The long term success of the Tea Parties is yet to be decided. As the man said, though, in the really long run, we’re all dead. I think it is fair to say that they have, for all of my distaste for them, been quite successful in moving politics to the right and in getting the Republican party to represent their interests.
How did they do it? I would argue that they created a serious threat to incumbent Republicans that compelled them to move to the right or risk losing a primary. They succeeded in removing many moderate Republicans, at many levels of government, and more, they succeeded in pushing Republicans who held their seats to more conservative positions. The blogosphere made a great deal of noise about races where Tea Party-approved candidates ended up splitting the vote and giving races to Democrats, but these were notable in large part because they were so rare. There are far, far more sitting candidates that have been pushed to the right than those who lost safe Republican seats due to primary challenges. Note too that even if right wing protest candidates don’t unseat sitting Republicans, the threat inevitably moves the candidate to the right, particularly in Congressional races and others where terms are quite short.
This, I want to put to you, is a model for how left-wing politics in America could be revitalized. It wouldn’t be easy. We face a hostile media environment, the power of entrenched and moneyed interests, and a lot of structural impediments. But change comes slowly and gradually, and I would point once again to the example of Barry Goldwater and conservatism: both were a joke, and then they weren’t.
You’ll note, too, that this would not just be a benefit to the further left, but also to establishment liberals. Tea Party politics is good for Republicans (in the strictly electoral sense) even when Tea Partiers don’t get exactly what they want. Extremes define the center; the more that the Tea Partiers push to the right, the more conservative Republicans find their positions accepted as mainstream by the media and the public. This could help no one more, I think, than a politician like Barack Obama, who has very moderate views but because of the cultural branding of being black, from Chicago, having a “foreign sounding” name, and being an academic, is constantly represented in the mainstream media as a radical. What we regard as the American political center now is not the same as it was ten years ago and will not be the same ten years from now. The effort to define that center will mean everything for electoral victory for years to come.
I can imagine some complaints or critiques of this theory of political change. But it is, at least, a theory. My question, after reading this blog and how it has evolve in recent months and weeks, is what exactly the alternative theory of political change is.
Let’s set aside all the personal stuff. The invective unleashed around here against left-wing critics of President Obama has been relentless and ugly, in both posts and comments. But let’s stick to structural change. As far as I can divine, the reason many bloggers and commenters around here have been so hostile to left-wing criticism is because they believe that the key for Obama’s victory in 2012 and liberal aims afterwards is for Obama to win the hearts and minds of independents. As much as people may admit (or may not) that legislation like the debt deal are bad for liberalism and the country, the thinking seems to go that it will ultimately be good politics because he demonstrates how reasonable he is. And appearing reasonable, apparently, is the most important thing to independent voters. And independent voters win you elections. That’s the best I can figure it.
There’s a lot wrong there. Probably the most important is that independents don’t actually win elections because there aren’t really that many of them. I can cite you chapter and verse about the myth of the independent voter or the myth of the undecided voter. What’s more, I’m not sure why the world has decided that whatever small number of true independents exist are obsessed about what appears reasonable. Because David Brooks says so? This is the worst kind of Beltwayism, the insistence that whatever the center is between the two parties, no matter how extreme one of them is, represents some sort of ideal of compromise and moderation, and is very popular with the “sensible center.” That this thinking contradicts a vast political science literature about the preeminence of economic determinism in voting hardly needs to be said.
But let’s suppose I even conceded all that, that Obama would be right to pursue the independent vote and that the way to do so was to appear as a sensible, technocratic moderate. It’s never going to happen because the media is not going to permit it. Surely, people who read and write at this blog know that. This blog has been documenting since the early days of his Presidential campaign how he is regarded as a flaming liberal by the media (and not just Fox News) since the early days of his campaign. Surely you all know that he will be painted by his Republican opponent as the Kenyan Marxist anticolonialist, and that the mainstream media will be complicit in that characterization. We’ll get the worst of both worlds: a candidate painted as a liberal extremist without actually enacting the kind of liberal policy platform you’d certainly hope a liberal extremist would attempt. And all of this is to say nothing of the fact that the average American voter is not nearly politically engaged or informed enough to make this complex of a situation in the summer of 2011 define his view of the President in November of 2012.
You can debate the merits of the actual package, although I agree with BJer mistermix that it’s a shit sandwich. You can debate how much choice he had and whether the 14th amendment solution or platinum coin solutions were actually options. But as I read John and a lot of commenters, I’m genuinely unclear what their long term vision here is. When you get past all of the insistence that people like me are just being self-righteous and get to substantive disagreements, the idea is… what? That there’s this big, potentially popular political movement that could be mobilized if only the far left is forsaken? What does all of the verbiage levied against Obama’s left-wing critics accomplish, beyond pushing the debate even more to the right?
People tell liberal critics of Obama all the time: it’s a two party system, and what are you gonna do? Well that goes both ways. It’s a two party system and a country divided by ideology. Obama will always be a liberal Democrat in the eyes of the American people and the media. You either fight for liberal Democratic values and move the center to make things easier on him, or you fight for the center while Republicans fight for the right, and you can guess what happens. Fighting half the time with liberal critics and half the time with conservative ones is no recipe for getting what you want.
Mike Goetz
The invective slung by left-wing critics of Obama and those who support him has been relentless and ugly.
What’s your point?
Freddie deBoer
My point is in the 1,000 word post that you clearly didn’t read.
Maude
The main problem is that reality isn’t pretty and this economy has brought that to the forefront. It is very hard for most of the country to ignore this and so the screaming has begun. It is oh noes, it can’t be like this. There’s a simple Easy solution and if Obama would just…
We are in our own way, working out very difficult problems. At least we are talking about financial problems. This wasn’t done during Bush.
Edit: OO comment fail.
Mike Goetz
Hear that, left-wingers! You get to say anything you want and nobody can say boo! Great gig.
Ron
Criticism from the left is not necessarily bad. Saying Obama is just like the GOP, doesn’t deserve our support, should be primaried, etc. is damaging. It IS a two party system and for all his faults, Obama is still far better than anything the GOP will offer. The tea-party didn’t start at the presidential level, but rather congressional levels. The attempt to primary Blanche Lincoln made sense, even though it didn’t succeed. I’d rather work at that level than wail about how awful Obama is.
Elizabelle
Freddie: lovely to see you here.
But I am “newsing” out this week.
Will join those vaunted “independent swing voters” and stay as low information as I can for a few days.
Promise to read your post and give it a think after. Bookmarked it.
Mike Goetz
Clearly, since the Republicans will call Obama a Kenyan Marxist anyway, the only solution is for liberals to call him a crypto-Reaganite lawn jockey for Wall Street.
Guaranteed to shift politics back to the left.
Judas Escargot
(1) Their demographic is largely retired, independently wealthy and/or self-employed. Lots of free time.
(2) Ample funding from shadowy sources like Dick Armey
(3) A media culture subtly biased towards their interests. (“Both sides do it!” “Cuts increase revenue!”)
(4) A five- or ten-word lie always, always beats the three-paragraph explanation of the truth (esp. given item #3).
There will never be a “Tea Party” for the left. What’s needed is a non-moronic citizenry, and a fact-based MSM.
Not holding my breath for either.
no video at work
I don’t know Freddie, this sounds all firebaggy to me. Shouldn’t we just be happy we don’t have a Republican in the White House? Isn’t it just enough to have very slim majority in the Senate? Some people here are going to be very upset with you because you are not clapping loud enough.
boss bitch
Where is the ‘Obama is obsessed with Independents’ meme coming from? Did he say this or was this manufactured by some liberal blogger and accepted as fact? There are Democrats in the base that like all that fiscal responsibility talk. There are Democrats in the base that believe in compromise.
I’m often “hostile” to left wing criticism because it is often misleading, a flat out lie or devoid of reality.
Tuttle
Hey Mike, send up a flare when you get near a cogent point.
trollhattan
Vis the ’12 election (which is waaaaay off and not callable in any sense) I ask: what are the odds the Republicans won’t nominate a True Believer? The election may be theirs for “the taking” but their bus is being driven by nitwits and mouthbreathers.
Tea party this, tea party that, if it weren’t for the tea party we’d have a Republican majority in the Senate. Yes, the Dems can screw the pooch through infighting but the Republicans have really pissed off Wall Street and I wonder whether their machine will be intact next fall?
gogol's wife
The strong feeling I get from some on the far left is that they actually admire the Tea Party and would like to emulate it. That scares me. The Tea Party is not a phenomenon to be imitated in any way.
WereBear
Well, what does make people vote for Bush in 2000 and Obama in 2008? Who are they and what makes them “swing”?
dan
this mike goetz guy seems like a clown – im with you freddie….
A very important question to ask at this time is, what would the reaction of people on this site (and “liberals” in general) have been to a Republican cutting discretionary spending like Barry and the O’s just did?
Just another day in ” if my guy does it, its ok – if the “other” guy does it, its bad…” – Go team go….
JGabriel
Freddie deBoer @ Top:
For the time being, though I’m not sure the Tea Party’s “success” can be measured or determined yet.
The Tea Party Republicans used a lot of marketing and hype to get their candidates elected in 2010, 87 GOP freshmen in the House. That’s a successful marketing campaign — for a really shitty movie.
If the Tea Party Republicans get their guys re-elected — and make more gains — in the next election, then, yes, they’ve successfully moved the country to the right.
But I don’t think that’s going to happen. The Tea Party Republicans feel like one of those movies that opens big the first weekend and takes a dive the next, because the people who saw it warned everyone else away.
.
The Moar You Know
Won’t happen.
Democrats are ashamed of their liberal values and their progressive history, and run from it every time.
They are also utterly unwilling to do what it takes to win.
Advantage: Teahadis.
Maude
@boss bitch:
This is from he betrayed HIS BASE.
And who knows where else.
Lolis
So Obama supporters have prevented the left from moving the debate to the left? How so?
It seems to me it is the very liberal people who have failed to boost their numbers or influence both in the population and in Congress. I say that as a very liberal person who did vote Nader in 2000. I thought the Green Party had a chance to make this country more progressive. They failed and failed miserably.
Obviously nobody has a winning paradigm that can magically solve all of our problems. I fail to see how calling Obama a sell-out, a homophobe, a closet Republican or all the other things that have been said helps the liberal agenda in any way.
maye
If Obama would promote policies that help the economy and bring down unemployment, he wouldn’t have to worry about the independent voter. At this stage of the game, I don’t know what his economic philosophy is. He has adopted anti-keynesian rhetoric, but what new ideas (or old ideas) does he currently think will help move the economy out of its stagnant grind? Can you answer that for me?
AlphaLiberal
This is a fine model. We need to organize and support progressive candidates.
As far as Obama, he has really disappointed as of late. We need to pressure him, as well. After all, if he had listened to liberals on jobs, the economy, jobs, the country and his re-election chances would be in much better state today.
Also, liberals were right on Iraq and much else.
boss bitch
neither is constantly tearing down Obama or Democrats and making no attempts whatsoever in challenging Republicans or the Tea Party on their turf. Lately any article criticizing Repubs always seem to end up blaming Obama? How do you get what you want when you think like that?
Ron
@dan: I don’t know anyone who thinks the result of the debt ceiling deal is “good”. But the idea that it’s “Obama” doing all this is disingenuous at best. You do know that the House would have to pass any bill,right?
tweez
OK, I think most of us agree that the budget we got is gonna tank the economy for the next 18 months at least. This means Obama is gonna lose in 2012 unless the Republicans nominate someone totally INSANE. Are y’all with me so far? (yeah, I know prob’ly not, but what can I do?)
The mood around here seems to be that there’s NOTHING Obama, himself, the man could have actually done to have made things work out for the better. My question would be then, at what point did all this become inevitable? Was it election day in 2010? When Scott Brown won in MA? Death panel summer? Was there ever a time after the President was sworn in when something could have been done to prevent this disaster of a budget from passing?
Steve
The same strategy works in theory, but there are a lot more conservatives than there are liberals. The number of districts where entrenched Democrats have good cause to fear a progressive challenge is a lot smaller than the corresponding number on the right, and in urban districts the hill is sometimes steeper because of an entrenched machine.
The greatest liberal accomplishments in the history of this country have been enacted through coalition politics (New Deal, Great Society) and that still seems like a pretty successful model to me. If liberals can join hands with a bunch of racist Dixiecrats to pass social safety net legislation, they ought to be willing to break bread with today’s Blue Dogs. And the Dixiecrats didn’t vote for the New Deal because they were terrified of liberal challengers, as far as I know.
Stillwater
Can’t speak for the rest of em, but re: visions, short and long, I think the answer is this: in the short term, keep as many levers of power out the GOP hands as possible. That means voting – and supporting! – our imperfect Democratic party. One way to ensure the opposite is to continually criticize democrats for not being more liberal/lefty. And this criticism is especially ridiculous given that it’s Democratic voters themselves who determine the Democratic caucus.
