At 3 o’clock this afternoon the Senate rejected an effort on a motion to proceed to a vote on the Rebuild America Jobs Act, which would have provided money to rebuild America’s infrastructure. Don’t get me wrong. A majority of the Senate voted in favor of proceeding to a vote on the bill. But that’s not good enough in our constitutional system. We needed 60 senators out of 100 to agree. We got a mere fifty-one. Here’s what the president had to say in response to the Senate’s intransigence.
For the third time in recent weeks, every single Republican in the United States Senate has chosen to obstruct a jobs bill that independent economists said would boost our economy and put Americans back to work. At a time when more than a million construction workers are looking for a job, they voted “no” to putting them back to work doing the work America needs done – rebuilding our roads, bridges, airports and transit systems. That makes no sense.
It makes no sense when you consider that this bill was made up of the same kinds of common-sense proposals that many of these Senators have fought for in the past. It was fully paid for. And even though it was supported by more than 70 percent of the American people – Republicans, Democrats, and independents – 100 percent of Senate Republicans said no. It’s more clear than ever that Republicans in Washington are out of touch with Americans from all ends of the political spectrum.
The American people deserve to know why their Republican representatives in Washington refuse to put some of the workers hit hardest by the economic downturn back on the job rebuilding America. They deserve an explanation as to why Republicans refuse to step up to the plate and do what’s necessary to create jobs and grow the economy right now. It’s time for Republicans in Congress to put country ahead of party and listen to the people they were elected to serve. It’s time for them to do their job and focus on Americans’ jobs. And until they do, I will continue to do everything in my power to move this country forward.
I met an old friend and a committed progressive activist in Philly tonight to catch up and talk about a few things. She’s more in the thick of things than I am, especially with the progressive groups who work hard each day to move this country in a better direction. There is a kind of culture within the progressive left, particularly among the college-educated urban white community, that is profoundly disappointed in the Obama administration. But it isn’t completely unself-aware. It’s kind of like a feeling that progressives were a little naive. They should have known better than to think that progressive outcomes could be produced in a system so awash in corporate money and influence. And then there is this strange tension between a basic sympathy for the Occupy Movement on the one hand, and a feeling that it is rudderless on the other. For people who are committed to progressive politics and actually dedicate their lives to it, there’s a disconnect with a movement that kind of rejects the whole concept of the legislative process. It’s like “okay, this venting is understandable under the circumstances and it might even be doing some good, but when can we get back to discussing something concrete?”
It was an encouraging conversation for me because it kind of showed me that even some of the organizations that have been a little too critical for my tastes are beginning to reevaluate their own assumptions about what is possible and to make more accurate assignations of blame for where we are as a country. And, at the same time, there’s an appropriate concern that the Occupy Movement could splinter the left and leave it weakened in an election season.
We’re actually in a bind. As the president’s comments make clear, we just can’t get anything done in Congress and the American people deserve an explanation for why we’ve reached this point. But the answer is that the system is broken, and fixing it is a bit more complicated than just electing a bunch of Democrats. People who are still trying to work within the system are hard-put to explain how they can be successful, which is why increasingly we are seeing people embrace the Occupy Movement.
Yet, to the degree that the Occupy Movement rejects the legislative process, it makes matters even more difficult. How do we motivate people to go to the polls if they’re rejecting the system as a whole?
And, what we have to keep ever-present in our minds is that this kind of Hobson’s Choice is part of the design of Mitch McConnell’s strategy of total obstruction. If he can break government and make us give up on it, he can divide the left and make it feed on itself.
Forget about the depressing spectacle of progressive groups trying to figure out how to benefit from or co-opt the Occupy Movement. What people are trying to do is ward off catastrophe. Are we self-aware enough to realize how we’re being manipulated? Are we mere puppets on Mitch McConnell’s string, or are we smart enough to understand that we have two simultaneous fights on our hands? We have to reelect a Democratic president and we have to fight the systemic problems in our system that make progressive outcomes impossible.
