It’s the Atlantic what do you expect?

Andrew Sullivan pretty much believes Obama is the second coming of his boy Jesus.

they’re “Obama Conservatives”.

The corporatization of our government from the “middle men” does create some parallels on the left and right in an insider/outsider paradigm:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/18/corporatism/index.html

- Tom

Joe Lieberman is not a “moderate” or a “centrist”. Apart from one or two issues, he’s hard right. The same with most other Blue Dogs.

This just out: OFA members are balking at the call to rally behind the Health Insurance Subsidy bill. What a shock!

Co-opt the “Health Care Reform”! EMBRACE the MANDATE.

And form a mutual non-profit Health Insurance company. Use the strength of the insurance companies against them.

The mandate delivers customers without sales & marketing expense.

Co-opt the health insurance reform: The Judo Strategy.

No

How is it demanding to expect a real reform package? Or to expect that single payer or its lesser cousin the public option be including in reforms when it was in the platform of the party? Oh wait “no one reads those things.” I fail to see how expecting what was promised is being mean and stubborn.

But also this argument is totally illogical. Liberals are attacking the dropping of the PO and most other reform measures because it makes this a bad bill, not because we want to be stubborn for shits and giggles. Additionally, it assumes that everything possible was done to get the best — most progressive bill, but we havnt seen leadership from the White House nor from Reid, and the only backhands, like this very article, are aimed at those nasty liberals.

I’ve been watching you for a while now leftdcin72, and I’ve figured out who you are.

NMSV and McGovern on the money?

You’ve done well, leftdcin72, in withstanding the tidal wave of stupidity that crashes on your shore of thoughtful contribution. This site is populated primarily by egomaniacal automatons. I am sick of listening to their moronic complaints.

Let us address the following questions:

How can Obama be blamed for the incompetence of the Clinton loyalists, whom he had no choice but to employ after beating them in his miraculous David v Goliath Presidential bid? Who else could have taken those jobs? Who actually runs Wall Street, and who allowed it to operate unregulated for so long? In fact, who stripped the regulations off Wall Street in the first place? What’s the problem with wrapping up the war in Afghanistan, by building an enlarged international force to fulfill McChrystal’s request? Didn’t most everyone support that invasion after 9/11, and didn’t Obama always make perfectly clear his intention to get the job done? Wasn’t Iraq “the wrong war” and isn’t Obama bringing it to a close? Didn’t Obama close our covert torture factory in Cuba, and hasn’t he raised the international standing of America?

Further, how is the Senator from Connecticut Obama’s fault? And thereby, how is the loss of a public option in the health care bill his fault? Doesn’t anyone remember Hillarycare and it’s reliance on corporate “regional alliances” of health providers? If you want to get angry, get angry at Connecticut. Get angry at the spineless careerists that make up our Congress. Realize that Obama is just a good President, not a magician. He’s making progress on all the right issues, but he can’t just dictate the agenda.

After 20 years of Bushes and Clintons, we should at least stand with Obama in the fight. The less support he’s got the harder it’s going to be to realize our desires in his Presidency. The only conspiracy happening here is the imaginary one you idiots have promulgated on this site.

I wish the left side of the aisle could show half of the solidarity that the right regularly enjoys. It’s time put these buffoons at the kids table. They’re getting us nowhere.

The “left” is being mean to Joe? Is this the sixth grade and Sister Mary Elephant has to separate a school ground fight? Joe Lieberman opposes virtually everything progressives stand for. Of course they oppose him professionally. Most don’t care what he does at home, except when his wife is a cutout for lobbyist and other money – some washed through non-profits – to influence his votes.

The “left”, liberals and progressives, care about policies and outcomes. It’s the tradmed that over-simplifies the debate so that their brain-challenged and compliant news readers can wrap their pretty little heads and solid shoulders around issues too complex to tell them or their listeners and readers about.

We should stop calling Lieberman, Nelso, Lincoln, Landrieux, et al “moderates”. We should call them corporate liberals or stooges or weak Democrats or anything but moderates.

As far as I can tell, Megan McCardle at the Atlantic is joining in the effort to build a narrative that “Liberals” hate Americans and want to deny them “reform” – i.e. deny them this turd that some insist on calling “reform” – along with the sellout-former-reformers (Rockefeller), the Consveradem assholes, and everyone over at the White House who thought listening to Rahm was a good idea.

But they’re really building a very different narrative, one that shows us standing up to sellouts and that shows the sellouts as people who are willing to twist the truth and push bullshit on the American people by means of fearmongering.

I say, “attack away.”

We’re a threat. They know we’re a threat.

What they haven’t figured out yet is that they have put themselves politically in a no-win situation because they wrecked a golden opportunity to reform our health care system and because everyone knows that they’re the ones who denied the American people real reform.

This is key.

Please lets ignore Ms. McCardle – she’s just freaking out because we (the progressives and lefties) have decided not to be doormatted once again. Expect more of the same in the future – the Dem power structure just can’t imagine what’s gotten the natives so upset. They need to get out of DC and go knock on a few hundred doors or do a lit drop and see what the great unwashed have to say. They will be shocked.

Its all Smoke and Mirors. Left/Right Democratic/Republican. Look the the numbers, our representatives are responding to their paymasters.

Contibutions to date

In the 2010 Senate cycle, Individuals $4.6 Million, PACs $26.3 million
In the House 2010 cycle, Individuals $1.76 Million, PACs $87.9 million

Who’d be your boss with these numbers?

CORPORATISTS not MODERATES

Democrats and Independents think Obama got rolled by moderates like Lieberman, and they do not like what the moderates did to the bill.

I would say that Democrats and Independents think Obama got rolled by CORPORATISTS like Lieberman, and they do not like what the CORPORATISTS did to the bill. (Except he did not get rolled. I think that is the way he rolls.)

This relates to this important discussion for the Democratic Party.

