Blogging is an activity. It’s something you do either in your spare time or the first thing in the morning and the last thing at night. If you are doing full-time political blogging, something is motivating you. For most of us, that motivation was originally outrage at what the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress were doing. It wasn’t to argue over the fine points of their Medicare Part D bill or the decisions of Bush’s Treasury secretary and the FED chairman. Yes, there was always a place for that, and there are some bloggers who are dedicated to health care and fiscal policy. They are valuable and important contributors, but they are few.
What brought people together into progressive blogging communities and networks was related to policy (the invasion of Iraq, torture, illegal surveillance, regressive taxation, bad environmental policy) but also other things (a one-sided corporate media, incompetent government, and lack of meaningful and effective resistance by the Democrats). But notice something. The progressive blogosphere rarely if ever engaged in serious policy debate about legislation pending in Congress. Insofar as it was discussed at all, it was normally opposed. And that kind of blogging can be habit-forming. What was appropriate when the Republicans ran everything is carried over and used against the Democrats.
Now, I am of two minds about this. On the one hand, what was wrong when Bush and the Republicans did it is also wrong when Obama and the Democrats do it. Holding government accountable is important no matter who is currently in power. And the Democrats don’t have everything right on policy. On some things they are dead wrong. On others, they are divided and unable to pass good policy in the face of united opposition. So, people who really care deeply about policy and think the Democrats can and should be doing better ought to be speaking up and offering constructive advice or criticism. I think this is generally what Glenn Greenwald is doing. On the other hand, most of us got into blogging because we recognized the singular danger the Republican Party represented to our country, and our number one goal was simply to get them out of power. Like the teabaggers, we weren’t looking to make compromises on legislation but to defeat it. But unlike the teabaggers, we had facts to support our positions. If we got into blogging and political activism to put the Democrats in power, should we not be focusing on helping them pass their agenda and stay in power?
The split in the blogosphere is over splintering goals. On one side you have people who now identify the government itself (the insiders) as the corrupt entity regardless of party. On the other side you have people who don’t disagree about the systemic problems but who are looking for best outcomes and a successful presidency.
There is a place for both, but if you are waking each morning to blog about what a bunch of corporate whores the Democrats and the president are, you haven’t really adjusted your style to the new situation in Washington. In fact, you are effectively denying that there is a new situation in Washington. You just brought over what you were doing during the Bush administration and turned your guns on the Obama administration. And, remember, I am talking about motivation here, not discrete posts. I’m talking about themes and focus. Is this first thing you do in the morning to look for ways to talk about how the president has disappointed you? How Congress sucks? Then you aren’t interested in keeping the Republicans out of power any more. You are fighting a different battle. And if you don’t have a plan for how your reinforcement of Republicans memes is going to help lead to better outcomes, you aren’t really a Democrat anymore, and your activism can’t necessarily be considered progressive even if uses progressive terms and angles. That’s fine. No one is compelled to support the Democrats over the Republicans or to support policies they disagree with. But we should call this kind of blogging what it is, which is anti-Obama, and anti-Democratic Party…and anti-government, really.
excellent insights, Boo.
I feel frustrated with what is going on. I feel the need to defend the president simply because I find what is going on with what a certain blogger is doing and invading other blogs and stirring up alot of division and hate and rage as unfair.
While I disagree with the president on issues, I rarely am commenting on them because I am also pissed at the people from that blog and the hate they are promoting and the rightwing meme they are pushing.
It is so out from the fringe. They are pushing conspiracy theories and insisting that Obama and Rahm are these insidious ‘evil-doers’. It’s nonsense.
I wonder why, and cannot get an answer to, my question of why is this blogger paying people to invade other blogs and stir up hate and rage towards our president to begin with. What is the agenda here.
Why is this person doing this. She has her own blog to publicly write her views.
I also am upset with the knee jeck reactions to rumors and silly nit picky things. Where is common sense and why is there is over reaction by people and this need to trash our own side? Go after our own rather then republicans?
No wonder the right always wins over us.
It is not spinelessness from democrats but, this habit of attacking our own side all the time.
I have, in the past, dinged Reid, Pelosi, Obama, ect. But, of late, never. Because of the hate mongering going on in our blogs. Not the rightwing ones.
