Three guys who seem to "get it"

    By kgb999 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:14am |

    I've been a big fan of The Young Turk's Cenk Uygur for a while now, and this confirms for me exactly why.  I never agree with anyone all the time, but his world view is pretty close to mine on a lot of stuff. Ratigan and Greenwald tend to be more hit and miss.  But this segment ... the three of 'em together ... pure awesome.

     

     

    The only real "news to me" out of this ... Timmy Geithner was dispatched for a two hour off-the-record meeting with Jon Stewart. Wait, wut? Anyhow ... dumped coffee in my keyboard and my temp replacement is producing 3 typos-per-word so that is all. Enjoy (or not).

    Comments

    HIGHLY RECOMMEND

    Thanks for the link.


    by Resistance1 (not verified) on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 3:45am

    Excellent--well worth 11 minutes to watch.  Thank you for the link.


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 7:46am

    The discussion was interesting, if somewhat echo-chamber-ish, but I'm left with the feeling that even these highly informed, articulate leftists haven't been able to express exactly what they want from Obama. Government transparency and reducing corporate influence--sure, who doesn't want that (besides corporations, lobbyists, and Congress). But how exactly? More willingness to take political risks--yeah, Obama should have been more aggressive. But what exactly is Greenwald's vision, other than excited voters who feel that they their votes matter? What is Obama's vision? What exactly are we supposed to be fighting for here?

    Right wingers can be just as critical of their representatives, but they usually supplement it with a clear and specific (if disturbing) vision of what they want--flat tax, outlaw abortion, harsh anti-immigration laws, eliminate estate tax, cut social security, etc.

    I'm not suggesting that the left shouldn't criticize Obama, but I think it would be a lot more effective if, in addition to holding Democrats to account, it were to articulate a clear agenda and work a hell of a lot harder to sell that agenda to rest of country.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 9:02am

    This is a great comment.  Especially, "I think it would be a lot more effective if, in addition to holding Democrats to account, it were to articulate a clear agenda and work a hell of a lot harder to sell that agenda to rest of country..."

    See, according to these political geniuses, that's Obama's job too.  When he's not nationalizing the financial industry, creating a new Public Works Administration, and dismantling the security state and military-industrial complex, that is. 

    Meanwhile, in the real world, the conventional wisdom is not that Obama is a weak champion for an FDR-level progressive resurgence, but a radical who threatened the "Washington political establishment" in the reckless pursuit of his own agenda:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44812.html


    by brewmn on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 9:49am

    Especially, "I think it would be a lot more effective if, in addition to holding Democrats to account, it were to articulate a clear agenda and work a hell of a lot harder to sell that agenda to rest of country..."

    See, according to these political geniuses, that's Obama's job too.  When he's not nationalizing the financial industry, creating a new Public Works Administration, and dismantling the security state and military-industrial complex, that is.

    I don't see any way Obama would have been able to move on the things the left wants that are also broadly popular and/or saleable in the country--without selling that agenda much more effectively to the country.  Because the makeup of the Democrats in Congress last Congress did not quite permit that, and because there are powerful forces--elected Republicans and several powerful lobbies--committed to thwarting it.  A purely insider strategy, which to may of thinking is pretty much what was followed, could not possibly have succeeded.  Selling what he wanted to do to the public was a critically important aspect of getting done things that "the left" wanted done that were also broadly popular or saleable to the public (which is not everything you identified in your comment).


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:52am

    "Selling what he wanted to do to the public was a critically important aspect of getting done things that "the left" wanted done that were also broadly popular or saleable to the public (which is not everything you identified in your comment)."

    But, instead of doing any of the selling themselves, the left chose to focus all of it's attention on where Obama fell short.  And you twice mentioned "things that "the left" wanted done that were also broadly popular or saleable to the public."  What are "these things" specifically, and do you think that public support for any of them would have survived Republican demonization, lack of vocal support from the Democratic establishment, and the subsequent tut-tutting by the mainstream press? 


    by brewmn on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:07pm

    Will reply to your other good questions a bit later but in the meantime what do you mean by "the left"?  If you are saying that "the left" has plenty of struggles it continues to wrestle with, is nowhere near as effective as the organized Right in applying muscle to the political process at this time, no argument from me there.  I think there is an interactive effect--having a President standing up strong for things the left wants that are also popular or saleable is an act of leadership, of inspiration, and of direction-setting in signaling clearly what the White House considers the winnable fights and is committed to fighting.  Whereas FDR told A. Philip Randolph "make me do it" there is also a dynamic whereby a President who wants to do specific possibly achievable things can help those he wants to "make him do it"...make him do it.

    As it was, many who I think would describe themselves as part of "the left" felt like they were, to put it mildly, getting mixed signals from the White House on what it was trying to accomplish, and what it was willing, and not willing, to fight for. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:22pm

    By "the left," I mean primarily those who set themselves in opposition to Obama from the left.

    I always thought I was of the left (and many with whom I argued politics beginning the the early 1980's agreed at the time), but was repreatedly disabused of that notion beginning shortly after Obama took office.

    And to expand on my other point, indeed the public option, DADT, and closing Gitmo are three of the issues most popularly cited by that left as having broad public support.  But I honestly don't think that any of these initiatives would survive the demonization-abandonment-hand wringing syndrome I discussed above.  Hell, even that alleged champion of civil liberties Russ Feingold voted against funding the closing of Guantanamo Bay.  And, if a health care bill that actually reduces the deficit can be successfully painted as big government run amok, imagine what would have happened if Obama had insisted on a provision that would have cost the government some real money?  In other words, I think support for any of these measures would have evaporated the minute that they became the focus of the public debate.     


    by brewmn on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:32pm

    getting mixed signals from the White House on what it was trying to accomplish, and what it was willing, and not willing, to fight for.

    No doubt, but the right doesn't usually wait around for Republican leaders' smoke signals. Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and others are on television every day promoting their agenda which usually, but not always, aligns with the interests of the Republican leadership.

    Neither I nor, I think, brew are trying to absolve Obama, but there is blame enough to go around. These three men have argued that Obama failed the left without acknowledging the extent to which the left has failed itself. The fact they are relatively prominent spokespeople for the left underscores that point.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 3:42pm

    Well, in the "left's" defense, they went ALL IN with Obama. They invested their entire infrastructure and every ounce of energy (and all their pennies). The Tea Party was built on co-opting an insurgent force within the Republican party that has been building since 2006.

    It seems a bit unrealistic to say the "left" didn't apply muscle. They WERE Obama's ground game. They just got fucked. They didn't even really understand the extent to which their own purposes would be thwarted until it was pretty much too damn late to even get involved with the 2010 primary process to any significant extent. And that seems to have been by design ... as you say "mixed signals from the White House."

    I think the anger and the organization from the left is growing and coming to grips with the fact that the enemy is within their own gates. It will be interesting to see where things progress from here.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 5:13pm

    I tried to respond to your questions in the course of replying to artappraiser a little farther down.  If I didn't do that adequately and you'd like for me to elaborate or clear something up I'm glad to try to do that. 

    Would committed efforts to press the issues I identified--on jobs and much more adequate financial reform--have been able to survive Republican demonization, lack of vocal support from the Democratic establishment, and the subsequent tut-tutting by the mainstream press?

    I don't know.  That's my honest answer.  They might not have.  The obstacles might have been too great to overcome.  But fighting hard, on terms one works hard to define, doesn't need to lead to crash and burn and nothing done.  It could lead to better compromises in the end, while setting the table for advantageous campaign fights and subsequent efforts to move the ball forward on policy.  It could serve to better identify or clarify goals to work towards.  It could generate new support as previously disengaged citizens are galvanized by the prospect of fighting for a political party that has goals it will fight for, and that are worth fighting for.  


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:22pm

    I don't see any way Obama would have been able to move on the things the left wants that are also broadly popular and/or saleable in the country--without selling that agenda much more effectively to the country

    But does he even want to do this?

    How many things that both the left wants and are "enormously popular" are there? The usual suspects are the public option in the health care bill and continuing the war in Afghanistan. The first he explains away as he had to do it to get the bill from Congrees. The second I believe he's trying to get out of there ASAP while sticking to his own principles about not cutting and running and causing trouble down the road--certainly he went through a ridiiculously long process making his decision on what to do.

    I don't really believe there is proof of many others. If there are, it's typical these days for the presidential team to be polling for that and they know what they can easily get majority public support for and what they can't, and take advantage when they can.

    And futhermore, and maybe more significant: how many of those did he promise in his presidential campaign?

    I happen to think a lot of "the left" (those who self-describe as such) purposefully got carried away during the presidential race convincing themselves he was one of them. When in sctuality, bi-partisanship or post-partisanship was one of his main things, one of his main selling points that he started to promote about himself way back before announcing, and one that helped him a great deal with independent vote and "blue dog" vote and the like in the presidential race. Actually, continuing to reach out across the aisle to the right could be argued as Obama sticking to his promises, and pushing things "the left" wants could be seen as breaking them. He did not accomplish things like winning the Iowa primary by promising to produce for the left.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 12:52pm

    Thinking that brewman wrote this initially I was going to include in my reply that this sounds like artappraiser.  Then I see that--lo and behold, it is artappraiser.  After a few years I guess we get to know a bit about what and how we each think, eh?  Will reply substantively as soon as I can...


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 1:42pm

    ["How many things that both the left wants and are "enormously popular" are there?"]

    That's the wrong question. The question is how many things that the left wants did Obama promise to fight for during the campaign and are specifically included in the last Democratic platform created in Denver in 2008? I just reviewed the document. Nobody got carried away. Everything they are saying should be done is IN THERE. They were promised Democrats would fight for this shit. They were lied to.

