| Policy | Cost- Effectiveness |
Time-Lag | Uncertainty | |
| Individual Tax Proposals | ||||
| Lump-Sum Rebate | Large | Medium | Large | |
| Temporary Tax Reductions | ||||
| Withholding Holiday for the Employee Payroll Tax | Large | Medium | Large | |
| Across-the-Board Tax Rate Cut | Small | Short | Small | |
| Deferring or Eliminating Scheduled Tax Increases | ||||
| Extending the AMT Patch | Medium | Long | Medium | |
| Deferring or Eliminating Tax Rate Increases Under EGTRRA or JGTRRA | Small | Long | Small | |
| Business Tax Proposals | ||||
| Cut in Corporate Tax Rates | Small | Long | Small | |
| Incentives for New Investment | Medium | Medium | Large | |
| Extending Operating Loss and Carryback Provisions | Small | Medium | Large | |
| Spending Proposals | ||||
| Direct Transfer Payments to Households | ||||
| Extending or Expanding Unemployment Benefits | Large | Short | Small | |
| Temporarily Increasing Food Stamp Benefits | Large | Short | Small | |
| Providing General Aid to State and Local Governments | Medium | Medium | Large | |
| Investing in Public Works Projects | Small | Long | Small | |
Please take a moment to look over this chart, produced by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, and tell me which two spending proposals would be the most efficient. Which two proposals did the Democrats, in the spirit of reaching across the aisle to their Republican bretheren, give up? (Heralded in WaPo as "Deal Spotlights Rarity of Bipartisan Action.")
It was yet another case in which Democrats, gave away the store. It was a classic triumph of "bipartisanship" over reality-as Paul Krugman and others have pointed out.
The two most significant items that the Democrats caved on (food stamps and unemployment insurance) were the only items that non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that would be cost-effective, fast-acting, and certain to produce the intended result…
[]
The objective evidence is has become overwhelming. Bushism is no longer the enemy. Republicanism is no longer the enemy. Both of them are history-or would be, at any rate, if it were not for the real enemy, and the real enemy is bipartisanism.
"Bipartisanism" is the ideology of bipartisanship as a good unto itself, not in service to any other purpose, except, of course, "getting things done." The question of whether they are good things or bad things, wise things or foolish things, sane things or crazy things, life-sustaining things or life-destroying things-all such questions are not simply irrelevant, they are forms of blasphemy against the one true faith.
All bow down, and surrender your reason.
I sometimes feel like we say this stuff just for the sake of being on record so when this New Era O’Change that all the candidates tell me is going to seduce all the Republicans out from behind their barricades doesn’t actually happen we can point to it. But by that time, much like with the war, everybody will have developed false memories of a skepticism they never had so it’s kind of moot. Krugman was one of the lone voices speaking out against the war at the time too, and he gets little credit for it from the "we were right to be wrong" crowd.
In the mean time, if anyone can tell me exactly how all this "changiness" is going to take place, I’m all ears. Because as a fairlyclose observer of the unrelenting Republican obstructionism and the abject Democratic capitulation of the last week, I have to say, I’m not seeing it in the cards.
(h/t Eli for "changiness")
Related posts:
- Baucus, Reid, Obama Promote Backroom “Bipartisanship” over Democratic Debate
- Death Panel for Bipartisanship
- HJC Schedules “Get Democrats to Cave on PATRIOT” Hearing
- Boehner Enlists Bloodhound to Look for Stimulus Jobs, Forgets They’re in His Home State
- Fox News Slags Stimulus Bill for Being Too Republican
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Jane!
Jane!!!
Jane!
Would it be possible to just make a standing headline Dems cave on (fill in the blank)?
Then the only change to the headline would be whatever the specific issue the Dems are caving on today.
Good afternoon Jane!
It just never stops.
My question of this so called Tax Rebate is when am I going to have to account it in my tax returns?
Will this hit me and everyone else April 2009 right after a brand new shiny Democratic President just took office?
Is this another Repug economic trap that they have been working overtime to create and blame the Democrats?
or blue dogs caucus with republicans, again.
The question of whether they are good things or bad things, wise things or foolish things, sane things or crazy things, life-sustaining things or life-destroying things-all such questions are not simply irrelevant, they are forms of blasphemy against the one true faith.
Because you know, “bipartisanship” has done soooo well for the democrats. I wonder if anyone has pointed out to Harry and Nancy that in 2006 we did not send them to the majority to allow the republicans to fucking govern.
When Harry met Sally was a great movie. When Harry met Nancy has been a fucking disaster.
Heard anything from Burner, Jane?
Hi Jane:
I sent you email and a link, and I also had a question for you…
@#$%@##!!.
that first paragraph was supposed to have been a quote. no editing :( sorry
Someone posted a response from Darcy to a personal email they had sent on the old thread waaaay downstairs.
Dems caving on food stamps and unemployment insurance…disgusting.
Longer EDP: What kind of @#$%@##!! is this?
Yeah, that was me. I was wondering if Howie or Jane had heard from them.
Conflicting stories, nothing official.