I think it is a mistake to focus on one blogger, one blog, or think this is isolated. It’s far more general in the blogosphere than that.
What is happening is that the united opposition of Republicans and their obstruction is slowing down Congress and making them water down legislation. That is then met with frustration/outrage and a certain awareness that there are systemic problems that are preventing both the Dems and Congress generally from functioning properly. There are Senate rules. There are corporatist Dems. There are lobbyists dominating the process of writing legislation, etc. And this, then, leads to calls for really fundamental changes that may be warranted but which in many cases are not possible in the here and now. Some, like me, are calling for some reform of Senate rules to disempower the Dem centrists. Others are going much further in their recommendations.
But what is also happening is a misattribution of blame. There is this idea that Obama wants things this way, when the truth is that his agenda is being stalled and thwarted and watered down and defeated.
I feel however, that a few people who have a voice are dividing and causing a great deal of destructiveness instead of focusing on the reforms we need and dealing with the dysfunction of our congress and with the obstructionist republicans.
there is a huge split now and those who are able to do something in putting pressure on democratic politicians are instead focused on this destructive force.
This person needs to be restrained from doing as much damage as she appears to be bent on dong so that democrats can focus on mid terms, trying to pressure congress not to give into the senate HC bill, ect.
And frankly, the way these people want to do it is going to marginalize our voices and make us the left’s version of teabaggers.
I’d rather we be taken a bit more seriously and that only comes with dealing with people, the congress, ect., in a respectful manner and as adults.
My thoughts exactly, but put more articulately than I could. I believe I remember respecting your views posted on one of the blogs implicitly named in the diary.
I’ve read often how the impetus behind their behavior is repeat patterning from the Bush administration. I feel it is far more human, but childish. These bloggers are beyond insulted that “Rahmbama” is not heeding them they way they feel they deserve, I believe Obama is well aware of the opinions of the Progressive voices and has no need to meet with them. Their voices are figured into his deliberations, whether he follows them or not. It might have been a tactical error not to meet with the Prog Caucus, as an act of good faith toward them (theatre or not)
When I was on DKos, I never criticized the POTUS because they put me in a position where I felt I had to defend him. I was not going to add fuel to their fire. They pounced on any obvious Obama supporter who was not 100% (“IF blogger x, no longer supports him, then…”)
Whatever is going on now, I firmly believe it is more about them, then making the country more just. It’s wag the dog time. Act impulsively, THEN justify it (“Killing the bill will cause…”
I am not thrilled with possibly flamebaiting in my new home, but their teabagger behavior is – yes, the ‘h’ word hypocritical.
I hope Booman does not crosspost – his cabin should be a serene place now, LOL.
I second this. I do not want this place to be full of turmoil and we unable to discuss, debate, disagree like adults.
A friend suggested things were becoming more civil there. I checked it out. Came running back here 🙂
Have a Good New Year!
There are a million different ways to position oneself on the purity-of-worldview vs. support-the-better-party continuum. Where things go haywire is when bloggers move around on that continuum. It makes it hard to interpret their remarks.
Thank you for this. I suspected this would happen – there are a lot of people who just want to vent and complain. They don’t see that their words have a sort of momentum that can keep good things from happening.
And as I said, this is EXACTLY what’s wrong with the evoting bloggers. They have taken to the notion that the federal government shouldn’t even be involved in voting legislation. Which means we’d have to fight this battle in 50 separate states. How nutty is that?
While most of this is naive passion and goodwill, if misguided, I can’t help but think in all cases it’s possible a more sinister element is among us as well, like COINTELPRO of days past, sowing seeds of dissent, making sure we don’t REALLY gain the power we could if we all came together.
you lean to a conspiratorial interpretation quite often. I don’t think it is at all likely that elements of the secret government are behind dissension about evoting or health care or fiscal policy in progressive communities.
I see their hand in other places, like some of peripheral stuff coming out about the Detroit bombing plot and Gitmo and Yemen.
<cough> Larry Johnson <cough> With a heaping helping of Obama-hate on top.
Larry’s free-lancing.
Did you see the CitiCorp memo in Moore’s film? re how the plebians’ vote was the only thing stopping the plutocracy from achieving total control?
And you presume to know my suspicions, but don’t. I’d argue most conspiracies are private ones, but not in the sense you might think.
