If you saw my comment a page or two back, you might find it interesting to note that while 62 percent of ALL Americans appear to "favor a criminal investigation or an independent panel to look into the use of torture, illegal wiretapping, and other alleged abuses of power by the Bush administration", an overwhelming majority of what one can only assume are mostly self-styled liberals are overwhelmingly supportive of an Attorney General who's unmistakably gone out of his way to defend, and protect from legal suit, those who are likely guilty of the "use of torture, illegal wiretapping, and other alleged abuses of power".

To possibly coin a phrase by appropriating another:

What so-called "liberal" blogosphere?

in this poll in a currently recommended diary named "Justice Department Releases Yoo Memos"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/2/162051/0868/1011/703764

voted as follows as of right now:

How do you rate Eric Holder's performance so far?

10/10 23% 316 votes

9/10 23% 319 votes

8/10 19% 265 votes

7/10 10% 146 votes

6/10 4% 58 votes

5/10 4% 57 votes

4/10 1% 21 votes

3/10 1% 24 votes

2/10 0% 9 votes

1/10 1% 16 votes

0/10 0% 8 votes

Apple pie 7% 102 votes

To which I posted the following comment:

Simply stunning how skewed towards 100%

Holder's approval is on a LIBERAL blog in light of his unmistakably anti-liberal actions in matters having to do with civil liberties and national security, e.g. Jeppesen, Al-Harramain, White House emails, etc. Actively invoking absolute executive power to hide criminality is "liberal"? Someone forgot to send me that memo.

I can only hope that it's due to a new and hopefully passing phenomenon on the left: low-information "liberals" who only recently became politically aware who mistake cheerleading for citizenry. And NOT "liberals" who are knowingly willing to excuse anti-liberal policies so long as they're from "good" guys who "mean" well. Because the difference between that and Bushieism is nil, in terms of knee-jerk uncriticality.

And this is NOT about "He knows what he's doing and must have a good reason for doing this", which he may very well (but which I personally doubt as I think he's just trying to duck a fight with the CIA and M-I establishment), but about his behaving in an undeniably anti-liberal manner on these issues, whatever his reasons for doing so.

If you support absolute presidential power then you're not a liberal. Period. And I'm not defining my own brand of liberalism because it defines itself.

And here come the usual know-nothing flames from high-UID cheerleaders...

OK, IT'S CLOSED AGAIN. PLEASE DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE NSA UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

AND ANY ATTEMPT TO POST TO IT WILL HAVE RANDOM PARTS OF IT DELETED.

ANYONE POSTING FURTHER COMMENTS WILL BE WIRETAPPED WARRANTLESSLY TO PROTECT 95% OF THE HOMELAND AND REDIRECTED TO WEB SITES WITH PHOTOS OF ASSAULT RIFLES.

Titonwan:

There are thousands of instance throughout history where a good and righteous man/woman stood up only to be slain by the powers of ignorance and greed. Looks nice and noble on a tombstone.

Every day millions of people probably thank god that Lincoln, Gandhi and King had the good sense to not stand up to "the powers of ignorance and greed"! No one ever said that power implies moral reponsibility and courage. Only history's suckers believe in such nonsense.

And hell, tempus fugit, and we've got all the tempuses in the world, as you know...

Heh.

tempus:

I was merely positing one of several possible explanations for Obama's action, NOT a justification for them. I'm just trying to understand WHY he's doing this.

Well, someone who believes in progressive values and goals and works towards achieving them.

Duh.

Oh, you're asking what progressivism is, then?

Well, I suppose that I could cite some official-sounding definition, but to me, progressivism is about fulfilling what progressives view as the core values, beliefs and goals that were codified and asserted in this country's founding documents (absent the obviously bad ones than have since mostly been repealed), and expressed by most of its founders (hypocritical white upper class Christian slave-owning and land-owning warts and all).

I.e. it's about fulfilling a promise, with respect to liberal ideas like freedom of opportunity and from oppression, a sense of inclusive nationhood in which both the responsibilities and bounty thereof is shared to some extent by all, the promotion of the general welfare in terms of health, safety, education, a sense of community, the preservation of nature, etc. It's about what progressives view as what's best for all, in terms of enlightenment liberal values.

Which, among other things, means being against things like state tyranny and oppression, and being for things like universal health care, because both represent what progressives as being good for the overall nation. Of course, some people disagree, viewing tyranny and oppression as good, or at least necessary, and universal anything as bad. They're called conservatives, even authoritarians, and we don't like or respect them much.

HTH.