    Post-partisanship/bi-partisanship are abstracts not promises. I don't give a fuck what makes Obama feel all warm and fuzzy inside ... it's not an excuse for a changing stance on policy.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 5:21pm

    Interestingly, the DNC has a page of 13 links to other pages that explain their version of how they and Obama have worked hard at fullfilling and/or "fought for" the main points of the 2008 platform, which is also linked to on that page:

    http://www.democrats.org/issues

    And they include lots of statements by Obama on those pages as well.

    So they feel they've done what you don't think they have done.

    And you've got to admit that that the first argument you see from many Obama supporters, i.e., " but look at all he's done!"

    I think this is a story of "the left," or whaevert you want to call those on the left side who are quite unhappy with performance so far, of having different expectations than mainstream Dems.


    by artappraiser on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:17pm

    Big picture/small picture.  Technician vs. strategist.  Resume checklist approach to ticking off campaign promises fulfilled or fought for (which Obama publicly referenced at times, not bad in itself by symptomatic of a mindset), versus making his top priority much more adequately addressing the biggest issues, the issues that were going to matter most last week, the issues more experienced politicians such as Pelosi were begging him to deal with much more aggressively, especially jobs.  The symbolism of how the big banks and their CEOs were dealt with largely conveyed capitulation, an unwillingness to stand up for the pocketbooks and values of taxpayers (and then wonder why they seem so ungrateful).  Major HC provisions don't kick in until 2014. 

    Unless he thinks he doesn't need a Democratic Congress.  And in his presser the people he seemed most distraught about having let down were Democratic House members who took tough votes and lost.  How about the millions of people out of jobs and trying to hang on by a thread who thought they had a champion in the White House?  This is what I mean by low emotional intelligence in the White House.

    The DNC website is of course going to come up with a humongous list of accomplishments--that's  their job, for any President and Congress of their party.  I don't think it is just disaffected Dems who self-identify as being on the left who were reacting last week.  In fact, I had the sense that many of them who write here, having also registered their intense dissatisfaction, some of the very people who I had thought you were referring to when you write of purist leftists, were going extra miles to try to salvage the situation as best as possible.  Independents, evidently thinking the President had been serious during the campaign about changing business as usual in Washington, voted Republican en masse in disgust. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 3:00am

    I've seen that page (just browsed two days ago). They are updating it real-time to drive their messaging strategy. Those arguments have been presented ad nauseam by now. But when you click the link to the actual platform, that's the document which formed the basis for promises made to voters in 2008. The marketing site conveniently erases any mention of planks that don't fit their preferred narrative. They're redefining important terms of the contract after the fact to match what they've done.

    As far as it goes, I think you are correct in identifying the conflict between democratic factions. Although I'd argue that it doesn't matter what Democrats do, the mainstreamers are willing to adjust their expectations to match whatever it is.

    I think what mainstream Dems aren't taking into account is that it isn't just a debate between themselves and a "minority" faction of their own team. Democrats made a promise to all of America. When mainstreamers declare themselves dominant and the expectations of "the left" irrational/unreasonable  ... they are declaring expectations of a large chunk of the independent coalition that was instrumental in this success are unreasonable as well. And clearly independents aren't playing that shit. I don't think many give a hoot what mainstream Dems expected.

    There is a certain arrogance to the idea that if the Democratic mainstream is willing to excuse it, than it should be good enough for America. It's like corporatist Dems are so accustomed to kicking sand in the face of their liberal kid brother they don't realize that if you try that crap with the school linebacker, he's going to smash your teeth in (and sooner or later, even little brother is going to try and kick your ass). Hubris is not usually a winning election strategy.

    Notice, independents who overwhelmingly voted for them last time are telling Democrats to take a hike overwhelmingly. Yet these same people overwhelmingly assert that Republicans are even worse. Encourage your leaders to kick more sand in their face. See what happens. I guarantee you aren't going to like it. Call 'em irrational if you like, but I'd argue if the idea of republicans taking back over is the worst thing one can imagine ... independents aren't the ones acting irrationally. Those defending the mainstream course of action which is clearly failing with the electorate are.

    A truly "center-right" nation (as defined by today's pundocracy) would never overwhelmingly vote for the platform articulated in 2008. At the same time, mainstream Democrats are not a large enough majority among the people who swept Democrats into power to win elections on their own. In fact, ALL democrats aren't enough to win elections on their own even if you kick the liberal's asses into line. This isn't a family matter anymore - Democrats are on the big stage.

     


    by kgb999 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 5:54am

    I would say it is natural for people looking for and wanting to feel hopeful to hear what they want to hear.  Good on kgb for checking the document. 

    A point I would like to add is that circumstances also change.  Most of the public, I think, would prefer that a President adapt rather than stick slavishly to those campaign planks or themes that at a later time, under different circumstances, seem as though they would be counter-productive.  FDR campaigned on a promise to balance the federal budget.  Good thing for the country that he ditched that after being persuaded otherwise.

    In this situation, the stimulus clearly helped keep things from getting worse.  But it wasn't enough to really get the economy moving and creating jobs again.  So, if you are Obama, do you throw up your hands and say, oh well, we tried the stimulus and it helped some but...nothing else we can do?  Or do you go back and look for other ways to add stimulus and create jobs--say, a green infrastructure public jobs bill that will give a lot of people who are hurting bad now dignity and a paycheck, and help build a better foundation for the economy of the future?  And also, not so BTW, help the country's morale as well as his own standing as a President who gets it, who cares about ordinary people, and will act? 

    Other measures that would also have stimulated the economy, such as additional funding for state and local governments, could have been added to give stimulus round two a greater impact.  If it had been called a jobs bill it would have been harder to oppose on grounds that "we already tried the stimulus and it didn't work".  If opponents succeeded in blocking it, then campaign on it to illustrate differences between the parties on a key issue.  I'd have been very comfortable trying to make the mid-terms a referendum on that, if it had been blocked, which it might well have been. 

    The public opinion data I have seen is very supportive of a green infrastructure public jobs initiative.  That issue also "talks well" with ordinary people, unlike financial reform, which is more complicated to explain to people.  That is the other big issue I think was seriously mishandled.  Stiglitz, again, explains why in Freefall, which I am reading now.  He doesn't just Monday morning quarterback, he says what else still needs to be fixed if we are to really do what is needed to prevent a recurrence of the 2007-2008 events or something of similar magnitude.  (for example, breaking up the big banks to address "too big to fail", which the financial reform bill earlier this year did not address).

    Those are the two issues I have foremost in mind as having been seriously mishandled.  It seems to me there is a good case that public option on HC was a third.  It simply was not fought for by this White House.

    Re Afghanistan, I've put in my two pennies on that while trying to avoid further carping right now on a decision we are led to believe has been made.  Nor do I maintain that a major downsizing of the US military presence around the globe is a short-term proposition by any stretch of the imagination.  It's hard enough to get us out of the bad wars we are fighting and keep us out of new ones.  


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 8:26pm

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/foreclose-on-the-foreclos_b_772434.html


    by we are stardust on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 8:46pm

    I agree about changing circumstances and the need for leaders to respond flexibly. I noted on a different thread that IMO the leeway to adjust course to avoid a rock in the stream does not provide carte blache to unilaterally rewrite the navigational charts whole-cloth. In the circumstances extant in 2008, republicans sucking was totally expected ... Obama used that as an excuse to say "ooooh look! Rocks!"

    And you describe exactly what I thought Obama's game was going to be on stimulus. I was arguing in favor of cutting him a break at that point. Then ... zip.

    On HCR and the public option, to me it was worse than "not fought for". He traded it away early from within the White House. And even that isn't really the worst part. After trading it away ... he came out in public statements and pretended like he'd personally love to do it and blamed it all on the senate. It wasn't just policy that took a hit - it was credibility as an honest straight-shooter.

     


    by kgb999 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 6:41am

    He did not accomplish things like winning the Iowa primary by promising to produce for the left.

    He was elected to produce for the country.  In your thought, artappraiser, I observe what seems to me to be an acceptance of a favorite tactic of the Republican party and the right.  Call it Silencing of the Left.  The recipe is this:

    1. Label anything opposed by elected Republican officials and/or the Right as "too liberal", "far left", "extremist" since, among Dems, Indies and others who loathe liberals, that will fatally tarnish the idea, no matter who else and what other parts of the political spectrum support it.
    2. Block it in Congress.
    3. Accuse the Democrats of being partisan, and also too extreme, too liberal, too left, etc.
    4. Laugh every time you watch the right wing communications network that you've bought and paid for parrot that endlessly, and as The Washington Post and many people with perches on the talking head shows and on the op-ed pages embrace and certify it as the conventional wisdom which very serious people dare not challenge.
    5. Add water.
    6. Presto!  Moves political dynamics steadily rightward every time.  Do it for 30 years and you have an operationally center-left country so polluted with misinformation it thinks it's really center-right.
    All someone apparently has to show you to get you to oppose something is say that "the left" wants it.  It doesn't seem to matter how many people who self-identify as "independent", "centrist", "moderate", even some ordinary citizen Republicans, also want it.

    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 8:56pm

    But he thinks he has produced for the country. And so does the Dem leadership, see my reply to kgb above.

    Somewhere in his "shellacking" statements in reaction to the election, he even said something about working so hard trying to get things done that they weren't paying attention to messaging.

    As far as me buying into the right-wing media shtick, which BTW, I  think is a totally different topic than talking about whether Obama is into bipartisanship or post-partisanship, and don't see why you think it is related to talking about Obama's attitudes:

    we'll just have to agree to disagree.