Taking Ideological Differences Seriously | The New Republic
Ed Kilgore from http://www.tnr.com

As with the financial issue, there is now a tactical alliance between conservative critics of ObamaCare, who view the regulation and subsidization of private health insurers as socialism, and progressive critics of the legislation who view the same features as representing neo-feudalism.

The underlying divisions in the healthcare debate
Glenn Greenwald from Salon

NOTE: Quote modified slightly to accommodate FDL site bug that displays quotes improperly.

What this does show is that liberals really have struck a nerve and it is worrying the shit out of the village. They were fine to let us shoot down all the Public Option trial balloons but now that this thing is so close to passage they really want us to fall in line. So now we are as bad as the tea-baggers and dont we realize this will lose us Congress? Isn’t part of the point that PASSAGE will lose the Democrats Congress, mandates without reform are political suicide.

I really want these pro bill people to actual go to the merits of the argument instead of attacking bloggers and the activist left. 1) where are the saving to premiums for people with insurances 2) the savings to medicare/medicaid, 3) this probably will increase the number of people insured, but the greater point is does this actually have positive health outcomes (re: can people actually get care?)

But really they changed the name to “health insurance reform.” Cut a deal with Pharma so no savings there, does little to address actual care costs (doctor visits, scans, etc) and got rid of the one thing that would drive down the cost of insurance. Obama made the statement that if we don’t pass this, we will go bankrupt, I ask, prove that if we do pass this we won’t go bankrupt. This is mandated hosing, not a reform.

The problem is that Democrats compromised away the good parts of the bill and left something that everyone hates. This mandate to buy insurance angers the left who hate insurance companies, and also the right who will call it communism. It’s almost like the Democrats want healthcare reform to fail.

The Atlantic is more comfortable with Martha’s Vineyard liberals than the ones who live on Main Street. The latter need their participation in government to yield effective policies and outcomes. The former want to be left alone, which is what the Atlantic wants from its “relationship” with its readers.

I really want these pro bill people to actually go to the merits of the argument instead of attacking bloggers and the activist left.

They’re afraid of that approach because (assuming they have an ounce of brains) they understand that the facts are not on their side, they know they’ll be cut to pieces.

The European Parliament has more cojones than Barry

Firstly, the Bill sucks…

Secondly, Obama has dissed the progressives, liberals, leftists and has spent most of his energy trying to play nice with the right wing and Republicans.

Thirdly, after and during his kicking the progressives, liberals, leftists to the curb, Obama has continued the neoliberal economic policies of the American Corporate-Milirarist-Fascist Empire and has NOT REPUDIATED THE BUSH DOCTRINE.

Fourthly, Obama has hired the same retreads like Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin and placed a very corrupt Timothy Geithener as the Treasury Secretary. Obama retained Robert Gates as Defense Secretary and has both James Jones as National Security Advisor and Dennis Blair as the Director of National Intelligence. Both Jones and Blair have very questionable records in the area of human rights. There is plenty to detest about this Obama administration.

One can only look the other way so long. The base of progressives, liberals, leftists have not only been very kind but quite patient and actually generous to Mr. Obama and his band of thieves and criminals.

Well I think you’re right, we need to stop letting them frame these neo-fascists as “moderates.”

Just because they have a “D” after their name doesn’t automatically mean they come down anywhere left of center on the political spectrum.

They’re war hawks, they’re anti-gay, anti-reproductive choice, anti-poor and anti-worker. They’re not a party of “No” though. They can say “yes” too. Yes to banks, yes to tax cuts for the rich, yes to the military industrial complex, yes to wealth, yes to power…

For one, it’s a fair bet that the bases of the two parties are roughly the same size. So progressives are already “about as popular with the rest of America” as Bush’s base.

there’s a differance blue;

the liberal “base” have opinions that are for the most, main stream america, they are really only detached from media and the politicians they are not detached from main stream america

on the other hand, the republican base represent very few of real america

Spot on, BT.

I’ve known for some time that when this corporate handover disguised as health care reform fails, Obama and the other Dem leaders will blame the “radical Left.” They have probably already prepared the press releases.

The defense of the senate bill seems to be “it’s better than nothing.” Nuf said.

Can we please stop calling folks like Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, and Landrieu “moderates.” They are anything but moderate. They are either conservatives or corporate whores and need to be called such.

shameless diary plug, Moveon gets 1 million in 2 days to defeat Lieberman !!
…included with excellant sock puppet add and EVERYTHING!!!

We already have. Big media will continue to call them moderates, it’s not as if there is any journalistic integrity at stake.

How can Obama be blamed for the incompetence of the Clinton loyalists, whom he had no choice but to employ after beating them in his miraculous David v Goliath Presidential bid? Who else could have taken those jobs?

Anyone he freaking wants.

See when you’re president that means you’re in charge and get to appoint whomever you want. Not that the party will decide for you.

Who actually runs Wall Street, and who allowed it to operate unregulated for so long? In fact, who stripped the regulations off Wall Street in the first place?

Corporate Dems and Republicans….the ones who are the problem now.

What’s the problem with wrapping up the war in Afghanistan, by building an enlarged international force to fulfill McChrystal’s request? Didn’t most everyone support that invasion after 9/11, and didn’t Obama always make perfectly clear his intention to get the job done?

Nothing wrong with trying to wind down the war. Problem is the OBama strategy won’t do that. It was a political manuver..not a real try.

Wasn’t Iraq “the wrong war” and isn’t Obama bringing it to a close?

No he’s saying he is…but it’s very open ended.

Didn’t Obama close our covert torture factory in Cuba, and hasn’t he raised the international standing of America?

No…Guantanamo bay is still open actually. And it doesn’t seem to be closing anytime soon. And yeah..increased our standing…so much that he can’t get a climate change deal at Copenhagen

Further, how is the Senator from Connecticut Obama’s fault?