Tonight I am more optimistic that progressives actually do get this. But I still think it’s a gargantuan challenge that too many do not understand.
I think the sweet spot where Obama and OWS meets is institutional reform. As I’ve said before, I’m shocked and disappointed that Obama didn’t pursue institutional reform (by that I mean changing, even in small ways, our existing flawed electoral, political and financial institutions) even though he ran on “change” as his mantra in 2008. But I think if he says this time, “I agree, let’s change our institutions, let’s reform the system so it works better for regular Americans. Let’s have that dialogue on how to practically do that,” I think that opens the possibility for OWS to play a constructive role in Obama’s reelection. Ultimately I think(or hope) that’s where OWS is evolving to, ie we don’t want a financial transaction tax, we want political and economic institutions that allow a financial transaction tax to be possible. What Obama needs to do is position himself in the same place.
This isn’t a zero sum game.
We’ve known for years that the system is broken. And there have been many discussions on the interwebz (and this blog in particular) over whether or not the best place to change that is through the system, or outside it.
But people get far too caught up in the minutiae of that argument to realize that the only way real change is going to happen is from both sides. You hold one front while attacking the other.
In my eyes, the advantage the left has over the right is that we CAN walk and chew gum at the same time. We just need to start doing it together, and not yelling at the other walkers or gum chewers about how wrong they’re doing it.
I finally made an account to thank you for this comment.
While I do genuinely appreciate this blog, I get so aggravated at the amount of energy spent yelling at or worrying about people who have a different perspective on the best strategy for changing things for the better in this country.
I could rant for a while on why I disagree with the focus on the national legislative and electoral process at the expense of state and local, where so much more is possible. I could explain why its frustrating to see a natural ally describe the Occupy movements as “venting,” and why occupations are arguably a more rational and effective tactic than working within the system that we have today, as opposed to the one in the civics books.
But that’s the problem. You may think I’m wasting time and energy, and vice versa, but all of these approaches will be necessary if we’re really committed to fixing the systemic problems we face.
So time to stop wasting energy bitching about why people we generally agree with are “doing it wrong.”
As far back as Sept 2009 I posted a diary on dailykos that laid out the method to the GOp’s obstuctionism that at the time did not garner much response. I filed away in my mind a statement that Pete Sessions made in shortly after inauguration in February 2009 that the REpugs were going to adopt the Taliban insurgency playbook to get back into power. Many dismissed it at the time, but things have played out that playbook to a T.
Their attacks all this while on Pres. Obama have really been about driving us out of the public square, to penalize us for having the audacity to vote for Obama, to nip in the bud any hope we had of re-making America in a multicultural progressive image. They expect us to scream in despair then LEAVE the realm of politics to them and their plutocratic puppeteers. And if we don’t run out on our own, they have the remedy for that; Suppress our votes, steal our votes. Heck whatever it takes to make us rue the day we voted against the established order, they have done it.
What OWS and the despair we feel about the political gridlock, has shown is that we need to construct some structural assets comprising myriad think tanks, sustained roster of unabashedly liberal pundits, intellectual message generating paddocks, as well as reliable media platforms that amplify progressive worldviews and turn them into DEFAULT conventional wisdom that the American populace automatically reaches for to explain their events to them. We don’t have that, Repugs do. It is the reason they can be so brazen. They have assists all over the place.
We need to construct some assets that don’t depend on a DC address or large quantities of money to survive.
When are you gonna “reevaluate” your own assumptions about Barack Obama’s performance?
Do you deny that if Hillary Clinton had been elected in 2008 and done EVERYTHING Barack Obama has done you’d have been excoriating her for being a Democrat-in-name-only?
Obama has weakened the left far more than a bunch of demonstrators ever could.
Ed J, speaking not for Booman and just for myself, if Hillary Clinton had been the Democratic nominee I would have (gladly) voted for her in November 2008 (even though I didn’t vote for her earlier in the year).