    I became a big fan of Clintonian "third way" seeing it in action, seeing what it could do, after liiving through the failures of the traditional Dem party during the Reagan era, the hopelessness I had about anything left of center being realized was gone. I don't want Reagan or Bush II back, and I don't see a purist left Dem party will furnish that. I don't think the makeup of the electorate has changed much since Eisenhower. But then I don't think JFK was a liberal, though LBJ was one somewhat on domestic policy. We didn't get to see another term from LBJ to see whether he would have kept trying to do the liberal thing, We got Nixon instead. I don't agree with those who argue the country now has been dragged to think they are to the right of someone like Nixon, I think it's basically the same country ideologically. Matter of fact, I think someone like Ford or Bush I is pretty representative of the center of this country now. I think someone like Clinton, or Obama, who is willing to bend to a "third way," is the best we can get. And I think that kind of  approach is the best someone with left leanings can expect from this country, to me, it's a miracle every time they can get something done, given the majority leanings of the country.

    I don't at all buy the argument that the country has moved right over the last decades. I think the "Reagan revolution" was the result of a lot of blue collar people realizing they weren't really ever in agreement with the liberal Democrats to begin with, their unions and families had been telling them they were but they finally realized they didn't agree with a lot of liberal goals.

    I thnk that the conservative right is the same 1/3 of the country that has been with us for half a century and the proportion has not changed, they are just noisier. I think if the Limbaughs Hannitys and Becks weren't reving them up with crazier ideas than they could think of themselves, they'd still be very conservative and anti-liberal and be waiting for a Fox News to be created for them.  I don't think any of those right wing media influences change any minds, they just feed preferences.

    I don't want to hash over this too much, it seems the kind of thing we just have to agree to disagree on and a useless exercise. I've seen in the past, you can get into details like Medicare being introduced incrementally and the debaters still disagree about how supportive the majority public was.

    And I don't want to be put in the position of defending Obama as a centrist or moderate, I'm just observing that he's always presented himself as one. Actually, I'm not a big fan--so far I think he doing ok on some things and lousy on others. To me, just because a politician's moderate views might sync at times with my own doesn't necessarily mean they are competent.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 12:13am

    You are dead wrong about the media influence on what people believe. Takes about 13 passive impressions before an idea gets solidified (I think that's the number ... been a while since I boned up on my marketing).

    An amazingly impressive example is how BP handled the oil spill. We are literally shrimping in oil slicks (there are pictures) yet to most of America, it's over. Wasn't that bad after all. They are still publishing reports and images - but people have now accepted the marketed reality. Pour enough money into creating an impression and people DO start to believe it.

    The professionals know exactly how to target MSNBC to paralyze at the same time they target Fox to enrage. They have even merged political messaging with content so there isn't the delineation of obvious commercials anymore. It's a multi-billion dollar industry and they are *very* good at what they are paid to do.

     


    by kgb999 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 6:21am

    American Dreamer,

    I'd like to add the following. Note the last column of numbers:

                                                         Popular vote                             
    1932 - Roosevelt - Herbert Hoover     22,809,638-15,758,901
    1936 - Roosevelt - Alf Landon           27,752,869-16,674,665
    1940 - Roosevelt - Wendell Wilkie     27,307,819-22,321,018
    1944 - Roosevelt - Thomas Dewey     25,606,585-22,014,745

    That "landslide approval" thing turns out not to be all its cracked up to be when you ignore that electoral college thing.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 4:07pm

    Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding your point.  By any understanding of the term I have ever heard, the 1932 and 1936 elections were "landslides".  I suppose one could quibble about 1940, but it was not even close to being a close election, let's put it that way.  These are popular margins of a magnitude that have, as I understand it, always been intepreted as providing a solid mandate for governing going forward and as a resounding "thumbs up" of approval if taken as a referendum on the presidential term leading up to the vote.


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 4:49pm

    Worth a watch, thanks. I am waiting for Obama to articulate a clear agenda for the rest of his term.

    He said he would end DADT, his could have done so after the recent court decision, his last chance is the lame duck December session, he said he would close Gitmo, he said he does not want to extend the tax cuts for millionaires, he said he supported single payer but apparently didn't push it. As the Turk says in the video everyone knows the insurance companies rip us off but Obama made deals with them to pass his 2,000 page health care bill. We will see soon whether Obama knows at all how to wield the power of the Presidency

    On the taxcuts, if he cannot get concessions out of the GOP to at least decouple the middle class/millionaire taxcuts, so they expire on separate dates and require separate votes in the future, if he doesn't pass DADT in December, he will be showing he isn't in charge of much, and doesn't have what it takes to change anything in Washington.

    I note the GOP tax cut position is clear, McClatchy:

    WASHINGTON — Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate said Sunday there would be no compromise with Democrats on whether to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the nation's wealthiest taxpayers.

    by NCD on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:07pm

    Certainly you aren't proposing that Greenwald has not written, at length, detailed policy critiques along with specific alternative courses of action on pretty much every major issue that has arisen? Cenk has a smaller audience, but likewise, he's also been very clear and very specific on policy prescriptions.

    I think one needs to take into account context and the premise of the discussion. In this case, it was premised on "how much longer can those who advocate what you have advocated look to the current political structure as a vehicle" There is an explicit acknowledgment of a body of specific advocacy advanced by both. The question is regarding the political viability of the Democratic establishment and the Obama administration in advancing that agenda. It was a deconstruction. Much like may of the posts DagBlog has been producing recently - discussing the political implications of post-election reactions on an already well-known set of policy prescriptions.

    The problem isn't selling this to America. As Cenk noted, America is and has been by and large on board with the policy prescriptions well articulated by the "professional left". One must ignore polling on specific policy, look only at the "are you conservative, moderate, or liberal" question and then supplant real polling with an absurdist interpolated application along the lines of "conservative = hates public option" in order to assert this is not the case.

    The problem is gaining leverage with the establishment powers. Understanding this is far more important to advancing a more progressive agenda than restating what everyone already knows would be a more effective and beneficial set of policies that have been shouted at the top of everyone's lungs for the past 18 months.

    And srsly. You are asserting wingers they offer a "clear specific vision" of what they want ROFLMAO. Yeah, they want unicorns and faeries to appear and make their specious platitudes possible to accomplish using the tools of governmental policy. I'm not sure that counts.

     


    by kgb999 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:18pm

    "You are asserting wingers they offer a "clear specific vision" of what they want"

    They are.  They just don't tell us the downside, e.g., we can have tax cuts and military hegemony, and still balance the budget on the backs of welfare recipients.  And they do what they say (except for the budget-balancing part, of course).  It's the magical thinking of the people who vote for the Republicans that allows them to get away with it.


    by brewmn on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:40pm

    Yes, I've heard the polls about heath care many times. But why didn't the supposed overwhelming popularity of public health care translate into repudiation of everyone who voted against it? Why was Sarah Palin, who is no longer an elected official and holds no Republican leadership position, able to derail the health care debate with a single comment? Why did the anti-health-care-reform rally dwarf the pro-health-care-reform rally? Is it all Obama's fault?

    As for the clear specific visions, you don't have to know much about politics but to rattle off contemporary right-wing positions. But I know a fair amount about politics, and I can't even rattle off contemporary left-wing positions.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 4:01pm

    - Campaign Finance Reform and transparency in corporate donations. (e.g. DISCLOSE, etc).

    - Public option/Medicare Buy In/Single payer as components of effective HCR.

    - End tax cuts for those making > $250K

    - Protect social security (and stop misrepresenting it's solvency).

    - Negotiate for lower drug prices in government run programs. (e.g. Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, etc.)

    - Allow re-importation to help those who aren't in government run programs. (e.g. The Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act, etc.)

    - Invest in infrastructure including bridges, roads and rail.

    - Invest in renewables like solar, wind, geothermal, etc.

    - Curtail expansion of damaging energy sources like oil, coal and nuclear

    - Specifically stop the expansion of offshore drilling into new waters

    - Renegotiate Free Trade agreements to be Fair Trade agreements.

    - Support American labor organizations and make it easier for Americans to organize. (e.g. EFCA, etc.)

    - Meaningful lobbyist reform preventing those who have served as industry lobbyists from direct involvement in crafting legislation, preventing those who work in congress (either as officials or paid support staff) from lobbying their former colleagues for a meaningful period of time, etc, etc.

    - End tax loopholes for corporations that encourage expropriating jobs.

    - End policies that allow money to be hidden offshore by shell subsidiaries.

    - Eliminate the most dangerous forms of wall street derivative gambling and put the rest on transparent exchanges.

    - Audit the Fed (kind of new for the left side).

    - End DADT by any legal means, not punting it to congress.

    And that's just off the top of my head with a half-arsed use of teh Googles. Notice the number of SPECIFIC legislative solutions proposed along the way there? Maybe you should spend a bit more time paying attention to Cenk and Glenn - they've been promoting thier ASSES off for this shit. Those of us who have been are pretty well informed.

     


    by kgb999 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 4:52pm

    BTW ... I'd *LOVE* to see you rattle off the "right wing" specific policies.

    (Update: although, it's kind of cheating considering the book you just wrote and all ... could it be that you have only been focusing on the proposals of the right of late? If so, that sure as hell isn't the left's fault).


    by kgb999 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 5:01pm

    That's easy: amendment to ban abortion, amendment to ban same-sex marriage, abolish "Obama care," eliminate estate tax, flat tax, more border patrols and walls, change 14th amendment (citizenship by birth), English only, eliminate IRS, eliminate EPA, school vouchers, drill baby drill, eliminate gun control laws, investigate Obama's birth certificate, increased domestic security, shoot terrorists. I could probably keep going. No googling necessary.

    So question for the audience: Which of these two lists is more familiar to you my fellow liberals? For me, it's a no-brainer, but I wrote a book on the right-wing, so maybe my perspective is skewed.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 5:09pm

    Notice the decided lack of a single specific policy proposal to implement any of that? Maybe try Google? And seriously ... you consider "investigate Obama's birth certificate" as a prominant policy objective? Hell there isn't even agreement among teabaggers on half that shit.