He’s not his fault. His failure to try and apply any pressure to him however IS his fault. Pressure is only for progressives.

After 20 years of Bushes and Clintons, we should at least stand with Obama in the fight. The less support he’s got the harder it’s going to be to realize our desires in his Presidency. The only conspiracy happening here is the imaginary one you idiots have promulgated on this site

Absolutely not. I support positions..not people or parties. You can be a party slave if you wish.

I wish the left side of the aisle could show half of the solidarity that the right regularly enjoys. It’s time put these buffoons at the kids table. They’re getting us nowhere

the right is unified because the one thing they do is listen to their base and give them what they want. Why do you think so many Senators and congressmen go to the Tea parties.

Go away now corporate sellout..

Fourthly, Obama has hired the same retreads like Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin and placed a very corrupt Timothy Geithener as the Treasury Secretary.

yeah the very people who helped Clinton lose congress 2 years into his term. Now Obama brings in the same geniuses and suddenly he’s lost his base after only one year. Anyone see a pattern here?

But it’s too soon to pass judgment! it’s just been a year!

You know I was not thrilled with the stimulus, I thought it was too backloaded, but I thought it was important to at least do something. Yet, it’s proven to be true, 25% spent so far in about a year and if it’s made a dent in unemployment then God help us. TARP, I too was mad about that, but I accepted the premise of too big to fail, in return for a promise to break up and regulate so that we do not run into that problem again. It’s a year later and still nothing on that front and the banks are practically writing their own “reforms.” Not to mention where’s EFCA? DADT could be changed with a pen stroke, nada. And I’m all for actually attack Al Queda, but they aint in Afghanistan, their in Pakistan, wth are we adding troops in a place they arent? Is that not just Iraq redux? I’ve seen enough.

Ratfood,
That is how they are going to motivate us to get-out-the-vote, right, by making us the evil-doers?

I wish the left side of the aisle could show half of the solidarity that the right regularly enjoys.

To do that, we would have to be as riddled with right-wing authoritarianism and cultish, slavish, tribalist thinking as they are… and I don’t see that happening.

Solidarity is easy when people prize loyalty over principles of reason.

GG, from the above linkies:

if progressives always announce that they are willing to accept whatever miniscule benefits are tossed at them (on the ground that it’s better than nothing) and unfailingly support Democratic initiatives (on the ground that the GOP is worse), then they will (and should) always be ignored when it comes time to negotiate; nobody takes seriously the demands of those who announce they’ll go along with whatever the final outcome is.

sound familiar?

progressives should not just ditch the unfaithful, abusive partner, but also take up with some new friends and start having fun again.

the right is unified because the one thing they do is listen to their base and give them what they want. Why do you think so many Senators and congressmen go to the Tea parties.

The GOP feigns agreement with the base, they never actually deliver what the base wants. The glue that holds wingnuts in lock-step is their shared hatred of all things perceived (correctly or incorrectly) as “liberal.”

I didn’t say they were smart.

That’s not exactly true. The right will actually throw their base a bone often enough to keep them engaged.

Obama apparently forgot that part of the formula. He just openly craps on us.

Can’t we just ignore Megan McArdle? Whose ears in the Village does she have?

Folks out here in the boonies don’t read Atlantic that much (except for the pseudo-tweedy set).

So who cares what she writes? We know that people like McArdle (and Joke Line as well) have always hated DFH’s and spare no opportunity to remind people of it. It hasn’t gotten rid of us yet, has it?

I too see the cycle of abuse. I said in another thread after we are forced to eat this shit sandwich then we will get some gifts and have a that whole makeup period. My prediction is that DADT will get reversed because it costs the White House nothing and because it does little economically. They will also make a bigger deal about getting out of Iraq I bet.

When the Clintons were hanging out with Newt Gingrich?

“If progressives decide that the lesson from this is that they haven’t been sufficiently demanding and intransigent, they are going to find themselves about as popular with the rest of America as the Bush Republicans, and probably lose their party the House next year.”

The most laughable part of that screed is the idea that the party of the DLC, Clinton, Obama and Rham is “our” party. It is emphatically not – which is why I haven’t been a registered member of said party since ’94 when I had a belly full of the “New Democrats”. As an orginal DFH, I could give a rat’s ass how many DINOs go down in 2010. If they’re not with us, what fucking good are they? We should be talking about putting up primary challengers to them anyway, not worrying about how many might lose to conservatives who will vote the same way they’re voting now.

Actually, social conservatives have realized that despite being offered glimpses of a carrot, they always end up getting the stick. They’ll stay with the GOP, however. The muttering about mounting independent challenges to Republican candidates is just a signal to the party leaders that they better get busy kissing some social conservative ass.

Seriously. And all these other so-called moderate and centrist Dems are really quite conservative. And the Democratic “left”? What left? Real leftists are as scarce as Sarah Palin newspaper subscriptions. The whole thing makes much better sense if we just think of Obama as a moderate Republican, as someone has suggested.

It is a really puzzling strategy. The liberals is Congress are safe, safe districts and will get plenty of support, its the bluedog-conservadem-DLC’ers that are at risk and all they are doing is suppressing their base, hurting GOTV and not making up those votes with moderates nor conservatives (who will vote for republicans regardless of who they are).

When i read articles like this and hear chris matthews belittle the online community i can’t help but wonder if these people have read any sort of demographic study in the past 10 years.

Young people are decidedly more progressive than previous generations and our clout in the world is increasing rapidly as those in their late teens/early twenties move to their late twenties/early thirties. If you just read about the impact of the millenial generation, the old democratic guard better get notice.

I’m sending a message every day on http://www.whitehouse.gov about how these compromises have gutted health care reform and I will not turn out to vote in the next Presidential election if this continues.

I’m late 40′s and have voted Democratic in EVERY election since I turned 18.