Did you follow the story re Chase and the Zapatistas?
Have you followed the murders of activists at the Freeport mine in Indonesia, and the recent and similar murders at a mine in El Salvador?
This stuff is as old as the human race. Don’t pretend it doesn’t happen. And if you think you can tell who is or isn’t in on it, meet James Angleton. He didn’t see Philby under his nose.
Also – I think you make a big mistake assuming that because I ask questions, I automatically believe something was a conspiracy. I don’t. But I think the questions are never asked, and should always be asked, because sometimes they lead to a conspiracy. If you don’t look, you can’t find. That doesn’t mean I always think there IS something to be found. But since the default position of curiosity for too many is always off, I’ve set mine to always on.
Brilliant, as usual Booman. Now we just have to make the MSM understand this concept and stop saying Obama is getting attacked from his left, I don’t think they are the left and progressive principals don’t seem to be what is motivating them, it sure looks like it’s some sort of deep seated hatred, and I postulate that a lot of it is left over from the Clinton-Obama battle. I hear a lot of the same phrases that I heard from liberals during the election, I have resigned myself to the fact that there are assholes in the democratic party too, I guess they’ve always been there, but they just didn’t have much of an outlet for their asshole-ness. 🙂
I also think a certain element of them thrive on negativity, I’ve known people like that and live with one who is prone to negativity. I’d also point out the AA phenomenon, recovering addicts and practicing addicts like to blame everything on everyone….I suspect a lot of the people who comment are dry drunks, angry, in denial and looking to place blame on someone instead of taking initiative and trying to change something themselves. There is a hell of a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on in the blogosphere, I often challenge these folks to put up or shut up. Tell us how you would do it if you know everything. There seems to be a distinct split between those who are pragmatic and those who are unreasonable.
Anyone that has paid attention can see that Hamsher is clearly motivated by some personal hatred of Obama which leads one to speculate that is sour grapes over him beating her candidate Hillary. Stereotypes sometimes ring too true like Republicans are acting like sheep in objecting everything and Democrats are bitching at one another. I still believe there is strong merit in some of Democrats’ complaints (DADT, Not Investigating Bush Torture Crimes, Bankster’s stranglehold on Geithner/Summers, etc.) but teaming up with the enemy in Norquist and saying Obama is Bush third term is just too much.
I keep being struck by the ongoing irony of those who complained most loudly during the campaign about Obama being “the Magic Negro”, the “messiah”, etc., are now in a teabagger-quality rage about how he didn’t just come in and wave his wand to bring a new world into being.
I agree with everything that Booman said and I have posted something very similar to your comment about the impatient “progressives” and their “Magic Negro” expectations elsewhere. I’m rather disgusted with a lot of the rhetoric I’m hearing and reading, and I’m seeing a lot of similarities between the tea-baggers and the childish I-me-miners like Hamsher.
Hey Blue, I saw a story or heard it the other day about how Barney Frank is going to tack on the repeal of DADT to the next Defense appropriations bill in the new year. I’ve argued with many at Americablog to be patient, it will happen. I went over and looked at A-blog, which I can’t stomach anymore, but there was of course no mention of that story, nada. Maybe they just hadn’t seen it yet, but I suspect they won’t give Obama credit because it’s too late, he should have done it sooner so it doesn’t count. That’s the mentality of some of these folks have.
My theory on DADT is that Obama learned the lesson of the Clinton’s first year, I’m old enough to remember that clearly and actually did a documentary on homophobia because of that event, and I think the Obama administration was wise to not take up a contentious social issue that would distract the sensational media from the health care debate. There were plenty of other distractions for them, but I think it could have been much worse had he taken on DADT or abortion or DOMA or any of the other subjects that trump everything else when it comes to the MSM.
Duh, I meant MAC……and I’ll add that I think a lot of the anger from the “left” is because of DADT and DOMA. If you go to A-blog, many of the comments mention it, even when it isn’t topic specific. I guess the irony is that many of them were Hillary supporters, and it was her husband who signed DADT. Hmmmmm
Well, I do not believe that posting suggestions is going to change anything. Glenn Greenwald and Paul Krugman appear to be as bright a star as there is that is not part of the administration (Also Ms. Warren, but she works for Congress, and they appear to be of no help.