More to the point, I guess, is that I wouldn’t necessarily oppose a FireParty to drag things back to the left. But if they act when they’re in power like they act when they’re out of power, I’m not sure the medicine would provide the cure.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Actually, the reason I am hostile to left-wing criticism is I hear very little of it take into account that the Republicans control the House, and that things rarely change in one giant leap. When Obama makes a significant change – ACA – that doesn’t go all the way, there’s very little of “We made it this far. Now lets continue.” It’s mostly “We didn’t get the big stuff.”
ornery curmudgeon
Umm. The “Tea Party” is a corporate creation, initiated by CNBC news editor Rick Santelli from floor of the Chicago Exchange.
Corporate power creating a thug authoritarian movement to do its bidding is the essence of fascism (ie, corporatism) … there really is no need to gyrate to and fro wondering o wondering what is going on, how they grew, etc.
I know, I know, this was a waste to even mention, for it won’t instruct or give pause to anyone who has been watching the mysterious ‘rise’ of the Tea Party, watched the fluffing by the corporate media day in and day out, and STILL cannot figure it out.
penpen
Freddie don’t the hippie punchers round here only really object to proposed “liberal” tactics that have the practical effect of increasing the odds of a Republican presidency/Congress, aka disastrous real life consequences? Don’t tell me you buy into the “we need to let it all burn to start over new” approach to governance…
Jim C.
This is the best post I’ve seen in months on this site.
And I generally LIKE this site. Very well written and argued Freddie.
cintibud
To be like the Tea party we would need to start at the local level. Remember, before teabaggers were called teabaggers, they were taking over school boards, city councils, state houses. Trying to start on the national level only ensures future Bush/Gore fiascoes.
agrippa
First of all, the ‘tea party’ is not new. It is a faction that has existed for a very long time. The ‘tea party’ is a new name for it.
The GOP owns that problem.
The question hanging fire:
Will the ‘left’ continue to do what most lefts in most places have done from the very start of the left – fight amoung themselves, with their feuds, rifts and splitting – or
Will they recognize the true opponent and engage that one, instead of some imaginary adversary on their own side?
“The enemy is that way, son.”
Which will it be?
We will know in Nov 2012.
Mike Goetz
There is a big, potentially popular political movement that could be mobilized if only the far left is forsaken: 80% of the Democrats, 10% independents, and the 5% or so of Republicans who are responsible adults. Otherwise known as the Obama coalition.
penpen
@Judas Escargot: Pretty much all of this.
Davis X. Machina
This is like C.C. Sabathia putting me on a diet.
Samara Morgan
@Freddie deBoer: a thousand word pile of steaming libertarian bulshytt.
im not reading it either.
:)
Freddie, the GOP is 99% white (non-hispanic cauc) conservative christian. It has become a religious party with medieval ensoulment as part of the official party platform, and enforces an ideological straight-jacket on prospective candidates.
The Tea Party represents the fundamentalist wing of the conservative movement, with a strong current of nativism, anti-immigrant and protestant anti-intellectualism.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
You have just described Claire McCaskill.
And short of the Repups repeating 1964 by nominating a complete kook, Claire will lose next year precisely because she buys into the myth of the independent voter.
There are only 7.89 of them here in Misery. She’s losing Dems like Blanche Lincoln in her zeal to get those 7.89 votes.
Stillwater
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage: Claire will lose next year precisely because she buys into the myth of the independent voter.
It could also be that she accepts the policies she voted for, as well, and that she is actually accurately representing her constituency with her votes.
FlipYrWhig
Bring on the primary challenges. Also, don’t bitch, whine, and moan when those primary challenges lose because it turns out that the voters like the suckier, more “moderate” and “corporate” candidate better anyway.
Sure, maybe it’s that. Maybe it’s unreflective fealty to a Dear Leader who ought never be questioned. Or maybe the hostility arises from at least a dozen years of pent-up annoyance about the persistence of the idea that Being More Liberal galvanizes The Base and thus is an obvious electoral winner, even though there aren’t that many liberals, and even though there are lots of Democratic “centrists” who vote for Democrats, whether we like that or not.
Mike Goetz
@Samara Morgan:
Thank you! I think we agreed about the merits of the debt ceiling deal too in previous threads. Same wavelength – should I be worried?
Loviatar
Thank you Freddie, finally a front pager that comes out and says what the liberals and progressives have been saying all along.
As far as your fellow front pagers, of the more active; I get the impression Doug and mistermix might agree with you, but they won’t come out and say it in so many words. ABL is a lost cause Obot and is unreachable with sensible conversation. John policy outlook may have changed, but his political mores are still Republican (authoritarian) so he doesn’t handle challenges well. I think he knows Obama has really screwed the pooch, but he can’t handle the challenge to the chosen one.
Obots you may not admire the Tea Baggers policies, but you have to admire their politics. For all the sneering at the size of their constituency, for all the denigration of their “astroturfed” creation, they’ve accomplished more in their short existence than you realist, centrist, moderates have accomplished in your entire time running the Democratic party.
.
Great post Freddie, now wait for the slagging.
Freddie deBoer
“Can’t speak for the rest of em, but re: visions, short and long, I think the answer is this: in the short term, keep as many levers of power out the GOP hands as possible. That means voting – and supporting! – our imperfect Democratic party.”
I’m with you here.
“One way to ensure the opposite is to continually criticize democrats for not being more liberal/lefty. And this criticism is especially ridiculous given that it’s Democratic voters themselves who determine the Democratic caucus.”
Here I’m not. Again, I think it’s demonstrably the case that the media will call Obama a socialist no matter what. I think it’s wishful thinking to imagine that many people disinclined to vote for him can be compelled by playing to the (again, statistically small) center. Liberals, despite what you keep hearing, have a growing natural constituency: non-white Americans and urban Americans. The enthusiasm gap is what concerns me. In 2008, we saw what an energized liberal base can do. In 2010, we saw what an energized conservative base can do. My thesis– and I might be wrong!– is that the way forward is to work to move the center in exactly the same way that conservative Republicans have.
Turgidson
I can only speak for myself, but I distinguish between vigorous criticism and activist pressure from the left and “omg Obama’s a secret republican who secretly yearns to kill SS and Medicare”. The former is necessary and good. The latter is stupid. Krugman can be a bit dickish, but he mostly engages in the former and tends to be right about stuff. And I wish he’d be listened to. I hope the people who think he secretly wants to end the New Deal stfu and go away. I agree entirely with complaints that Obama gave away his leverage in this by avoiding the 14th amendment idea and not holding firm on a clean bill for longer. I don’t think he offered entitlement cuts in these negotiations for any reason other than a sincere belief that the teahadists would actually bring on a default and that that would be far worse than the entitlement cuts. A shitty choice to be sure and one brought about by aforesaid lack of leverage, but not one that suggests entitlement cuts are part of his nefarious scheme to unravel liberalism from the inside.
That said, I at least understand that BO has a bad hand and thinks he can limit the damage by being the “adult”, but he needs to stop believing, or at least pretending to believe, that he can reason with the GOP leadership on anything. They’re pretty explicit that their sole purpose is to destroy him. The only thing that makes Boehner and McConnell more reasonable than the teahadists is that they only mean it in a political sense, while many in their rank and file mean it quite literally. Can’t negotiate with any of them.
The talking points since the debt fiasco got settled are that they’re gonna start talking about jobs now and draw contrasts. I hope so, but I feel like we’ve heard that before.
Freddie deBoer
FlipYrWhig, I just think that the evidence suggests that most 75% of independent voters are registered for one of the two major political parties, and vote for those parties quite faithfully. The number of independents in play, if I’m reading good evidence, is something like 10%. Not nothing, but not the sort of thing that long term political change is born of.
Plus, I think there’s this weird belief that “the center” is some static place that springs from what Americans want, independent of politics. But what opinions are centrist change, and in fact can be moved by dedicated political effort. See a great liberal success in gay marriage or a great liberal failure in gun control: the former was anathema in 1992 while the latter was mainstream, now the reverse is true.
Omnes Omnibus
@Samara Morgan: How do you know what he said if you refuse to read it?
Just Some Fuckhead
Must be a good thing if the emObots are curling up and shrieking. Count me in. However, I think we need to do it as a third party on the left. That’s the only way yer going to be an effective whip on/with Democrats. Otherwise, they’ll keep sneaking back over the fence to mate with blue dogs.
tweez
We can certainly agree that all bad political outcomes are the result of wicked/greedy/ignorant/power-hungry Republicans, right? Does this mean that every currently sitting Democratic politician up to and including the president is doing the absolute best he or she can do? Does it hurt our commonwealth to praise OUR DEMOCRATIC elected representatives in government when they do things we don’t like?
mk3872
Any time that someone asks “How did the Tea Party do it?” and forgets to mention that it was essentially funded by big $$ groups like Koch, Chamber of Commerce and Club for Growth, has completely missed on their analysis.
Unless there are similar left-wing organizations willing to spend $B in their own $$ to fund a “grass root” movement in the Democratic party, this model cannot be replicated on the Left.
Samara Morgan
@Freddie deBoer: tell you what.
i’ll read it if you read this Manzi essay i keep asking you to read.
The Paradox of Libertarianism
The reason the house is republican is representative government, and the fact that we are still living in Distributed Jesusland™ until the demographic timer goes off. Dr. Manzi described it differently, but it is my word for localized mob rule.
do you know what trial-and-error social learning is?
Distributed Jesusland™
do you know what trial-and-error economic learning is?
the Econopalypse That Ate America’s Jobs.
so you read Dr. Manzi’s piece and i’ll read yours, and we argue about what is really going on.
ET
The right wing is more radicalized and vocal than the left ever was (and I think ever would be). I don’t say that as a good/bad thing.
Tea Party sentiment tapped into something that has been around since the birth of this country – the “I love America but hate my government” – very successfully. They were also vetted by the “very serious media” in a way that never happens with the far left who are just derided as DFH with a certain level of condescension – basically the right’s “liberal media bias” weapon beat the media into submission.
Then there is the sheer disinterest of most American who don’t pay attention at all or only scan the political landscape at election time. These are people who don’t understand the GOP/Tea Party game. They don’t understand how cowed, complacent, and outright lazy the media has become. Many have no idea how out there the Tea Partiers are, how beholden GOP reps are to this vocal minority, and how all that plays into the Washington politics game.
Lol
I think in general primary challengers are pretty good as long as they don’t go scorched earth. Challenging Lincoln wasn’t a bad idea, what was a bad idea was blowing $15 million on a race where both Dems were destined to lose by double digits in the general was fucking stupid. Pick your battles and spend your money some place it matters. No one cares if you “make a strong challenge”, you have to win, you have to get elected.
What lesson do conservative Dems take from Lamont and Halter? None because they *lost*.
FlipYrWhig
@Judas Escargot: There could be a ‘Tea Party’ for the left. But, like Jason Bateman says in the trailer for “Horrible Bosses” about drag-racing in a Prius, “I don’t win a lot.”
That’s where my sticking point is. As a “theory of politics,” sure, primary challenges to Democrats from the left might inject more progressive ideas into the conversation. But that has to be a goal in itself. Primary challenges can lead to progressive Democratic wins, but where you are on the map matters a lot. When Donna Edwards primaried Al Wynn, that worked like aces. When Bill Halter primaried Blanche Lincoln, not so much. And the institutional support of the DNC for Lincoln is to be expected. That’s what it’s like to be an insurgent candidate. You’re an outsider and you have to persuade the people without all the same resources the other guy has. So do it, and make it happen, even — especially — when it’s an uphill slog.
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
President Obama wins again with the optics of pivot.
.
.
FlipYrWhig
@Freddie deBoer: I didn’t say anything about independent voters — who, IMHO, are essentially bandwagon-jumpers who think they’re a lot smarter and more savvy than they are. I mean that there really are “moderate Democrats” or “Democratic centrists,” and a lot of them, in quite a lot of the country. And that’s as left as they go. How well would a progressive primary challenge to Joe Manchin or Bob Casey work?
Freddie deBoer
What lesson do conservative Dems take from Lamont and Halter? None because they lost.
But who replaced Dodd? Not Lamont, true. But Blumenthal is a real-deal northeast liberal. Who’s going to replace Lieberman? Chris Murphy? Maybe Ted Kennedy Jr? These aren’t moderate squishes. I think the 2006 campaign did a great deal to define current Connecticut politics.
Mike Goetz
The problem the left wing has is that they have done nothing at all to demonstrate that it would be either attractive or beneficial to move in that direction. The left doesn’t even have fear in its toolbag because there are not enough of them.