In addition, if she’d done everything Obama has done, I think I’d feel about her the way I feel about him: given the challenges and obstacles faced, it’s been a pretty impressive presidency so far—despite the many disagreements I have with the president.
I imagine Hillary would have governed much as Obama has, although I doubt she would have passed extensive HCR and I suspect she would have been more hawkish internationally. The reality is that either of them would have to work with a Congress to get anything done, and she would have had to “center” policies in order to get conservaDem votes in the same way – and used similar rhetoric to keep them from bolting.
A Democratic President’s policies will be only as progressive as that 60th vote in the Senate. And yes, I do think that Clinton would have been much more “hawkish” with foreign policy. She did, after all, vote for the Iraq war and for the resolution regarding military action against Iran.
When are you gonna “reevaluate” your own assumptions about Barack Obama’s performance?
When you invent a time machine so that the largest body of progressive legislation in 45 years didn’t get passed during the first two years of his first term.
Obama has weakened the left far more than a bunch of demonstrators ever could.
You can tell, because he has higher approval ratings among liberals than any other recent Democratic president at this point.
You don’t speak for the left. Stop pretending you do.
Boo, have you been to Zuccotti Park yet? Because nothing else (especially not walking around Dilworth Plaza) will give you the information that you need to assess what’s really going on there.
Yes, even if we assign blame to the system and not to Obama personally, we’re essentially saying that the system is broken and that transformative change to the left is impossible even in a moment of crisis. But OWS doesn’t create that conclusion. It’s the only answer to it that doesn’t keep us stuck rehashing the question of whether Obama has personally betrayed us or not (a question that is really the last gasp of a liberal’s faith in electoral politics).
Another way to look at it is through an analogy with journalism. The liberal media was serving us tolerably well up to a point and had the resources to do the kind of “concrete” investigative journalism that could change things. But it was undemocratic, and would never ask the kinds of questions that could only be asked by forums not beholden to corporate interests and dependent on access. Hence, blogs like yours. So we can ask: Are you self-aware that criticizing the NYTimes from the left leads to liberals throwing up their hands on the established media and ceding its control to conservatives? Are you being manipulated by Bill Kristol and the ghost of William F. Buckley?
Or one last way: what would need to happen, what would our government need to do or not do, to make you give up on trying to work directly through the legislative process or solely within the Democratic party?
blue moon, I think Jesse Jackson’s comments at the AFL-CIO/King Center conference on Jobs, Justice and the American Dream earlier this year are appropriate as a partial answer to your closing question:
“In 1960 Martin Luther King supported Kennedy instead of Nixon to prevent America from going backwards.
Then he marched in the streets of Birmingham to pass the Civil Rights Act to move the nation ahead.
In 1964 Martin Luther King supported Johnson instead of Goldwater to prevent America from going backwards.
Then he marched in Selma to pass the Voting Rights Act
to move the nation ahead.
For Dr. King there was no conflict between voting strategically to prevent the triumph of reaction and leading a nonviolent mass movement to pressure a president to achieve profound social change.
When we in the movement struggled for social justice we helped weak presidents become stronger.
When we in the movement struggled for social justice we helped good presidents become great.
Well said. It’s just that marching in Selma could have been seen then as threatening to undermine the Democratic party and its electoral prospects in the same way as OWS is sometimes feared to be now. Retrospectively, we might say that at least the civil rights movement wasn’t leaderless, but I don’t think that gave so many people comfort back then.
Both movements are actually threats to the Democratic establishment. In form, OWS may be leaderless and less legislatively oriented, but its radical nature is familiar.
Marching in Selma did undermine the Democratic Party in the South. And Lyndon Johnson knew it and knew that pushing the voting rights act would split the Democratic party more. (Strom Thurmond defected in early 1965).
The civil rights movement was not leaderless; it had definite leaders with definite ideas and who brought people into the consensus to act. And that was where it was vulnerable to internal splits (Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, John Lewis and Stokely Carmichael) and to assassination.