Obama appears to have surrounded himself with either like-thinkers or sycophants. It seems as if no new ideas can penetrate.
Dawn Johnson – Why did he not do something, anything after he nominated her?
Practically, there are no other options. Either a Dem or a Repub.
And, BooMan, I do not know where to go with this comment or how to support someone, who, while better than his predecessor, has disappointed in so many areas.
Perhaps you’re right if we look at Treasury and his economic advisers. I think he needs some new ideas and a broader spectrum of advice. But for most of the rest, can we not focus on implementing the ideas that he campaigned on? For a lot of this there is no need for new ideas, just different tactics.
I wonder if he has approached Paul Krugman, if not, I think he should.
I am more upset with his DoJ and their fighting at the appellate level with the same arguments that Bush’s DoJ used.
Here’s a post by Digby that says it all:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/welcome-to-his-nightmare-by-digby-i-get.html
Or at least enough to get my point across.
But I do understand your larger point you were making in your post. I shall quit bitching and try to think of something positive to say.
“Dawn Johnson – Why did he not do something, anything after he nominated her?”
What would you have him do? You can’t just say ‘do something, do anything’, what would you have him do?
Until her name was actually sent back to the administration, there was probably still some hope that she could get through. Now if he wants to really upset the Republicans, he could give her a recess appointment. They have selective memory so they have forgotten how many recess appointments Bush made. And even if they did remember, they would not admit to it or they would claim that it was different then.
Make public statements about her qualifications. Of how superbly qualified she is. Have Reid have the Senate schedule hearings.
What would be wrong with that.
Good post Booman. It’s been frustrating. A lot of blogs and progressive radio/tv have been going after Obama hard. Attacking him every day for everything and anything is wrong and tiring. At times I wonder if some of these people supported him to begin with. That said, when wrong, we need to hold him accountable. I support him and stand by him in all the decisions he’s made (as much as it makes my stomach turn, I even support his decisions in Afghanistan). But his lukewarm support of the PO, mixed messages from WH, backroom deals, going after the “left” and running away from it instead of leading left a bad taste in my mouth. After we spent summer and fall fighting, he tells us he was never for PO to begin with. This blog sums up exactly how I feel about it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sahil-kapur/obama-cannot-afford-to-lo_b_405056.html
As far as the PO goes, he did say the word public several times in speeches, but that was before it transcended into “THE PUBLIC OPTION” as we now know it. He chose his words very wisely throughout the campaign and yes, he said what some audiences wanted to hear…you don’t get elected to office without doing that. I’m not saying it’s right, but it is reality. During the campaign, Obama had no way of knowing what the exact makeup of the Senate would be after election day. Had we gotten a few more senators, I guarantee you the health care reform package would be much different. Holding politicians accountable is a great thing, but one has to be realistic too, so much of the bloviating is based on very unrealistic expectations of what is possible in our divided, dysfunctional government.
I understand that we have to be realistic but nothing so far has convinced me that how the WH went about HCR is right. Democrats in the Senate and Congress even spoke out against the WH. Feingold and Howard Dean came out and said they blame the WH for the death of PO. These two are credible and don’t just complain for the sake of complaining.
But just because I disagree with how this was handled doesn’t mean I want Obama to fail. I want him to success and will support him.
I don’t recall Feingold and Dean saying exactly that. Do you have a source?
Here’s the source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/20/feingold-obama-responsibl_n_398658.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73241-dean-faults-white-house-for-death-of-the-publ
ic-option
I will link the video from the Dean interview once I find it.
Feingold is posturing.
I worked for several weeks this past summer with Organizing for America phone-banking for health care reform and doing events like health fairs. When we phone-banked, we used a script that detailed Obama’s priorities for health care reform, but there was nothing about a public option. And in the few lengthy discussions I had (I called well over a thousand people) there was probably no more than a handful of people who even mentioned the public option. Most people were concerned about covering pre-existing conditions and rising insurance costs.
Also, when I canvassed for Obama during both the primary and the general election, I rarely had a question about health care.
Exactly. Most people don’t follow the nuances of this the way the few in the blogging community do. We think we are a large number, and we are, but there is a MUCH larger number who don’t know and don’t care beyond their basic needs what form health care reform takes, or if it even happens at all.