The closest thing to a successful left coup is the case of non-Senator Ned Lamont.
trollhattan
@Freddie deBoer:
I don’t know the national stats but due to California’s system of registering by party or as “decline to state” we get a different breakdown than what you’re describing:
The way I’m interpreting, we have a BIG batch of independents.
Stillwater
@Freddie deBoer: Here I’m not.
Fair enough. Let me flesh it out some. Legitimate criticisms of policy and procedures of the Democratic party considered as a whole are useful to move things in a good direction. Sniping at Obama for the failings of the SenDems, and perpetuating the illusion that Democrats are indistinguishable from the GOP isn’t. That, I suggest, is not only an inaccurate claim, but harmful to the short term goals. And in fact, the people who argue this way (that the party is hopelessly corrupt, etc.) seem all too willing to blow it up on the promise that a better party will emerge. The problem here is that the party that emerges still needs to capture the same moderate Dem voters who were kicked to the curb for not being liberal enough.
Edit: And regarding your thesis at the bottom: I agree there is utility in creating a new lefty party to drag the center back. But it’s also true that Jane and Markos have tried to do exactly this without much success.
TK-421
Holy shit I co-sign this whole post.
tweez
The problem for me personally is that there is, realistically speaking, nothing a Democrat (on the national level)can say or do that will make me support his or her opponent, because the Republican is virtually always the greater of two evils. There is no current way to square this circle. It’s a rightward ratchet-effect that leads inexorably toward Fascism. I’ll vote for Obama even if he supports a flag-burning amendment, reinstatement of don’t-ask-don’t-tell, and abolition of Social Security if his opponent is Michelle Bachmann and she’s clamoring for nuclear war with Iran and North Korea, abolition of the income tax, and mandatory Christian prayers in school.
boss bitch
@Turgidson:
This is another thing I really hate. The tendency of the left to latch on to an idea and make it the only absolute way to go and if Obama doesn’t do it then he’s a ______________ (fill in the blank).
When actual scholars/lawyers can’t agree on whether its legal or enough to avoid a downgrade, its irresponsible for anyone to be pushing it so forcefully. The 14th, if ever used, should be your last option not something to be used as a bargaining chip. I think Republicans would welcome the use of the 14th. Absolves them of any responsibility.
TK-421
@Ron:
I fully agree. However, you forgot to note that in supporting a primary challenge of Blanche Lincoln you openly opposed the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration involved itself in a primary and explicitly campaigned for Lincoln.
That…seems like important context to me when discussing how and how not to pull a moderate President to the left, and also how correct or incorrect it may or may not be to “wail about how awful Obama is.” Uh, he engaged in a primary fight with liberals- is it reasonable to expect liberals to be all sunshine and ice cream about that? Personally, I don’t know the answer to that question. But I imagine neither do you.
Loviatar
@51 – Lol:
Before you go making the declarative statement that primarying Lieberman and Lincoln were a failure, lets see what type of CT Democrat is elected next year. Also, lets see if that Democrat is more loyal; to the party than Lieberman.
What the TPers have proved is that the fear of a primary is often enough for politicians to move in your direction. However for that fear of a primary to be effective you have to actually primary someone, even if you lose or even if it cost you the general election.
Long game baby, isn’t that something you Obots usually chant.
OzoneR
@Ron:
The attempt to primary Dan Lipinski made sense, the attempt to primary Blanche Lincoln was tone deaf…it’s Arkansas, it’s one of the few states that was moving right even during the Democratic resurgence.
punkdavid
The Tea Party has had their success as the Republicans were the “out” party after 2008. The left will be most effective if and when the Democrats are again the “out” party.
And BTW, I think that we started doing this with Dean in 2003-04, and continued it through 2006, and only slowed up on the leftward pressure when it started to look like we could win it all in 2008.
My big fear is that there isn’t enough time to wait for the next down cycle, and that the potential damage from the next down cycle could be irreversible.
Mike Goetz
@boss bitch:
Platinum coins! Platinum fucking coins were taken seriously – demanded – as the obvious way out of the debt issue.
Samara Morgan
and may i remind everyone that Freddie already SAID he cant force himself to vote for Obama in 2012?
its not.
because you dont understand Obama. He sees himself as the president of all the americans. He is absolutely consistant on making congress do its job. He did that with HCR, and he did that with this last bill.
TK doesnt get it either.
what Obama did with the supercommittee is to sew the dems and the repubs in a sack and sling them into the potomac.
Do your job or drown.
Are YOU going to vote for Obama, Freddie de Bore?
LOL
OzoneR
@Loviatar:
What does that have to do with 2006?
Loneoak
@Turgidson:
I second Turgidson. The commentariat here is not against liberals getting organized and moving the party in a leftier direction, even including primarying some of the more dickish members of the party. However, what gets the ugly flowing is when criticism of Obama becomes the very purpose of the leftward push. When Jane Hamsher of the Left stops calling Obama a Reaganite and starts walking union districts, organizes around material relief of the poor instead of pretending to speak for them, and makes it *possible* for Obama to be more lefty, then we’ll stop mocking her. But the current flavor of criticism from the left is useless to the people we ostensibly care about, and just makes for good yelling material.
FlipYrWhig
@Freddie deBoer:
But, here’s the thing. When lefties turn out and put people in the streets and generally raise a ruckus, how is it portrayed, and how is it received? Until Wisconsin, it had been either ignored or openly mocked for about 40 years, and my pet theory on why Wisconsin was different was because of how the “Arab Spring” protests were so sympathetically portrayed. That’s what the Tea Party did, to the degree that it’s anything like a “movement” rather than a preexisting bloc of reactionary peckerwoods: formed crowds who shouted. Shouting lefty crowds don’t get the same kid-gloves treatment. Lefty activism gets denigrated. It doesn’t charge up nearly as much of the body politic — and IMHO the reason why is that there just aren’t that many liberals to charge up.
So I basically think the outcome of a lot of primary challenges from the left would be a handful of wins and a huge number of losses. They can be productive losses if they help to promulgate ideas, like actual universal health care or a better balance between civil liberties and fear. But it’s not going to yield a lot of wins, at least not right off the bat. And the uneasy coalition will remain in place, and the nature of that coalition is that “moderate” and “conservative” Democrats who genuinely care about issues that I’m not that concerned about, like balanced budgets and reduced regulation on businesses, will continue to have the upper hand.
TK-421
@Lolis:
If you can point to the part where Freddie advocated for that, you might have a point. As it turns out, however, he didn’t and you don’t. Straw man arguments may be fun, but I don’t know how well they work here.
Dave
Yeah, Freddie, you’re awesome.
The solution, in fact, is not to make personal attacks, but to make a few demands, over and over, as often and by as many people as possible.
This is actually the way in which the tea party is effective. They have one, maybe two overarching demands, and anything that doesn’t seem to fulfill it, they attack.
“Supporting Democrats” is not political. It’s just hope. Only making demands is political.
Corner Stone
Beyond the basic constraints of the whole funding issue, the main difference is that rightwingers do not care if they lose. They don’t care if they lose a court decision, or if their not so insane “moderate” Republican betters yell at them and scream how the nutters cost the “Party” the election.
Because they don’t care about the party, they don’t care about coalitions and they don’t care about being “the only adult in the room”.
Almost all the way out to the extreme left you will never find this mindset. I’m sure there’s a handful on the left but certainly not enough to coalesce around.
Which is not to say the left stops fighting for what it wants, because it does not.
But with the constant struggle of funding combined with a Party Overclass that controls all the access, and the successful demonization of “liberals” as being the sole originator for all defeats, the struggle is decidedly more uphill for the left.
Loviatar
@64 – OzoneR:
s
It make sense from the standpoint that Democrats nationally now know that they can be primaried from the left even in a state trending right.
Long game bay, long game.
OzoneR
@Freddie deBoer:
That’s irrelevant. The message to conservative Dems is “Liberals can’t touch me while I’m still in office.” They don’t care what happens after they retire.
TexasDan
There’s another angle to consider. 71% of republicans identify as conservative or very conservative, while the majority of democrats identify as moderate or conservative, with only 38% identifying as liberal or very liberal. Before we can drag the country to the left, we need to drag our own party rank and file to the left. Put another way, before we can get “more & better democrats” we need more (& better?) liberals.
TK-421
@Stillwater:
I don’t see these two things as mutually exclusive, and outliers like Jane Hamsher aside, I see liberals nowadays doing both.
Loneoak
@boss bitch:
Amen.
Corner Stone
@TK-421: The incumbent protection strategy of the WH was completely expected. Indeed, they had no other course of action they could take.
I never thought badly of the Obama WH for supporting incumbents, that is always what will happen.
Loviatar
@68 – OzoneR:
you do realize that Lieberman is up for reelection next year.
Samara Morgan
@Stillwater: i agree with that whole thing.
Freddies premise is based on the same tedious glibertarian spin that mistermix ladles out.
that both sides are the same.
they are not.
dems cannot form a Tea Party, because for one thing, dems are not homogeneous, not all conservative xians, not all non-hispanic caucasians.
Dems are not nativists, we believe in immigration and diversity.
Dems have blue genetic tendency, not red genetic tendency.
Freddie and mistermix are ladling out soothing pablum, not truth serum.
we are not the same, as badly as they want us to be.
LongHairedWeirdo
Exqueeze me?
You think a movement rose up and *got* the Republicans to do something?
You don’t think people got angry and frustrated and the Republicans seized on it, and excited rightwingers didn’t push the message?
You think *they* pushed the buttons? They weren’t coopted?
No. The tea party *movement* was successful for the Republicans.
MBunge
If the Left were more like the Tea Party, wouldn’t the United States be in default right now?
Mike
Heliopause
My sense is, once you get past the few base tribalists, that they aren’t pursuing anything more profound than the best available option as they perceive it. That’s fine in and of itself but betrays a woeful failure of imagination when it comes to the continual slagging of the left. You see, it’s quite possible to recognize Barack Obama as the best available alternative at a point in spacetime and simultaneously agitate for left values such as the ones you eloquently describe over at your own blog. It’s failure of imagination not to recognize this simple point, it’s failure of imagination to think that slagging strawman versions of the left is constructive in any way, it’s failure of imagination to ignore the fact that they have far more in common with lefties than not.
So the problem here as I see it is a core group that can’t imagine both voting for Obama and working against his harmful policies. Since they can’t imagine this the next step might be to turn on the caps lock and invent a clown version of an “emoprog”, as John frequently does, or scouring the blog backpages or tweets of one’s imagined enemies for weakness, as ABL does.
The way forward, if one wants left or left-leaning ideas as part of the national debate, is to recognize that a strawman version of reality is not objective reality, that some people who drive you crazy are at least nominally on your side, that sometimes it’s necessary to take one step back before taking two steps forward. I think these people are capable of imagining all this, if only they’ll allow themselves to.
FlipYrWhig
@Stillwater:
Well put. I don’t see how that gets to 50%+1. I think being a _populist_ can form a differently-composed coalition that gets to 50%+1 — like, to differing degrees, Brian Schweitzer, Jon Tester, and Jim Webb did — but the problem with populists from a liberal/left standpoint is that, like Jim Webb, they’re not necessarily all that liberal on issues other than social class.
Regarding the Webb example, I was very proud to help Webb win the extremely low-turnout Senate primary in Virginia, over Harris Miller, and was jazzed that he pulled off the defeat of George Allen. But Webb has been a thorn in the side for liberal Democrats. It didn’t quite work out according to plan. The other guy, Miller, was probably more “liberal” (although in the Virginia sense, so, Kaine/Warner in style, which ain’t too liberal) but as a nondescript rich guy he didn’t have crossover or populist appeal, and wouldn’t have won.
boss bitch
@Mike Goetz:
Unbelievable right? And I first saw it on Think Progress of all places.
OzoneR
@Loviatar:
you do realize he’s retiring.
Samara Morgan
@TK-421: no, Freddie is saying “we are all the same”, that the left needs a Tea Party to drag the party leftward.
That cannot happen.
The Tea Party is the fundamentalist wing of the GOP conservative base. Uniformly xian, non-hispanic cauc, anti-immigration, anti-intellectual nativists.
Liberals and progressives just dont have the required homogeneity.
Freddie, this is a stupid post.
1000 words of both sides CAN do eet.
we cant. it will never happen.
Stillwater
TK-421: two types of criticism at play here. One, legitimate criticism of the policies advocated and enacted by the Dem leadership and majority of the caucus; and 2) criticisms that skip over all the relevant facts and evidence (for example, that the Senate Dems are very conservative and were voted in by very conservative Democrats) to conclude that Democrats suck and Obama’s worse than Bush.