This is (caving), among other reasons why there is low voter turnout. And with mediocre talents like Obama, Hillary and McCain as the frontrunners, and people like Reid and Pelosi, it just reinforces the predisposition many have to not vote. Very depressing.
That twerp Tucker just said on MSNBC that Hillary is partisan and Obama’s post-partisan, and that he likes Obama even though he doesn’t agree with his views…
It is disgusting. And stupid.
Ian Welsh was here for the past couple of days and we went out to dinner last night with Pach and egregious, and he was on a bit of a rant, saying that food stamps inarguably by all measure would provide the most bang for the buck. If you want to pass tax cuts then pass tax cuts but don’t lie and say it’s because it’s an effective economic stimulus.
They’re all just reflexively bowing before Reaganesque framing of ”welfare queens” and refusing to do the right thing out of political opportunism.
Karl Rove would be proud. My own party ‘Stabs me in the back” by giving away the store. We need new and better progressive representation.
ps I described your article about Burner as a BLOGSWARM. We will attack you with all we have if you choose to betray us! Righteous anger is good.
God I miss Paul Wellstone…Sigh
Dems leading the party today–worst Dem leadership ever.
What are “Wrong-way Harry” and “Calamity Nan” doin’ now. Had thought FISA was low tide with ‘em.
My dog is so much smarter than the DamnDems. She knows when not to capitulate and that’s when it’s not in her interest. There is no negotiating; there is just a loud barking lecture with gnashing teeth and a temper tantrum. Maybe I can hire her out to the Dems as a consultant with expertise in capitulation decompression.
Some Democrats extol the virtues of “bipartisanship,” yet they are also heard to pledge that they will “fight for” us–”fight for” health care, “fight for” economic justice, etc. If “fighting for” the things Democrats purport to believe in is so admirable, then “bipartisanship” would appear to be its opposite. Beware of candidates and officeholders who promise to “fight for” our goals, but compromise them in the name of “bipartisanship.” They may be talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Lest we forget: Is there a simple sentence, or paragraph, to use when contacting a Sen. about FISA? Beyond, do not give immunity, what is more specific (for the slow-learner). Thanks
Don’t recall where I read it.. But the top 15 million will receive over 280k in tax relief and the poorest 15 million will receive 20.00. Another question I have is Speaker Pelosi said several times stimulus for tax payers. There are quite a few folks poor enough they don’t pay taxes.. what about them? Are they just to poor to help or would buying clothing and food with cash not be good for banks and credit card companies?
send your bad dog to rahm, jerry (mcnerney) darcy, nancy and harry.
Yes. Still waiting for a reply on the record, or even. . . off.
And Jane, it is awfully unbecoming for us to point out, for example, that the mere fact of gaining congressional majorities in 2006 would not in fact usher in a new messianic era, for all the shit we took behind the scenes for battling Rahm and others, but now, you’re right, with hindsight, everyone who gave us crap now seems to have amnesia.
Forgive me for not lining up for an Obama lobotomy (Ombotomy?), unreservedly. No matter who wins, we’ll still have to fight, locally and nationally, inch by inch.
Who the fuck votes for these assholes!!!???!!!
Oh, sorry… I thought they were going to represent us.
Framing. All those poor people pay taxes as well. They pay sales taxes, excise taxes, sin taxes and all the other little hidden “fees” and taxes on things other than income.
i thought we would be on a run after 2006; instead it gets more and more depressing.
in a way, you could say broder was right when he predicted a bush resurgence a year ago.
Bush has pretty much gotten everything he wanted — with a little help from his friends in the demo leadership. i guess i would only exempt waxman and leahy sometimes
this is just awful and i still want edwards–who beat mccain in the polling while ob and hrc struggle at that.
That’s the sad truth. It is really really hard to believe in the marathon (as in “this is a marathon and not a sprint’)when we keep getting tripped up along the way—by the people we supported.
{{You got that right}}
I agree with much of what Paul says. I agree with those who warn about bipartisanship simply for the sake of bipartisanship. The stimulus package out of the house was ideological, and was once again rushed through, perhaps without sufficient thought and debate. How many times has that happened. Democrats caved, just as they will on FISA.
That said, I’m also reminded of what Bill Bradley often says–that governance comes from the center. To actually produce good law, the center must exist, and be strong enough to overcome the objections coming from both wings. The center creates. The political wings have the power to block or destroy legislation, but they can’t create legislation.
So just as we shouldn’t worship bipartisanship for its own sake, neither should it be villified, for its own sake.
Stop the wars. And increase taxes and invest the $15,000,000,000 per month saving (from halting the wars) and tax increases in infra structure repair, health care, education and environmental projects. This is big no brainer.
From today’s NYT:
This position is widely accepted among Democrats, but r’s want to extend the Bush tax cuts in a continuation of the r program of trickling down on Americans. This, of course, is the position of the aged maverick his own self. Romney will couple it with some outsourcing and downsizing. Huckabee intends to raise taxes on the average American with his sales tax scheme, and pray for the best.
Of course they do. However it sounds like if one doesn’t have much or any verifiable income then they are out of the equation, as in, don’t even ask. Perhaps this isn’t true but the framing certainly seems to discourage those in the most need from the get go.