The White House still has a perception problem with their base that is real and legitimate. How the public option debate played out, fairly or unfairly, left a bad taste in the mouth of die hard supporters and made it seem that Obama does not fight for them.
I am not saying that is fair but I personally sure felt let down. If we are going to hold Obama accountable for his campaign promises, the two statements that stick out are “We are going to have Health Care debate live on CSPAN with all of the stake holders at the table” and “I want to give citizens the same Health Care that members of Congress have.”
These were not throw away lines either because he repeated them in campaign stops and a debate with McCain.
You could argue that the backroom deals had to be cut or those powerful lobbies would have killed reform but then tell us that or explain why changing the label from Health Care reform to Insurance reform.
OFA members are deflated and it is time for the Administration to publicly point out the obstacles to change and reform so the public can be informed on what is truly happening.
I agree with you 100%. WH could have talked about or leaked how hard it will be to pass PO in the Senate. Instead they chose to attack their base in order to appeal to the centrists. I was an active member of OFA. I was all ready to work hard and make phone calls. But I and most of my friends at OFA were not willing to sacrifice our weekends for a cause the President himself was not willing to fight for. It was actually stupid to ask for our help and money when we were being labeled as those lefties and WH being for PO one day and against it the next.
the truth is probably that there was no point in OFA making those calls because there was no way to persuade Ben Nelson and a few others to vote for a PO.
But the Republicans succeeded in demoralizing the party base by putting us in such a situation.
This will happen time and time again as long as we can’t pass anything to the left of Ben Nelson and/or Joe Lieberman (depending on the issue).
I don’t blame the republicans. Nelson is a democrat. The only non-democrat vote we needed was JL. The failure was ours. I am not blaming the WH for Nelson’s vote but he is a democrat and we should look @ ourselves to find a solution and not on the republicans.I felt used by OFA quite frankly. Don’t waste our time and stop asking us for $ when Obama himself was waffling on this issue.
My point is that he waffled on the issue because he couldn’t win on the issue. And he couldn’t win on the issue because the Republicans waged an effective response and remained united. Remember, the PO was just a part of this war. The GOP wants no bill, even without a PO. Obama has to weigh beating them vs. losing to them over a PO. He has to weigh the cost of wasting another three months on this single issue vs. moving on to jobs and climate/energy and immigration. He has to weigh what is lost in delay and policy by doing reconciliation vs. getting exactly what he prefers.
I agree that he needed to move on to other issues. But the fact is that he came out looking weak. Better to fight and lose than not fighting. I understand it might not change the final votes but at least his base would have felt he fought for them rather than leaving them alone to do the fighting and attacking them as they fight. Now he’s saying he was never on our side to begin with. They should learn from this mess and do better in the future instead of defending it.
This is exactly how I feel about the HC debate and since the public option was so water downed that I was OK with jettisoning it but for some idiotic reason, the Administration never calculated the negative impact on their hard core base/OFA if it kept Obama away from publicly advocating for the public option. Maybe it was inevitable that people would be disappointed but the anger amongst his hard core supporters would be at the system/GOP/Centristholes than at Obama for trying. The Administration Fd up big time and hopefully they learned some lessons.
I do not think it is about giving liberals a bone anymore as it is clearly changing the perception of Obama not having our back during the next policy fight.
I agree with your comment. Disappointment is expected. We were never going to agree 100% of the time. But they could have avoided stabbing to their base in the back. Rahm’s attack on the “left” had done more damage than they realize. Hope he (Obama) takes some time during his break to figure out how to do things better in the future.
if he couldn’t win on hcr, then what do you expect will happen with jobs and climate/energy and immigration…plus financial reforms?
assuming the RATpublicans and democRATs aren’t going to be any more accepting or cooperative on these issues than they have on hcr, he had best change his mo in regard to how he goes about getting anything at all accomplished that’s worthwhile.
the old half a loaf is better than none mantra is not going to cut in in 2010, nor 2012.
you or someone here commented that’s he’s a quick learner…l certainly hope so.
we shall soon see just what it is he learned dealing with this fiasco. whether he’ll modify his bipartisan, hands off approach…which hasn’t, and won’t work…or if he’s doomed, by circumstances or whatever, to be a lame duck halfway through his one term in office.