OzoneR
@Loviatar:
Except the Halter case says, they can’t. Halter was going to lose, and even if it beat Lincoln, was going to get killed in the general election. It was idiotic because it proved liberals have no base of support in liberal states.
Politics is about winning, no one takes you seriously unless you win.
boss bitch
@Loviatar:
Joe Lieberman is retiring.
Lolis
@TK-421:
I never said Freddie has said any of those things. I don’t even know who he is. I am talking about the “left-wing” in general terms by people who are prominent and claim to represent us: John Aravosis and Americablog, FDL, Salon.com bloggers including Glenn Greenwald.
I have no problem with constructive criticism of the president but often times it devolves into emotional rage from many prominent left-wingers. I fail to see how that is productive to any one.
I would love it if liberals organized large rallies at Obama’s public appearances to fight for job creation. I think stuff like that may actually push him to the left. I would also participate in any national campaigns to call or write letters to push Obama and Congress leftward.
I don’t really understand Freddie’s claim that people on this site don’t allow criticism on policy, especially John. John is deeply critical of many of Obama’s policies and most people here agree with him.
Loviatar
@84 – Heliopause:
.
Ding, Ding, Ding. THIS a thousand times this.
.
Long game baby, long game.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone:
I think this is totally, completely correct. The contemporary right wing is sure that it’s right, and treats every loss as an occasion for martyrdom, part of the grand trajectory of ultimate triumph. Progressives want to make… progress, and view losses as devastating lost opportunities. For the most part, right-wingers say, “We’ll be back,” and progressives say, “We’ll never get this chance again.”
Judas Escargot
@FlipYrWhig:
The thuggery goes back to the “Brooks Brothers riots” of Nov/Dec 2000: Young Republicans, openly demanding that votes not be counted. IMO that was the first wave of neo-fascism crashing on the shore, so to speak.
But again… media. Thousands of protesters in WI got what, a few days’ coverage? And much of that of the DFH-punching variety?
Let 20 old white people put on tricorn hats and stand on a street corner with their stupid signs, though, and all ten networks show them in primetime. Over and over again.
How the feck is someone without the resources of a Murdoch or a Berlusconi supposed to fight that?
Stillwater
@TK-421: you can point to the part where Freddie advocated for that
Freddie is advocating a winning paradigm: creating the analogue of the Teaparty on the left, the Fireparty. It probably would have utility, if it ever came to be. But there are structural problems in making it happen (Conerstone’s comment) and ideological issues that render the analogy dubious (Matoko’s comments).
boss bitch
@MBunge:
98% chance
Stillwater
@FlipYrWhig: On my reading, you guys are saying pretty much the same thing.
OzoneR
@MBunge:
But don’t you know if the country defaults, the public is magically going to stop blaming “both sides” and just blame Republicans.
Default won’t make Obama and the Democrats look bad at all, nope, just Republicans.
But I’m sure Obama can change that by using the bully pulpit. People can listen to him slay the Republicans in between their runs on banks.
boss bitch
@FlipYrWhig:
well said.
Samara Morgan
@TK-421: no, freddie is just spewing libertarian bulshytt as usual. a thousand words with no meaning.
Obama is the president of all the americans. that is how representative government works. He tries to make congress do its job, which is representing their voter constituencies.
You retards think the President should be PARTISAN?
I think he puts the country first, not his party.
de Bore is just a libertarian concern troll….he already said he wasnt gunna vote for Obama.
Why doesnt Cole tell him to eff off?
Stooleo
@Loneoak:
This.
I’m not totally happy with all that Obama has done, but I tend give him a pass cause of the deliberate monkey wrenching that the Repubs are constantly doing. It’s a wonder that Obama has achieved anything a all. I really want him to win in 2012 ’cause the Republicans are going to totally lose their shit and I want to see that.
Lol
@74: Anyone can be primaried in any state.
The only way anyone will actually care is if you win.
Or as Omar said “You come at the king, you best not miss.”
FlipYrWhig
@Loviatar:
That means short-term pain, baby, short-term pain. Different people, and different personality types, respond to that differently. IMHO a big part of being a progressive is being moved by suffering and wanting to alleviate it. (I’m sure there’s plenty of snarky fun to be had from the civil libertarians after that statement.) I want my politicians to reduce immediate harm, and lose patience with the notion of fighting grand ideological battles. I don’t think that’s a right vs. left thing, it’s somewhere orthogonal to that, having to do with lesser short-term vs. greater long-term rewards. IIRC cognitive scientists and philosophers have struggled to come up with an explanation for how people and even primates behave when trying to balance short-term and long-term outlooks.
TK-421
@FlipYrWhig:
I know I can have a good debate with you, so here I go.
Most primary challenges fail and liberals should accept the futility and persevere regardless, agreed. The only point I would make is that “bring on the primary challenges” is most certainly NOT the position of the Democratic Party generally or President Obama specifically. When Party leadership openly and repeatedly puts their thumbs on the scales of an internal fight, it’s difficult to not feel bitter about the Party in general and the leadership in particular. Please keep in mind that your stance here is in opposition to what the Party wants, thus making you yourself shrill, emo, manic, etc.
Emphasis mine. If that’s true, then WTF does anyone care what liberals say or do? If liberals are so minimal in number compared to the centrists, then why do you or anyone else care to try and influence the voices, opinions, and actions of liberals?
I’ve never understood the dual logic that A) liberals don’t matter and shouldn’t be listened to, but B) OMG THEIR RHETORIC IS HURTING OBAMA/DEMS THEY SHOULD SHUT UP! Both can’t be true*, IMO, and I wish the hippy punchers would make up their minds.
*(unless one is advocating that centrists should hold elections hostage (i.e. “vote for me or you get a Republican right in the head”). Is that what centrists believe, that liberals should just pay the ransom and shut up? I hope not.)
Loviatar
@87 – OzoneR: / @91 – boss bitch:
I forgot I was in a conversation with Obots, so I’ll type really slow so you can understand.
Lieberman’s seat that he won in 2006 is up for reelection and that is the endpoint for whether the primary in 2006 worked or not (even though as pointed out upstream that Blumenthal a real-deal northeast liberal has replaced Dodd and the leading candidates to replace Lieberman are two more real-deal democrats).
Finally, I wouldn’t believe Lieberman if he told me that the sky was blue, whether you believe him is your decision, but be prepared to get screwed again.
replicnt6
@boss bitch:
Maybe it would work, maybe it would get him impeached. Its value was as a threat he had in his arsenal. He preemptively took off the table. When you can count on your opponent to do the most rational, sane, safe thing, you’ve got a great deal of leverage.
I’d like to see a little bit of risk-taking from Obama. We like to pretend he’s a shoo-in for reelection because of the clown car on the other side, but I don’t see any way the economy won’t be worse than it is now, and whatever clown he’s up against will be magically discovered by the press to be, deep down, an extremely thoughtful, intelligent, if somewhat conservative, candidate.
I’m confident, though, that if Obama doesn’t get reelected, it will because we didn’t clap loudly enough.
FlipYrWhig
@Stillwater: Yeah, I know. (Did you see how I said he was correct?) It’s kind of a breakthrough.
Klaus
@boss bitch: Jesus. Didn’t the GOP just use federal default as a bargaining chip?
FlipYrWhig
@boss bitch: It’s perhaps overstated a tad. Maybe instead of “We’ll never get this chance again” it should be “We don’t know if we’ll ever get this chance again.”
OzoneR
@Loviatar:
What? Why would Lieberman’s retirement tell us if the primary worked or not? Connecticut was always going to elect a Democrat to the left of Lieberman when he retires. This doesn’t make any sense.
What? Are you suggesting he’ll turn around and run again? He’s already said he’s retiring, he hasn’t filed for reelection, he’s not raising money.
Samara Morgan
oh jesus h keeyrist inna handcart
first principles are anti-empirical freddie. it means you are a first culture intellectual.
obviously you have never owned a horse. you can literally beat a horse to death and they still wont do what you want. if Obama had done what you wanted, assclown, we would be in default right now, the global economy would crash, and we’d likely be having Weimar moment with the teabaggers.
OzoneR
@replicnt6:
No one has explained to me how invoking the 14th amendment is supposed to be “a threat” to Republicans.
OzoneR
@Samara Morgan:
the people rewarding the Republicans’ behavior are the voters, not Obama.
Mike M
All this handwringing and chin wagging amounts to one thing – Republicans fight for what they believe in, Democrats do not. Period.
We were swarmed with racists in three corner hats shouting about Marxist fascism and our “leaders” wet their pants. Plain and simple. We dragged the country through months of idiotic healthcare reform bullshit that did nothing but make people hate the Democrats they THOUGHT were going to fix the last 8 years of nonsense.
There is a pervasive spirit of “who gives a shit” out in the country right now. We worked hard, got engaged, believed the rhetoric, donated the cash, worked the phones, voted and trusted in 2008. We got about 1/10th of that back. Yeah yeah yeah, I’ve seen the “look at all he’s accomplished” lists. While admirable, they are not ever going to overshadow the giant whiff that was the health care debacle. Or the new war in Libya. Or this stupid debt ceiling giveaway. Somehow granting same-sex benefits to federal employees just doesn’t erase the bad taste giant fucks ups like these leave in your mouth. Also too – you got rolled on the stimuls fuckwad – we’re out of work.
Obama was just simply the wrong man for these times – its painfully obvious to anybody who has been watching. He has proven consistently that he stands for nothing apart from “compromise”. The other side knows it and will continue to pound us into the dust for as long as this man remains in office. I hate to say it, but until we get a President Bachman in office and show everyone what their idiotic sloganeering actually accomplishes when put to practice, we will never get the government or country we deserve. I say we let it happen. Nothing we say or do on a blog is gong to discredit these people – they have to discredit themselves. We’ll pick up the pieces and carry on once the lunatics have run out of steam. I figure we ‘re about 70 years behind Europe on this one, but we’ll get there.
Hold tight everybody, its going to be an interesting decade.
Julie Raffety
@Alpha liberal. And how was Obama supposed to get the liberal bills, which I support of course, passed. In case you hadn’t noticed the house doesn’t have a democratic majority. Elections have consequences and the dems dropped the ball in 2010.
Frankensteinbeck
@Loneoak:
I’m not against liberals pushing to the left, either. I’m very strongly against an atmosphere of pervasive anti-Obama sentiment based on lies and rumors. I am against hysterical assessments of his presidency that pretend his successes don’t exist and interpret his failures in wildly exaggerated lights. I am against people citing the use of three or four words in one of his speeches to tell me the speech meant the exact opposite of what the whole rest of the speech said. I am particularly upset that there is so much of this going on that people who are generally quite reasonable have been led to swallow many of these lies, and are upset in what would be a reasonable way if these things were true.
The problem is that the moment the people who are pleased start to debate with the people who are displeased, the people who are screaming nihilists show up and you can’t separate the positions anymore.
Neldob
We need to relentlessly pin the problems where they belong- on the Republicans. Why do Republicans hate America? We need to take over their memes. Progressive patriots and facts have a liberal bias versus rich, irresponsible Republicans who love money more than their country. Liberals – the real conservatives. Republicans aren’t conservatives, they are the right wing or extreme right wing or hard right wing. Fiscally irresponsible, right wing extremists. Write letters. Relentlessly. Arg.
Turgidson
@boss bitch:
If you end up having to negotiate with a bunch of deranged lunatics – who you sincerely believe will blow it up just to prevent you from “winning” – you fight fire with fire. I’m an Obot most of the time – and am sympathetic to the fact that he was stuck in a no-win scenario here – but I do think he gave away some leverage in this one.
I am glad that we have a president who doesn’t view the Constitution as “just a damn piece of paper” like his predecessor, but I think it’s possible he could have maintained a stronger bargaining position just by being coy about the 14th idea, if not outright embracing it. The administration unilaterally took the idea off the table – all I’m saying is that they could have just kept quiet, or used the usual politico-speak of “all options are on the table” to keep the GOP leadership guessing. I’m not saying it would have necessarily led to a better outcome – I have no way of knowing – I just think it was a tool at their disposal that they chose not to wield.
Loneoak
Tweaking a previous comment, I’d like to put it this way: The intertubes ‘left’ that we are talking about here has done a very good job hating Obama for not being liberal enough (and I agree with their policy sentiments most of the time), but has done a piss poor job of making it possible for Obama to be more liberal.
That’s the element of FdB’s analysis that I think is missing. It’s not enough to primary insufficiently lefty politicians, Obama included, we have to learn how to change the facts on the ground for the people we care about. Obama’s talking points should be our tertiary or quaternary concerns, yet they seem to get all the rage. Our rage should be directed toward things that make people’s lives unlivable, which largely means GOP policies.
