Left Watch

It will be interesting to watch so many people play musical chairs over the next few years, reversing positions and principles to match their new preferences.  For instance, today's NYTimes Editorial on the Supreme Court decision on guns is quite difficult to align with their position on the detention issue

Even if there were a constitutional right to possess guns for nonmilitary uses, constitutional rights are not absolute. The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but that does not mean that laws cannot prohibit some spoken words, like threats to commit imminent violent acts. 

The New York Times Editorial Board will be pleased to learn that the Second Amendment also guarantees the individual right to keep and bear guns, but that does not mean that laws cannot prohibit some uses of guns, like threats to commit imminent violent acts. 

But it gets worse.  In their criticism of the Supreme Court decision on gun rights, the New York Times cites Justice Scalia's recent opinion that public safety interests outweigh rights of habeus corpus...

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued soundly that whatever right gun owners have to unimpeded gun use is outweighed by the District of Columbia’s “compelling” public-safety interests.  In this month’s case recognizing the habeas corpus rights of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Justice Scalia wrote in dissent that the decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Those words apply with far more force to his opinion in this District of Columbia case.

...but just two weeks ago, the New York Times disagreed with Justice Scalia. 

Open Left's Chris Bowers provides some insight into the progressive's perception of the likely Democratic agenda for 2009...

In our attempts to build a large Democratic trifecta in Washington, D.C., what, exactly, are we fighting for? To answer that question, here is a comprehensive list of legislation that is certain to pass if Obama wins the White House, we pick up 20 more seats in the House, and 8 more seats in the Senate...

You can find the full list at his post.  Suffice it to say, from legislation that puts a thumb on the scale for Labor Unions to government price controls for health care to massive regulatory expansion, there's something there to worry everybody.....including elements of the Democratic coalition. 

But this point from Bowers should raise the most concern.

The most exciting bits are the positive, progressive feedback loops around increasing unionization (the employee free choice act) and election reform (D.C. voting rights, verified paper trails). These are laws that will make the country itself more progressive, thus building a progressive majority down the road. If we can get more of these, including sweeping media reform (about which we should be optimistic), real immigration reform, (about which I am not optimistic) and the progressive budget (which might just happen by 2011, if all goes well), then we will be on our way to a progressive majority in America that will last for an entire generation.

Policies that redistribute the media to liberal interests, make the public more dependent on liberal institutions and give the government more largesse to distribute to the public.  Policies that entrench Democratic power.

That's the agenda. 

The Left is very invested in both preemptively delegitimizing criticism of Obama and framing opponents as de facto bigots.   Two examples of this kind of messaging are worth pointing out.

1. Framing opponents: Oliver Willis offers this despicable and baseless accusation against "many on the right"...
   

   Now, I know in the eyes of many on the right this [Trinity United] is just some black church that could be firebombed for all they care...

 As far as I can see, the only notable person who has spoken positively of domestic bombing is...Bill Ayers, a colleague of Barack Obama.

 

2. Delegitimizing criticism: Huffington Post blogger Andy Ostroy says equates the Right's use of the word "radical" with racism... 
   

   The Republicans are great at framing issues and labelling candidates. And the new buzzword for Obama is radical. ... Make no mistake: the constant regurgitation of the word "radical" is meant to conjure up all sorts of fear, anger and racial prejudice. Think "radical Muslim." Think "angry black man." Think Willie Horton. This sort of pandering to the racist dumbasses of America is beyond despicable, but it's what the GOP does best.

   Ironically, Andy Rostrom himself  uses the  buzzword "radical" against  people on the Right on a regular basis.  Apparently, he tells us, this constant regurgitation is meant to conjure up fear, anger and racial prejudice.  I will not argue with Andy Rostrom's description of his own words.

 These tactics will be employed again and again.  Don't let them get away with it.