up and continues to do so. This does not mean that the whole planet becomes a tropical greenhouse, as Fox News would have you believe. This is a long topic worthy of its own discussion, so that’s all I’ll say.

– I agree, dealing w/ terrorists cannot be done by diplomacy — with them. It can, however, be addressed by using diplomacy w/ other governments that can potentially help us in our cause. I don’t see Obama proposing a diplomatic meeting with Osama – do you?


Also, if Rush gives that much money to charity, then that is great. I am glad to know that. He’s still a gasbag, though.


I forgot to respond to Sam’s comment re: religion. I agree w/ Charlie about separation of church and State. To that end, it is wrong to have ANY religions celebrated in the White House. I think it is wrong to have a menorah and xmas tree, even. Although, I do think it’s laudable that Obama is trying to broaden the circle beyond just those two — I heard they had a Diwali festival at the WH. Still, I think religion is a private matter and Obama can follow whatever path he wants. There shouldn’t be ANY prayer breakfasts, etc, in ANY government offices.

I prefer a president who respects all religions rather than one who thinks God calls him on the hotline to tell him which countries to bomb.

Robert Sanders

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win” – MG From this post it is clear that GeekChick is in full attack mode. Honestly though, all credibility goes out the window when emotions and personal insults enter the debate. Here are just a few more facts. Google them if you like.

Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground, participated in bombings of the New York City Police Department headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972, as he noted in his 2001 book, Fugitive Days.

It is commonly known that Obama had relations with Ayers. Whether it was a close relationship or not, that does not matter. Personally, “I” do not know anyone who could be considered a terrorist. I do not know anyone who has bombed anything. I am appalled that our president has, and that this is “ok”.

Obama sat in the pews and participated in Reverend Wright’s often racist and inflammatory sermons for over 20 years. If you feel there is racism towards Obama, maybe you should Google “Reverend Wright” to see what Obama was consuming as a young man.

Van Jones (former Green Jobs Czar) was a self acclaimed communist. Jones has also been quoted saying that the “white polluters” and “white environmentalists” are “steering poison into the people of color communities”. Van Jones was asked to leave the White House once his beliefs were publically known.

Bill O’Reilly (who you apparently once liked until the truth hurt too much to keep listening) donates All of his online merchandise proceeds to charity.

As for taxes and the common good… Let me keep my own money. As an American, it is my freedom and choice to spend my money on what I want. It’s called freedom. Some taxes are acceptable, but crushing small business owners with new taxes is unacceptable, especially in the down economy. And for what? A Healthcare overhaul? Let’s face it; Healthcare reform is one thing and one thing only… Liberal Victory. Democrats need to pass a bill in order to feel “successful”. What bigger bill to pass than Healthcare? Passing a Healthcare bill is a Liberal’s Wildest Fantasy! The fact that it will bankrupt America and become another one of the biggest bureaucratic nightmares does not seem to matter. The grass may appear greener on the other side, but don’t forget unintended consequences… e.g. Healthcare Rationing. Google it.

Another note on taxes… do you really know where all of our tax money is going? In many cases it can be thought of like a circular process. 1) Officials are elected into office with assistance from special interest groups. 2) Bills are passed that require money. 2) Taxes are increased to pay for the bills. 3) Earmarks are added to bills in order to pay special interest groups. 4) Special interest groups assist these officials by helping them remain in office. Acorn anyone?

Teabaggers. This is an offensive (sexually derived) title given to Tea Party members by liberals who are, plainly put, Angry. Once again, the name calling. But they (liberals) think it’s cute, and they are just so proud that they came up with it all on their own. Tea is an American symbol of freedom from government control (you may need a review American history). In the current political climate, government is reaching for more control/power than ever before. It’s all in the guise of a “Crisis”.

Lastly, both the Democrats and Republicans are leaning left nowadays. That is the Reason for the conservative Tea Party movement. These “Teabaggers”, as you call them, are Constitutionalist who support the fundamentals that have made America the great country it is today. My advice to those who want America’s fundamentals to change… hop online and purchase the first ticket out of here. There are places in the world that currently value the Marxist philosophy. I’m sure you would love it there.


Robert, if you had paid attention to my actual blog post, you would see that what I am “attacking” is the misuse of terminology. As for personal insults, we have an understanding on this blog that we are here to discuss things and that we agree to disagree. We do not hurl any personal insults. Anything I hurl is aimed at a movement and those who willingly hold themselves out as its leaders. If you are insulted by anything I say, then by all means, let’s have rational discourse. If you cannot abide by that rule, then I would respectfully ask you to refrain from posting.

As to your comments: It DOES matter what the nature of Obama’s relations with Ayers are or were, and when they were in relation to Ayers’ criminal activity. Just because you know someone does not mean you condone his actions or ideologies.

As for Reverend Wright: I do have some concern that his is the church Obama chose to attend. However, church is a personal choice and as long as he keeps it out of his actions as President, then it’s his business if he wants to attend that kind of place.

If Van Jones was asked to leave when is racist views were known, then what’s your problem?

O’Reilly: What I said was, I used to like him, until I realized he was full of s**t. If he donates to charity, then as with Rush, I applaud that.

Taxes: I agree with you on many points. You might want to read an older blog post of mine about taxes (“Price of Civilization”). However, I do see health care reform as a common good. There have been several reports that show how much the current system costs taxpayers in the form of higher insurance rates, etc. You’re right, passing healthcare would be a Liberal’s Wildest Fantasy. But the current Senate bill ain’t it, at least not in my book.

I absolutely agree with you on special interest groups, etc. But I’m not willing to throw the tax baby out with the bathwater. (again, see my other post).

As for Teabaggers…..When the tea party movement first started, they themselves called them “teabag” parties. Yes, I saw this on Fox News and all sorts of conservative media outlets. I have no idea what y’all call yourselves these days. If you’ve realized the error of the first moniker and changed to Tea Partiers, then a-ok.

Neither Dems or Repubs are left. They are so center it’s ridiculous. They appear left to you because on the political spectrum, you are further right. You are on the way far right, so they look left. I am on the way far left, so they look right. In reality, they are center or center right.

And for the record, I would LOVE to move to a socialist country. But as my husband puts it, I’m not ready to give up on America yet.


BTW, the Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at the idea of “love it or leave it” and blind obedience. They believed in tolerance, acceptance, and “liberal” freedoms. Meaning, we are at liberty to choose our own thoughts, beliefs, etc. And we are free to express them. Liberal, liberty – same root. Got liberty?