I know it’s frustrating to have conservative Democrats serving in Congress. I know it’s a drag that Colin Powell’s endorsement counts for something, or that no one seems to question it when Chuck Hagel campaigns for Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania. What are these people doing in our party? Can’t we have a party just for ourselves?
Well, actually, no. No, we can’t. Not if we want to keep the crazies at bay we can’t, anyway. It’s hard to define the Obama coalition, and people make the mistake on focusing on only one element of it (e.g. the anti-war movement, the youth, people of color, disillusioned Republicans, fickle independents, people tired of the bickering). I don’t know what unites all these people other than a belief in what I’d call ‘core American values’ that we established from the onset of the New Deal to the conclusion of the Cold War. I don’t mean the development of the national security state or the exact parameters of our economic system, because people disagree about that stuff. What brought together Obama’s coalition wasn’t anything specific as much a sense that Bush and Cheney had taken us off a well-trodden path. And that path might have had its flaws, but it was a good path that we needed to get back to. Some people never liked the path, but they weren’t the majority-makers.
When Obama won, he took the center-right with him. The center-right are part of his coalition. They didn’t make the majority alone. Obama also attained spectacular base-turnout and brought in all kinds of new voters. Taken together, these groups put him over the top and wiped out the last vestiges of the Republican Party in New England (in the House, anyway). Obama didn’t win a mandate for progressive change, although he did have many progressive elements in his platform. He won a mandate for responsible governance in the mold of presidents past. And, because his majority was made through both the incorporation of the reasonable right and the newly engaged left, there was a built-in contradiction that he couldn’t avoid when he went about his policy decisions.
A lot of Republicans were loath to admit it, but they knew the country would be in safer, saner hands with Barack Obama than with John McCain. The selection of Sarah Palin confirmed this for the center-right, although most had made up their minds prior to that. I’d be interested to know how centrists like Andy Card actually voted in 2008. Card served as Bush’s chief of staff and had no success in moderating his administration. He even joined Alberto Gonzales at John Ashcroft’s hospital bedside. But Card is a prototype of the Yankee Republican that has died out in recent decades, and it’s no surprise to see that he feels that Newt Gingrich’s deranged, racist rantings about the president are unhelpful. I think I know how he feels about seeing Republicans like Lisa Murkowski, Robert Bennett, Bob Inglis, Charlie Crist, and (perhaps) Mike Castle get run out of the Grand Old Party. He’s probably as appalled as former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson.
This midterm election could still go a couple of different ways, but it’s already clear that people like Powell, Hagel, Crist, and Castle are more at home in the Democratic Party. Yes, that means that the party moves to the right, which progressives like myself will find immensely frustrating. But it also is our final bulwark against the tide of xenophobic, ultra-nationalist, know-nothing radicalism of the Tea Party movement.
And this is how I’ve seen things since at least August 2009. We’re dealing with a real danger now. We don’t have two governing parties anymore. We have a party filled with people who want to dismantle the post-war structures of the government, overturn the rulings of the post-war Courts, and tear up sacrosanct legislation and amendments to the Constitution. And then we have the Democrats for everyone else. We make a mistake, perhaps a perilous and deadly mistake, if we let our frustration with the condition of our party get in the way of opposing this new incarnation of the Republican Party.
That doesn’t mean that the progressive project needs to be put on hold. I see no problem with supporting more progressive candidates against less progressive candidates. There’s no reason not to lobby your elected officials for more progressive policies. But we have to keep our eye on the enemy and not sow needless division among ourselves. We should be able to see how the massive divisions in the Republican Party are hurting their chances in the midterms. We often delude ourselves that we achieve progressive change by doing something similar to the Tea Partiers. We think we can win legislative battles if only we make our party purer. The truth is that we have won our legislative battles precisely because our party grew to majority-size through the simultaneous incorporation of the reasonable (Establishment) right and the newly-engaged left.