Hey jane
You guys are really drillin’ this point home, huh?
Good.
o/t but not good.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com…..5869.story
There are worse things to worry about, but stil…..
So, nothing for the people who are really hurting right now, let them eat cake.
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see Bush commission the Franklin Mint to start selling the Official GW Bush Legacy Beggars Cup.
Available in 3 monthly payments of $19.99.
Bastards.
that is a great way to put it.
People like harry, nancy, and difi, jello jay: all these people are tripping us up.
it’s really sickening.
This time next year we will still be dealing with the same Democratic bipartisan “Leadership” we have now. The two political parties have a lock on our lives.
Is there any depth to which the current crop of politicians and TweetyBeard media types will not sink? Obstruct, roll over, and don’t tell. The new world order circa Bush Era. How any of ‘em can hold their heads up at all is beyond me. Beyond shame, too, apparently
Heard on the car radio that there are Republican caucuses going on in Maine…anybody got any info?
More and better Democrats.
Paul has been doing some really great writing over at OpenLeft. In a piece after Obama’s MLK speech, Paul offered these thoughts about “unity”:
When Paul writes “unity” above, you could substitute “bipartisanship” for our discussion right now. Bipartisanship is a means, not an end in and of itself.
In this house we are seriously thinking about leaving the Democratic Party after the vote next November. After 39 years of voting the straight Democratic ticket, we are just about fed up with the Dems.
I am distressed that the proposal for infrastructure gets such a bad rating. It must be because the people scoring think of infrastructure as new bridges and the like. What about filing potholes, burying power and telephone cables, repair and renovation of public schools and facilities.
Hire people, give them some paint and scrapers, and put them to work. A job beats a handout every time.
Right. Moreover, it has been portrayed by both sides as being purely a necessary economic mechanism, unrelated to fairness. The money needed to be squirted in wherever it would come back into the economy most rapidly. Obviously, that would be to those who need it the most, regardless of taxes.
The problem isn’t bipartisanship, per se. The problem is bipartisanship when you are negotiating from a position of weakness. With the White House still in Republican hands and the Democratic margins in Congress thin, this is the kind of bad outcome you get. And if your Congressional leadership is less than inspiring, the situation is even worse.
If however, the White House is in Democratic hands with a president with high approval numbers and larger Democratic margins in both bodies, you can negotiate from a position of strength. In that case, you hold the cards because bipartisanship is determined on your terms because you have the political capital to intimidate your adversaries. At that point, a case could be made that you don’t need bipartisanship — you can just push your agenda through. That’s true, but that approach can unite your adversaries and give them an opportunity to build public support. It’s far smarter to approach bipartisanship on your terms and split the opposition into those who refuse to work with you and those who are afraid not to.
Bottom line: you always want to negotiate from the position of maximum strength. Unfortunately, our Democratic Congressional leadership is not particularly adept at getting the most out of a weak hand. That’s why this November is so important to building a movement behind progressive change.
Afternoon Jane!
dakine01, had a similar thought.
‘Today (fill-in date) the Democrats, exhibiting the best tradition of ‘bipartisanship’, graciously agreed to join their Republican fellows and ‘caved’ on (fill in the blank).
Efficient, familiar, and to the point.
How much of the Constitution will be left by the time our ‘champion’, whomever that might be, gets to the ‘people’s house?
Note: The preceding is snark except where it isn’t.
When a lot of folks wind up not having a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, they are still going to have a vote to cast.
I will be will be interested to see just who goes and who stays.
Like so many words, bipartisan no longer means what it originally meant. It is equal, balanced give and take. It has been weakened to mean all give and no balance. When a term becomes bastardized, we need to drop it. I find bipartisan is a bad word.
The whole infrastructure thing just makes me crazy anyway. The baby boomers, of which I are one, are leaving nothing to show for all the increases in the national debt. Our parents gave us the Interstates, working sewer systems, a wired and powered nation, and strong public education. We are leaving some worn out houses and what the heck else?
Nice sentiments but with all the Blue Dogs willing to ignore traditional Democratic Party values of helping others. And all the blathering about bipartisanship and “let’s move together into the future and ignore the crimes of the past” there will never be a progressive agenda fulfilled.
The trouble with this particular cave, besides the fundamentals, is that it is so mean-spirited.
The first part of your comment is too sadly true.
The snark is hilarious, best line in thread.
The best part, dear learder’s thumbprint on every cup!
telecom immunity sums up many of Bush and Demo abuses for me:
No rule of law
Immunity or pardons for lawbreakers who help Bush goals
Immunity from liability for those who can implicate Bush
Favoritism for corporations
Fear mongering to cow Democrats
Democrats fold
No allegiance to the Constitution
Loss of privacy rights
anything I left out??
Could it be that the Democratic “mainstream” leadership despises liberals almost as much as do the Republicans?
And as for bipartisanship? We seem to have gotton a lot of that on the Iraq war.
“Reaching across the isle” is not a good thing if it involves reaching across to hand the Republicans everything they wanted and not bringing back anything in return.