As I pointed out above, I DID make calls with Organizing for America – many, many calls. And the public option was never part of the script on any of the occasions. The emphasis was on covering pre-existing conditions, controlling costs, trying to cover as many people as possible, etc. And I never felt that my efforts were in vain or that the White House was unappreciative. But having made those many, many calls, I can tell you that the White House has more than Republicans in Congress as an obstacle. I was surprised when a significant number of the people I called, especially in the wealthier parts of our call area, had the “I’ve got mine and I don’t care really care about anyone else and I don’t want my taxes to go up” attitude. It was a challenge not to tell them what I really thought of their selfishness.
I think the whole public option hysteria is a prime example of how the “left” shoots from the hip without preparation and then gloms onto one alternative as holy grail. Fact is, the so-called left blogosphere was never much interested in the myriad possibilities for healthcare reform. That would take too much time and attention.
I think in the end our monomaniacal focus on the PO did more harm than good in what Congress ended up producing. And yes, I was among the hysterics as often as not.
Our focus on PO was spot on. We will not have reform without competition. To me this is not about left vs right or the blogosphere vs WH. It’s about whether or not my family and millions of others will be able to afford health care. That’s the bottom line. Nothing wrong with fighting for what we believe in. The “hysteria” was caused by people fighting for their right. Is the current bill better than nothing? Yes but we should have had a much better bill.
You make it sound like the anti-Obama side are some kind of anarchists. Which probably has some relevance in terms of where certain positions evolved from. But it’s a big stretch to claim that most of the anger comes from an anarchist position — which IS what your claim reduces to.
What’s left out of an interesting analysis is the role of sheer expectation and the inevitable disappointment that follows. Bush left us with a longing for revolution of one kind or another, simply because the system itself allowed such an idiotic, treasonous, deceitful regime to exist. The US system as it stands now is carefully jiggered to, above all, prevent revolutionary change. Some of us thought Obama and a new Dem majority would see that the Bush outrages were not simply a matter of one criminal sociopath, but far more deeply embedded within the the very structure of government and the electoral system, and that they’d at least acknowledge that in their activities.
Didn’t happen, of course. No president except possibly Lincoln has ever come close to seeking revolutionary, systemic change. But Obama’s slogans sounded remarkably close to that. So the anger is understandable, if misplaced. I’m always rattling on about how there is no American Left. What I mean is that it has no coherent ideology to offer, so it’s confined to sniping at whoever is in power and bitching about specific legislation. The blogosphere is well suited to the latter and very poor at fostering the kind of philosophical grounding from which coherent policy can grow.
To me, Obama is exhilarating in some ways and disappointing in others. I see the healthcare compromises not as his, or even the congressional Dems’, failure but as the clearest signal yet that we somehow have to go beyond electoral politics if we want to cure the social disease that is crippling us. I don’t think any credible candidate for president would have done any better than Obama. There is much to criticize, and that criticism is necessary. Where I vehemently part ways with the likes of FDL, Open Left, and others is the way they concentrate on “exposing” Obama’s “real” motives and intentions instead of looking at the hard realities of the country he’s supposed to govern and the harder realities of how it can be changed enough to allow it to survive a new century.
what they did right. Every now and then I find one.
It’s convenient to blame congress or the POTUS for the situation America finds itself in, but it’s pretty clear that our problems go much deeper.
The average citizen has been bombarded with cancerous propaganda for 40 years, and they are seriously fucked up. Congress gets away with such wankery because as far as most Americans are concerned the twisted has become the norm.
Congressional wankers get re-elected because their constituents agree with them.
America is in deep deep trouble, and it’s going to take years to dig our way out. IMO the first step is NOT congress, but the media. As long as the media prefers Tiger over HC, we are screwed.
THAT should be the focus of most blogs.
nalbar
Tiger is so last week, it is all about Charlie Sheen and if America is really safe now.
The split in the blogosphere (I presume you mean the progressive Democratic blogosphere) is not at all about splintering goals. It is representative of opportunities and dangers that folks are seeing in talking with friends, neighbors, family, and co-workers. And what is happening is that as the Republican Party splinters, various Democratic caucuses see different ways to broaden the base. Brodening it toward establishment Republicans (that would be the country club set too far from Wall Street and yet concerned about conservative economic values) is a decision to move away from a populist appeal, seemingly conceding it to the GOP. But the GOP cannot co-opt populist sentiment created by eight years of George W. Bush by astroturfing Tea Parties, no matter how hard they try. So you have populist revolts both on the left and the right and really no third party to pick up either of them. And a White House blinded by the Beltway bubble to what is happening in either of them.