    In contrast, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people here who don't agree in principle with the majority of stuff on my list. In my observation the argument is "oooooh that's tooooo haaard ... can't do it". And just to refocus on the logical premise of this discussion, going on teevee and having a discussion about what the current state of affairs means for a specific agenda that they have advanced for years instead of spoon-feeding you a list isn't some sort of betrayal of a policy agenda most progressives (and even a fair number of independents) are well aware of.

    A better question from my perspective though, as you count yourself among "fellow liberals" and are actually writing books and run a blog and all; how many of the things on the list have YOU highlighted? How many have you helped to bring closer into the mainstream? I know Cenk and Greenwald do it every day.

    What possible excuse can you have for not even KNOWING what policies are being advanced within your own professed ideology?


    by kgb999 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 5:38pm

    Specific policy proposals? That's not the point. The point is that the right-wingers are out there preaching their fucked up gospel every damn day. They are selling their agenda, not demanding that the the Republican leadership sell their agenda. Heck, they're even driving Republicans' political strategy. Republicans barely have to open their mouths. They just let Rush, Glenn, and Sarah do the talking.

    As for me, I have no vision for the left either, but to tell the truth, I've never been much of a lefty. I'm just an anti-righty.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 7:07pm

    So basically, you are saying that what Cenk and Greenwald are doing is precisely how the right is being successful. Offering a clear vision doesn't seem to be as important as getting the troops fired up for the idea of an "agenda" that doesn't really require any specifics other than platitudes.

    Suddenly, I don't even understand the basis for your original criticism.

    That aside, isn't it kind of nice that at least when you dig into what is underlying the lefty populism and rabble-rousing that there are actual policies that have a legitimate shot at turning the populist rhetoric into a workable legislative framework?


    by kgb999 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 1:59pm

    They are selling their agenda, not demanding that the the Republican leadership sell their agenda.

    They don't have to demand that the GOP leadership does it because the GOP leadership does it.


    by DF on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 2:01pm

    G, this is a bit unfair, but I think it's because you've overreached on the false "the Right v. the Left" frame.  "The Left" has articulated TONS of specifics over the last two-years: Reinstate Glass-Steagal, prosecute fraud in the financial sector (remember how many people went to jail after S&L?), Medicare for all, end DADT, close GITMO, come up with an exit strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan (at the very least)... need I continue?

    The rebuttal from the VSPs is that none of this stuff has been "politically possible" (despite issue polling that shows broad public support for much of the agenda I detailed above).  Then you give credit to "the Right" for wanting to enact a flat tax or outlaw abortion?  Because that stuff is sooo realistic and possible.

    And I know you know that it isn't, but acting like "the Left" or, more properly, specific individuals like Greenwald haven't relentlessly articulated specifics over the last two years (and much further back than that) confirms what I have come to suspect when reading criticisms of people like Greenwald and Krugman: The people who criticize them don't really read them.  This is why both of them (and others in similar situations) are consistently able to point to all of the times that they did articulate exactly what their detractors claim they have never addressed.

    Selling the agenda is germane and matters.  However, it's difficult when the party holding the reins just craps all over every proposal as being outside of the "Overton window," except that they never articulate what their vision is either!  (And never mind actually trying to move the damned window.)  Really, who has been shorter on specifics over the last two years - "the Left" or the Democratic Party "leadership"?  What was the plan for the stimulus?  For HCR?  For Iraq and Afghanistan?

    If we can criticize the amorphous "the Left" for supposedly failing to articulare specific plans of action, then surely that criticism holds for the specific and identifiable people who actually hold political office, no?


    by DF on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 1:54pm

    DF, I read Krugman but confess to not reading much Greenwald. I may have overstated the point to an extent. The argument went down to specific policy proposals, which wasn't really the intent of my critique. What I was trying to articulate is that the left--including politicians, pundits, activists, etc.--has collectively failed to articulate a vision that gets through to people and motivates them to vote. A friend of mine in the Obama administration complained that no one is listening to their talking points, but I think that few people are listening to the talking points of anyone else on the left either. Thus, the problems that Obama has had are symptomatic of a larger problem, and it struck me that the men in the video were addressing some of the symptoms in the administration but neglecting the larger disease from which they too are suffering.

    I wish that I had more specific ideas for solving it. Most of what I have been writing about lately has simply been highlighting what the right-wing has done well in order to show what the amorphous collective called the left has not been doing very well.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 2:15pm

    I agree that this Democratic party has failed to articulate a vision.  They did articulate one in 2008.  That worked out very well for them.  Since then, not so much.  My main point was that I think it's bogus to give "the Right" credit for articulating specifics and not "the Left" (to whatever extent these entities actually exist).

    No one is listening to the admin's talking points because they're satisfying to no one.  They've basically accepted the GOP frame on every issue of importance.  The GOP base doesn't care because their mission is to win a war of attrition.  That strategy has been working for decades.  The Dem base doesn't care because the ready acceptance of GOP frames signals capitulation, not the articulation of a vision around which people can coalesce.

    One signal difference - think about abortion.  There's essentially no way an amendment is going to get passed to override Roe.  Everyone knows this except the abortion nutters.  But how often do you hear the GOP leadership say something like, "That's just not politically possible."  That phrase is not in their vocabulary, no matter how unrealistic the notion.  If it's popular with their base, they push it.  On a long enough time horizon, this has the effect of shaping the debate.  The GOP leadership will get out in front of nearly any issue - no matter how unpragmatic - and sell it if their base demands it.  The Dem leadership does not do this.  They've spent the last two years, along with the Beltway pundits, talking down to everyone about how it's all about pragmatism.

    There are many, many specific proposals that "the Left" would like to see enacted, but it's difficult to sell the agenda when the Democratic party is using their power and presence to stomp those ideas out, even though they campaigned on many of them.  Blogs, Democracy Now!, MSNBC.. it's no match against both the right-wing noise machine AND the Democratic establishment.

    And I'm not holding you to this personally, but it is strange now to hear that the problem is the failure to articulate a vision on the part of those who are not specifically holding political power when we spent the last year hearing about how FDL and Salon were making so much noise that they were going to doom the nation forever.

    People are out there articulating and trying to sell the agenda everyday.  Meanwhile, the President has been on a national "I pretty much agree with Jon Boehner" tour.  So where, really, is the lack of vision and salesmanship?


    by DF on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 2:50pm

    But how often do you hear the GOP leadership say something like, "That's just not politically possible."  That phrase is not in their vocabulary, no matter how unrealistic the notion.

    Excellent point.

    As for arguments that FDL and Salon are making too much noise, I agree it's a load of crap.

     


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 3:41pm

    What does "VSP" stand for?


    by kgb999 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 2:33pm

    Very Serious People.  At the cafe this is the term that was used to describe foreign policy insiders seen as trying to dismiss liberal/left foreign policy options (including some really radical, way out there stuff, such as "don't go to war with Iraq") on account of not being "serious" stuff, or as not coming from people (i.e., them) worthy of serious consideration by the self-annointed foreign policy cogniscenti in DC and New York.   

    DF was using it in a non-foreign policy specific way to refer to pundits and other self-proclaimed definers of the conventional wisdom and the parameters of what "serious" people believe or think is possible.


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 2:54pm

    I can believe Obama's rhetoric actually did convince disenchanted young voters that he was going to govern from the outside, as Kucinich would have done. If that is true, I wonder if he will ever get those voters back.


    by Donal on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 9:57am

    Glenn Greenwald's observations about "the millions who felt the political system had nothing to offer and were wallowing in cynicism" describes what happened with me to a T. I have to admit it, I got suckered - even though I know better. And I got suckered for exactly the reasons discussed here.

    IMO, young voters really haven't had enough time in life to become truly disenchanted with anything. Professed "cynicism" from a 20 year old is just hipster angst.

    I do think it is quite possible that Obama has helped cement that hipster angst into true cynicism ... like HW Bush and Clinton did for me. We'll see what happens.

     


    by kgb999 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:32pm

    "I do think it is quite possible that Obama has helped cement that hipster angst into true cynicism ... like HW Bush and Clinton did for me."

    Yeah, but it was W. Bush who made me lose my cynicism and become truly terrified of what an unchallenged right wing could do to this country.  And the disappointment I feel in Obama and the Democrats doesn'r even come close to bringing that cynicism back.  

     


    by brewmn on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:44pm

    Yeah. W. is what primed the pump to be sure. I don't see it as the "unchallenged right wing" though. I see it as "unchallenged corporate interests". So, I'm not quite back to cynical ... we've GOT to do something ... but to me it is increasingly clear Democrats as they exist currently are not the solution.

    Let's see what coalitions form when Obama tries to attack Social Security. Do you believe that he's now allowing the GOP to position themselves as PROTECTORS of social security? Get this quote...

    I mean, we’re gonna have to, you know, tackle some big issues like entitlements that, you know, when you listen to the Tea Party or you listen to Republican candidates they promise we’re not gonna touch.

    Remember back in the day, when you'd listen to DEMOCRATIC candidates they'd promise we weren't going to touch "entitlements"? Fuck me! He's even using the preferred Republican frame for the social fabric that underpins core Democratic orthodoxy. I don't even get it. And that's just one of half-dozen Amazing quotes that he spewed in a 48-hour "how can I make this even worse?" media tour on his way to India. Called the Tea Party "As American as Apple Pie" and professed it was a group that includes plenty of Democrats. Declared he changed his health strategy to implement a GOP plan to hopefully get some support. It just goes on and on and on.