We have got to break the stranglehold the two parties have on us.
“anything I left out??”
The Republicans get to claim victory.
Bipartisanship that has integrity should come near the end of a process, not at the outset. Bipartisanship should be the result of resolving hard fought policy differences over a policy objective. The politicians, at least the Democratic ones, want to avoid the fight over policy but still have a veneer of accomplishment. They want to avoid the battles but still pretend they are winning the war.
With respect, Spike, how does any of that make sense when we run the Senate and Cave-in Reid offers the Intell bill as the starting point instead of the Judiciary bill, which would have changed the entire structure of what happened.
The Dem leadership just blows dead dogs and capitulates ALWAYS. Reid even insulted Dodd–a veteran of his own party–by making him and him alone actually filibuster, when he lets the Goopers have a 60-vote rule when it favors them.
Start with calling it “Investing in America for Americans”
For the cost of the Iraq war per week we could have X number of new bridges, X number of new teachers, X number of new police/fire officers.
In AZ I use things like new freeways & safety vs schools and education with all the libertarians who want to privatize everything. As them if they want to have their kid die from a pool drowning because it takes the rescue team hours to arrive.
Looks like the Mods need a can of WD-40, the submit comment key is a little sticky.
Under the Democrats and Republicans we will never see public financing of elections. It’s time to think outside the two-party box.
what I dont get is why the dem leadership is addicted to rolling over. Dont they see that it makes them look weak.
the headlines are always Bush wins.
the guy has a 25% approval rating. America hates him and his war.
Agreed.. They have no opposition. My Republican Representative Boozeman and my Senator Pryor have no challenger from either party in their primary, much less the main election. One Green is challenging Pryor.. and of course they have no money.. Pryor has around 6 million thanks in large part to Clintons support.
I think what you say is right, and I believe it has to be the goal for 2008, but the Congressional leadership is beyond being a disappointment. I didn’t have great expectations because of the narrow majorities, but these two behave like poor women who stay in abusive relationships. They are beaten to hell, listless, and embarrassing. Unfortunately, change in leadership has to come about by some sort of internal coup.
I thought (and said) this back after Obama took Iowa. Since then, my conclusion has only deepened:
It won’t be mean-spirited for the rich though, will it.
At risk of being charred to cinder, I’d suggest that an economic stimulus package is not the place to render economic justice. I’m going to go out on a limb and claim that the sole purpose of an economic stimulus package is to stimulate the economy. I beleive we should work for economic justice in our statutes and programs, and not in our stimulus packages. It’s an election year however, so all that goes into the shitcan.
The two party system is beyond salvage.
But you miss the point. Those measures are BOTH the most stimulative, and contribute to economic justice. It’s a twofer that the Ds abandoned.
The Democrats are driving me NUTS!
idk, maybe the vermont independents are a good model. A progressive caucus does not need to be party dependent.
yes! yet, unfortunately by calling them Democrats it paint them all with same broad brush, even the ones working with us.
Language is very important. The plus side is that English is a vibrant, changing, organic language so words can become obsolete when they no longer serve the purpose they were intended to have. How about – the Democrats reached across the aisle with brillaint command.
Drop bipartisan; use instead, brilliant command.
Nancy and Harry will go into an elevated apoplexy state.
At least the ‘mean spiritedness’ is shared by most all who participated in the decision. After such ‘division’ as we have all suffered lo’ these seven years, the ’spirit’ of comity must be appreciated on those rare occassions when, by fortuitous circumstance, it arrives full-blown.
Whose side are the Democrats, our ‘leaders’ in congress, generally on?
Snark aside, have these people no shame? no conscience? no sense of shared ‘plight’?
We all know the answer, I fear.
I note that no one has suggested that the poor Democrats were blackmailed into this, or that ‘they know things we don’t know …’
New motto for coinage: ‘It’s Up To Us.’
Note: the preceding is snark except where it isn’t.
It is up to us: What’s the plan?
Filed under OK I guess:
Agreed that bipartisan for the sake of it is drivil. Some issues need to be fought tooth and nail (for instance platform planks, remember those) and take the heat and take responsibilty for sucess and failure.
And this one’s for Romney, from me:
Everybody’s doing it these days. Hillary’s all about “coming together” and bipartisanship, and Huckabee’s calling himself “little Obama” and talking about reaching across the aisle.
It’s a powerful message that is resonating with people but based on a flawed assumption — that the Republicans are going to stop being Republicans.
I think the challenge is to find a way to ground the optimism that Obama has clearly (and brilliantly) tapped into with a realistic plan for going forward. I don’t know how to do that, but it’s going to have to happen in the wake of an ungodly amount of shit coming down on whichever candidate receives the nomination courtesy of the Republicans who really don’t care if anyone calls them sexist, racist or partisan for their efforts.
No, I take the point I think. If the package is to work at all (I am skeptical, personally) it must go out quickly and be spent quickly. Which means it shouldn’t go out as tax benefits to corporations or the upper few %. Send it to those who need it and will spend it quick.
What I mildly object to is placing emotional terms like “mean-spirited” to a stimulus package. Such terms are simply not terribly appropriate for things of this sort, imo.