If anybody has any other websites I should be using to send this message to the WH, please let me know. I do participate in all the FDL signature collection things.

for some uncheerful friday reading:

“Are Americans a broken people?”

the Democrats don’t have to provide anyone to the left of Holy Joe gifts and makeup period, so they don’t.

unless you mean the pretty speeches?

I have always thought that the bases of the dem and repub party have more in common with each other than with “moderates” in either party. when enough americans realize this isnt a struggle between rural and urban, or democrats and republicans then maybe we can sluff of the dead weight at the top. “moderates” in both parties are corporate servants. globalists and caretakers of corporatacracy. the poor and working class base of both parties must somehow stop feeding into the lie that we are different. we are no different from each other than the corporatists are different from each other. we are the same in the ways that matter, not in how we dress or self image, but in real ways. jobs, access to health care,so on.

Actually, social conservatives have realized that despite being offered glimpses of a carrot, they always end up getting the stick.

Both sides do this all the time. It’s why there is never really an effort to “fix” a particular problem. I think the one thing that gets me with the Dems is the minimum wage. Why does it have to be upped every what 20 years after it is way past the time? Why not just tie it to inflation and have it change every 5 years or so and give people time to adjust that way? That would be a permanent “fix” but they would lose the issue for all time.

chris mathews is a TWAT who knows very little about anything except his lifestyles of the rich and elected obsession. he’s fascinated with politics but he is IGNORANT of policy or just about anything else. hes a complete ass.

and probably lose their party the House next year

This is what I guess you could call a pre-emptive meme. The Democrats screw up so it’s the progressives’ fault.

Bush gave his base tax cuts, faith based initiatives (there’s good money in that, evidently), abstinence-only education, he burrowed lots of apparatchiks in the Department of Justice and other places I’ve forgotten, he fired those US Attorneys, replaced them with imbeciles, denied global warming, didn’t allow stem cell research (except for a few lines)…
No, he didn’t do away with abortion.

I am BACK..What is it going to take – “How much money do THEY WANT from the working people of America”, if I may quote my own dead self – Hey Blue Texan – Why are you and so many here calling Joe Lie BURR man, my old Enemy in teh senate {notice the small caps}a MODERATE?
I am not just ROLLING OVER down here people!!! RUSS and BERNIE…TOM H. (YOU ARE IN my SEAT MOFO!!!)…remember ME?
…F I L I B U S T E R the phony bill!
Everyone here: Make them filibuster…especially Tom Harkin, damnit!

THANK YOU, JANE H.!

I don’t even understand why anyone calls the people he does listens to “moderates”. They are conservatives and, for the most part, there is nothing moderate about them at all.

Jane Hamsher is either a conservative in sheeps clothing or really naive…

Our greatest progressive pol’s came from money, JFK and FDR had plenty of ties to corporations, but they still stood up for the commoner. What does she say about Obama? He takes money from pharma-med etc.

Good lord, Lieberman is the 60th vote and he campaigned for McCain/Likud and Jane acts like this is supposed to be easy?

I have one friend who argues her line and the Daily KOS line. When I ask him what can be done to put America on the right path to social fairness, who to support…He just says nothing, except maybe revolution.

That line that Obama started using a while back about not letting ‘the perfect be the enemy of the good’ makes a lot of sense to me, as long as we keep moving in the right direction.

unless you mean the pretty speeches?

It’s like the Radiohead song Like Spinning Plates. “While you make pretty speeches — I’m being cut to shreds. You feed me to the lions. A delicate balance.”

what makes you think Obama and the Democrats are moving anything in the right direction, Chip?

The perfect would be national single-payer. And we on the left didn’t let the perfect get in the way of the good (robust public option).

Then they took that out and added the Medicare buy-in option that would only be available to a small percentage of the people between 55 and 65. And still we didn’t let the good be the enemy of the mediocre.

Now they’ve even taken that away. So are you saying we shouldn’t let the mediocre be the enemy of the sucky?

You speak the truth. Why do the dems win and then self destruct? The rethugs do march in line-being Authoritarian Followers they will all follow the party line, no matter what it is. They can do a 180 without shame, because what they say right now is truth, what they said 5 min ago means nothing.
But the Dems. Its like a chinese fire drill, or a better analogy, dems in congress are like herding cats. What I want to know is, WTF happened to the dem party? Used to be disciplined. Used to be the leader could force an agreement. If we had an LBJ as leader rather than Reid we would have had an agreement back in July, without all the histrionics from the peanut gallery that is libermann.

The Party based system is absolutely croaked! I don’t give a fuck about this or any other party that cannot keep, at minimum, to the promises of their Party Platform!

Universal Health Care, is not a mandated transfer of wealth from the people to the Industry, and any party suggesting we don’t know shit, does not deserve our support!

asshole.

the moderate label is like a valium to the political mind. . .My dead brothers would never have used that label. F I L I B U S T E R now! Tell Tom Harkin I am watching HIM!!!

It does make a certain amount of sense to me too. in the health care context, though, there’s no perfect/good dichotomy. What’s being peddled by Obama sucks it dry. We should be the enemy of what sucks.

“…as long as we keep moving in the right direction.”

but, but we’ve stopped moving in the right direction the moment this President made back room deals with Pharma and the Insurance industry on behalf of Wall Street (stockholder class).

so, it’s high time to wake up, sleeping beauty!

not letting ‘the perfect be the enemy of the good’ makes a lot of sense to me

It makes no sense when the ship is sinking. In fact, nowadays we should really reformulate that bromide into: not letting the shitty be the enemy of the shittier.

great, haunting spooky video – one long tracking shot through a bleak warehouse – made in Bushtime – but now we know the tracking does not change course . . .

you are being watch from down under . . .asshole yourself!
F I L I B U S T E R…
or tell me what you would do!

I used to hate fuckno.