Occupy Wall Street has the determination to remain nonviolent, drug and alcohol free, leaderless, non-partisan, non-ideological, and fighting any attempts to co-opt the large number of people the movement intends to mobilize.
Well, it is as you said earlier this week (last week). The legislative route isn’t working. And in fact, when we try to make consequences for democrats through primaries, progressives often get shouted down (like when Blanche Lincoln was primaried) or blocked (like when the democrats fumbled the 2010 PA elections). So it’s no surprise to see people give up.
the problem is, if the left refuses to play the game, the right automatically wins. It’s a vicious circle.
Why should all of the left be required to do one thing? It is possible to continue to build grassroots campaigns for electoral candidates in anticipation of a massive public awareness and shift in political culture. It is also possible to try to change the political culture fundamentally. And it is possible to sit on the sidelines being the skeptic and temperature checkers, saying “This doesn’t quite move me to vote or participate yet.”
I don’t think anyone right now has a clear idea of how to get out of this mess. Yes, the system is broken right now. The optimists are figuring that electoral politics will fix it. The pessimists say nothing will fix it and the two-hundred-twenty-five-year-old scam about American democracy will continue, and fighting it will kill you.
People are making choices in an environment of high uncertainty. It’s time to be a little more generous regarding other folks’ choices made in the clear understanding that the system is broken.
Folks who don’t understand that the system is broken are a different matter.
There is also a culture within the experienced left, particularly among those who went through the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War Movements, that is profoundly befuddled by and disappointed in the short sightedness of the self-deluded “progressive” left, educated(?), urban white community.
Despite enormous success against an incredible right wing inspired tide, joined by enough Dems to thwart many of his efforts, significant progress has been and continues to be made on many, many fronts. Progress doesn’t mean reaching the end one step after the beginning. It means moving things step by step; making some progress, then making a little more.
The problem is that the modern day “progressive” grew up in an era when everything came easily to them. They got new, not used, cars. They had TV in their room, with cable so they could watch MTV without disturbing the rest of the family. They got the latest video game device when it was first introduced. And on and on and on and on.
So they expect instant gratification in the world of politics. It doesn’t work that way and you almost never get what you want when you want it. So you can either go off in a corner and pout, which seems to be the preferred behavior of modern “progressives” or you can look at the fact that you got something. More than you had before and then try to move on to get even more.
Would that they finally could understand that.
There is not a generational division in the progressive left. There is a tendency among some older progressives to also go off to a corner and pout. For all ages, the division now are those who are still engaged in electoral politics, those who are engaged in the Occupy movement, and those who are sitting in the corner and pouting. And that is as much a matter of tactical temperament as anything else–what actions they feel in their guts make sense.
I just want to echo Tarheel Dem’s insight that this is not a generational divide. I know plenty “children of the 1960s” (meaning they’re now in their 50s, 60s and 70s) who fall into that third category.
Thirded.
The idea that people who marched against the Vietnam War are arrayed against the pouters is not true at all.
thanks for this post, Boo
That is exactly the problem that the Occupy movement intends to solve, but it’s complicated and takes discussion. Meanwhile, there are certain common areas of protest. The domination of politics by money and its root in the Supreme Court’s treating corporations as more privileged than living, breathing human beings. The evidence of the impunity of corporate officers to the widespread fraud that brought down the financial system in 2008 and required a bailout. The refusal of the financial sector to repay the taxpayers for their generosity by changing their ways and restarting the economy.
Where the established activists see rudderless action and lack of a legislative process, what is going on is a grassroots deliberative process that has reached areas currently dominated by FoxNews thinking. A legislative process is a deliberative process among representatives claiming to represent a consensus of the people. The general assembly process is exposing Congress’s claim to represent a consensus on priorities as a lie. But to determine what to do requires a fairly technical conversation about the problems. Which is why general assemblies set up a series of teach-ins.
And in case you haven’t noticed, the general assemblies have been fighting for the free space in which to convene have an open conversation and a continuing program of teach-ins and practical activities. And they are scheduling general assemblies so that people who work and are not residing at the camp can attend. Over half of the Occupy movement locations are not 24/7 encampments yet.