The split in the progessive Democratic blogosphere has to do with articulating that populist frustration or thinking that criticism of the White House is so risky it might re-empower the Republicans. It also fails to appreciate that while the Blue Dog Democrats have most to lose on the Democratic side, faux Tea-Party folks like Jim DeMint have the most to lose on the Republican side. And establishment Republicans and Democrats like Charlie Crist and Chris Dodd are likely to lose just as a result of the establishment failure to deliver peace, prosperity, and balanced budgets.
In other words, the situation is more fluid out here in the boonies than folks close to DC thinking imagine.
There is a real opportunity to take down Jim DeMint and Joe Wilson in South Carolina. Mitch McConnell is not solid in Kentucky although slightly better than is Harry Reid in Nevada.
And the wedge issues that are doing this are healthcare reform and financial industry reform. I had a Paulista, who is a nurse, say to me the other day that the Senate bill is so bad and made so by “Republicans sitting on the sidelines and deserting their conservative principles”, that she is ready for extending Medicare to everyone. My internal reaction was “Whaaaaa?”, but I encouraged her to let her sentiments be known to our Congressman. Yes, just one data point. Don’t make too much of it.
Quite frankly, I have not seen any progressive Democratic blogs that I would characterize as anti-Obama, anti-Democratic Party, and anti-government. But I have seen progressive Democratic blogs that are trying to wake the White House and the Democratic Party up to the rising populism by hitting them over the head with a 2×4. I believe proverbially that’s how you get a donkey’s attention.
And I have seen no progressive blogs that are anti-government; however I have seen lots of them that are anti-establishment. There is a difference, one that was ignored in the intra-Democratic fights in the 1960s and which resulted in the meltdown in Chicago in 1968.
We are now beginning to own some traditionally Republican memes: strong national defense, debt reduction, small business, markets, small government, states rights. Look at the rhetoric the White House has been using to strip Republican memes from Republicans. But the only way for the White House to strip the populist meme from the Republicans is to go hard against the economic-government revolving door establishment that thinks it knows better than everyone else, but has brought us to this catastrophe. Critics of Obama say that (1) he’s not doing that sort of separation, (2) he’s by temperament not likely to do that sort of confrontation, and (3) his staff selection does not indicate that he is going in a populist direction. That is neither anti-Obama, anti-Democratic Party, nor anti-government. It is just pointing out a major vulnerability that the White House has not chosen to address.
Hint: July 3, 2008
I notice that you run against Kohl but not against Feingold. That ability to make distinctions is a big part of what’s missing is some quarters.
Russ has disappointed me 27 times in the 17 years he’s represented me in the Senate. Kohl only 8, but that’s because I had much lower expectations.
(Herb’s pleasantly surprised me once, casting the decisive vote to kill the Flag Burning Amendment. “Candidate praisees opponent” press releases always get play.)
I pulled 51,000 votes against Kohl last time, not working very hard, and only spending 662 bucks. If I ran against Feingold I’d have a tough time getting the 2,000 signatures to make the ballot, and if I succeeded would only expect 5,000 votes.
…is the term I’ve been using all year long to describe the camps of discourse surrounding the buildup to this current rift among Progressives. You mention “arguing over the fine points” and it struck me as similar to observations I’ve made this year on, not only the sheer number of people are discussing finer points, but how much about what they’re talking about they really understand enough to argue for or against.
“Microcriticism” is like “micromanagement” only it’s relegated to the arena of criticism, since people really have little impact in terms of being able to affect legislative outcomes when engaged in the practice of hair splitting, day after day, especially since they really seem to know only what other bloggers/commenters are telling them and assuming the rest.
It’s gotten to the point that, if we had access to such info, we’d be blogging/commenting about the effect the president’s tie choices may have on the policy decisions of the day, our knowledge of such effects, notwithstanding.
Of course, this sounds like silly hyperbole, but is it? I’ve worked in plenty of real world situations where people make bullshit administrative/executive decisions in areas they have no knowledge or expertise whatsoever. Creative decisions are a good parallel. People who have no artistic or creative education/training make creative decisions all the time simply because they think something looks good or bad to them based on their personal information gathering. Red is complementary to green, etc. that doesn’t mean they can be a graphic designer, though.