OzoneR
@Mike M:
So we’ve been told for the past 30 years.
jacy
@Freddie deBoer:
I would argue with some of this. When you say that liberals have a growing natural constituency with non-white Americans, I don’t believe that’s necessarily true. Especially older Hispanics an Asians tend to be more conservative and less liberal, it’s just that Republicans have used pitchforks to keep them at a distance, so by default they are part of the Democratic coalition. Sure, as long as the Republican party actively demonizes anyone who’s not a straight, white Christian, they’re going to chase non-whites away. But that doesn’t make older Hispanics, Asian, Muslims, etcetera liberal. It just makes them “not Republican.”
And I don’t think you can lay all of the success of 2008 on liberals. There were a lot of disaffected righties and middle-of-the-roaders that jumped on the bandwagon either because they were disgusted with Bush or with McCain. And I don’t think it’s just that the right was energized in 2010, but that the left and the low-info middle just didn’t represent.
The far right is crazy and impermeable to doubt or facts. I don’t think you can replicate that on our side, and I don’t think you’d want to anyway. It also doesn’t help that media doesn’t give a whit about facts, but I don’t know what you do about that.
Linnaeus
I suspect what I’ll say here is something that someone else has already said, but here goes:
1. In the short term, the key is simply to keep the GOP from wielding any more power than it does now and where possible roll back its power. And that means accepting the limitations of the Democratic coalition for the time being. I don’t agree with some stances of the current administration (and I’m more critical of Senate Democrats), but the fact is they’re both preferable to a radically right-wing GOP.
2. In the long term, a key thing to do is change the political context. You change the range of what is considered possible, and hence make left-wing policies more achievable. That means activism and building institutions that promulgate left-liberal ideas and support those ideas in the electoral arena. That also means some patience and discipline (but not too much so as to become complacent). I don’t have a master plan as to how to do this, but it will probably need to begin on the local and state level.
JoshA
@WereBear: Not Bush to Obama, but Harry Browne (Libertarian) in 2000 to Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 for me.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I believed the MSM critique during the 2000 campaign that there wasn’t a big difference between Bush and Gore. I also didn’t buy Gore’s argument at the time that it was “the people vs. the powerful.” Then Bush got into office and I was like, wait, what the hell is this?
The problem is that I came to this conclusion based on my own observations. It wasn’t because anyone talked to me about it. In fact, during 2000 I was reading Andrew Sullivan, and once I realized that what he was telling me was bullshit I started reading the people he was already complaining about, like Atrios (who led me to DK, etc). Since then, my reading habits may have pushed me further left, but my original centrist to liberal transition happened because I realized I’d been lied to repeatedly by the mainstream media, and sought out the supposedly unserious bloggers on the theory that perhaps they might have been right all along—and sure enough, yes.
Bender
Bullshit to the media — they’re mostly fellow travelers. The real impediment can be seen if you take a more global view. We all see what’s happening in the PIIGS. In England, France, Germany, Italy, Scotland, etc., the leftist/psoshiallist (Is that s-word still “moderated” here? That’s so weak!) parties are polling at their lowest level for decades.
They don’t have Tea Parties there. What they do have is decades of failed leftist statism. They are out of Other People’s Money.
The NHS in Britain is cutting services (can’t wait for ObamaCare!), extending rations and exclusions on more medical procedures this week. Britain has started charging students to go to university, heresy in leftist circles. Real austerity programs (contrasted to our fake one) are becoming the norm in Europe.
What I’m saying is, leftists/statists are swimming against a hard historical tide.
OzoneR
@Turgidson:
but again, like I asked above, why would they be threatened by this?
dollared
@Freddie deBoer: Freddie, I agree overall, but as a movement, it really needs focus, demographics, funding, think tanks, strategy.
And for all of you (yes, I’m looking at you, Flip) who say its hard, look at what Goldwater’s crew faced in 1965. or Reagan in 1976. I was there in ’76. People thought Reagan was an absolute crank, particularly in the media.
I can propose a few:
1. Funding: SEIU and the public sector unions are ready. There really are millionaires and billionaires that are liberal. AARP is waking up to the danger.
2. Focus/think tanks: The New Deal is still the key, with some emphasis on advanced education as the new Sputnik. The mantra of “Social Insurance and Education enables the Productive Society.” You have to attack the Free Market Self-Contradictions head on, and point to other, more successful societies. Krugman and the Roosevelt institute are models of intellectual leaders.
3. Demographics: This could create a coalition of retirees, minorities, educated/tech liberals, academics and public sector unions. Add immigrants, and you have a large demographic base, that is growing. The retirees and the unions give you marchers and leaders.
3. Strategy: of course this has to begin with local politics, but I would also urge that the strategy be “March on the Media.” Occupying 30 Rock would give you a lot of early negative publicity, but it would get much more attention than marching on Washington. And it would get the message about media consolidation out. I would also look at boycotts – with data so readily available in today’s world, you could not only damage the Koch Brothers’ revenue by organizing a boycott of Dixie Cups, but the decline in share would be publicly visible.
But recognize that this is war. Fight to win, not just whine and try to delay change. This is where the Progressives started in 1900. And people have to be prepared for 30 year fight.
Linnaeus
@Loneoak:
I tend to agree here. Certainly Democratic leaders shouldn’t be immune from criticism from the left, but there are more and less constructive ways to do that. While you’re doing that, you need to change the political milieu.
wrb
@Samara Morgan:
I was thinking just this the other day. These folks would be awful horse trainers.(or Taoists).
If the horse didn’t kill them, they’d ruin it.
They all need to read Monty Roberts
I think an unsuspected source of a lot of our problems comes from the replacement of horses with automobiles. A lot of learning occurs when going anywhere requires a negotiation in which the quality of your character , and your sensitivity and kindness count.
Very different than driving a car that you command.
replicnt6
@OzoneR:
IIRC, Halter was polling as well or better than Lincoln for the general. Obama backed Lincoln even though she was one of the senators that gave him a big headache on health care. I also point out that Obama supported Lieberman against Lamont. Good thing he had a favor to call in from Lieberman, eh?
And the value of primarying isn’t necessarily to improve the chances of winning the seat. It is to punish bad behavior. If you prove you’re willing to punish bad behavior even in the face of losing a seat, that gives you some leverage. If you’ll only do it where it’s risk-free, no so much.
Frankensteinbeck
@Loneoak:
I would be happier if his talking points were even accurately reported.
DanF
I think Kos has had the formula for this down for a while now. In more liberal districts, put in a more liberal Dem. In conservative districts, you get what you get andyoudont get upset. The problem the Democrats have is that we have many conservative Democrats in safe democratic seats, so the very people that can safely move the liberal agenda forward, have no interest in doing so. Those are the places a primary can help. I live in a swing district and I’m much happier having the guy that votes with me 85% of the time than the tea party asshole I have now. I don’t want my conservative Democrat primaried because he/she will lose.
OzoneR
@dollared: :
This is the problem. Retirees like my aunts and uncles in Indiana who were Birch Bayh Democrats want nothing to do with minorities, tech liberals, academics and anything remotely east coastish
geg6
@Lolis:
Well, as pissed as I am at you for voting for Nader, I am glad to see you’ve come to your senses or just grew up or whatever it was. Because your comment makes the most sense to me of the first 19 posted.
It’s pretty much where I’m at anyway.
I hate this “compromise” on the debt ceiling. But I hate firebaggers and all those more-lefty-than-thouers screaming the most horrible shit at our president even more. Who, as far as I can tell, is doing the best he can with assholes and cretins screaming epithets at him from both sides of the spectrum.
I have not been an Obot up to this point. He’s pissed me off plenty, just as he’s pleased me with other things like DADT and ACA. But I’m becoming one.
As for how to get our party to be more liberal, it’s a decades long project and I really don’t see how we could manage such a thing in the relatively short period of time that the GOP managed to become a majority John Birch Society since Goldwater. The infrastructure certainly isn’t there (where’s our National Journal or other publications or our Grover Norquists or Bill Buckleys that set the agenda? Is such thing even possible?) and your typical Democrat is not authoritarian enough to follow such top down decrees anyway. We can’t look to any right wing movements, Tea Party or not, as examples because the people who are likely to support or become Democrats cannot be attracted in the same ways. It’s not even apples and oranges. It’s apples and golf balls.
Loneoak
@OzoneR:
Yeah, I wouldn’t hold your breath. It’s just another magic pony. The only thing ‘invoking’ it could possibly mean is that he is forced to pay bond holders before he pays Social Security checks. He could have been more explicit about that being what he was going to do, but I’m wholly unconvinced that this would have been a winning strategy.
Lol
The thing I don’t get about the 14th amendment solution is how many investors are going to buy a financial instrument of questionable legality much less have confidence in it.
The danger of default isn’t that we wouldn’t be able to pay our debt existing obligations but rather that the global marketplace would lose faith in our ability to honor future ones. And no one’s explained how triggering a genuine constitutional crisis (even if you think we’d come out on top) would avoid any of that.
Samara Morgan
@OzoneR: no, freddie meant Obama. the conservative base does not see representing their interests as bad behavior.
boss bitch
@Loviatar:
you said lieberman is up for reelection. you didn’t say his seat. big ass difference. what the fuck my one sentence post has to do with being an Obot is beyond me.
Loneoak
@Frankensteinbeck:
Right on. Me too.
OzoneR
@replicnt6:
only in DailyKos/Research 2000 polls which ended up being complete bunk that kos had to fire them since much of they reported was a lie.
Loviatar
@111 – OzoneR:
Oh yeah I forgot, Lieberman’s word is golden. not
OMG and you call us naive. I’ll believe he is retired on the morning of Nov. 13, 2012, when I open my newspaper and check the election results and it says CT Sen. – anybody but Lieberman.
3 reasons why I don’t believe his retirement statements
1) he is a politician, so his word is not to be trusted
2) he is Lieberman, so his word is not to be trusted
3) he is Lieberman, so his word is not to be trusted
FlipYrWhig
@TK-421:
Well, for one thing, I’m a liberal of long standing, starting from being the only kid in my social studies class who preferred Mondale to Reagan and wouldn’t give in, during my very outspoken Republican teacher’s classroom performance review. So I’m not going to speak for “centrists.”
My own aggravation is not that the left critics “hurt Obama,” but that the left critics (1) don’t take into account the bounds placed on Obama’s decisions by, among other things, ideological disparities among Democrats; and (2) jump to conclusions and often willfully misread statements, truncate quotations, and generally interpret texts sloppily. (2) particularly gets to me because my day job is interpreting texts.
(Also, I think people have some cockamamie ideas about “leadership” and “Negotiating 101,” but those are more pet peeves than anything.)
I personally don’t want left critics to shut up; I want them to raise valid complaints and describe viable alternatives. And it would help if they realized that, like libertarians and anime fans, their numbers are much less in meatspace than they are in the blogosphere. America would be a better place with more lefties in it, but it’s not going to get that way if lefties think the way to make more lefties is finding near-lefties and ripping into them for being such wussies. And the reverse is true too.
But, like I said, lefties have a very vocal presence in the blogosphere, and like to rumble and like to call out the sellouts, and IMHO the hostility flows much more from left critics to mainstream progressives, or, by the shorthand of this place, from Firebaggers to O-bots, rather than the reverse.
Corner Stone
From the WaPo
OzoneR
@Loviatar:
The Connecticut Board of Elections word is and they say Lieberman is not a candidate for reelection.
Samara Morgan
@wrb: well freddie is a perfectly horrible frontpager.
a thousand words to say Obama isnt liberal enough and the Left needs a Tea Party faction.
its because he’s a first culture intellectual. they always proceed from “first principles” …that means they are anti-empirical.
freddie is not a soshul1st– hes a classic liberty-as-goal libertarian. hes already read that Manzi piece when we were both commenters at TAS… but he wont admit it.
Heliopause
@Bender:
The center over there is vastly to the left of what it is over here. That might have occurred to you if you’d comprehended Freddie’s original point.
Norwonk
Reading this thread, it seems to me that the question of how the left can gain more influence over Democrats is moot. As far as I can tell, most people here are pretty happy with the party as it is. There certainly doesn’t seem to be much yearning for more liberalism among Balloon Juicers. Is there anyone here who would even contemplate not voting, or voting for a third party, next year?
And if not: Why on earth would Democrats move to the left, when they don’t have to? They’re getting your votes anyway, and by tacking to the right, they get more campaign contributions from Wall Street. Win-win!
DanF
I think issue was that Lincoln’s favorables going into the primary season was around 39% – which meant her campaign was a vanity project doomed to failure from the get go. She should have stepped aside and given Halter a- a well liked candidate – a shot at it. By the end of the primary, even if Halter had won, he was too bloodied up to win the general. As you say, the state was trending red. Lincoln’s campaign was DOA.
Stillwater
@FlipYrWhig: (Did you see how I said he was correct?)