    I mean. WTF? He's making the CASE that America is best off with republicans and tea partiers. Is there a one-dimensional version of chess?


    by kgb999 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 3:53pm

    Yeah, I don't understand his rhetorical pose at this point, unless this is all fodder for a "No more Mr. Nice Guy" campaign in 2012.  And, if he does support any true cuts to Social Security, i will actively oppose him.


    by brewmn on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:01pm

    They need to put a governor on their rhetoric...way too fast to settle in an be absorbed.

    I remember once upon a time there was this guy on TV back in the good ole black and white days named Walter Cronkite. There were others, such as Chet Huntley and David Brinkley too. Then of course McNeil and Lehre and Bill Moyers followed up in later years. They all had a story to tell. They took the time to explain what was going on so the average citizen would understand the political posturing behind the news. We don't see that now a days.

    I've caught up on some of Krugman's posts over the past 2 weeks and I noted in each and every one, they scream out there's something missing in the rhetoric...basic knowledge.

    For instance, many of the GOPer's and tea-baggers campaigning for political office all have a severe deficiency in their basic understanding of economics. More specific, what should the governments role be if the economy is depressed...what should they be doing to reverse the trend? For example, they are of the opinion the only way to reduce the federal deficit is follow the same method a family would use to reduce their finances if they were in over their heads in debt...cut back on expenses and only spend when it is absolutely necessary.  However, the government has a unique ability that's not found in a family setting...the ability to generate income through taxes. And its' that ability to levy taxes that changes the debate.

    At the first instance where the GOPer's and tea-baggers began to belly-ache about the blooming deficit, efforts should have been made to education Congress and debate the issue why spending was necessary, complete with the history of past recession and the methods used to curtail the downward spiraling economic factors driving the economy into the dump. By not pushing the information out to rebut the GOPer and teabaggger claims of the government out of control spending spree the stage was set for what happened last week.

    And that info should have been made public too with townhall meetings, info-mericals, Obama's weekly address and so forth. The public needed to be engaged with info that could be substantiated by sources both local at their libraries as well as on the internet. That was the fight not fought.

    There's also the issue of not taking GOPer's to task for the damage they were responsible for too. Instead, the Democrats allowed themselves to be tarred-and-feathered for the policies of the GOPer's and Bu$h. I do find it odd that the Party directly responsible for the housing, employment and economic problems over the past two years are now claiming they will clean up the mess created by the Democrats. If the Democrats in Congress refuse to fight for themselves, then why should I bother too either?

    So if the pundits want to change the course, I would suggest they start from a basic premise the public is completely clueless about politics, policy and what's really going on behind the closed doors. If they 're all fired up over the ballooning deficit, first debate how the surplus in 2000 was replaced with a deficit that was twice as large, what actions took place that kept feeding it and other actions that should have taken place, but didn't to offset it. They need to build a solid foundation first before they debate any further. Otherwise, all you end up with is an uninformed voting block that's mad as hell about something they don't understand but wants something done about it immediately no matter what the cost.


    by Beetlejuice on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:44am

    Good comments. I think you should patent that "bloomin deficit" idea and sell it to Cracker Barrel. Perhaps the bloomin deficit could be served with a caricature of a robber barron on top.  


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:11am

    I agreed on principle with the first part of your comment. I myself have made similar observations about the state of media "news" these days. You are more extensive in your examples of "how it should be done" than I was ... but same basic point.

    This vid was simply a cathartic-if-ranty set of accurate observations that I enjoyed from two people who really have been packing in a lot of genuine information in their respective media products, making precisely the case you suggest, since well before Obama took office. Thought others might enjoy it also.

    It doesn't fucking matter how effectively we get the information to the people ... WE GET IT out here in America. Given a choice between cutting the deficit and creating jobs - jobs win. Every time. It doesn't matter. People in power are going to ignore every data point that doesn't support maintaining the status-quo. Right now, they need money. That means raiding Social Security's flush trust fund. Can't do that without tying it to massive deficits. Therefore deficits are the most important thing in America ... as defined by those who control the media that asserts what is most important in America.

    Nobody believes the Republicans are going to do shit to make America better any more than they believe Democrats will. The only reason they voted for the GOP is because that is the ONLY minuscule power we have to punish a political class that deserves to be punished. Period. If you try to read any greater policy nuance into the election, you are spinning your wheels.

    We don't need to convince the people. We need to overcome the entrenched interests that control the parties or do away with them. We aren't that ignorant Beetlejuice - media makes a lot of money and advances their own agenda by highlighting those few who are. And in honesty, gaining a deeper understanding of the underlying policies that have led to our current situation - as the Democrats diddle and Rome burns - is just making us even madder.

     


    by kgb999 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 3:00pm

    Thanks. Geithner apparently met with the wrong "host", but perhaps he was being empathy-trained.  And I like these three guys together--love the pace, something like Ratigan's old "Fast Money" show. I agree with Genghis that this discussion neither defined the Democrats agenda nor gave the compelling reason(s) why we should continue to follow Obama. If these things aren't defined and communicated at least by the time of the State of the Union, I don't think they ever will be.

    As far as the mood of Democrats, the CNN survey, for example, did not paint such a bleak picture. Still I think the deal-cutting  with the health insurance industry is the cancer in Obama's administration, one that has infected the plausibility of his being a "reformer". And the lack of a "populist" stance against the banks is a pychological downer for those who still hope that the economic playing field can be leveled. And these deficiencies speak to the general "populace".  

     


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:52am

    I think you missed the entire point of this discussion. Nobody is trying to make a case for following Obama. Just the opposite. As Cenk Put it (hit it at 6:15 for lead-in context, I can only transcribe so much) ....

    Forget it! Forget the Obama, forget the Democrats! People say "Ooooh you don't support the Democrats" Hell yes! That's right. I don't. OK? I support the people. [...] Forget it. Forget it. We're going to build it on our own. We don't need 'em. We're going to do Obama without Obama!

    You can disagree, and there is a case often made to the contrary. But the Case made in this this video is that continuing to try and defend the indefensible as personified by Barack Obama is not in our best interests. I personally agree with these guys. There is no compelling case for any liberal, progressive, or anyone who does not support the republican conservative agenda for that matter to continue to support Democrats as they have been defined today by Obama.

    Either he changes course drastically and with a quickness or those who really care about America need to cut the anchor holding us to the failed policies of George W. Bush. And that anchor is Barack Obama and the corporatist wing of the Democratic party.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 3:23pm

    If you don't support the Democrats, and remove yourself from the political process, currently manifested as a two-party system, thereby electing more Republicans in the process, you do not "support the people."  End of story 

    This statement from Ughur is more privileged, upper-middle-class political posing that is completely divorced from either political reality or the good that Democrats have done for working-and-middle-class people over the last eighty years.  Arrogant, obtuse, and just plain wrong on the facts and the history. 

    But frankly Cenk, if you're going to do it outside the system, do it already, and save the rest of us from your holier-than-thou haranguing.  The minute you prove you are doing anything other than electing more Republicans, you've got my support.  But, frankly, when I hear you speak, I think you're just a bullshit artist who chose politics as his canvas.


    by brewmn on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 3:42pm

    Yep, that the one. That's the case to the contrary I hear unconvincingly made time and time again.

    So you want him to "just do it already" ... but not use any media or other means to promote his message while doing so? That's as stupid as the "Well, as soon as you guys elect a President from a third party, I'll start voting for your third party" circular logic.

    Despite what Greenwald said, if you look at the graphic, "liberals" turned out in exactly the same numbers for democrats last election as they did in 2006. I would argue that sticking with a party that is totally sucking is what is electing Republicans. If you don't give America a clear choice, you're going to keep losing. If the progressives can do it, especially if the groundwork between them and the Ron Paul types starts to bear fruit ... I'm in. I don't even fucking care if we win or lose. If you don't fight, you've already lost.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 4:20pm

    There it is, for me: "If you don't fight, you've already lost." 

    How can we criticize Obama and his administration if many of us are guilty of the same flaw? How can we condemn him for not trying (and, imo, rightly so) while we listen to those who say, as if they are channeling this administration: "Yes, but, if you don't support the Dems (even when they fail) then, then, you'll end up with Republicans in charge..."

    If we are people of principle, by the people, of the people, for the people, then we, too, have to TRY. We may fail. But it is the not trying, the acceptance of the unacceptable, that is our flaw as well as that of this administration. IMHO. 

    Thanks, kgb99. You're making it clear to me.


    by wws on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 5:15pm

    That's the point.  Poseurs like Ughur are not "fighting."  "Fighting" in this context would mean registering voters or running for office, not more yelling at insufficiently progressive progressives.  You're mistaking rhetoric for action. 


    by brewmn on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 2:17pm

    Baloney. Rhetoric and media exposure are essential component to creating and promoting a populist movement.

    How many people do you think would have joined the "Tea Party" in 2009 if Fox hadn't provided folks on the TV doing nothing but yelling and exhorting others to take action? In the Tea Party case, they didn't have to build from scratch. They co-opted a movement that Ron Paul supporters had invested over three years and millions of dollars to create.

    In this case, if either Cenk or Greenwald ran for office they would simply eliminate critical access to broadcast media that allows them to promote a progressive agenda ... just as Cenk has broken through from internet/Sirrus to a full-time gig at MSNBC. That's why they have been quietly working to *recruit* candidates. Together with Jane Hamsher, they have created a network of PACs and membership constituencies which are actively seeking and funding progressive candidates. Kos is also a sometimes supporter.

    The most prominent action to date was the recruitment of Bill Halter in Arkansas coordinated with labor. Between supporters rallied by Hamsher and those rallied by Greenwald, they provided well over a million dollars in funding for progressive candidates in the last election cycle. Notice, the progressive caucus grew into the largest constituency in the House caucus while the Blue Dogs were decimated.

    You don't know what you are talking about on this.