What established political activists really want is to co-opt a movement and shove the rudder in their direction whether the public is on board or not. The general assemblies are facilitated so that no one group or individual can dominate its discussion. That means that decision-making about goals and objectives take time and that progressives or anyone else are not going to be able to short-circuit the process to predetermined conclusions in the name of speeding up the process. General assemblies that have gone down that road have had to recover from a loss of interest and attendance.
But until the public has had a conversation outside the sphere of the media information bubble, there won’t be realistic things to demand of the city councils, county commissions, state legislatures, and Congress that work in the name of the public. And without breaking the hold that media has on politics — and that is what justifies politicians taking large sums of money for themselves — there will not be the ability of voters to make informed decisions about voting. General assemblies also have the advantages of getting folks away from the media environment and considering some other ideas and frames on issues, indeed learning about how to frame issues themselves.
Progressives who complain about the Occupy movement do not themselves have a plan for communicating progressive ideas outside of the same old progressive geography. In a general assembly, progressive ideas contend on a level playing field with other ideas and they are focused not on philosophical abstractions (a fact that drives a lot of Marxists crazy in participating in the Occupy movement) but on what is going on and what needs to be done — practical solutions. Starting with what can the Occupy movement do directly and now on the issues.
If you look at where the Occupy movement is at the moment, their single demand right now is “Stop doing business as usual. Just stop. And reflect.”
The Occupy movement is going to take a while if it is to be successful. There might not be any consequences from it on the 2012 elections nationally. And that’s what’s scaring the bejeepers out of progressive activists. The complete unpredictability of where this movement is going.
The best action that progressive activists can take is to participate, participate honestly, knowing that the general assembly process is a frustrating one for everyone. But it is so far the best hope for increasing the numbers of informed citizens and revitalizing the labor movement grassroots. It is ending the isolation of folks who have been having to nod their head at nonsense because of the social and media pressure. You see this more clearly in the Occupy general assemblies outside the progressive strongholds.
Really thoughtful comment as usual. Hope you don’t mind that I forwarded this along to some liberal/progressive friends who have been expressing confusion and/or concern about what the Occupy movements are all about, giving you credit of course.
The only way to begin to solve this seemingly intractable problem is to elect a Democrat to congress from your district.
We can see with a Repub house and a Senate with 47 Repubs, we have divided government.
I would hope that with a Dem controlled Congress, some serious progress could/would be made.
Re-instate Glass-Steagall, pass Sen Udall’s constitutional amendment, enact a tax on all Wall St transactions, raise taxes on those making more than $1 mil, raise it even higher on those making more than $5 mil, remove loopholes so all corporations pay income taxes.
I am not as interested in a supposed “deficit” as I am in getting corporate money out of political/election system.
I have a Democratic representative in my district. He is one of sixty who signed a letter advocating cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Until 2008, folks elected him as the progressive Democrat.
What has changed to make a guy who refused George W. Bush’s cuts in Social Security and Medicare to suddenly reverse course?
Money. Check his FEC filings. Whose payroll is he on?
Read a story yesterday at Federal Soup how Senate Democrats have offered a bi-partisan plan to gut the Postal Service and screw the union employees.
With friends like these…
A plague on both their houses!
I have and that’s why I raised that question of Chief.
I keep thinking about the piece written by the now-retired 30 year Republican operative. He talked about how the Republican strategy has been to sabotage government such that people lose faith in the institution. Republicans then run against the government.
Then I hear people like Michael Moore and others at OWS justify not voting or make pronouncements about why it is principled to not vote or make demands and I can’t help but worry about how this will help Republicans in 2012.
Meanwhile, I and others in Maine are working to pass a Citizens Initiative that would repeal the voting law passed by Republicans that would disenfranchise thousands of voters. Our biggest obstacle is the apathy and the “I’m disappointed in Obama so I won’t help or vote” from the left. Seems to me like they have fallen for the Republican rope a dope and are helping the Republicans and the corporations they profess to be opposing.