Only half of that equation makes progressive change easier. The other half makes it harder. As we wind down to the midterms, success hinges on keeping the center-right in our camp, which is actually made easier with every outburst of craziness from the Beck/Palin/Gingrich crowd. We also have to prevent apathy and disillusionment among those newly-engaged voters who came out in 2008 or are newly-eligible to vote in 2010.
As I’ve said for a while, I don’t think the progressive blogosphere has been, in the main, engaged in the right battle. I hope that this changes over the next month and a half. Our country’s future depends on the left getting this campaign right.
I strongly disagree that the center-right is in Obama’s coalition (and I refer to average center-right voters, not the high profile folks like Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell). The “responsible right” definitely exists, but right now they have a weird incentive structure whereby if they support the crazy right, the center left will need to negotiate with the crazy right, and the result will be something like the policy preferences of the center-right. So they will quietly vote for the crazies (or at least NOT vote for the dems) and sit back while health insurance profits are protected while we reform health care, tax rates for the wealthy are preserved and financial reform has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Its only when the crazies are close to blowing the whole thing up that the responsible right votes for Obama and other dems. Its a great little strategy and one that they’ll happily follow until the crazies go away- but if they don’t they can play this game indefinitely.
Well, yes and no.
On the one hand, a guy like John Boehner is probably not that much different from a Yankee Republican. He’s at home on a golf course discussing oil leases in Libya and the price of pork bellies. And he’s playing these folks for all they’re worth.
But it’s actually the rank-and-file voters that are part of Obama’s coalition. There’s the couple in Florida that put me up for a month while I did Voter Reg in Pinellas and Mantee counties. They were old school Republicans who worked for the United Nations before they retired. They wanted John Kerry to win in the worst way. There are all the pro-choice Republicans. The scientists. The people of color. Gays and lesbians. Muslims. Anti-Castro Cubans.
The list of alienated former-Republicans is quite long and growing. And they’re a critical new part of the majority.
I guess I’m biased because I hang around and work with a lot of wall street republican types. apart from taxes, they are pretty much policy wise very close to Obama. Most voted for Obama. But they’ll side with the crazies every time as a way to check the progressive agenda- which they really don’t agree with. They are fully on board with the post-war consensus, but now that Obama is in power and can veto any attempt to break apart that consensus, they’ve left the coalition entirely.
But yea, I agree about the fact that our coalition now includes a lot of former republicans. They’re called “white people who aren’t crazy.”
Hey Booman, I worked in Pinellas co on GOTV that year, just for a couple days (couldn’t spare more) and most people we contacted had already voted for Kerry in early voting. People I talked to (like the ones you encountered) went into long discourses about Bush and why they decided to vote dem, it was something. Be interested to hear what you think of the outcome btw. Met some great ppl there too.
Great post. I would also add that the better Democrats do in November, the more we sow the seeds for a truly epic civil war on the right, between old-school reasonable Republicans and the nutjobs. And ultimately, I hope, an eventual recapture of the GOP by moderates. As long as we can keep the current incarnation of the GOP out of power, until this “cleansing cycle” completes itself, I actually see what’s happening to them as a healthy process. At the other end we might find an American right much closer to the British right than it ever has been. And the tea-partiers cast off to third party oblivion.
“And ultimately, I hope, an eventual recapture of the GOP by moderates.” God willing. Hard to see how that happens with the right wing propaganda structure so firmly in place, and more and more republicans eating only at that trough.
Steve Benen: “As Kevin noted, “In other words, Democrats and Independents have changed their viewing habits only slightly while Republicans have flocked to Fox… [A]s Fox has steadily amped up its conservative branding, conservatives have decided that’s all they want to hear. The echo chamber must be getting pretty deafening over there.”
I’d just add, by the way, that elsewhere in the same Pew Research report, we see that Republicans not only rely heavily on Fox News, but it’s literally the only news outlet available that the GOP rank-and-file consider credible. The only outlet that comes close is the Wall Street Journal — another Murdoch-owned outlet — and it’s still a distant second.
Republicans are aware that mainstream news outlets exist; they just don’t trust the real news organizations.