    [edited to remove "bullshit" from the main page .... ooops]


    by kgb999 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 3:06pm

    Yes, the April 15th, 2009, nationwide tax protest was heavily sponsored by Fox News.  And the genesis had everything to do with co-opting Ron Paul's supporters, who made impressive contributions to his 2008 campaign.  FreedomWorks had also been laying some of the groundwork to oppose cap and trade.

    And hasn't the post-election analysis, so busy with the predictable GOP narrative about how it was a referendum on liberalism and represents a mandate etc, been surprisingly quiet about the Blue Dogs?  I think that the Blue Dog picture is at least somewhat complex and subject to interpretation, but the numbers are the numbers: Half of the Blue Dogs lost.  Nearly every memeber of the Progressive caucus was re-elected.  One conclusion that cannot really be drawn here is that the Progressives were hurt by their progressivism.  And the Blue Dogs don't seem to have been helped by acting like Republicans.  However, I do think that you have to consider that the Blue Dog districts were marginal by definition (ie they washed just Blue with the Blue Tide of '08 and fell back the other way this time around).


    by DF on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 3:17pm

    Um...I don't find the blue dog picture complex at all, and it surprises me that someone with your poliltical knowledge thinks it is complex.

    Progressives can win in districts where the majority is willing to elect a progressive.

    They can't win in non-porgressive districts. There it's eiither a Blue Dog type Dem or a Republican,, end of story.

    Therefore, your Dem party in Congress is smaller the more pure it is.

    If you want to fix this in more than the couple of decades Dean's fifty state strategy would take, you have to tend to gerrymandering.  Unfortunately, the Dems lost a lot of gerrymandering power in this election.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 3:57pm

    I don't see how that's different than what I said.  You just used a lot more words to say it.  The districts in question are marginal - as in right on the margin in terms of supporting one party or the other.

    The picture is complex in the sense that the temptation is to generalize, even though the story is a little different in each one of the districts that we're lumping together here.  Still, what you can't really say is this:

    Therefore, your Dem party in Congress is smaller the more pure it is.

    Notwithstanding that I don't know what "pure" means here, let's say that what you mean is "progressive."  It's true that the Democratic majority in Congress just got smaller, but it didn't get more progressive nominally.  The progressive caucus actually lost a few seats, though only a handful.  But the Dem share in Congress didn't get smaller because it got more progressive - it simply did not get more progressive nominally.  It's proportionally more progressive because it got smaller AND the seats lost were primarily not within the Progressive caucus.

    I'm not sure if what you really meant to say is that "purity" begets smaller numbers, but that certainly isn't reflected in these elections results.


    by DF on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 4:10pm

    Progressives can win in districts where the majority is willing to elect a progressive.

    Please define what you mean by the term "progressive" in that sentence. Which specific things do you believe a successful candidate can say and commit to voting for--and not say or commit to voting for--and have a shot at getting not only elected, but re-elected, in such areas?


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 4:58pm

    I simply used DF's term and I'm pretty sure are both talking about the same thing.

    I think you're being disingenous now, and I'm not taking the bait. You're asking me to do a bunch of work listing issues for you in order to say "well, if candidates on the left side just explained the positions better, people would vote for them, a lot of people aren't as conservative as they think they are." We can all cherry pick things like a majority wanted a public option, a majority wants out of Afghanistan, etc.

    That's just a waste of time because we both know every district will have slight differences. And the irony is Blue Dogs exist precisely because they are doing what you want to see done. They exist because  sometimes their district is the type where the majoirty are willing to go a left on a few things, a little bit left of where the Republican would go, but not too much and certaiinly not on everything. If the majority in the district starts to think they've gone too far to the left, they are out of there for a Republican. Especially in mid-terms, because that's where the C-Span addicts and write your Congressperson every day types vote, they are blasting their Reps every time they do something they don't like.

    Those into purging Blue Dog Dems should spare us all the lecturea about "if Dems would just use this rhetoric instead of that rhetoric" people would agree with liberal/progressive agenda # 1, #2, #3 etc. I believe that in actuality it's Blue Dems that have managed to do what you are saying they should do! Somehow they managed to get a relatively conservative district to vote for them even though they lean left on some things. They are what you seek if you want a majority.

    Big tent is the word, even Karl Rove knows it and wanted to create one, it's GOP moderates or Blue Dog type Dems that help create them.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 5:27pm

    I agree with your analysis on the district level.  The problem is that the putative benefit of Democratic majorities can fail to manifest when these representatives vote just like Republicans.  That's a DINO situation not in terms of ideological purity, but in terms of whip counts.


    by DF on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 6:00pm

    No, I wasn't being disengenuous.  Again, take a couple of big issues.  Are you suggesting that Democrats running against the big banks and the people who screwed the taxpayers, and for public jobs and help for small businesses, cannot be competitive in blue dog territory? 

    There is a whole history of economic populists who are moderate to conservative on social issues representing what would now be considered blue dog territory.  I wouldn't think it would come as news that right now there is a boatload of anger at the big banks and the people who run them, and also desperation for sources of jobs, any sources of jobs.  It's a heck of a lot harder to get that message out when the President is not reinforcing those themes, even with perhaps some of the sharper rhetorical edges rounded off.

    The Democratic party sponsored infrastructure development programs like the Tennessee Valley Authority during Roosevelt's time that were a source of jobs and economic development in poor parts of the country.  Southern Democrats during Roosevelt's day voted with Roosevelt on public jobs and other economic issues because it provided tangible benefits to their constituents.  Especially in the current context, when the economy is in such tough shape in so many parts of the country, it seems to me those would be obvious issues to run on in blue dog territory. 

    But, again, if the President of your own party is sending messages that are directly contrary in some cases to the ones you are trying to put out in your campaign, you've got a much bigger uphill fight than would be necessary if your party's President is connecting on these issues on some level with your mutual constituents.  Which is why Pelosi was begging Obama privately to aggressively back a  big public jobs program and why she went to the wall to get the House to pass a $200 billion jobs bill . 

    The community-based smaller banks were hampered in their ability to extend loans to small businesses as part of the fallout of the financial meltdown--more might have been done to try to help them out.

    On social issues and foreign policy issues those running in blue dog territory have fewer options and need to take more moderate or conservative stances.


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:47pm

    You've got to bear in mind you are responding to a defense of Bill Clinton, not Barack Obama per se.

    Clinton's was a lazy approach that sought to shortcut the traditional need to make the political sale. Accept as given people are immutable and defined by the space they occupy. A "conservative" area will only vote for someone who is a republican. Period. Or at least selling them on a new idea is too much work and takes too much time.

    Therefore don't defend democratic principles, run republicans of the "agreeable" sort. Then split policy between them and the more aggressive republicans occupying the other party. The liberals on the left and anti-corporatists on the right are to be scorned and frightened into voting by stirring up the ghosts of the civil war ... playing the respective roles of North and South while the gloabalist corporate whores willing to play ball on both sides of the aisle divvy up the spoils and invest in keeping tensions high and polarization at max. The colloquial term is "triangulation".

    It's a very easy formula. But it's brutal for the American worker, national peace, and in retrospect the entire economy. Turns out the "agreeable" sort of republicans use the government to stack the odds in favor of their patrons making tons and tons of money ... damn the consequences. And so do the less agreeable sort. Yay!

    A big problem for Obama is he didn't win on the same grounds Clinton did and he is facing a combination of national crises whereas Clinton presided over a relatively easy time both economically and internationally. Yet Obama appears to have basically turned the wheel over to Clinton's former staff (hence the Clinton supporters' general approval of his post-election political operation). However. In addition to cracks this has created in his own coalition and the need-based impatience of the electorate, on the other side republicans appear to have figured out the game and are playing Democrats trying to relive the Clinton presidency like a cheap fiddle.

    IMO, the world AA imagines is long gone. If Democrats don't make the sale and distinguish themselves, I don't see them holding power by trying to run moderate republicans as democrats in conservative districts. The Teabaggers took that card away from them by essentially moving "conservative" out of reach.

    I believe the bright side of this is that it has left the nation is crying out for *someone* to at least try to make that sale. But it has to be with actions now ... words will never be enough. Your suggestions for possible action are quite good, IMO. Although I think you miss an  increasing isolationist/anti-war sentiment in blue-dog territory that is ripe for a "get out of foreign wars" style message if properly couched.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 9:48pm

    Although I think you miss an  increasing isolationist/anti-war sentiment in blue-dog territory that is ripe for a "get out of foreign wars" style message if properly couched.

    Perhaps.  I'm not feeling quite as hopeful on that front, as I think the political opposition is unfortunately very good at branding opposition to any specific war or military activity as equating to being "soft on defense", equated with being unreliable if not opposed to keeping military dollars and the jobs that come with them flowing into the district or state.  Heartland America long ago was isolationist and some parts of it, in the upper Midwest as an example, still are. 

    But that was at a time when we were spending far less on defense than we are now.  On the disconnect between the public's views on foreign policy versus all the wars our leaders suck us into, see The Foreign Policy Disconnect: What Americans Want From Our Leaders But Don't get, by Ben Page and Marshall Bouton.  Lots of good data there, going back many years so it's not just cherry picking.

    I'm just not far along in my thinking on how this ball might be moved forward.  I'm sure there are people who have excellent suggestions.  These are major issues which cannot be ducked and my hat is off to Bacevich and Chalmers Johnson for getting out there and pointing out the massive costs of continuing with business as usual on these matters.  They are doing a great public service and making an invaluable contribution.

    One of the positive things about having a few libertarians among the Republicans is that, if they vote what they believe in rather than how the GOP leadership will try to coerce them into voting, they will find common cause with those Democrats who are willing to publicly oppose ill-advised wars.  That is also the case on several social policy issues. 