But that’s right on.

aren’t you an enlightened genius? You’re just what we need. Where have you been all this time?

From a post up above, seconded by several: We should stop calling Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieux, et al “moderates”. We should call them corporate liberals or stooges or weak Democrats or anything but moderates.

Exactly right, but the traditional media will not accept a true-but-derogatory term for the right-wing DINOs. Back in the day of Clinton when it was just fine to be a “pro-business Democrat” – a “smart” Democrat – the tradmed seemed to have no problem with that term.

So, we should at least try using that and see if it will still work. Or has “pro-business” properly taken on so many odious connotations that the tradmed will not use it any more? We should at least try to recycle this label and let the DINOs and Village try to deny its truth.

“I used to hate fuckno.”

Warms my heart, really!

edit: alluding to the past tense.

You’re right, I stand corrected. I need to update my frame of reference.

True, Bush didn’t end abortion but he brought SCOTUS a lot closer to making that a reality.

What possible good can a DINO Party do? How is losing a Republican Party Clone a bad thing? The Democratic Party is now like our propped up corporation welfare economy…a dead corpse passed back and forth so all the greedy Dems and bankers and insurance companies can touch it and maybe gleen money from it. The Dem Party has commited suicide and we know once dead it’s over. R I P !

Oh nice just saw some hack from the NYT on MSNBC call Dean’s opposition “sour grapes.” First, I think Dean’s been really slow to turn on this and really patient. Second, that again does nothing to address the substantive argument, even if Dean had and axe to grind and was grinding said axe, that does not automatically make the argument false.

They really can’t address the underlying concerns.

Comparing chimpy’s lack of support and on-going criminal behavior, along with generally being DESPISED WORLD-WIDE, except for maybe the Klan and a few folks that work at Cluster-Fox, and the current revolt against the absolute sell-out by the WH of anything that even comes close to looking like health care reform, is like comparing Sulfuric acid with lemonade.

Chimpy and his Klan will be WAR CRIMINALS UNTIL THEY ARE LOCKED UP and can’t be compared in the same breath with anyone else living today… The current staff at the WH are just intellectual losers that think they’re still in a office building in downtown Chicago where everything and everyone is theoretical. Surprise !!!

They’re not ‘moderates’ or ‘conservatives’ they’re corrupt corporatists.

Yep – look at Greg Sargent’s post today

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/journalists-cheerfully-urinating-on-senate-bills-ideological-critics/

Masaccio has a new post up: “LieberCare Is a Dead End for Real Reform”

Abortion, guns, religion – hah!

Obama’s stockholder class donors fly their daughters out to Switzerland for abortions, they hire bodyguards to carry their guns, and as for religion, – Goldman Sachs doing God’s work is good enough for them.

Party loyalty/identity is bullshit!

I agreed with him up until the following.

I think proponents are making a strong case.

We can and should ignore Megan.

But this is the narrative the White House is spinning and we should be developing a good response strategy.

I am convinced Rahm Emanuel, beyond his political strategy, really holds a dislike for liberals and has no intention of even offering respect for this contingent in the party..

I posted this on AmericaBlog earlier, but this is a perfect place to put the reminder up here as well.

I am sure some are familiar with this, however, in case you are not.

From the Washington Post 11/8/06, after the historic midterms, this was buried deep in the article:

“The complexion of the Democratic presence in Congress will change as well. Party politics will be shaped by the resurgence of “Blue Dog” Democrats, who come mainly from the South and from rural districts in the Midwest and often vote like Republicans. Top Democrats such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) see these middle-of-the-road lawmakers as the future of the party in a nation that leans slightly right of center.

“In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party’s liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year. Democrats will hold 30 or 35 seats that went for Bush in the past, meaning that Democratic candidates such as Brad Ellsworth in rural Indiana are likely to face competitive races again in 2008. Still, their interests are likely to collide with those of veteran liberals such as Reps. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.) and John Conyers Jr., (Mich.), who will chair committees.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701697_pf.html

I was referring to Emanuel today, because he was quoted in the Wall Street Journal blog discrediting liberal and progressive opposition. He was essentially mocking us:

“But Emanuel pointed to a New York Times column by economist Paul Krugman and another coming from National Journal writer Ronald Brownstein pressing for passage of the Senate health bill. “What you’re seeing is the progressive backlash against the progressive backlash,” he said.”

That ended the story.

This is how the beginning of a story titled, “Don’t worry about the left,” began:

“Turn off MSNBC. Tune out Howard Dean and Keith Olbermann. The White House has its liberal wing in hand on health care, says White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

“There are no liberals left to get” in the Senate, Emanuel said in an interview, shrugging off some noise from the likes of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) that a few liberals might bolt over the compromises made with conservative Democrats.”

That piece can be found here:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/18/rahm-emanuel-dont-worry-about-the-left/

IMO the widest rift in our nation and its body politic is class. The corporate elites and the rest of us.

I know who you are!
Dead men know no fear…humble yourself.

This is a good article.

Ideology aside, I think there is a purely strategic problem the left will always have that the right doesn’t. Being a “conservative” always means to some extent wanting to preserve the status quo, or in its most radical form, wanting to return things to a perceived better time in the past. Either way, your advocacy is something that the country either currently has, or has had in the past. So it is much more acheivable to appease the base on the right if you are a Republican.

On the left, most of what we advocate are things the country has never had before- universal health coverage being one of them. So it is much harder for a Democrat to appease his far left base than it is for a Republican to appease his far right base. You’ll have to constantly step out and change things dramatically and upset the system, and that is politically much more difficult. All you have to do on the right is keep things pretty much the same, or slightly backtrack to a former state.

What I am nervous about is whether the 2008 – 2010 political cycle is going to prove to the Democrats, at least for the medium term, that giving the progressive base what it really wants is deemed too politically difficult to attempt for some time. They seem to have already concluded that compromise is their only realistic course of action.