It’s hard to overstate the impact of Republicans having their own cable news network, fundamentally changing the course of contemporary American politics.”
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025633.php
Well, one question I’d have about that is how many people self-identify as Dems, as Indys, and as Repubs?
And if you want to know why I don’t get that worked up over Fox News, just look at the stats: on average, Fox gets less than 2 million viewers per day. Granted, that’s more than any of the other channels, but compared to the number of voting Americans it ain’t much. Yes, I realize that a large part of Fox’s influence isn’t just on who watches it, but how those who watch it are conservative opinionmakers. I certainly don’t consider it neglible as a political force. But it is no unstoppable media juggernaut either and its presence has never really freaked me out.
Whoops, I misread the stats a bit. Looks like FNC gets closer to 3 million viewers during prime time.
According to OpenSecrets, Andrew Card of Mclean, VA donated $2300 to McCain in February of 2008. I wouldn’t spend a lot of thought on people like him.
Yeah, he may have preferred McCain to Mike Huckabee but that doesn’t mean he preferred him to Obama in the end. But, thanks for finding that. It’s interesting.
Or make visible donations and under the radar minimum donations depending on their role and position in politics.
I can’t tell you how many small dollar donations my candidate, a progressive republican turned democrat, received from quite wealthy pro-choice, pro marriage-equality republicans when we needed those folks to max out for us two years ago. But they didn’t want to show up on the FEC report and kept their donations low.
“Our” coalition (from TPM):
Late Update: In other news, Joe Lieberman is apparently preparing to go on TV and make to his bayat pledge to McConnell that he will support a filibuster or anything else that’s needed to make sure the upper income tax cuts get extended too.
even a bitter, angry, disappointed, not-satisfied, not-believing-the-hopeful-changeful-bullshit person like me went down to Sestak’s West Philly HQ, grabbed a sign and has it displayed prominently on the front lawn.
and that’s with the knowledge that Sestak is a warmongering fuck that doesn’t believe in my 4th amendment rights.
war-mongering? For Afghanistan? And yeah, the 4th Amendment thing sucks, but it employs a lot of people in the Philly area, as you know.
voted for off-budget war funding in Iraq: http://newsblaze.com/story/20100702083855zzzz.nb/topstory.html (after congress said “no more supplementals”). he’s done that a few times, just do a google.
yes, it’s “consistent” with other votes.. but it’s still a vote for irresponsible wars and passing the buck to our kids and grandkids.
still voting for him though.
ONe more thought and I’m not just trying to be contrarian:
Does it make more sense to slowly crowd out the center-right and force them to exert power within their own caucus?
I think we may be ceding way too much territory to the far-right in allowing them to simply gobble up one of the two parties our electoral systems foster. There will always be two parties given our electoral institutions, and letting the crazies have one of them completely mucks up our political institutions requiring consensus and compromise. Why not just have the Liebermans and Ben Nelson’s of the world call themselves Republicans and then cut the same deals with them as Republicans?
Sounds good in theory. In reality, Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman would have two choices. Vote like Sharron Angle or get routed like Bob Bennett.
So why not make them do it? Just Tell Ben Nelson and Lieberman every time they grandstand and take center-right positions that they can take those positions and argue them with an “R” next to their name. Lock them out of caucus meetings. Strip them of committee chairmanships. Have the President do fundraisers for their primary opponents. Such actions wouldn’t be driven out of spite but just to return things to normal. If you’re going to take a center-right position on an issue and say you won’t vote for legislation unless that center-right view is accommodated, then you’re a republican. Its part of the disfunction of our current politics (and Obama’s accomodationist approach) that these guys are allowed to push center-right views and get called moderates. If we push for a big tent, we’re just as guilty of enabling this fiction as David Broder is.
We would have no health care bill at all if Obama had followed your advice. In fact, we’d have no Wall Street Reform, and no nothing that required 60 votes.
He’d also be pushing away a lot of voters who aren’t Democrats but who are currently voting Democratic because they see that their is safe harbor under the Big Tent for conservative-minded realists.