I am overwhelmed at the sheer number of chefs now populating the policy kitchen all of which seem to have attained this sudden knowledge of how legislation gets passed without having ever been elected to office. I have to ask myself how they know all that they know when, as far as I can tell, they’ve been blogging/reading about this shit as long as I have and I still don’t know a lot. Definitely not enough to think I could do a better job in an area in which I have no training beyond what I read everyday.
Then there’s this pearl clutching about “backroom deals”, “pork”, and any other buzzwords all of which seem to me to be part of the dealmaking that has always gone on and is part of the process. Is all of that supposed to stop?
While I’ve never been able to change my Reps mind on whether to vote for or against a bill, I’ve often persuaded Baldwin and Feingold (and Tammy’s Republican predecessor) to try and strip out , sometimes successfully, a particular bit of especially bad language while the bill was still in Committee. this only works, of course, when your homestate Representative’s on the relevant Committee. Mine are on Judiciary, where my own greatest interest and expertise lie.
Booman and his blogging network are one of my oldest political sites for networking what’s going on : always topical and up-to-the-moment. Yet, I seldom bother.
The reasons for that have nothing to do with quality of articles or insights of writers. Booman himself I follow on Twitter. But this is only one community of many online and one must follow his interests.
Don’t get me wrong. I think the sharing and fellowship experienced on this board are a marvel seldom seen in this era of troll hell.
But after a while one does see that Obama lived down to expectations from Square One. He was not a change of direction. That was not what corporate America wanted and it did not happen.
His speech to AIPAC where he basically salaamed the Israel lobby ( a realistic move politically ) was accompanied by a promise to change the focus of American attacks on foreigners from Iraq to Afghanistan and environs.
Who damn well listened ?
The Nobel Peace Prize I characterized as the Prize made by the Onion : an illegal fiscal award made by the government of a foreign nation to a sitting President. Not only that, but because of his efforts to limit nuclear proliferation.
Holy Hell.
You have no idea the vituperation that concept should unleash. The USA undercuts the Nuclear Non Proliferation Agreement at every hand’s turn : as it has done for decades. Kindly go to a summary like the Wikipedia entry which includes the concept of the Third Pillar of the NPT : the treatment promised those who go the mile to reassure their neighbours via IAEA inspections that they are not up to mischief and weaponization ( something reactor tech is not appropriate and compatible with in any case. ).
Who signed up to make these assurances ?
Iran
Iraq
North Korea
I trust that list looks familiar. The ‘Axis of Evil.’
And Obama is giving Iran a new deal. Iran said ‘talk to us…what is it ?’
Obama…followed the script.
Foreign Policy is something that impacts Americans every day in the pocketbook. The nation is so far underwater in debt that it’s ludicrous. Yet ‘money’ is spent on ‘wars’ across the planet. You’d have to look at places like Mother Jones to understand just how many. This while healthcare is a racket – like war and drugs – infrastructure is falling apart ( Levees.org ) and poison is spread on cropland and into the water supply.
All is well. Blog partisan politics.
Not without some effort to understand the drivers. Not without watching Cheney on YouTube explain why George Bush Sr. did NOT attack Iraq during the Gulf War. Not without understanding that America has ‘fought’ in Afghanistan for Decades. That the U.K. lost 12,000 men in one week at the Khyber Pass…at the Pakistan border where convoys are attacked…in 1842 !
So I’ll blog.But I want to share understanding : not worry about Cheney saying Homeland Security is the answer. Not when oversized bureaucracies with overwhelming oppressive powers used idiotically are the problem.
‘Follow the Script ?’
I have a section on domestic mindbending called ‘Perception Alteration’ : just a cache of articles that I thought revealed the constrained ‘conversation’ that runs in circles like hamsters on a wheel. For Iran, though, it’s particularly perverse
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2009/12/20-dec-mission-in-afghanistanetc.html
What the heck. This post is also linked to the Iran situation – not an obvious thing until you check out the Larouche link – and the Great Game and more
http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2009/12/4-dec-following-trail-climate-fraud-and.html
It’s a wild ride that doesn’t end with that one post.