Hmm. Actually, I didn’t at first. Well I’ll be damned.
dollared
@OzoneR: Then send in the retirees. This is not rocket science. Do you think the R’s send Grover Norquist to talk to the Evangelicals?
OzoneR
@DanF:
I think you’re right, Lincoln should’ve stepped aside, but that would have had the same effect as North Dakota when Dorgan did. The state was tending red, no Democrat was going to win, not even Halter.
Even Mike Beebe, who won every county last year, was tied with Republican candidates when he was tested for the Senate seat in polls. Arkansans were not going to send a Democrat to Washington.
FlipYrWhig
@dollared:
Yeah, but that’s not what the supposed left critics actually do. They demand fights, promise credit for fights that lose, then withhold credit for those fights that lost because of disputes over rhetoric and tactics, then talk about giving up because there’s no hope anymore because of all the losing. Whatever that is, it’s sure not preparing for a 30 year fight.
OzoneR
send them where? They don’t want to be part of a party that helps blacks, immigrants, gays, etc.
uh, yes, they do.
boss bitch
@replicnt6:
I thought we all wanted to get back to jobs? how would all the circus surrounding the use of 14th help? Its not worth it and it pisses me off the way the media relishes in this stuff.
I honestly don’t think Republicans would budge an inch. If the President tells me that he’s going to take this on himself, I’d run to the cameras with glee and say that Obama is trying to usurp the Constitution (or some junk), tell the American people that I was willing to try and Obama wasn’t. Then I’d blame any negative market reaction on him.
Almost every decision or move the President of The United States makes is risky. Any president.
I’m not worried about Obama. He will campaign as if his life depends on it. I am scared about the Senate. Not enough people seem to be worried about it.
WereBear
The Republicans win because they have created, or co-opted, the Public Mind. Like it or not, 97% of the electorate will never have a thought unless sone in a position of authority had it first.
If our traditional outlets have all gone rotten, and they have, you have to build new ones. Like Gore’s TV channel or the many websites. But things can change fast; you have to be ready for it.
In 1958 Milton Berle got a 20 year contract because he was the hottest thing on television.
Lol
@130: Halter polled better in that he’d lose by slightly fewer points than Lincoln.
Politicians support incumbents because they have to work with them for the remainder of their term win or lose. Lincoln was a pain of HCR but she wasn’t on a host of other issues that came up after the primary.
Obama endorsed Lieberman at a CT Dems fundraiser months before Lamont was on the radar and then he supported Lamont in the general.
Anyways, who got punished? The whole point is that both Dems were going to lose badly. The Unions just pissed away millions that could have been spent defending Members who supported their interests and stood a chance of getting reelected.
dollared
@FlipYrWhig: Please be rational. Yes, that’s what Jane Hamsher and whiny college kids do. Is that what David Dayen does? Can I introduce you to some SEIU organizers?
Yes, many progressives need to work harder and smarter. But you’re painting with a far broader brush than is justified. Are you just clinging to hopelessness?
OzoneR
@Norwonk:
They don’t have to even if you vote third party or don’t show up.
They only have to if they can be beaten by more liberal politicians.
Frankensteinbeck
@FlipYrWhig:
I *am* a moderate, but I agree with everything you said there.
FlipYrWhig
@DanF:
That was the original Kos formula. Then he started to use his platform to threaten to punish Democrats who weren’t liberal enough. I don’t know what created that shift, but it did enormous damage to the strategic thinking of that entire blog, which had happily promoted the electoral chances of extremely conservative Democrat Brad Carson in Oklahoma, but that now is jam-packed with purity enforcers.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@geg6:
Grassroots organization. Think global, act local. Involve your neighbors- not your interweb friends, because we don’t elect to Congress the Representative to Firedoglake- get them to act, and, after they’ve done so, point out that contrary to how they self-identify, they are really liberals. Start with speed bumps on your street, move on to the neighborhood parks, then on to your community’s public schools, and up and up. Avoid lectures. People aren’t stupid, but lecturing them will make them feel stupid, and they’ll be less likely to get involved.
This is where Firebaggers fail. I know from experience. As a proto-Firebagger in 1990 I bitched and screamed about Michigan Governor Jamie Blanchard’s budget to anyone who listened, stood my ground, withheld my vote…And ended up with twelve years of John Engler and tax reforms that cripple the state to this day. I’m not doing that again.
(Shorter me: I’ve seen the enemy, and he is us.)
OzoneR
@replicnt6:
only until the primary, then he endorsed Lamont.
NobodySpecial
@OzoneR: No, in this case, the people rewarding the Republican’s behavior are Obama and the ‘centrist’ Democrats in the Senate leadership, because the voters aren’t the ones who put this bill together without input from progressives in the House and Senate. Yes, the voters put them in last year, but it is doubtful that they put them in to torpedo the economy.
dollared
@boss bitch: Actually, we are all in a panic because there is no way to hold the Senate and Obama is our only hope.
And as for your defense of his negotiating strategy, I’ll say it again: if we were unwilling to do 14th amendment, and we were unwilling to risk a default, then the Republican strategy was exactly right, and then Obama was a goddamned, fucking moron with no brains when he didn’t get the debt ceiling raise in the December deal.
You can’t have it both ways.
Lol
It’s funny how when told Lieberman is retiring, instead of admitting his mistake, Loviator digs in and insists that he is too running!
The Nutroots in a Nutshell.
OzoneR
@NobodySpecial:
of course they didn’t put them there to torpedo the economy, because they don’t believe their policies WILL torpedo the economy.
boss bitch
@Turgidson:
No offense, but phrases like “fight harder” and “fight fire with fire” don’t mean anything to me. I prefer ideas that weigh pros/cons and includes a back up if all else fails. And I want that strategy to seriously consider the consequences. People have been dismissing the possibility of impeachment as no big deal. Or acting way too confident that the GOP would blink.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
Freddie @top
As usual I’m way too late to the party so this comment will probably go unread, but here’s my $0.02: the Left and the Moderates are both working to try to accomplish similar policy goals but their chosen tactics are driven by very different conceptual models of what drives voter choice. See my comment from yesterday’s always-darkest-before-it-goes-pitch-black thread for details.
The other thing is, there is some basic math at work causing politicians to seek votes in the middle, the logic of which gets overlooked IMHO: a swing voter in the middle who switches their vote from R to D is worth twice as much in terms of trying to win an election as a disaffected voter on the Left who either votes or stays home depending on the details, because the latter voter only adds 1 to the D column whereas the former voter add 1 to the D column and also subtracts 1 from the R column.
Turgidson
@OzoneR:
The teahadists might wonder if their hostage actually has any value if Obama can just lift the ceiling unilaterally. And Boehner might fear for his job if he believes that the 14th is a viable option and he might walk away from the mess he helped make with nothing to show for it.
Look, I give Obama a lot of benefit of the doubt and I’m not saying President Hamsher would have done better (ha!)- and I’m also not saying ZOMG IF HE’D JUST DONE THIS HE WOULD HAVE TOTALLY WON AND IT WOULD RAIN LIBERAL PONIES like his most vocal frenemies on the left do. But I do think playing that card in some way rather than dismissing it out of hand could have had a positive effect. I mean, jesus, he was negotiating with people, some of whom said with apparent sincerity (I believed them, anyway) that destroying the country’s creditworthiness was no big deal. Certainly he can push back with what tools he has. That’s all I’m saying. Obama 2012.
Samara Morgan
@wrb:
yes!
as i have found with horses, exploiting the bad behavior, channelling it is far more successful.
i was in a clinic with the great olympian Karen O’Connor when i was young, but i never forgot what she taught me about my wicked pony Taffy.
She said open a door.
Obama opened a door for the conservatives that didnt really want to default–they could not go on record and say that– the base would have eaten them alive, and no way Obama could beat them into submission– but he opened a door.
and he let them go in.
Bender
@Heliopause:
That’s generally true, if trivial. I would observe that the distance seems to be shrinking, and that the movement is from the Euro side.
It doesn’t affect my point about the direction of the tide. The Tea Party is swimming with it, the leftists are swimming against it.
OzoneR
@dollared:
ok, but I wouldn’t go with a “goddamn fucking moron with no brains” but then again I’m not desperate to trash the guy.
FlipYrWhig
@dollared: Are we talking about movement-building, or the behavior of the blogosphere? Because I don’t think I’ve ever said one word against movement-building, which is vital. I have repeatedly been counter-critical about critiques of Obama that discount the reality that said movement is not yet built, and isn’t about to be, in numbers sufficient to produce both leftward pressure on Obama and other Democrats _and_ back it up with votes.
WereBear
JoshA @ 114:
thanks! If you hadn’t run across such sources of information, you would have had no way to handle your wonderings and wanderings.
NobodySpecial
@OzoneR: Endorsed Lamont, but refused to stump for him.
Just Some Fuckhead
@dollared:
He’s not a very good leader, woefully inexperienced in executive government, enormously naive, operating from a center right perspective, and seems incapable of learning from mistakes but he did seem to be threatening default in the first “Call Your Congressperson for Balance And Compromise” speech. Baby steps.
Scott P.
I agree 100%. The problem is that the Left tends to coalesce around demands that by their very nature split the Democratic Party and unite Republicans, rather than around demands that unite the Democratic Party and split Republicans.
“Health care for everyone!” is a demand that unites.
“Public option or nothing!” is not such a demand.
Samara Morgan
look. read freddies first principles post before you comment.
the guy is a pompous gasbag, a liberty-as-goal libertarian, and an Obama concern-troll.
i will summarize the whole 1000 words of this post for you.
Just Some Fuckhead
Lamont was not the great progressive hope. He was simply a way of trying to hold a weasel like Lieberman accountable, something we can never do because something bad might happen and then what?
OzoneR
@Turgidson:
what? This doesn’t make any sense. They don’t WANT the debt ceiling raised, neither did the public, why in hell would they be opposed to Obama doing it himself, cleaning their hands from it, and beginning a another summer of tea party crazy against it. Not to mention, it might not even have done anything to solve the debt ceiling problem.
you’re not taking away a hostage, you’re giving them ammunition.
OzoneR
@Just Some Fuckhead: .
yeah that worked out well.
dollared
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: I like your point about the basic math. But I think you have to build the liberal brand, and identify it with working for common people, to make that flip in a lasting way. Democrats have been avoiding that. I see a lot of denigration of “populism” on this blog, but isn’t that fundamental to reducing the 41% conservative identifier?
Just Some Fuckhead
@OzoneR: See?
geg6
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
Oh, I agree that what you describe is the only way we can get it done. It’s what I’ve been doing in the forty years that I’ve been active in Democratic politics. And I’ve had a few successes. But it’s taken me forty years to chalk up those successes. That’s why looking to the Teabaggers and GOP as examples is a stupid way to look at it. Democrats and Democratic leaners can’t be recruited or politicized or encouraged to become active in the same ways as people who are into authoritarianism. We’re not into “daddy figures” in the same way. With us, it’s one person at a time, incremental change, and a different approach for each possible recruit.
Not nearly as easy as ginning up a bunch of morans with the character of toddlers to scream racial epithets and demand the economics of their fantasy world in tri-corner hats and bedazzled over-sized t-shirts.
Omnes Omnibus
@Norwonk: I think there are two things going on at once. There are people who are primarily interested in playing defense, trying to make sure that we don’t lose protections that we have, stopping the Republicans from gaining, etc., and these people advocate caution because taking too many chances could be dangerous. At the same time, others are advocating going on offense and taking the fight to the GOP. This group wants to pushing things further and get more of what we all want. Again, I think it is a fight over tactics and even strategies, but not a fight over ultimate goals.
Monkey Business
The secret to the GOP’s success is no secret. It’s Reagan’s 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not talk shit about fellow Republicans.
We form these circular firing squads and after we’re done shooting at eachother, the GOP just has to clean up the mess.
OzoneR
@NobodySpecial:
was he asked?
futzinfarb
I think the model of a linear right-left scale that underlies this type of analysis is a problematic oversimplification. The left/right competition exists in a multi-dimensional space and so the strategies and tactics of the right don’t have a simple translation for implementation by the left. Ruthlessly exploiting that difference is a key component of right wing ascendancy.
To flesh this out, an analogy is the argument between biblical fundamentalists and those who believe in the theory of evolution by natural selection (and it always is shocking to me that I have to write “those who believe…” as though broad disagreement is anything other than extraordinary in a developed country in the 21st century):
Biblical fundamentalists: The book of Genesis. Done.
TENS: physics, biology, biochemistry, geochemistry, geology, fossil record, genetics, statistics, and on and on, ongoing experimentation, continued testing and refinement of understanding.