That part of the thesis of this piece. We have a majority coalition, but that majority relies on center-right politicians (and the people who support them), especially since we need 60 votes to do shit.
We can’t muster votes to do better than center-left solutions on most issues, and that’s frustrating to progressives. But we are not the majority and we don’t have a megaphone, and we’re misusing the microphone that we do have.
We can’t muster votes to do better than center-left solutions on most issues,
Of course not, because we don’t enforce caucus discipline, not even for cloture votes. And what will you say when the Democratic Party cracks apart just like the GOP because of the splits within?
If you want the GOP’s caucus discipline you can have it. First you have to purge our party of anyone who disagrees with us. But, then our unity will only be useful for saying no.
So you are satisfied with ineffective government? Because we know that’s what Blue Dogs and Republicans want. Either the party becomes more parliamentarian in voting habits or the country is screwed.
You’re assuming that after Obama told them that if they have the ” D” label (or get a chairmanship of a committee, in the case of lieberman) then they have to at the very least, not draw a line in the sand for center-right positions (a reasonable position, no?) then they would essentially become Chuck Grassley type Repbublicans (ie, talk a lot of bipartisanship but never actually vote with dems) rather than Olympia Snow and Scott Brown type Republicans? So after the dems give these guys the boot, they essentially will begin taking the approach of the far-right in this country, ie obstruction, party of no? I think that’s right actually, but I think its helpful every now and then to understand what each party was threatening in the standoff over health care.
Obama didn’t win a mandate for progressive change, although he did have many progressive elements in his platform.
Says who? You? Tell that to the disillusioned college students and young adults that voted for Obama.
I agree. But this isn’t a democracy; it’s a cheerocracy.
It is clear he didn’t win a mandate because a large number of members of the Democratic caucuses in Congress never asserted that mandate and public opinion never created a mandate.
Those disillusioned college students and young adults are not the first to be disillusioned about politics. In fact the word “disillusioned” accepts the premise that they operated under illusions.
Mandates are built not won. There were progressive elements in the platform that could be built on to create a mandate for progressive change. And Obama has not disavowed those elements in principle, just said that he can’t do it with the Congress that he has. So give him a Congress that reaffirms that mandate. Power is built by exercising it consistently not by being summer soldiers. It is this election more than the last that will create change, or not. And if it doesn’t, there is the next election and between the two there are numerous possibilities to persuade other people of the necessity for change.
That’s the way practical politics, without illusions, works. You have to learn to count votes. And know how many votes you have to turn out to have a decisive victory. And canvass and call to turn out those votes. Because people with good intentions don’t always act on those intentions if no one is prodding them to.
Grassroots politics isn’t magic, it’s hard work over a sustained amount of time. Mandates are built from the grassroots, not magically bestowed by a charismatic candidate.
And it doesn’t help when people like Obama purposefully works to undermine that mandate(see Blanche Lincoln).
And why should we elect Democrats when they can’t even do simple politics?:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/house-dems-will-not-force-vote-on-middle-class-tax-cuts.p
hp
It’s not the elected officials who are responsible for “doing politics” in a democracy, it is the ordinary people–the voters. If the elected officials can’t do politics, then get new elected officials who can. The emphasis there is on “elected officials who can”. That happens in a primary, not in a general election. For this cycle, primary season is over today (Tuesday).
If you want to change the Representative for your district, start figuring out who to replace them with and how you are going to turn out 150,000 voters for that person in 2012 and 2014.
The issue most progressives ignore is that it is very hard to change the representation of a state or district in which you are not a registered voter. Even contributions from out-of-district can occasionally backfire.
Which puts a heavy burden on ordinary citizens to persuade the members of their personal network who do live in those districts to find a representative who can respond to national as well as local challenges.
I don’t like the performance of Ben Nelson, but I have zero ties to Nebraska (and I have used an “I used to live in your district” or “I contributed to your campaign” tie in calling a representative’s office); so when I say zero, I mean that the only tie is that we both are citizens of the US. But there are folks who I know who do have ties to Nebraska. And who can receive personal (not spam) emails from me discussing issues and complaining about Ben Nelson’s peonage to lobbyists.