    Wish I could be a fly on the wall when some of those spunky folks put on the gloves and start hammering away during GOP caucus sessions at all the hypocritical corporate welfare enablers, intrusive social conservatives and (usually) chickenhawk armchair war lovers.  It's more on economic issues that I see the libertarians as being largely, in the broad picture, out to lunch.  :<)  Although, even there, there may be some possibilities for shorter-term tactical alliances on economic transition issues as well. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 11:34am

    Just to try to close this conversational loop--the point I am trying to make is that "progressive", or "liberal", or "moderate", or "centrist", do not even come close to meaning one thing in each case.  Different people use these terms in very different ways.  A candidate who, to one person's way of thinking is a "moderate" or a "centrist", or even a "mild conservative" may be seen by and labeled by another person, focusing on different issues, as "liberal" or "progressive".  

    Using these terms in a specific context assuming, when this may not be correct, that there is a shared understanding of what they mean often can get in the way of clear communication and thinking.  People end up thinking they are disagreeing with one another when, if they knew what another meant by a key term, what appears to be a disagreement is in some cases not even a real disagreement at all, but, rather, more accurately described as a misunderstanding or as talking past one another.    

    The GOP and the Right have for decades invested lots in marginalizing and demonizing--negatively "branding"--the terms "liberal" and "left".  They've been extremely effective in doing this.  The reason is obvious: if you can put someone on the defensive simply by calling them a "liberal" or a "leftist", you've already all but won the "argument", just based on the ensuing optics and how bad people who are hopelessly on the defensive in debate tend to look. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 12:14pm

    Sure, on a superficial level. But when a party is grown for the sake of growing it with zero care for a unified vision regarding the correct course of action, a party becomes ineffective. It also creates a condition where the party ends up standing for nothing.

    This condition is excellent for the small group who pull the levers of party power, but less so for any American who feels that they deserve representation of their own ideals and objectives through the party they elect. It wouldn't be such a problem if the two parties weren't using the tools of corporate monopoly to suppress any potential political competition, but they are.

    Since this is political reality, the only way either party can honestly represent an electorate is to have at least a GENERAL consensus on policy. Giving people specifically hostile to the consensus view an ability to disrupt the party from within is not worth the imagined benefit of having greater numbers. A razor-thin unified majority is far better than a huge majority that agrees on nothing. There is more than a little evidence suggesting even a unified minority is likely more effective than a huge majority that agrees on nothing. There is a big difference between demanding ideological purity and asking that membership not be openly hostile to even the most basic tenets.

    It is only simple if you are happy with the status quo. What is good for "Democrats" with no regard for the policy used to expand the party's power is not necessarily what's good for America. That is the heart of the current conflict ... both nationally and within the Democratic party. 

    I see the independent's electoral reaction as trying to realign the interests of Democratic party power away from those diluting the left-wing Democratic Yin that traditionally served as balance to the right-wing Republican Yang before Clinton came along. Needless to say, the right wingers who have gained a toehold are using every resource at their disposal to profess that giving them MORE power over the party agenda is the only way forward.

    Ultimately, the way you envision expanding power will ALWAYS shift government policy in the direction of other side's objectives unless the other side also dilutes their membership with people who oppose their consensus. It's pretty much basic math.

     


    by kgb999 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 5:02pm

    I think you're trying to force the motivations of the 2010 voters into your desired framing, and you either ignoring or distorting alot of the dynamics that resulted in the November 2010 outcomes.  For example, you state: "...the progressive caucus grew into the largest constituency in the House caucus while the Blue Dogs were decimated" as proof of the growing influence of the Greenwalds and the Hamshers, and yet you claim that I don't know what I'm talking about.

    You don't have any real evidence for your statement, and there exists a much more likely explanation for the success of progressives and the failures of Blue Dogs:  decades of gerrymandering have turned most Congressional districts permanently red or permanently blue, and the Blue Dog losses were simply a reversion to the status quo pre-2008.  It's laughable that you think a million dollars from Hamsher/Greenwald made the difference nationwide.

    I don't want to jump on GG/JH for funding better Democrats; that's what people who have the resources should be doing, and kudos to them for that.  It's all this idiotic talk about leaving the Democratic Party and starting their own party of more pure progressives that I object to.  Until there are much more fundamental changes in either our electoral system or the electorate itself, progressives need to work with and through the Democratic Party, and this constant parading of one's progressives bona fides by trashing the party is at best pointless and at worst counterproductive.


    by brewmn on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 5:02pm

    Just FYI, Hamsher is NOT talking third party, though you may know that already from hanging out at FDL.


    by we are stardust on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 5:05pm

    I know. But she is the other prominent founder actively trying to build a viable political infrastructure in association with Greenwald and Ugyur. That was the tie-in. I was more trying to highlight the real political nuts and bolts going on in answer to the "if they aren't running they aren't doing anything" frame than specifically discussing a third party.

    I'm not even 100% sure Cenk and Greenwald are talking about a third party specifically. If that is a long-range goal, it certainly isn't going to be in a position to challenge in 2012. The next logical move is to consolidate a large movement outside OFA and aggressively challenge mainstream party orthodoxy in preparation for a strong primary showing. I think the bold move from their position would be to find someone willing to take the hits and visibly challenge Obama from the left.

    But there is also quiet groundwork being done to build a bridge with the anti-partisan libertarian types on the right to build a policy pressure coalition. Not sure what form that is going to take, if it even bears fruit. From where I sit ... no option is off the table.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 5:50pm

    Kgb, I was responding to Brewmn there. 

    Coalitions with Libertarians: a dude who calls himself Fuckno at MyFDL is all on board with the Pauls; claims that the 50% of their positions he agrees with 100% (LOL!) are waaaay more important than the remaining 50%, thus: he could support him for President.

    Wow.  For Prez.  It's just that remaining 50% that niggles at so many of us....  None of which precludes coalitions on financial matters or anti-war positions.

    You probably know Jello Biafra; someone linked to his open letter to the President.  It's looooong, but you may get a boot out of it.

    http://www.alternativetentacles.com/page.php?page=jello_openletter

     


    by we are stardust on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 10:21am

    Of course I am. That's politics. But you can't argue with outcomes - only try and explain them away.

    More importantly, I'm a red-state independent who drove 6 people to the polls in Idaho and exhorted dozens more into voting, knowing full well Obama would never take the state, for the specific purpose of electing our  Blue Dog, Walt Minnick. I know damn well why he got at least seven less votes last Tuesday and was sent packing. He lost independent support ... and it sure as hell wasn't for being too liberal; he squandered a 30 point lead by taking cues from the Tea Party folks and being an overt racist. With all due respect, I think I'm in as good a position to understand what's really happening in red America as anyone. There are as many different specific reasons the Blue Dogs lost as there are races where they were defeated.

    If Democrats run candidates I find decent, I'll support them. If enough people get fed up and band together to fight partisan hemogeny ... I will be an enthusiastic warrior to the cause because I believe that it is the only true way out of the fix we are in.

    Democrats are being trashed because the deserve to be trashed. Supporting them when they suck is what seems counterproductive.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 5:57pm

    Up front, I need to say that no matter which browser I used, or even trying direct access from youtube, this video played as if I only have dial-up internet.  That means, it was herky-jerky to the Nth degree, so I would have lost any nuanced discussion in the long intervals between five-word audio/video comments.

    However.  I think almost everyone here has missed what the segment was about: Obama's failure to operate outside the beltway scene, using the legions of voters, new, base, unaffilitated, who got him propelled into the White House.  To wit: upon his election, Davis Plouffe wnet off to write a book, and the campaign operations was shut down, only to emerge close to two years later to (depending on your take) either: a) campaign for Dems for the midterms, or b) campaign for Obama for 2012. 

    The three men were specifically NOT trying to frame any of the popular issues as Left or Right, (which is the only way forward, IMO) but appealing to actual common sense themes that most Americans support, and want and need to make the case for.  The discussion was NOT about offering an agenda, or naming the items, but attempting to frame how far Obama wandered from ANY populist issues he'd run on, i.e. getting government responsive to the People, not the Parties and corporations. 

    They weren't concerned about what his books may have told about himself, but what and whom he told us he was and intended to do during the campaign: Use Us to Bring Change.  Too many Dems claim that it was WE who abandoned him and that we let down, and were lazy.

    It's nonsense.  We see who he chose for his Cabinet, economically and for Defense and Intelligence.  Retreads from the Clinton/Rubin years: Big Bank/Wall Street-friendly people, engaged in the same old crap, with the same old crapsters on his call sheets daily.

    Frontline's Obama's Deal that was broadcast the other night outlined some of the give-aways to the Big Pharma and the for-profit health care industry, plus the insurance industry way ahead of any negotiations.  Youo can excuse it, or call it the most naive strategy ever, I don't much care.

    But the news, as kgb points out, that he sent Geithner to speak with Stewart for two hours IS  a big deal!  I assume that Stewart had been catechized sufficiently by the time Obama sat down for his interview with him to buy the truckload full of crap that he did.  For instance: that his administration 'solved' the 2008-2009 financial crisis (wow; it's SOLVED???) for less money than the S&L crisis; he even gave FIGURES as percentages of GDP!!!  Stewart didn't even follow up!!!

    You might want to quit framing Left/Right labels sometime; all we do is argue about that lately: 'who identifies as what'; 'but look into the internals', la la la...yeah, the internals matter, but SOLUTIONS THAT WILL HELP US and Obama could be helping us with matter more, IMO.

    Politico buzz says that my least favorite Corporatist Dem is in a too-close-to-call race for her Illinois House seat: Melissa (ptui! Stardust spits on the ground at her feet) Melissa Bean, of the House Coalition to help the White House water down any meaning financial reform.  But: rumor has it that if she loses, the Prez will offer her the job running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is possibly worse than a fox guarding a henhouse, but I'll desist fronm running out the metaphor to its horrid mega-conclusion...