My apologies. After I edited the story, which was properly formatted….it turned into one big paragraph, which I was not able to correct. ARRRGH.

You just affirmed my post that precedes yours. As a red state low level county Party officer and liberal I watched the workings of Rahm.from 2004 on. Became so disgusted I resigned my leadership position.

In fact we had a wonderful progressive candidate for the Senate that I think would have beaten Saxby Chambliss but could not get the support of the largely blue dog party establishment. Also think of how different the Senate would be had the ObamaRahma and senate incumbents not supported Lieberman over the will of the Democratic voters in Connecticut.

The Emanuel strategy has been catastrophic for the ordinary people.

Talking Stick-

But do you think a very progressive candidate could have elected statewide in Georgia? Just being realistic… I love Georgia, but it’s no Vermont, politically.

Not to mention, all these jerks act as if Dean is the only one professing his POV. OTOH, days before Dean took his stance that this most recent incarnation of this bill is bad enough to vote against, I heard Robert Reich saying the same thing, not to mention Wendell Potter. They’re all so full of bullshit, it’s pitiful!

McCardle says the bill is “hideously unpopular” but she doesn’t acknowledge what’s driving all of this discontent: Democrats and Independents think Obama got rolled by moderates like Lieberman, and they do not like what the moderates did to the bill. It’s not because people think the left is being too mean to the White House or Joe Lieberman.

Obama is the President of the United States with a Democrat Congress. If Obama is getting rolled by moderates in his own party, then there is nobody to blame but him.

Of course, Obama is not getting rolled by his own party, rather Obama is rolling us all for the health insurers because their contributions are more important than our votes.

thanks!

Well Dean is an easy target, they think they can still pull that Dean Scream shit and that he’s unstable or something. This White House is great about constructing strawmen out of its detractors. I might have liked when they made Rush the strawman for a month or two, but it’s the same lazy way to think. Rush is wrong because he’s wrong, on the merits, not because he is a fat pill-popping racist.

Actually I do. Georgia was in the maybe column up until just before the election. and we had our very large and effective African American community energized. Many Georgians loath Chambliss because of the campaign he ran against Max Cleland. The Democratic candidate that emerged was a pallid limp blue dog who ran against the stimulus bill etc.

I can’t speak for the other old Confederacy states but Georgia has a pretty vibrant liberal community forced to vote for “he’s/she’s better than a Republican. But the entrenched party functionaries continue to buy this notion of having to be near Republicans to win. Many of them ideologically harken back to the Talmadge era.

Part of this situation is due to neglect from the national party a la Rahm Emanual and part lack of organizing.

That’s a shame- ’08 might have been the last chance for that. Good thing you aren’t up for anyone in 2010, it’s gonna be a bad year.

Democrats and Independents think Obama got rolled by moderates like Lieberman … It’s not because people think the left is being too mean to the White House or Joe Lieberman.
**********************

Thank you! It drives me crazy when, to me, something is so obvious, yet no talking head on TV either realizes it, or says it.

Do the Democrats insist upon snatching defeat from the jaws of victory because they’re programmed that way, because they can’t help it or do they really enjoy it?

Read Paul Krugman’s Op-Ed today- Link and excerpt here and my take on it below…
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
December 18, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Pass the Bill
By PAUL KRUGMAN
A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.
But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.
……………………………………………………………….
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU…

…Paul Krugman for your voice of sober reasonableness on such a terribly important issue for progressives and all Americans.

I am so tired of Will Rogers being so right in saying that he belonged to no organized political party because he was a Democrat.

We have seen in recent days what I call the ‘ugly face of the left’., stubborn and childish in their own way as much as the far right. And I have some news for Keith Obermann, Ariana Huffington and Markos Moulitsas…your style of political hectoring only serves to turn off people in the swing states (like NC, VA and FLA) which were the real key to electing President Obama.

Dear chipshirley,

B.S. on your part here.

Any more b.s. you want to share?

Firstly, the Democrats are so far away from the party of FDR. JFK and LBJ.

Secondly, FDR battled the economic royalists of his day while the present day Democrats cozy up to the corporatists.

Thirdly, the present day Democrats do not respresent the common man or woman today at all.

Fourthly, the Democrats have turned their backs on the old liberals they once coveted.

Fifthly, the Democrats made a pact with advent of the Democratic Leadership Council to be pro-corporate and have a muscular foreign policy rather than look for peace. Thus, the term of “humanitarian intervention” was born and brought to fruition in the Balkan Wars led by NATO in the age of Clinton.

So, no, the present day Democrats are not acting as did FDR, JFK or LBJ. The Democrats have embraced the same neoliberal economic agenda of the Reagan years. In fact, the present day Democrats are closer to Reagan than FDR in their policies and outlook.

By the way, when was the last time the Democrats actually fought on nehalf of civil rights or gay rights?

One last item—it was the Civil Rights Movement and the actions of Martin Luther King Jr. and that of Rosa Brooks and the antiwar movement in the 1960′s which exposed the hypocrisy of the political elites and made them act on behalf of peace and justice and even that took a long time.

Jane Hamsher is not wrong whatsoever but you seem to lack any real knowledge and also appear to be a troublemaker.

You are not related to Lanny Davis now are ya?

One very last thing—when will the Democratic Party and the Obama administration officially REPUDIATE THE BUSH DOCTRINE AND ADOPT SOCIAL POLICY CONSISTENT WITH THE LEGACY OF FDR RATHER THAN RTONALD REAGAN?

IT MUST WARM YOUR HEART TO KNOW THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA PRAISED REAGAN AND NIXON AT HIS OLSO SPEECG—NIXON AND REAGAN—BOTH WAR CRIMINALS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT—YES THIS IS OBAMA—CONSTANTLY HEAPING PRAISE ON REAGAN AND NIXON…..