I’m in California. Can I still vote for Edwards, anyway?
Interesting, Jane. And you know exactly why I say that…*g* BTW, check your inbox when you have time…
Yes. I don’t mean to pick on Obama, as I actually think a unified ticket will be the best way to go. I’m reacting to the bandwagon effect that seems to channel precisely that hunger you describe, but in such a way that our collective role in holding all in power to account becomes somehow occluded.
Yes.
I guess it’s difficult for some to hold two thoughts at the same time.
Look at the chart. It’s not about “economic justice,” it is about economic stimulus and which plan would be most effective.
The Republicans (and Democrats) are exploiting the confusion between the two in order to keep from doing the right thing, i.e., getting the most bang for the buck for the economy by way of food stamps or unemployment benefits.
I’m reminded of Lott’s “yeah, obstruction seems to be working for us these days…”
something like that. Say what you will, he’s right. They make partisanship work. Compared with them, there really are no partisans on the Dem side.
See Glenn Greenwald on this subject.
I am thinking about voting on Tuesday for ewards in CA. but what I hate about it is that Candy Crowley will tell everyone who I would have voted for if he hadnt dropped out.
the democrats have been fucking us over ever since the dlc (which included al gore i might add)commandeered the democratic party. mark my words, they will also give immunity to the telecoms. what i’m not understanding at the moment is that their actions are so transparent and yet there they are, still getting support. when will the plebes say “enough”. will they say enough or do they have the battered wife syndrome? time and time and time again they throw us to the wolves. one thing about republicans is that they’re wolves dressed like wolves and one thing about democrats is they’re wolves dressed like sheep. i think the later is much more dangerous.
When Bill Clinton came to office in 1993, there were 57 Democrats in the Senate and 258 Democrats in the House. That’s a majority that strong Democratic leadership can work with. But under his leadership, Democrats lost both Houses in Congress in 1994 for the first time in 50 years. For his last year in office, there were 45 Democrats in the Senate and 211 Democrats in the House. While Clinton succeeded in getting himself reelected in 1996, he was terrible for the Democratic Party in the 1990s. That’s why his presidency is best known for leadership built on triangulation.
When Democratic Congressional majorities are thin or non-existent, the Republican right threatens the Blue Dogs with political extinction. We have to change that dynamic. We have to have majorities that are capable of intimidating marginal Republicans.
This is one reason I strongly support Obama over Clinton. She is a polarizing figure and if she wins we are going to have the continuation of a 51-49 America that will require triangulation for every small step forward. I’m too old for incremental progress. I want BIG change.
I enthusiastically support Obama — not because he wants to work with Republicans in Washington — but because he wants Republican votes to support Democratic candidates in the fall. You have seen a horde of Red State governors and senators lining up behind Obama because they know he will be good for Democrats all the way down the ticket. Clinton, OTOH, is a polarizing figure who has reverse coat-tails. Obama has the promise to deliver on Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy.
I support Obama because he knows how to build public support and a public movement behind progressive change. If we don’t have a groundswell of support, we aren’t going to have the force to intimidate Blue Dog Democrats and marginal Republicans into supporting an agenda for progressive change.
I think I just will.
Having said that, I would like Obama to go forward ahead of Hil.
So I’m torn. Do I make a statement in my first early primary ever, or throw that support behind Obama. The economic discussion reminded me that I could still vote for Edwards. Whatever that gets us.
Love yer handle.
Jane, I was responding to eCAHNS ‘mean-spirited’ comment, not the table per se. I actually watched the testimony given by CBO chief, and agreed with it.
I like your logic on OB. I remain torn for Tuesday.
That’s right, they have no sense of shame, no conscience and they share nothing. They reflect the rest of society – I got mine, screw you and I can crush the life out of you and take every thing you have. They use the word democracy but democracy has been eroding for decades. Under the Bush/Cheney/NeoCon regime it’s been adulterated and debased at a speed and acceptance unlike any period in American history. It is up to us to “do” and keep our democracy as originally intended.
I do hope that you are right. Thanks for the views.
The Dems in the Senate and House kinda helped themselves to the minority by that manufactured “banking scandal” which along with other marketing efforts by the Rs, showed the leadership to be Out of touch with semi-normal voters.
Clinton was not the root of all evil to the Dem Party, only to the Beltway cognescenti who resented the “outsider” soiling their DC. Think David Broder et al.
And Clinton won by 5 and 9 points respectfully I belive so if you are saying it was 51-49, you’re just repeating another R talking point to the detriment of the Dems.
‘Participatory democracy’!!
Eschew comfort and put our lives and our fortunes, such as they may be, on the line.
Start with a 2nd Constitutional Convention.
What I’m suggesting is the real ‘ownership’ society.
‘In God WE Trust’ does two things: 1. Oh, we are not able to do anything because somebody else (not GOD) is ‘in charge’ of our lives, poor us, and 2. Since God is on our side we can do no wrong, great us.
If ‘It’s Up To Us’ and things go badly, we’ve no one to blame ‘cept our own selves.
How to get there?