    Read Yves Smith on Obama's B.S. on Stewart's show if you want an alternative view:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/10/obama-no-longer-bothering-to-lie-credibly-claims-financial-crisis-cost-less-than-sl-crisis.html

    And/or read Black and Wray on why it is necessary to put many big banks (zombies, I guess) into receivership, and how to accomplish any of it the right way, while still letting them perform everyday banking services.  They make a good case why this must be done to ever get this econoomy going again for actual people, not just Wall Street, and avoid a lost decade as Japan did:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/foreclose-on-the-foreclos_b_772434.html

    I will now eat crow, and say I beleive that Stewart has acted as a shill for the status quo.


    by we are stardust on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:54pm

    I had that skipping problem last night too (going fast for me now though). Watch it through the YouTube site you can click where it says "360p" and drop it to 240 which fixed it for me. The guys are a bit grainy ... but let's face it, they ain't much to look at anyhow.

    Stewart really does have a history of soft-balling politicians ... traditionally even GOP guys. He usually brutalizes media shills and pundits. I'm iffy about what I expect from Stewart ... so I don't know exactly how to couch criticism there - it's a sad day when we are hoping our comedians do the job not done by our journalists. But aside from media criticism and homosexuality issues, I agree he acts as a protector of the political status quo. Still, that Geithner confab is pretty stunning.

    And on that Melissa Bean thing ... srsly WTF?


    by kgb999 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 3:37pm

    I don't really see what the argument is about here. Obama's self-declared objective is to serve as a buffer between the pitch-forks and the corporate elite. And he's done that eminently well. The pitch-forks, at least those standing against the elite, have been defanged. Anyone on the left who still considers Obama as their leader is utterly delusional. Sure, wars will escalate more slowly, the living conditions of the middle class will decline more slowly, rights will erode more slowly, with the current Dem party establishment in power than they would with the current GOP in power. But there is a GIANT leap from that observation to the claim that the Dem party is part of the Solution and not part of the Problem.

    Of course any progressive movement - i.e. one that seeks actual progress - has to find a way around the Democratic party.

    But, then again, I'm sure KGB has said this much more eloquently than I can.


    by Obey on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 5:19pm

    Thanks for sharing this segment, KGB. At about 8:08, Ratigan mentions earmark transparency. Flagged it because I cross-posted something on this topic earlier today at firedoglake and redstate. Also just cross-posted it here at dagblog.

    http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/building-bridge-earmark-reform-7436


    by Watt Childress on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 12:04am

    Looks like I'm three hours behind your website clock. Should have said I cross-posted something on earmarks yesterday. We'll see how it plays here.


    by Watt Childress on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 12:09am

    Hey, kgb! As regards your headline on this post, make that "FOUR guys who seem to get it!" You do a tremendous job making the case that we need a populist political response that provides a sense that someone is in there actually fighting for US!

    I haven't had the time to review all the comments here, but you have absolutely nailed it in what I have read - particularly on your "list of particulars" posted above and your defense of this notion that yeah, we DO have a right to be pissed off with Obama and the Dems. They do need to take a kick in the ass or just get the fuck out of the way.

    The mealy-mouth talk about compromise on the $700 billion in tax cuts for the rich is only the latest of the cowardice and deafness coming from the Dem leadership. If they can't parlay this into a roundhouse blow on the chin of the GOP, then they got no right even being in the arena. At the very least, any "compromise" should be presented as a challenge to the GOP that these cuts will be extended only until the end of 2012. Establish it as a primary campaign issue for the NEXT election, and serve notice to the GOP that it will serve as a referendum. And then launch your campaign. Do we continue with this top-down giveaway to the wealthy as our response to this financial crisis? Or do we instead start spreading $700 billion in stimulus and jobs on Main Street to help out those Americans who are suffering? Get on message - loud and clear - to jam this notion of the wealthy raiding the Treasury whilst America suffers right down the throats of these bastards.

    In other words, "Stand up and fight, goddammit!" I think Obama would find there is suddenly an army at his back ready to put these people in their place - which isn't anywhere near the levers of power in Washington.

    I'm damned angry, and I'll use that as an excuse for this incoherent rant. But that anger is shared with many who need a place to vent. The Dems could at last use that populist anger to "change the way we do business in Washington." I only hope they get wise to that before it's completely too late. Time's a-wasting!

    Stand your ground, kgb. You're right on target with excellent arguments, and I'm glad you are in there, fighting the fight. I hope those who count are paying attention.


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 9:31am

    I hate to admit that I can be brought to tears by politics, but it's true, and this segment had me crying.

    As you (and everyone else around here) knows, I have been more patient with Obama than just about anyone, and it has worn extremely thin. I am not QUITE ready to admit defeat, but I'm frighteningly close to it.

    My dilemma is, if not the dems, then who? If not Obama, then who? I'm afraid I'm in the camp who felt (and probably still feels) like Obama is our last hope. If he couldn't/can't do it, no one can.

    As "on the money" as this piece is, I feel like we are still missing a gigantic piece of the puzzle. I think we can all agree that everything is AFU. I think we can all agree that the repubs are dangerous, and the dems are only slightly less dangerous. And I think we can all (or at least a large number of us) agree that an army of "us" can still be marshaled, in spite of our profound disappointment in Obama. But then what the hell is that army going to do? And who are we going to fight? And WHO are we going to replace Obama with, if we do determine that he just ISN'T going to lead us where we want to go. I'm all for an insurrection of sorts, but I'm hearing a lot of "we're going to fight" but not a lot of specifics about how. I'm game to fight. I really am. Now tell me what I can do, and I'll do it.

    As a side note...on 60 Minutes, Obama admitted that he has gotten so caught up in "getting things done" that he has neglected the process, which tells me he gets it. Is ANYONE seeing ANY signs that that insight is being turned into action, because (although I haven't been paying a lot of attention lately) I haven't SEEN anything that would reignite my spark for him... I know this is going to sound ridiculous as I hear myself thinking it, but CAN he get his mojo back? Can he yet be who we so desperately need for him to be?


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 5:36pm

    Two words: Bully pulpit.  He hardly touched it during the last two years.  And yet, we know how effective a tool it could be for him because we lived through 2008.  He won a hell of a lot of support for his candidacy and issue platform by basically going out and talking to people.  Examining his first two years in office, I see numerous issues where it seems like his approach was to work things behind the scene, but let the Democratic majorities do their work.  Well, now he can't just let Pelosi and Reid guide things.  I think this offers incentive for him to learn how to really wield this tool.

    Also: Don't despair.  It's only been a week!  The Dems are regrouping.  The GOP has to figure out what they're going to do with control of the House.  And Obama has to figure out what his strategy in the new environment will be.

    And if that doesn't make you feel better, then I have two more words: Veto pen.


    by DF on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 6:13pm

    I don't see him as having allowed Pelosi and Reid guide things. Especially with Reid. It seems Obama took his knees right out from under him by going direct with the caucus and offering deals to both Nelson and Lincoln (and I think a few others) that totally bypassed the whip. It seems more like Obama held the filibuster in his pocket and tried to hang Reid with the outcomes by playing puppet master from the shadows.

    But to the bully pulpit observation and veto pen, Yes! That is the appropriate tool for the President anyhow. It is a total bastardization of the constitutional principle of separation of powers for legislative deals to be cut in the White House. That's another thing about Obama that really sticks in my craw but goes unmentioned because there are so many other issues that concern me. He's supposed to be a *(&@# constitutional lawyer!


    by kgb999 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 6:48pm

    Agreed that he played things differently in the Senate than in the House.  I'm sure part of that was the filibuter, part of it was being a former Senator and part of that was Pelosi being a more reliable source of votes.  In terms of staying out of the way of Congress, I meant that more in the sense that he never got out and said what he expected them to do except "increase access and control costs."  He basically just stayed out of that debate publicly.


    by DF on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 6:59pm

    I didn't find any real answers to the dilemma in this video. But I think it was an excellent articulation of the question: what *is* the vehicle if not Obama? And you are right. This is a huge piece that is missing. Ultimately the simple answer seems to be "unity". But without a vehicle, it seems hard to figure out how to turn that into action.

    Even if Obama turns out to not be "the answer" ... don't lose hope. Something has got to give. Americans are like water, we'll find a crack in the rocks and get through somehow. We always have.

    Though I personally don't expect anything to be different and found just as much troubling in his post-election statements as I did heartening, it should be noted he left the country right after making them. So, if "getting it" is going to be turned into action on his part specifically, we won't know what form this will take until he returns.

    The only thing I've seen from the executive side since Obama embarked is a trial balloon for Melissa Bean to head the CFPB. We know the banker's objective is to weaken it into impotence, so this wasn't a good sign IMO.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 6:38pm

    And here is as good a place as any to note my use of the phrase "get it" is kind of tongue-in-cheek referencing Jon Stewart's post-election montage.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 7:01pm

    I see it as a good and healthy thing that folks here are putting their thoughts out there on this, are engaging one another in discussion.  I thought this was a good thread where points of view have been advanced and responded to with plenty of passion and conviction, but without the kind of name-calling and interpersonal nastiness that just get in the way of any of that being potentially useful.  Maybe on the GOP side of things, matters are often resolved, or at least decided, in ways that are much less messy.  More culture shock, perhaps.  Trying to put myself in your shoes, stilli, I can readily imagine how disorienting it must be to see what goes on in this neck of the woods!  Heck, it can be disorienting to many of us who have been having discussions on these matters for years now.  This discussion was far better than most, though, I thought.  Notwithstanding (partly because of?) no agreed-upon or "consensus" conclusions.  It doesn't work that way in my experience.  People continue to process parts of good discussions after they have ended.       


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 12:29pm

    Latest Comments