One of the more distressing aspects of the frustrati who inhabit various liberal blogs is not just their adherence to a “pure ideal” of progressive thought and regularly singing in the chorus about how angry, frustrated, or disappointed they are with the Democratic Party, it’s that they keep amping up the outrage. When they can’t ramp up the anger enough, they’ll start making up grievances to be angry about. Over on Deaniac’s blog, I saw a comment which was a perfect example:
A lot of the Blue Dogs who lost were people the President supported over progressives.
Ah yes, a terrible thing. A “betrayal” of progressives by the President. No wonder they’re upset! Except for a little problem. It’s bullshit. Let’s take a look at that, shall we? First off, the term “Blue Dog” strictly speaking refers to the Blue Dog Caucus in the House of Representatives. They’re a group of fiscally conservative Democrats, generally from Republican leaning districts. The term has been expanded by some progressives to cover all Democrats who don’t match their definition of progressive. So, using the expanded definition, just how many “Blue Dogs” did the President support over progressives? Two. That’s it. Incumbent senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Why would he do that? Well, you see, that’s what Presidents do. They always support the incumbent of their party in a primary or general election. No one, except the frustrati, expected anything else, and one might note that Senator Specter lost his primary. So they were angry at him for not doing something that no one else expected him to do in the first place.
But, remember, it was “a lot.” So we have to include the Representatives that were running. Obviously, there were massive numbers of progressives that the netroots had recruited to primary all the Blue Dog members of the House! Why just here in New York State, who could forget the bitterly-fought primaries that Blue Dogs Arcuri, Murphy and McMahon had! Why, if President Obama hadn’t supported them instead of the progressives, who knows what would have happened? Oh, wait …. that didn’t happen! Not a one of them got a primary. Matter of fact – and I know facts aren’t a strong suit among the frustrati – there weren’t many (if any at all) “progressives” challenging Blue Dogs in primaries.
So they’re slamming the President for failing to support non-existent progressives against Blue Dogs in primaries that didn’t happen. I said in earlier posts here that their divorce from reality has been finalized, and this is just a great example. Not content to rant on things that have some basis in reality, they have to make stuff up to be angry about!
There’s been a lot of derision the past few days directed at the Right – particularly Michele Bachmann and her assertion that the President’s trip to India is costing 200 million dollars a day. Why? Well, the right-wing blogs and Fox News have been reporting that figure as “fact.” It’s not even close to being a “fact.” It’s just the right wing doing their usual picking of something that sounds bad for the President – without fact checking – and then repeating over and over again. Which gets them all upset, and all the right wing going with yet another “reason” to be angry. There’s not a lot of difference between them and the “pure progressives” who make up the frustrati. They just like to be angry at the President, and if they can’t find anything in the press, they’ll make shit up if they have to. Facts are irrelevant.