OBAMA AND JIMMY CARTER–I WILL NOT GO INTO HOW MUCH OBAMA HAS BEEN DISRESPECTFUL TO FORMER PRESIDENT CARTER BUT IT’S WELL KNOWN. HOW THE OBAMA TEAM REFUSED TO ALLOW CARTER TO SPEAK AT THE 2008 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION IS UNCONSCIONABLE AND NEEDS TO BE TALKED ABOUT A LOT MORE BECAUSE THIS SPEAKS TO OBAMA’S LACK OF CHARACTER.

This White House is great about constructing strawmen out of its detractors. I might have liked when they made Rush the strawman for a month or two, but it’s the same lazy way to think. Rush is wrong because he’s wrong, on the merits, not because he is a fat pill-popping racist.

Well said. Makes me disappointed when I see our side using the same cheap tactics as the other side. The White House should be way above that, especially when it is taking shots at someone like Dean, who arguably set up the political scene in 2004 for Obama’s victory in 2008. Astonishing how quickly he can throw people under the bus.

“Obama got rolled by moderates like Lieberman, and they do not like what the moderates did to the bill. It’s not because people think the left is being too mean to the White House or Joe Lieberman.”
Being a blue Texan myself, I enjoy the blog but I just don’t get the entire Obama sold out meme.
Can someone please tell me what real leverage progressives think Obama has over the likes of Lieberman? And with the GOP committed to obstruction, please let go of the Bully Pulpit/Real Leadership BS. Give me some solid examples.

Dear chipshirley,

Over at Black Agenda Report, Glen Ford exposes in his radio commentary the fraud of “liberal” Paul Krugman. I do not agree with Mr. Krugman’s view here but I am not surprised that being the Lanny Davis suck-up you are that you agree with Krugman.

Krugman is very wishy-washy in his criticicms of Obama. One day Krugman likes Obama and another day he doesn’t. So, I am not too, too surprised that Krugman takes this view.

I say Kill this Bill because it SUCKS!!! And I don’t care what Krugman says. I was against this bill before even Howard Deam was. Black Agenda Report and Glen Ford has been against this awful healthcare bill for months and months now.

I have been urging all I hope to influence to encourage young liberal candidates to run simply to put the liberal values out there, even if they can’t win the first go around. We might begin to pick some off within a few elections. This is really how the conservatives came alive after the Goldwater defeat.

A huge problem here in Georgia is few try and most folks believe Liberals are what Newt Gingrich says we are. I don’t think all the media is so biased as to not include opposition views. There are simply few articulating them, and they are not Democrats.

Correction on my last post—Rosa Parks not “Rosa Brooks.”

We have seen in recent days what I call the ‘ugly face of the left’., stubborn and childish in their own way as much as the far right. And I have some news for Keith Obermann, Ariana Huffington and Markos Moulitsas…your style of political hectoring only serves to turn off people in the swing states (like NC, VA and FLA) which were the real key to electing President Obama.

Admittedly there was a lot of fierce anti-Lieberman and conservadem speech. Also, a lot of “the white house sold us out.” With that said you just did exactly what you accused them of doing. This is name calling “stubborn and childish” all the while ignoring the substantive issue. Look I personally don’t give a shit who cause all these provisions to be removed, I don’t care why they did it, what I care about is the outcome. The outcome is that “30 million people” will be insured through an expansion of medicaid (paid by the states), a tax on decent plans (not based on income, so regressive tax) and does nothing about costs. Costs include, the cost of care, medicine and insurance. Removing the public option, even a weak one, makes this a much more fiscally irresponsible bill.

Ever since Krugman got taken out to the shed invited to the WH, he’s been a balanced shill for this Administration.

Stiglitz says a single-payer system is “the only alternative.”

“Only alternative” – hmm, what could that mean?

“…you seem to lack any real knowledge and also appear to be a troublemaker.”
Okay Wizard, if you can’t be bright, be polite and answer #100 for us. It takes some world class stones to reject a Paul Krugman citation as an uniformed opinion.

The bully pulpit/real leadership thing is actually a pretty big bargaining chip. First, go to states where you can exert some leverage over the senators that are currently obstructing (in berry blue CT this would be especially effective). Second, as leader of the party you can withhold money from the DNC and senate/house equivolents, and also promise not to campaign. Third, you can divert pork to or away from those same states. Fourth, you can threaten to take chairmanships away. Fifth, use grassroots efforts, like the original campaign, to setup phone banks and other organizing efforts. Sixth, instead of pre-emptively giving up items (single payer, PO) hand them out for better deals. Seventh, change the rules, this includes passing legislation through reconciliation or changing the filibuster rules (the nuclear option).

Are all of the feasible? Maybe not, but you asked for ways.

wizardleft1962

Your criticisms of Obama are almost verbatum quotes of FDR’s critics who blamed him for not pushing for a more expansive Social Security plan in the beginning.

When you start typing in all cap’s you know you’ve lost perspective and given in to pride.

If you were in charge of Obama’s campaign with your surly attitude he would have inevitably lost swing states like Fla, NC and VA and we would now be at war with Iran with President McCain and Vice President Palin at the helm.

It’s Democratic Congress. Please.

stick around a few days and maybe some people here will take out the time to
help set you straight, as is, you offer no incentive.

The problem with Georgia is that there is no functioning state Democratic party. It seems like one of the states that the 50-state strategy did not get to. It seems as if the “Georgia Democratic Party” in Georgia is in the hands of someone who has a single file cabinet and no intention of doing anything. Which allows state Democratic politicians to freelance, serving what lobbying interests are handy in Atlanta.

Criticism is fine…..Nothing at all wrong with it whatsoever….

Jane Hamsher—-Keep up the great and fantastic work you are doing!!!