That is, one of these is painfully simple and one-dimensional while the other is demanding, complicated and multi-dimensional and because of the complexity can easily be misrepresented as condescending, elitist, and incomplete. In a society that demands, that reveres short attention spans and opts for presidents based on whom you’d rather drink a beer with, which is more likely to be successful?
And the right-left conflict is now of a similar structure:
Right: Government IS the problem. Done.
Left: private sector failures, externalities, justice, institutionalized inequities, structural inefficiencies, profit motive dangers, finite natural resources, the common good, and on and on, refinement of policies as necessary and based on best evidence available.
Until the situation is so horrible that a simple argument from the left of “Government IS the solution. Done.” resonates, I don’t have an answer for how to proceed, but because of what I have articulated here I don’t think simply playing the right’s game on the left is an effective strategy.
boss bitch
@Lol:
You caught that too did you?
AlphaLiberal
@Lolis:
I have never seen him called these things. I think you’re taking isolated examples and dishonestly painting all liberal critics of Obama by it.
replicnt6
@OzoneR:
John Boehner didn’t want to default. Most Republicans didn’t want to default. Nor did they want to try out the 14th amendment or platinum coin “solutions”. If Obama suggested he was willing to try “creative” approaches, his threats to veto a short-term bill, or a bill with no revenue increases might have actually meant something. As it was, everyone knew he’d sign whatever POS was put before him, because he had no plan B. To suggest a, perhaps risky, perhaps ultimately illegal, plan B would at least have prevented his threats from being completely idle.
OzoneR
@dollared:
politics is about personality, people vote for “who they like” not who agrees with them.
Liberals problems with the working class is their image of being anti-war, elitist, coastal brainiac hippies. Working class people may agree with you on issues, but they plain don’t like you.
OzoneR
@replicnt6:
that’s where I stop you, they very clearly wanted to default if that’s what it took to win.
Lol
@175: And….?
Lamont was down (and ultimately lost by) double-digits to someone who caucuses with Dems.
I can’t imagine why Obama spent his time campaigning elsewhere.
OzoneR
@AlphaLiberal:
go back to yesterday’s threat. Hell, AmericaBlog regularly calls him a homophobe.
boss bitch
@AlphaLiberal:
This isn’t nutpicking. You can find these statements in front page posts of liberal blogs and in the comments. You can hear it on TV and on the radio.
Loviatar
@165 – Lol:
Connecticut Senate Candidates for Senator, CT Election Race 2012
Connecticut Senate Election Deadlines:
– Filing for Major Parties: June 2012
– Filing for Independents: August 2012
– Filing for Third Parties: September 2012
– Primary: August 2012
.
So because I don’t take the word of a man who is a proven liar I’m a nut.
.
OBots in a nutshell, if you don’t agree with them then you’re to be denigrated and insulted.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@geg6:
I’m thinking more about the seemingly apathetic, those who feel they have no power, those who see governments and the institutions that governments create as something other rather than something that springs from themselves.
OzoneR
@Loviatar:
yes, I mean can someone give me a recent example of someone who announced he wasn’t running for reelection, raised no money, and then took it all back? Cause otherwise, you are being a nut.
Anyway, who cares, if he decided to run for reelection, some candidates may drop out.
Lol
And Lamont obviously didn’t feel slighted because he endorsed Obama in the primaries. If you ever want a good laugh, Lamont’s diary at GOS announcing it is pretty epic.
FlipYrWhig
@dollared:
I’ve been thinking about this, though. Considering how much leverage Republicans had by keeping the debt ceiling increase _out_ of the last deal, why would they have agreed to put it in there? Wouldn’t the last deal have had to be much, much worse from a Democratic standpoint in order to buy off that leverage?
Loviatar
@189 – boss bitch:
Did that last enema work out for, because you seem to have some pent up bullshit. This time tell them to start from your mouth, because that seems to be where ts leaking from.
dollared
@boss bitch: You’re nutpicking. Did anyone else deny reality about Lieberman? Yet you said that was all the netroots in a nutshell.
You just defined nutpicking.
Omnes Omnibus
@Loviatar:
Actually, from what I have seen, you popped in here a few weeks ago full of rage at Obama and anyone who didn’t agree with you. Now, I will admit that I haven’t read everything you have ever posted here, but denigration and insults seem to flow very well from your keyboard.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Loviatar:
Funny, that, because the first time Obot was applied to me, it was after I criticized Ben Nelson and pals for blocking better health care reform, long before I first punched a hippie.
Glass houses, I guess.
Samara Morgan
so i take it you are not voting for Obama?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@dollared:
Yes, and this is where I think the Left has a legitimate beef with Obama (and with Clinton before him). If anything Obama takes the opposite tactic: he packages liberal policies (watered-down tho they may be) as bipartisan/centrist in an effort to get what he perceive as a center-right electorate the buy in on center-left governance. If you read the fine print on these deals which Obama is making with the GOP, it often turns out that the GOP has bought a pig-in-a-poke.
But there are two probles with this approach of his. First it is an essentially technocratic approach which treats the voters as children who have to be tricked into eating their vegetables. That isn’t sustainable in the long run even if it works in the short run.
The second problem is that in giving away the optics in order to obtain something of substance underneath all the details, Obama is trading away liberal values in order to obtain liberal results. But that isn’t a trade which is acceptable to dedicated liberals because results are negotiable but values are not. Results define how we are doing, but values define who we are. I can’t speak for all liberals, but for myself I’m willing to give ground to the other side (if that is how things shake out) on pretty much everything except the fundamental values which define our society. Those are not on the table, they are something to be fought for with all due ferocity, not something to be bargained away for the sake of a temporary benefit. And Obama doesn’t seem to get that.
dollared
@FlipYrWhig: We’ll never know. Unless, of course, Bob Woodward gets the inside scoop later and tell us in a $24.95 book.
Elie
Sorry that I haven’t read every single comment (I will)
I really believe as strongly as it can be said that no real change in the nature of our candidates or winning policies for the left/progressives without starting at the grassroots. All the talk about primarying Obama and damaging our hold on the Executive and Congress, trying to rid “us” of the Blue Dogs or centrists is a bullshit strategy. We have as WhipYrWhig and others put it upstring support for those candidates that reflects a real group of folks who vote! What are we to do, just let them run to the Republicans? When the populace shifts their perceptions, it shifts the candidates.
I have a suggestion and recommendation for a good place to start. The split up of the unions from the old liberal Democrats was devastating to both. The Union movement has lost a lot and while their comeback is not assured, I think that it could resonate with many many workingclass Americans to support aspects of collective bargaining to achieve fairness and pay equity at work. This would be a powerful and effective approach to make the populace more engaged to left leaning policies as a transition from where they are now, because after several decades of corporate and right winged influence, we do not have a left perspective that is easy for most average Americans to see and understand.
Second thing that I think is critical is to stop, STOP beating up the American people as dumb or rubes and show respect for the hard place that people, average, hard working people, have found themselves. Contempt never wins support and I find many of the liberals unbearably elitist and really unwilling to listen — to LISTEN.
Third, I think that the lefty jihadists that show up here to insult the centrists/progressives and expect us to just go to their side can go lick their privates in their own homes. Go spread your crap elsewhere or expect to get what you get. I support Obama but recognize that he is not perfect. I am tired of explaining why and want that respected for once. Y’all can believe what you want but if you want my respect, you won’t get it with insults “in my home”, ya dig?
Omnes Omnibus
@Samara Morgan: Oh Good lord, is Freddie your new EDK?
Tom Q
Whatever Blanche Lincoln’s drawbacks or electoral weaknesses, without her casting the 60th vote, the health care plan wouldn’t have passed in ANY form. If Obama had then turned around and not supported her, it would have told every unsafe Democrat that sticking your neck out for Obama was a fool’s game.
Nied
@OzoneR:
Because it would take away that thing that they wanted to do! Never mind that it wouldn’t actually avoid the damage to the economy (because if there’s one thing markets like more than an economic crisis, it’s a Constitutional crisis layered on top of an economic one).
Really that’s what’s most important to a lot of people on both the left and the right. “Sticking it” to the people who wronged them is more important than objective policy improvements.
geg6
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
Well, that would be Democrats and Democratic leaners, wouldn’t it? They may not call themselves that, but that is what they are. If we point out all the good things government has done for them (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, student aid, etc.) and they say they value those things, we can get to them. If they don’t see value in government or governmental institutions, we have no chance at them as they are Republicans, Republican leaners, or libertarians.
dollared
@OzoneR: You don’t know who I drink with, buster.
But assuming you’re right: should we just quit? We actually represent the interests of the working class, but we should not actually, you know, try to get their votes?
Samara Morgan
Freddie seems to want a PARTISAN president…is that right?
does anyone else think that would be a good thing?
shouldn’t the president be the president of all the americans, and not the chair of the DNC?
i honestly want to know.
boss bitch
@Loviatar: @dollared:
LOL!!! you two are so fucking hilarious. LOL!!! Really. I mean that. I just have this picture of two mangy dogs yapping uncontrollably for no reason.
FlipYrWhig
@replicnt6: Incidentally, why would the trillion-dollar coin have to be made of anything precious? Why couldn’t it be a bunch of scrap metal melted down?
Heliopause
@Bender:
Well, no, that’s rather the point. One’s point of view will certainly not always be in the ascendant, but it can influence the center of gravity even when it isn’t. The Conservatives are nipping at the heels of National Health, not repealing it. Obama and parts of the GOP are talking about nipping at the heels of entitlements, not repealing them. The New Deal and Great Society successfully set the center of gravity for Social Security and Medicare such that they will almost certainly continue to exist, even if the Tea Party has the momentum right now.
geg6
@Omnes Omnibus:
Based on this post, I’d have to say she may have a point.
Suffern ACE
@FlipYrWhig: The economic forecast looked much different in December 2010 than now. Anemic growth but not a double dip was the opinion. The Dems balked at the tax increases for the wealthy to get more funds to states for unemployment benefits through the end of the year. For those recieving benefits, that probably has been very helpful, even though the December 2011 end date was too optimistic. My guess is that the debt ceiling would have been in exchange for something that would hurt immediately.
Also, how many here were expressing the opinion until just a few weeks ago that the ‘It’s all Kabuki. The Money men who really control everything would never go for default and we’d end up with a clean bill at the last second.’ Didn’t happen. But I wonder if that wasn’t the conventional wisdom.
Samara Morgan
@Omnes Omnibus: no, mistermix is.
i just like to make freddie cry. we go way back.
:)
did you read this Omnes? what freddie said?
i call Obama concerntroll, and a “civil libertarian” wearing liberalsheep clothing.
Loviatar
@199 – OzoneR: 2002 election
Senator Frank Lautenberg
.
2002
.
Lautenberg was retired for a year, but because of Torricelli’s legal issues he was called to run again. He had raised no money, but because of his contacts and name recognition was able to win the election.
.
good enough for you, Obot
Elie
@Loviatar:
case in point… ahem
Why don’t you just stay over at fDL with your own kind? You will have more room to heist that leg up over your head while you lick. Or better yet, go over to redstate and fellate them — they are closer to your values.
Just saying..
boss bitch
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
don’t you think liberals should build their own brand? why this reliance on Obama? I’ve never heard him say that one of his goals is to build the liberal brand.
FlipYrWhig
@Tom Q:
+1. I wondered if it was explicitly part of a deal between them.
Elie
@Samara Morgan:
Yes… you are right on.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@dan:
Clearly, you don’t get liberals at ALL. Its more like, ‘If my guy does it, I’m BETRAYED! He HATES US! He’s WORSE that THEY are!’ However, if the GOP does it, ‘Ho hum. La la. That is what they do. WHY couldn’t my guy stop them?! He must secretly agree with them. I’m BETRAYED!!’
Turgidson
@FlipYrWhig:
kos used to (sanely) say that he didn’t mind having conservative Dems in conservative areas as long as they kept their big mouths shut and didn’t stand in the way of the party pursuing its platform. His example used to be Ben Nelson, who was an unreliable vote but didn’t get in front of every camera he could find to brag about his “independence” like that useless dipshit Lieberman did. Of course, once Nelson routinely became the swing vote on the filibuster, that changed and he became a preening fuckhead too. And it won’t save him from getting bounced.
But yeah, he’s gradually become more of a purity troll.
Omnes Omnibus
@boss bitch: I see a huge difference between Loviatar and dollared. Loviatar, in my view, is a firebagger troll who will attack and denigrate any action by the President and anyone who supports him; dollared, on the other hand, seems like a frustrated lefty who is unhappy with many of the decisions, especially tactical ones, made by the president. One, I respect even when I disagree with him/her and the other is simply an ass. YMMV.
dollared
@boss bitch: Hunh. You got a point, or do you just vent anger at people you don’t know for no good reason?
Samara Morgan
sheesh…how do i summon ABL?
draw a pentagram with my own blood?
shes waay bettah at asskicking Obama-concern-trolls than i am.