The question facing us is whether progressives can actually do grassroots politics. Or whether they depend on top-down strategies from the President or Congress. And are piqued and want to throw in the towel when those top-down strategies don’t work.
We will know what works for progressives when they successfully get a progressive white member of Congress elected from Mississippi or Utah or Alaska (there is that possibility) or East Texas. And it is the fear of that kind of progressive grassroots involvement that scares the shit out of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and motivates their continual self-aggrandizing propaganda campaigns. Because when progressives get that smart and that successful at persuading people, no amount of radio and TV propaganda will change minds–and their gig is over just like Father Coughlin’s was.
The key to this election is not to punish the Democrats but to punish the Republicans in spite of the Democratic caucus’s cowardice, compromise, and fecklessness. For Democrats in California, that means that Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman must not win. But given the failure of Republican policies in California, why is there a Republican party left? In NC, that means that we must work (and we are working) as hard as we can to defeat Richard Burr and Virginia Foxx. And the polls (thank you Nate) say we have only a 14% chance of doing that if the election were held today. Gratefully, it won’t be until November.
This college student isn’t disillusioned because I knew what was coming. If students are disillusioned with the process, then they need to educate themselves and follow politics more. They should know by now how the political process works. It’s their own fault for fighting for pols rather than issues.
I’m not blaming them, per se, but most young people my age think that once you vote then your job is over. They’re the least involved in the political process, let alone voting. If they’re so disillusioned, then they need to wake the fuck up and start organizing like they did in the GE. That’s what politics is.
The truth is that people my age aren’t going to break for the GOP, it ain’t happening. Solidify them for one more cycle and they’re stuck voting Democrat for the rest of their lives. That’s what OFA is for: to get their lazy asses out.
thanks for writing this. Imo the disillusioned college student is a myth of the msm and older activists who get upset that college students aren’t out demonstrating. from what I see most young ppl take for granted all the issues ppl were demonstrating about in the 60’s and 70’s – especially racial equality and environment. Jobs situation is so different from 60’s and 70’s, most students are working part to full time and they can’t afford to get fired.
I mean fired for not going to work, and they can’t afford to fail their classes either.
Why can’t I read opinion analysis this good in the NYT or WaPO?
Nah, who cares about this? I’d much rather read about Maureen Dowd’s sister….how does she feel about Obama?…that’s what’s important <snark>
I see in this a great reason to try to run the table in the open Senate seats. Make Joe Lieberman irrelevant.
We’ve lost AR and ND off the bat. So we need at least two to cover those losses. And Delaware might be in play. And we might need another one to cover the loss of IN.
So we need to pick up OH, KY, NH, AK, MO, FL, LA, leaving only KS. And from incumbents pick up NC, IA, and if lightning can strike AZ.
And of the open Democratic seats, we need to defend, CO, DE, IL, WV, PA. And all of the incumbents except AR.
Best case:
Pickups: 10
Minus losses: 2
Net 8 for 67 seats
Nate Silver has his current most likely case (i.e. conventional wisdom)
The worst case is we don’t pick up any and lose in addition to AR, ND, IN also CO, DE, IL, WV, PA, WI, WA, CA.
Net – 11 for 52 seats
Would a 67-seat caucus have enough folks to offset the usual conservative Democrats and Lieberman? It likely depends on what issue you are talking about. And the GOP after such a loss would not likely continue its lockstep opposition.
Now are you motivated?
At the top of the list I find many in the progressive blogosphere still don’t quite get organizing and many strategies that can be used to push progressive change forward.
I suspect that some important groundwork has been laid down in Obama’s early months that will take root. Voters in the center may have shied from some of the more progressive visions being articulated recently, but there has been just enough support to make some important starts. Where does this end up in 12 years as the programs started this year grow?
Al Giordano has said some interesting things about the power of organizing to produce incremental change. For just one example, check this out.