Coherent overarching strategy (not yet manifest, and meeting much resistance).
Recognition that this is ths fight of our lives and we are in it for the duration or the rest of our lives, which ever comes first.
Beyond that, I can’t promise anything. (grinning broadly, but hopefully)
What we’ve got is NOT working to the benefit of the ‘people’ or much improving our relationship to the planet, which for all practical purposes we should recognize as ‘paradise’.
Rev, we are all battling that despair you so honestly shared a while ago.
And we. are. going. to. have. to. fix. things. our. own. selves. without.
much. help. from. the. powers. that. be.
An hour before I cast my vote this week, Edwards dropped out. I had to laugh at myself during the drive because of all the time spent this year studying candidates and contributed to three separate candidates all of whom were no longer in the race.. I still didn’t know what to do. Finally I did the one thing I wanted most, ignore the triangulation.. I voted for the candidate of my choice first and foremost.. So I voted for Kucinich.
Greenwald’s sneering disdain for the ‘bipartisanists’ is good reading, for sure.
0t-
I voted for Edwards 2 days before he dropped out and would do it again right now. It made me proud to cast that vote. The Dems in DC might as well go home and do whatever it is they do. They are not representing us and they are useless. I think we should write them and tell them to just leave.
Good on you!!
I don’t care if Kucinich is ‘too short’ the madness has gone one too long!
I look at Hillary. I look at Obama. Yes, I’ll vote you in, then I’m relentlessly coming after you until the soles of your feet feel the boiling point of hell. I have a plan so don’t think you are suckering me out of a vote. Me thinks the tables are really turned.
I think our congressional ‘leaders’ would fit well within Winston Churchill’s description of Clement Attlee: “A sheep in sheep’s clothing.”
Agreed. Congressional Democrats almost dug their own grave. And I don’t mean to paint Bill Clinton as a villain. He was running into a conservative headwind. But Clinton gets credit for his tremendous political skills and as the only Democrat elected to two terms since Roosevelt. But those skills permitted his personal political survival but did little to build a broader progressive movement. He was a political opportunist who drank the DLC Kool Aid. Maybe that’s the best we could do in the 1990s. But after 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush, we’ve got a chance to break out of those old patterns and create a new progressive era.
:D
Nice list. Shall make use of it. Did you get a headache compiling it?
How far up the ‘thought-chain’ do most folks operate at?
True, ‘education’ would help but then sel-interest and narcissism would suffer.
Heh, heh, heh,
These eeediots don’t realize that Bush has been a giant practice session when it comes to the netroots getting together and throwing fireballs.
Whoever is next is going to see Pissed Off Constituents V2.0.
No one but you and those you choose to tell is ever going to know that you voted “statement” at the polls. IMHO, its pointless. I want a Democratic President appointing any new members of the Supreme Court. This could impact our lives for a generation. That is the number one priority for me. That means the Dems must take the whitehouse and keep it for as long as possible.
Thanks. And helpful. On the Dem side, one of the things I think is so unknown is the amorphous feeling of hope. What we do not need is false hope. After the Kennedy and Ted Sorenson stands on Obama, there has been the stirring of some of the old energy/vision of JFK, New Frontier, Great Society. Many things were set out; VietNam ripped alot of things. But some hope and commitment were real. HRC is not a stranger to that vision, but Obama, like JFK, does point to a new start, direction, etc. Can he deliver? Bring us along? We know McC/Romn. cannot. The game probably is down to him, and the promise that we will fight and help. What a gamble.
You just have far more faith than I do that Obama is in fact a progressive. I don’t have that faith at all.
I would like to be wrong but nothing I have seen of the man gives me any confidence that he is anything more than a standard big city machine politician. For good and ill.
Pelosi, Rahm, Reid, Hoyer.
Gotta go.
I can’t speak for everyone and don’t presume to, but I think alor of us feel that with bush approval ratings so abysmyl, as is support for the war the Dems should be able to negotiate from a stronger position and their failure to do so is attributable, more than anything to misguided and ball-less leadership. Couple that with low approval ratings of Congress. There is more disapproval of Congressional Republicans than democrats and this disapproval stems in great part from the belief that Congress is not getting things done. (But as FISA shows, somwetimes less is more.) Requiring super majorities on “important” measures only makes it more likely that things won’t get done. this isn’t, in my view, attributable to thin majorities, but a lack of leadership. What to do about it? Elect larger majorities. It would lead te leradership or maybe change the leadership.
In theory, the stimulus package should of course be about stimulating the economy. In practice, both parties are worrying instead about who will be saying, “Where’s mine?”
Yeah, helping out the poor and the unemployed would provide the most bang for the buck in terms of stimulus, but the *least* bang for the buck in terms of votes and contributions. And *that’s* what really matters to Congress.
I so agree ‘false hope’ is far more destructive than despair, and those who peddle it should not go unchallenged, ever.
and BN @ 112.
Ain’t it the truuuuut.
Safe travels today to our egr, there’s still much work to be done…and we’re counting on her perspective from California now
and dancin’ the happy dance that my wee blog made a milestone today…the first 1000 visitors is always the hardest *g*. Thanks to Jane and Pach and Christy for setting a vision of a path worth following, each in our own way.