“The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living”—Socrates said that at his trial for heresy…

Black Agenda Report
The Journal of African American political thought and action

Universal Health Care? We Keep the Candy, But You Can Have the Wrapper. No. Wait. Give Us the Wrapper Too.
Posted Wed, 12/16/2009 – 10:57 by Bruce A. Dixon

“It’s half past December, and the White House is hell-bent on passing its version of “health insurance reform” out of Congress before the holiday recess. It’s not universal. It’s not even about delivering health care, it’s about bailing out health insurance companies. The legislation will force millions of Americans to buy skimpy private insurance, often with hundreds of dollars a month of their own money under penalty of law. Billions more in government subsidies will be added to the giveaway to help purchase health insurance policies for the bottom half or more of the insurance market.”

Read entire article @:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/universal-health-care-we-keep-candy-you-can-have-wrapper-no-wait-give-us-wrapper-too

Paul Krugman’s Blind Spot for Corporations and Obama
Posted Tue, 12/15/2009 – 17:50
A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

“Krugman was the featured speaker at a lecture held each year at New York City’s Baruch College in honor of Dr. Donald H. Smith, an esteemed Black educator and political activist who is also a great friend of mine, and of Black Agenda Report. The house was packed with Dr. Smith’s many admirers plus lots of folks eager to hear Krugman’s analysis of current affairs. In his area of expertise, Krugman whitewashes President Obama’s economics team, led by the same Clinton bankster operatives that the laid groundwork for the 2008 crash. Former Treasury Secretaries Larry Summers and Robert Rubin and current Treasury chief Timothy Geithner are ”not stupid or corrupt” men, said Krugman, they’re just “too close to Wall Street” and “not in touch with the public.” Krugman appeared sincerely startled that the Administration shows “an almost total unwillingness to appeal to the popular backlash” against the banks. He wishes Obama would push for another big economic stimulus to create jobs, but despairs of that happening. “The financial system,” in Krugman’s expert opinion, “has become a ward of the state.”

Listen or Read Mr. Ford’s Entire Commentary on Mr. Paul Krugman @:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/paul-krugmans-blind-spot-corporations-and-obama

It will be funny when idiots go and try to attack Glen Ford, Bruce Dixon, Margaret Kimberley or Paul Street over at Black Agenda Report which has been spot on about Barack Obama and the sellout Dems fron the start.

This commentary by Mr. Ford about Paul Krugman is spot on and very prescient since it came out a few days before Krugman’s latest and ridiculous article, but typical for him.

You are right. Fixed in the update.

I appreciate the response but respectively disagree. Excepting CT, Obama lost the states where the obstructionist Dems are from, so going there would do nothing. Withholding DNC money would only create ill will at the state level and help the GOP. Obama can’t threaten chairmanships, and there’s little to suggest it would have any good effect. They did try to organize grassroots and it didn’t work. Obama has no say over Senate rules, and these egomaniacs are very protective of their prerogatives. In short, the Senate is the problem, not Obama.

Social Security as signed by FDR was just as far from today’s SS as the current Health Care bill in the senate is far from an ideal of a single payer plan. SS under FDR was the equivalent to our current Medicare system in that it covered very few of the people who needed it.

And for all the rude remarks aimed my way not one person here will even bother to deny this statement…

…If given their way, my critics here would have nominated Dennis Kucinich for president and we would be at war with Iran with President McCain and Vice President Palin at the helm and nobody would even be talking about health care.

The unlived life is not worth examining. Socrates’ older and smarter brother

Accepting that this is in fact a Senate problem, not an Obama problem, what then? Is it realistic to think that Senate failures won’t be visited upon the heads of Housemembers and the President too? Moreover is there any evidence that the current strategy of “moderate” appeasement has yielded result that would be good not just for liberals, but for the country? If you go to the main page there is a story about Ben Nelson wanting to get rid of the medicaid expansion portion of the bill too (not to mention his abortion concerns).

Assume that this fails, and we can place the blame on the Senate, what then? Also, who assumes the mantle of leadership under such a circumstance and what is the strategy not just to get health reform, but ANY reform, given this 60 plateau and democrats that arent really democrats at all.

Social Security as signed by FDR was just as far from today’s SS as the current Health Care bill in the senate is far from an ideal of a single payer plan. SS under FDR was the equivalent to our current Medicare system in that it covered very few of the people who needed it.

This is simply not true. Social security established the principle of government run “single payer” insurance for the needs of living after becoming unable to work. The amounts and extent of coverage are all that has changed, in spite of the corporates attacks on it.

The proposed legislation in the Senate establishes no such principle and instead only continues to subsidize private for profit contracting, and,, most egregiously, coerces the public to comply with the provisions of private corporations..

“Accepting that this is in fact a Senate problem, not an Obama problem, what then?”

Now we’re back to my original question, and I don’t have an answer. But if Obama isn’t the problem, spewing all the vitriol at him is counterproductive. Republicans have taken us to a place where the country is almost ungovernable which makes it all the more important for Democrats to pass something. Don’t get me wrong, if I thought it would do any good, I’d support sending Lieberman to Gitmo as an enemy combatant.

Here’s the solution, change the rules in the Senate. And here you can get support by using the bully pulpit in states that you have sway. Correct me if I’m wrong but you make this change by someone violating the rule (fewer votes for cloture) an objection, and a clarification of the rules by the chair (who now says simple majority) and you vote on that rule simple majority. I might have messed up the terminology somewhere but the end result is that a rules change requires 51 votes, not 60, and it could be possible to apply pressure to those 51. Also, I know that this is sort of the check that progressives have against bad conservative legislation, but really on the major policy initiatives of the Bush administration was it ever effective? Which is to say republicans dont mind filibustering any and everything, but Democrats at least think that they should govern in good faith.

Makes sense to me, but I imagine the push-back would be Tea Baggers Squared. Good faith is the operative word and getting back to that might be incremental. I just don’t see the benefit to all the hyper anti Obama rhetoric. Take care.