You hit this nail on the head every time, Booman. There are a whole bunch of us who consider ourselves “practical progressives.” We see progress as necessarily stepwise. When we step back and look at all the Democrats have accomplished under Obama / Pelosi / Reid in a short period of time — THAT, collectively, is transformative:
Lilly Ledbetter;
no second depression;
health care reform;
finance reform;
(does someone have a list in chronological order?)
Ok, I am still waiting for climate change legislation, but do we really think ANYTHING would be done under Republicans? (yes-backward steps!)
Republicans are afraid that this picture will be interpreted as effective governance, and instead call it “socialism” and spread fear of government out of control. Some liberals are not happy because:
no public option;
etc.
The combined effect are 2 groups unhappy with the Dems for totally opposite reasons.
Fact is, the collective benefit from where we were IS transformative. But we got here in many small steps and will move forward in small steps.
Good companies and good leaders in general know that you have to get up each morning with a desire to improve. The “vision thing” is big, but it is achieved by doing something TODAY that is feasible–not by repeated futile attempts at the impossible. That would be failure.
The Dems ARE succeeding in improving the country. Republicans are afraid to let this be known. Unhappy progressives should at least differentiate themselves from these backward a-holes.
It goes without saying that the current GOP is a disaster on climate, but some people are saying it anyway.
Lily Ledbetter – good for lawyers, not so good for ordinary people. Have you ever sued someone? It’s not a happy experience even if you win.
No second depression – I dispute this. Well, OK, no second depression for Wall Street, just a second depression for people who have to work for a living. Layoffs, wage cuts, benefit cuts, foreclosures, the whole 1930’s thing. Just without brokers jumping out of windows. This time brokerage houses can legally buy politicians courtesy of the Supreme Court.
Health Care reform – Oh,great! I love paying taxes on my health plan that I am forced to purchase. Despite the hoopla, coverage continues to go down, while premiums continue to go up. Why did anyone think that giving Insurance companies a guaranteed market would lower prices?
Finance reform – Smoke and mirrors without teeth. Enshrining “too big to fail” while purporting to do the opposite. But there is something for the little guy too – merchant fees for using your credit card.
In short, the whole
BushObama agenda has been worse than useless. As another Illinois olitician once said, “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”“Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss.” and “The Party on the Left is now the Party on the Right”.
I wish I could believe a word of what you say.
I’m hearing you, BooMan.
but, the so-called Principled Republicans are few and far between.
they have to choose – crazy or sane.
they seem to be sticking with crazy for power’s sake.
it’s why I have little to no respect for them.
Broad-front political coalitions have a long and honorable tradition.
Throughout history we see two broad parties, the Optimates and the Populares, one serving the rich, the other serving the masses. In the Magna Carta, they are enshrined as the House of Lords and the House of Commons. In the French Assembly they were the Right and the Left.
Now, you assert that there are only the Optimates (aka Lords aka Right) and the Know-Nothings. I fear you are correct. But rather than support the Optimates, whom I have despised all my life (the feeling has been mutual), I would rather join the true Silent Majority and not vote at all.
The Green Party does not seem to be a viable alternative. The latest polling in Illinois for Governor shows 2% for the Greens, 2% for the Constitution Party (primal Teabaggers), and 4% for Independent Scott Lee Cohen. Cohen is the duly elected Democratic Lieutenant Governor candidate who was forced to resign by the Party bosses because they feared he would be a drag on the ticket after it was revealed that beat his prostitute girlfriend. They were probably right, but the Illinois Democratic Party has developed a nasty habit of forcing duly elected people out of office whenever they have a problem with them. They should rename themselves the Undemocratic Party. This is the slimepond that Obama and Emanuel came from.
I might just vote for Cohen in protest. I would rather vote for the girlfriend, she might turn out to be a Theodora.
You don’t strike me as a green anyway.
Not really, but it’s sad to see the Constitutionalists tied with them. I’ve voted for several candidates in Cook County that were dual nominees, Green and Democratic.