The most effective action so far on the part of OWS has been getting BofA and other banks to decide not to implement the ATM user fees. What worked was a good, old-fashioned boycott–the same tactic that has been employed by those of us who have used our power to change the system (what Booman called working within the system.
Occupy Wall Street movement general assemblies ally with folks working for change. The requirement is that you turn out people to participate in the general assembly and make the argument about how your tactic advances the overall movement. And how it isn’t an end in itself but a tactic in the struggle. Finally it’s a request for one-time action together, not an attempt to co-opt the movement into a particular ideology or partisan electoral campaign.
Add to their numbers and they will add to the number you have available for your action.
But the idea that just applying the normal tactics of legislative pressure through phone, writing, and visiting campaign will not fly with most general assemblies because they’ve tried that. And the failure of that in the current political culture is part of the point of direct action.
My litmus test for knowing you are in a progressive stronghold is the apathy and thinking that Obama is the sole problem. Those attitudes also tell me that it is a predominately white community with little understanding of the complexity of African-Americans’ and Hispanics’ approach to politics.
I live in an area where more than 400 languages are spoken.
It is interesting to me that you would bring up race–since I am hearing some frightening things from my friends about how they have been treated by the predominantly white males who dominate OWS general assemblies.
Yes, that the way that a lot of general assemblies have started — until women and people of color pushed back. In NYC, they created a few committees to allow folks the confidence to push back and make the arguments about white privilege that have to be made.
The dominating of the process by white males is a perennial issue on the left. When it has been confronted honestly and worked through a lot of the “putting on the style” aspects start to disappear. This is a process that happens quickly in red state areas. Occupy Atlanta faced it within the first two general assemblies and worked through it. But it is a problem in areas that have remained progressive strongholds since the sixties or before and who reliably vote for progressive candidates.
Gather strength and push back. It is, after all a consensus method.
Short version. If that’s the way the general assembly is operating, it needs to be broadened. Otherwise it gets co-opted by some folks with fantasies of 1848.
I am talking about currently–just a few days ago. I don’t think the General Assembly at Occupy Wall Street is as inclusive as some of the participants think.
It’s a work in progress that is subject to the distractions of eviction. If they haven’t gotten to the inclusiveness that folks want, the same struggle that raised itself early on continues.
My point was that it takes engagement and participation in order to open the doors to inclusion.
There are Occupy Wall Street sites that are having a similar struggle with how to deal with the homeless whose space they are occupying.
The one negative impression that I got at OWS from a protester was a woman who brought a proposal before the General Assembly to limit to 1 the number of white males who could address the media together. At this General Assembly, the facilitator was a black woman and the black woman making the proposal had been there only one day. It seemed to me that there was no difficulty in non-white males accessing positions of influence and visibility. But the statements that the woman was making in presenting the proposal — that we should not discuss it but just decide, that you’d have to be a white male not to support it — were suffused with racism and rationalizations of power.
The best line of the Assembly was spoken by a black man who had been quiet for a long time: “I cannot believe, I cannot believe, I cannot believe, that in this generation, people care about the messenger instead of the message.”
The proposal was defeated.
In some respects, the important thing is not what happens in New York City but what happens in the small towns and neighborhoods across the country.
And you and your friends and neighbors can create your own and link to the overall movement.
Quick guide on group dynamics in the peoples assemblies is the facilitation guide. It’s a different idea that most traditional meeting formats in that the job of the facilitator is to make sure that everyone’s voice is included and that the assembly eventually comes to consensus on the issue at hand.
I’m one of the people who have given up on the political process, but it’s not because of the Senate’s supermajority rules. In fact, I think we are going to need those rules starting in 2013 as the only roadblock to the Tea Party agenda.
I have been saying since October 2010 that the 2010 elections were the most important elections of my lifetime, and the last elections to matter. When the Tea Party took power in Wisconsin after the 2010 elections, they immediately set the state back 100 years with sweeping legislation erasing a century-old progressive legacy.