I can’t speak for Kathryn but I’ve personally received that list as an email at least a half dozen times in the last year or two.
Excellent! I’m passing that along.
I just heard from my mother, and she is still thinking about voting for Edwards. Then heard from my 19 year old daughter, who said that she hopes it doesn’t tear us apart, but that she is voting for Obama. Funny.
i visit almost everyday because frankly i’m in love with jane. so f—— funny. it’s clicky here and i rarely agee with the analogy of the plebes. i do appreciate and read them all. but i want the truth, where ever it leads us. the truth will be painful but necessary for this nation to heal.
carry on folks. it’s saturday night and i can’t deal with this any more. good night and god bless you all ……
I have a friend who every presidential election writes-in Adlai Stevenson for President. He died in the mid-sixties.
I’m glad wiser folks are around. I’m about at the point were i’d like to see another neocon in office so they can blow the dam of the tide against them.
Nothing will change unless they understand that we want them out – not just better Dems to work with them – that we want THEM gone. We need them to understand that we will work to get rid of THEM. That we are tired of playing the abused wife so that they can keep on doing nothing. I am disgusted and fed up. Enough.
I shall take that as a ‘good’ sign. Thanks
Unless there is a genuine emergency need to get something passed, I don’t see any reason why the Democrats should not stick to their guns. The Republicans may successfully obstruct or uphold a veto, but they’re casting themselves as the obstructionist bad guys.
Let them. And then hammer them with it at election time, again and again. And use the vetos to trash Dubya’s legacy so we don’t end up with “George W. Bush Airport” 20 years from now, or a campaign to put his smirking face on our currency.
You are so right.
Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court.
no brainwork on my part; an email going the rounds
If Progressives are to gain a powerful voice within the the Democratic party, they need to develop some leverage.
damnit. I don’t thinkl my linky worked first time
http://www.orlandosentinel.com…..5869.story
well, i think it’s important, anyway. not that important, but important. gay bashing constitutional amendment will be on Flori-duh ballot in Nov. after all.
Let me get this right. Tax rebates of $800 to $1,600 is going to fix everything. Is that the premise?
‘zactly so.
bully
How many, subsequent to the result of this next ‘election’ might chose ‘leaverage’ instead, do you think, my friend?
And people will use it to pay down debt, most probably, or to pay their taxes.
by the way, when I say this gay bashing amendment is “not that important” I meant to most people outside Flori-duh. It’s important to me and should offend anyone.
Yep. Just throw out some spending money anywhere. It’s like after 9/11 – go shop.
Did you hear Obama’s MLK day address at the Ebenezer Church in Atlanta? In it, he effectively responded to the “false hope” sentiment.
Obama, simply because of his personal makeup and abilities, is prepared to use the ‘power of the presidency’ the old fashioned way–to inspire and communicate with the american people. That was the old conception of presidential power (as opposed to the new, neoconservative view of presidential power–that he taps your phone and can throw you in jail indefinately).
imo, Obama is better suited to the office than Hillary, for that reason alone.
1001.
right. and when McGovernm proposed giving everyone $1,000, it was the second comming of Lenin.
Still, appreciate your bringing it to ‘the table’.
Food for thought is always valued.
Few even remember McGovern. How different might our world be had he prevailed? We’ll never know, but we could speculate. Too bad that today’s Dem ‘leadership’ is so abysmally ‘little’ in comparison.
totally agree with your amazement at leadership that cant beat a guy with a 25% approval rating.
What is it about getting beat and folding that Dems thinks looks attractive.
They must love them some headlines that says Bush Gets Win
Bush Forces Congress
Congress Bends.
losing makes you look weak.
weak is bad.
that is how america sees it.
that was a reply to kiddo 135 and I mistyped McGovern.
Blue America is upstairs with Eric Massa, Dan Maffei, And Jon Powers
‘zactly so. we got smart people here today.
later, sweethearts.
Still trying to decide ….
rot’s a ruck
It ain’t gonna do Fuck all.
Bush is desperate.
The fucking bastard knows the walls are caving in on him. I can’t think of ONE THING off the top of my head that points to imminent disaster that doesn’t point directly at him.
america sees and knows what the msm feeds them. nothing more nothing less
I don’t disagree at all with your condemnation of Congressional leadership. They just haven’t demonstrated any ability to play their cards well. IMHO, part of the problem is that Harry Reid isn’t the right guy for the job. Senate Dems needs a leader who is willing to take strategically smart positions that challenge Bush. But just as important, this leader needs to have the ability to stand in front of the cameras or on the Sunday talk shows and take that argument directly to the American people. If you’re holding a weak hand, you have to be able to strengthen your position by generating support among the American people. This is even more important when the White House is controlled by the other party. Reid just isn’t capable of being a convincing public spokesperson for Senate Dems. I think Durbin might be a lot better.
or Dorgan, or Dodd, or….just about any other Democrat.