The Greens are handy for a protest vote, but until they get candidates with political experience and a comprehensive agenda, I don’t think they are going anywhere. They need some high level defectors from the Democratic Party, people with experience in government. The Illinois Democratic Party is rotting with corruption and the Republican Party that Obama worked with in Springfield has been replaced by Teabaggers. There’s nowhere to go, you are right about that. I just don’t agree that surrender to the Corporatists is a reasonable option.
My (Democratic) state rep has come out against the party candidate for assessor (he’s currently Cook County party chairman and my rep’s fellow Hispanic) as have others. See this story http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/your-doubting-thomas/2010/09/county-assessor-candidate-joe-berrios-l
eper-of-the-cook-county-democratic-party.html In fact, seeing that Toni Preckwinkle (whom I supported in the Primary for County Board President) is sticking by Berrios, I’m inclined to vote for the Republican against her. And as regards all the stories about Rahm quitting the White House to run for Mayor of Chicago, I hope so! He’ll never make it and will be out of government.
So few Democrats to vote for. So far, only my state rep and Alexi G. Both are underdogs.
So basically, if the Tea Party gamble to wipe out the last 80 years of liberalism fails, they still get to have moved the Overton Window so far to the right in the process that it only takes a extra election cycle or three to accomplish just that and to permanently enfranchise the Know-Nothings.
That’s a hell of a choice you’re giving us, BooMan…a quick shocking death or a slow, painful one.
I don’t see it that way and I don’t think I suggested that.
Barack Obama is moving the Overton Window, too. His election moved it on race. In the future, we won’t be debating the defunding of health care, but the fine-tuning of it, as in the UK.
Real progress is being made that will change the landscape in this country in a dramatic way, and demographics will reinforce that.
But, you know, we’re a nuclear power, and we can’t be fucking around here in the short-term.
We’ll be debating the defunding of Medicare. Mark my words.
Boo doesn’t read enough Digby. Either that, or he chooses to ignore her. The Democratic coalition is getting too big and will likely crack up. Just you watch.
Calvin, I’m not a Christian, but I am reminded of a passage from the Bible,”One cannot serve both God and Mammon.”
I agree with you Boo
I am unhappy and demoralized by what he has accomplished but I don’t think he had a chance of doing anything more.
It has been almost a case of being so much in the right that the opposition was left with nothing but lunacy as a response. But there will always be opposition and they will always be given a voice. As they should be in a democracy.
Lunacy is still scary and frustrating.
Digby in Steny’s Consensus reprints some analysis from always a suspect source, Politico that says:
Is this strange speculation before a midterm election?
Which raises my strange question: Has Steny Hoyer been sandbagging Nancy Pelosi because he wants to be Speaker? And is willing to lose the House in order to get that position?
There is something other than cowardice going on in the Democrats feckless cowering on issues. Why do they so blatantly want to lose in November? Case in point: it is likely that the House Democrats will push to maintain the tax cuts for those with incomes over $250K.
Just posted that on my Facebook.
Obama better get his veto-pen ready…
You expect courage at this late date? He won’t veto and he will use keeping the middle class cuts as an excuse.
Personally, I have half the income that I had when the tax cuts were enacted and I still don’t think I’ll miss them if they go.
Has Steny Hoyer been sandbagging Nancy Pelosi because he wants to be Speaker?
Duh!!! Why do you think Rahm left? Because Steny would become Speaker before he would. Rahm had two dreams. Mayor of Chicago and be the first Jewish Speaker. The second isn’t going to happen anytime soon, if ever. Hopefully the people of Chicago will make sure the first doesn’t happen. Steny has been sandbagging Pelosi ever since she became Speaker. Why do you think she wanted Murtha as House Majority Leader. I do have a question though. If we lose enough seats in the House, why would the Democrats want any of the present leadership?
I disagree about Rahm as Mayor of Chicago. He is temperamentally better suited to that than to Congress. The job of a mayor is to keep the services going and the taxpayers happy with what they are getting in services as compared to the amount of their taxes. Rahm as mayor for life would give him something useful to do and keep him out of national politics.