I don’t see the point in voting anymore. Why should I? If I did vote, I have no confidence that my vote would even be counted anymore in Wisconsin. And if it were counted, I don’t believe it would change anything. Because the Tea Party got to draw the map, they can never be dislodged from controlling the legislature. And if somehow the Democrats did win back control of the state government, I am so disheartened by the party that I don’t believe they would take any significant actions to bring Wisconsin back to its progressive roots. The Democrats are just as tied into corporate money as the Republicans.
So, I’m just sitting on the sidelines. Ultimately, I think the program should be a two-state solution. Liberals will leave states like Wisconsin, where their votes don’t count (perhaps literally) and move to blue states, make them more bluer, and pass progressive legislation on the state level. When that legislation is repeatedly contravened by the Congress or the Supreme Court, the stage will be set for secession. But that’s a long way down the road.
Sometimes despair is the most appropriate response.
Secession is such a tempting out. The problem with that strategy is that there is not state that can remain a blue state in the current media environment. And it is the media environment and gerrymandering that are denying the public its legitimate power. And that is where the money is going, to institutionalize those arrangements.
Buying the red state-blue state argument was one of the worst mistakes Democratic strategists did. I allowed Republicans a free ride on their own turf and put all of the contested areas on Democratic turf. Howard Dean tried to shake Democrats of that mindset, but once his strategy won, he was shown the door.
What happened in Wisconsin and elsewhere is that voters were lied to in ads and the media never bothered to correct those lies. The Tea Party Republicans never were about protecting Medicare nor were Democrats (until the SuperCommittee) about cutting Medicare.
That sorry state of affairs continues until ordinary people turn off the TV, talk to each other, and start figuring out what is really going on instead of what the media tells them is going on.
If Wisconsin, the cradle of the progressive movement, is lost then it is not long before California, Oregon, Washington, New York, and Massachusetts follow. Then there might not be any states to have a two-state solution.
Well, voters were certainly lied to in 2010, but the odd thing is that once they found out that they were lied to, they didn’t seem to care. Wisconsin voters had several opportunities to register opposition to the liars, and failed to do so, in the state Supreme Court case and the state senate recall races.
I don’t think the red state/blue state divide is a false dichotomy. I think it reflects a real division in the American psyche. Of course, it doesn’t have to translate into a Democratic/Republican divide if the parties become more ideologically diffuse, but I never understood the point in getting behind candidates who were going to vote against all the things I believed in just because they happened to be Democrats.
What’s the expression in Wisconsin? “Close enough for Waukesha County to steal”.
Probably should be
Wisconsin voters had several opportunities to register opposition to the liars, and failed to do so, in the state Supreme Court case and the state senate recall races.
What are you talking about? The recalled two Republican Senators, and didn’t lose a single one of their own recalls. They very nearly upset a sitting Supreme Court justice – that never happens.
You’re reading this all wrong. Those are very good signs that the voters are disgusted with Walker, and the Republicans are in real trouble in that state, as they are in Ohio.
I don’t think it’s a glass half empty/half full situation. The glass is simply empty.
Nearly winning an election is the same as losing by a landslide. The 4-3 conservative majority on the court is upheld. And a sitting liberal justice was defeated a few years ago to give the conservatives their majority.
Same deal with the recalls. The Democrats needed to turn three seats. They only turned two. So the GOP majority is down to one seat, but since the party votes as a bloc, that’s enough to do whatever they want.
Everything that the Republicans have done and everything that they will do before the next round of recalls is permanent. None of it can ever be rescinded because the Republicans have drawn the districts in such a way that they are guaranteed of majorities in the legislature. It would take a massive realignment for the Democrats ever to be a player in Wisconsin politics in a meaningful way again.
There’s just nothing to be encouraged about in the situation.
Wait wait wait – after the Democrats in the Senate fled the state, after the protests, after the highly-successful recall elections, you’re giving up on electoral politics NOW?
Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!