Talk about projecting an image of weakness…Reid is gawdawful…everything about him says wimp, wimp, wimp…no matter how strong he may be [don’t say it….] behind closed doors. Image matters. Appearance matters. Casper Milquetoast look says Casper Milquetoast party.
Hey, thanks, BN @ 143.
Let us not forget dear Nancy, a paragon of minimalism and keeping the table cleared so as to convince visitors that she is a superb housekeeper.
Real change is going to come when the democrats have a 60+ majority in the senate and a greater majority in the house. Otherwise the GOP will continue it’s obstuctivism. Senator Kennedy should be out there campaigning for democratic congressional candidates if he wants to bring about real change. Same for Bill Clinton.
And it was Bush/Cheney/Rove feeding the MSM that got us here.
i’m sure they were part of it but i have a sick feeling that there is more to it then that.
Not wanting to split hairs, Jane, but I believe I trademarked the term Implacable Republicans(tm). I feel you are diluting my trademark with the phrase “unrelenting Republicans”. Please desist, or I will send a xeroxed injunction on kleenex paper.
Is it my imagination, or did the post about Darcy Burner’s idiot Sandeep disappear? I sent Darcy and angry email this morning and already I’ve had an disavowal of his statements from the campaign. It referred to Sandeep as a part-time consultant. I assume he will get spanked. Hopefully they will cut back his hours so he can spend more time on his consultant school home work.
The original post can be found at:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/01/loyalty-2/
It’s currently near the bottom of the front page. Comments automatically close about 24 hours after the post first appears so thanks for leaving your comments here.
Imagine Democrats allowing something to happen that is both economically unsound and morally wrong. It boggles the mind. How could our representatives first negotiate away the things that work best and help little people the most? What, finally, does our party stand for if this is the “stand” our leadership takes?
It’s stupid and shameful — a rare but compelling combination.
I think this man is more than a standard big city politician.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eibqI6p1MBw
MadDog February 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 am @63
Reply to is way broken
My gut feel for Obama has been and still says “whoa something is fishy with this guy… DO NOT TRUST HIM!!
I also have been a life long Democrat and I will still Vote for Edwards in Tuesday’s election here in California… I will vote for whom ever gets the nod at the convention but I just don’t trust Obama I am not 100% sure why but my gut fell is usually correct in judging negative characteristics in someone!!
I am sure that the Democrats can dug their heels in on anything
they wanted to, but sadly, they have become so anti-progressives that even when it is the right thing to do, they side with the Reublicans just to send a message….
As a group the Democrats don’t do much better than the Republicans, and sometimes line right up with them.
It is sad to have to say that.
They are all politicians and are more alike than different.
I love it, QuakerGirl. :) And thanks to Jane and Pach for giving me a much-needed ironic laugh that helps to assure me that I’m not crazy and that at least some people see all this the way I do.
Just once I would like to see a story about how the Dems didn’t cave on something. Just one little story about how they held firm and faced down the pathetic GOP and the despised Bush.
Instead, we get the despised and weak majority Dems caving to the despised and pathetic GOP and the despised Bush. The result? A Congress (under the DEMOCRATS) that is more unpopular than Bush is! There is a REASON the Congress is despised: the Democrats.
The changiness is going to take place via Barack’s faith-based bipartisanship and doncha know. I’ll just let history pass me by thank you -as I did this morning rather than attending the Obamarama.
There is a very high mountain to climb to regain control of our country.
You can save and paste that Democrats Cave headline for just about any vote, can’t you? They should change the name of the 100th Congress to the “Democrats Cave Congress/aka Democrats Become Bush Slaves Congress.”
Excuse me–They should change the name of the 110th Congress to the “Democrats Cave Congress/aka Democrats Become Bush Slaves Congress.”
Jane…did I miss something in the last few days? THIS is a done deal????
Is this the result of the Conference Committee working out the differences between the two Houses? I utterly missed any news on this?
Your link only discusses the HOUSE bill, not the SENATE bill. So in your posting shouldn’t there either be reference to the Conference Committee caving in (did they?) Or that this analysis only concerns the Boehner-Pelosi sell-out of Seniors on SSI, the folks who don’t file tax forms, and the people who are at the very bottom of the economic ladder.
Sorry Jane…does look like the Senate did break down, too. Didn’t see this article about the Senate Republicans threatening to block the bill.
Senate Democrats may not be able to forward stimulus bill
Funny how the Republicans never get called on “stopping the stimulus plan” from going forward.
First I’d require the Republicans to vote down the stimulus bill. Then I’d have them have to extract the components in open votes that relate to Food Stamps and SSI. get them on the record.
Then Reid should pare off the top 20% of those that were to receive the tax rebate…
That would essentially be the House Bill but without the people making over $125K.
Then Reid should forward a separate supplemental stimulus bill to the floor with those folks above $125K covered+Food Stamps+ a one-time SSI increase. Expand the stimulus to the wealthier and the poorer (although not the absolutely rich). Then put that up for the Republicans to have to vote on as well.
The Conference Committee could then work out a compromise on the first bill’s differences…and likely would give back the difference,. But the Repugs in the Senate would be on record as voting against not only the elderly and poorest of the poor, but also the better off Middle Class.