Lol
@203: I was referring to the Netroots’ overall propensity to double-down on the dumbass than admit making a mistake than Lieberman in particular.
How do Greenwald, Sirota and Hamsher react when informed they’re wrong? Just look at Loviator’s posts for an example.
Anyways, if Loviator is so confident that Lieberman is running next year, I’m sure he wouldn’t mind making this bet interesting. Maybe $100?
Omnes Omnibus
@Samara Morgan: You still don’t understand the difference between a “civil libertarian” and a “libertarian.” But, whatever; I think organized groups on the left can help shore up the the left flank of the Democratic Party. They can give cover to a President who wants to move left. I also think that it is important for those groups to know when pushing will help and when it won’t.
wrb
That is just completely false. That is exactly what firebaggers are being criticized for. The bill does none of those things. FBs are claiming that it sets up a mechanism by which perfidious Obama and his fellow travelers will do that sometime in the future. They just know this.
The bill places a sword at the throat of the Congress. Astonishingly, the Republicans agreed to a sword consisting almost entirely of things that progressives should favor and Republicans will hate. During the health care fight it was Republicans who blocked reductions to provider payments, it is Republicans who most dependably prevent reductions in the insane military budget.
What liberals should be doing, if outcomes are what they care about, is praising this deal to the heavens, thus making it difficult for the committee to substitute the shit platter that they fear.
boss bitch
@Omnes Omnibus:
I disagree on dollared but that’s all I’m gonna say on that. I’m not here for a flame war. I didn’t curse at either and didn’t call them names. I held back and surprisingly so did most people in this thread. Their reactions were completely unnecessary.
Tom Q
@Loviatar: That’s your idea of an analogy? Lautenberg coming out of retirement because the party begged him to salvage a race that had become unwinnable for Torricelli on legal issues equates to “Lieberman might still run”?
If you don’t want people to dimiss you, don’t make laughable comparisons like that.
Elie
@Samara Morgan:
LOL!
Actually, ABL just allows them to reveal themselves exactly as they usually do. “He who knows little soon tells it”
I’m convinced some of these folks could care less about the content of policy and more about just being harassing nags to distract and demoralize.
dollared
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ: Amen. Aaaaaaamen. Democrats have traded the short term pain reduction for the long term loss for a very long time, and it shows.
Suffern ACE
@Loviatar: Lautenberg got Torcelli’s money and the Democratic party apparatus support to pull a campaign together.
Lieberman has left the Democratic party and is not as far as I can tell, so wealthy that he would finance his own campaign.
dollared
@boss bitch: Um, a “mangy dog” is not a name?
Thanks for the word, Omnes.
boss bitch
@Samara Morgan:
She’s fighting them on twitter
Loviatar
@204 – Omnes Omnibus:
.
Nahh, I worked my way up to returning the insults. I’ve been here for a few years lurking and occasionally throwing in a comment. I started speaking up a little more when I saw the overwhelming abuse directed at anyone who didn’t toe the Obama line. I tried to politely point out that Obama’s policies have not been the most progressive and the abuse directed at me and others like me was disturbing (naive and ill informed are the nice ones). When Obama’s politics resulted in things happening the way we (Liberals) predicted the abuse doubled.
I’m not a patient person and I’m also a vindictive person, so I have no problems returning the abuse and rubbing their noses in the failures of there great leader.
.
So, like I used to say to my mom about my brother, he started it first and I aim to end it. It may not wash with you (it sure the hell didn’t wash with my mother), but that how I am.
Commenting at Ballon Juice since 1937
The Tea Party has made themselves as relevant as the Yippies did in the late 60’s. The next GOP convention is going to look like the Dems in ’72. Its not pretty and impresses no one. Living in a reactionary red county, my wife is running for county legislator. She can not run as a Dem but is running on a county third party. She is getting a lot of support from people who would normally vote Republican. They won’t vote Dem but are looking for anything except the Repugs who are Tea Party sympathizers.
Omnes Omnibus
@dollared: NP.
Lol
@222: So, no, you couldn’t find an example of someone announcing they were retiring and then running for re-election anyways.
Do you know how much money Lieberman raised last quarter? Negative $24,000. He’s started refunding campaign cash.
Elie
@dollared:
and I agree with Omnes and also find you to be principled in your comments. I appreciate that even if I don’t agree with you frequently.
Maude
@Elie:
Has anyone ever told you that you need to speak up and not be such a mild mannered Clark Kent?
That was righteous.
futzinfarb
@Elie: I think parts of your response are examples of what I was trying to discuss in post 188. The right PORTRAYS much of the left’s position as contemptuous and elitist, an easy sell because of the complexity of the position.
The left does need to listen, but after listening there is very little that can be done to soften the blow of telling people that their model for living in exurbia driving a Ford
ExcessExcursion five miles for a gallon of milk, in a world at or near peak oil, and as global climate change tightens its grip, is going cost more – or perhaps even be untenable. Unhappy truths can be so easily portrayed as contempt and elitism.Samara Morgan
@Omnes Omnibus: no YOU don’t understand the whole libertarian scam, dude.
read me
civil libertarians are just liberty-as-goal libertarians.
they are all libertarians. otherwise they would call themselves SOMETHING ELSE.
here are some other names of libertarians; bleeding heart libertarians, liberaltarian, classic liberal, neo-liberal.
all the same.
boss bitch
@dollared:
yes, it is name calling and its in response to your own uncivil comment. Like I said most people (and myself) have been holding back in this thread and here you two come with cursing and name calling – for what?
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@boss bitch:
I think this is a good idea in theory. Political movements need to be at the grassroots to gain traction, not top down affairs. In practice this is a really hard thing to pull off becuase in today’s media environment actual liberals can’t get near a microphone. The Dems who can get a near a microphone are almost by definition the Blue Dogs who are there to do the work of the oligarchy by punching hippies, and folks like Lady Jane who are on purely to bolster the media’s chosen conflict/freakshow narrative and who will never be allowed to articulate a liberal viewpoint that resonates with the average TV viewer (amongst other things this takes constant repetition and a supportive chorus). The POTUS is the exception to this rule that Dems only get on TV if they are ratfuckers or freaks, because the media can’t completely cut him/her off at the mike. But anybody below that level has a very difficult time getting their viewpoint onto TV or in print with anything like the frequency and duration we need.
Elie
@Commenting at Ballon Juice since 1937:
THIS is what I am talking about folks! A start in a place — a beachhead to future representation and prepping folks for fundamental change. Our part of the county is also very conservative and we are struggling with how to get some folks elected by framing our policies in ways that will be attractive, but not labeled “Democrat” or “Liberal”
Out of curiosity, what are the people who are supporting your wife focusing on? What is it that made them leave the typical Republicans in your area.
Very exciting! Let us know how it goes…
dollared
@Elie: I agree with 1 and 2, absolutely. But 3 is just basic censorship. The Democratic Party and the Liberal/Progressive movement shouldn’t have anyone that criticizes leadership?
Then you’re back to kicking out the unions because they didn’t like Obama’s kiss off to card check.
Loviatar
@236 – Tom Q:
.
I thought by identifying someone per the highlighted area above I had addressed the core point of the argument. I guess Lautenberg announcing his retirement, raising no money, then taking it all back and winning, is not a good enough analogy for you.
And you guys say we use sophist arguments
Samara Morgan
@wrb: yessssssssssss! AMG that was splendid.
now tell me why this fucker(freddie) is a front pager and you aren’t?
halp us ABL, you’re our only hope!
/draws pentagram in blood on screen
dollared
@boss bitch: Ummm….what was my uncivil comment to you?
Stillwater
@Loviatar: When Obama’s politics resulted in things happening the way we (Liberals) predicted the abuse doubled.
The Teabagger similarities continue to grow: now the full embrace of victimization as a political weapon. With a touch of hurt feelings thrown in.
Were you a Hillary supporter by any chance?
Elie
@futzinfarb:
I totally hear you and agree. Its HOW we get THEM to draw those conclusions from their OWN experience rather than lecturing as though we have all the answers. Its more asking the strategic question and letting it sink in — then reinforce. Yes, it takes a while and building trust, but it Does happen. We need that on a massive scale at the local level first and foremost.
Thanks for your comment.
Turgidson
@OzoneR:
The GOP leadership did want the ceiling raised – hence my comment about Boehner, who pursued this nonsense at the cajoling of the teabaggers – he himself is far too bought-and-paid-for to have actually wanted default and his extensive voting record will tell you he doesn’t actually care about the deficit either. The teabaggers wanted a scalp and the specter of the 14th could have made it plausible to Boehner that he’d come out of it with nothing – that being the case, he’d have more incentive to take a less-horrible deal earlier in the process. Maybe.
I see where you’re coming from on the teabagger calculus, but I think they, crazy as they are, had an inkling that the ceiling would get raised one way or another – they may not have cared if we defaulted, but the least they wanted out of this was a steaming pile of austerity, so they were treating the debt ceiling like a hostage. The idea of the 14th freeing the hostage and them getting no ransom changes the state of play. Would a unilateral debt ceiling raise have damaged our credit as much as default? I dunno, but in the context of these negotiations I’m not sure that matters.
Like I’ve said in every post, I don’t claim to have any insight into whether pushing the 14th option would have necessarily led to a better outcome. I just think dismissing it out of hand reduced their leverage.
Commenting at Ballon Juice since 1937
1) Fiscal bills originate in the House.
2) Enough Repugs refused to ever increase the debt ceiling (i.e. Bachman) that Boehner was F’d – he needed Dem support.
3) Boehner’s career was over unless he got a pure GOp bill through the house.
4) Harry Reid created the ‘compromise’ bill that Boehner could get through later with Dem help.
5) The ‘compromise’ doesn’t do anything substantial until some time in the future – its a smoke screen.
6) There are elections between now and that some time in the future.
7) The Bush tax cuts expire next year if nobody does anything – revenue problem solved.
8) People now hate the Tea Party and the Dems look like the only ones who know how to govern.
9) RUN ON THAT!!
Omnes Omnibus
@Samara Morgan: Would you consider William O. Douglas to be a libertarian?
Lol
@254: Except for the part where Lautenberg announced he was going to retire and then proceeded to do so.
That he was recruited as an emergency replacement candidate later on is utterly irrelevant.
Like I said, if you’re so confident Lieberman is running, put up some money. Or are you going to whine like a little baby because you got called on your bullshit again?
Elie
@dollared:
Now dollared, is that what I said? I said that I wanted to be shown respect for my views, not to be hollared at like I am a moron. Not that I don’t want other opinions here — only that I want us to be respected.
Loviatar
@239 – Suffern ACE:
Lieberman didn’t have a major party apparatus in 2006, yet he got reelected.
.
A little out of date, but it was the most recent I could find.
Joe Lieberman Cash on Hand
Cycle Fundraising, 2005 – 2010, Campaign Cmte
Raised: $19,626,065
Spent: $18,956,546
Cash on Hand: $1,226,450
Debts: $0
Also, If you don’t think Lieberman couldn’t tap his contacts within CT and the financial industry to quickly raise financing for another run you don’t know how bought and paid for our political leadership is.
eemom
@Omnes Omnibus:
you think she’d know who William O. Douglas was without googling her patootie off? bwaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaa.
(yes, that is the sum total of my contribution to this thread. So sue me.)
dollared
@Elie: Apologies. I completely agree about the insults part.
Now, please note that movement progressives who are frustrated with Obama don’t just “show up” here. They are equal members in full standing as commenters in this blog, many of them for many years.
This blog does not have a stated policy of supporting President Obama, right or wrong, AFAIK.
Elie
@Turgidson:
but wouldnt you also say that it was important that if the 14th or some such alternative was to be used, that communicating that would have led to other bad outcomes:
1) they would have been ready to move quickly to impeachment
2) the power of the executie branch would have again prevented the congress from “doing its job” — what many of us have screamed about literally for years. Way too much power has flowed out of congress and they have gotten off way too easily letting the executive run the debate and key decisions. this was a victory (although I know it does not feel that way for some) for balanced government.
Loviatar
@262 – Lol:
Last time I did something on a dare was in the Army, I kind of grew from there.
.
You it does seem you’ve grown at all.
Omnes Omnibus
@eemom: That was actually part of my point. She doesn’t know what she is talking about.
Samara Morgan
@Omnes Omnibus: the past is dust.
come on up to the 21st century Omnes. Freddie is a first culture intellectual, like all libertarians.
im a third culture intellectual. its our destiny to loathe each other.
Elie
@dollared:
You are right. Its not just an Obama site and I withdraw that part of my statement. Still, I would like those of us who do not share the most left and anti-Obama views to be more respected. In fact, anti-Obama versus anti Obama policies are a key differentiator between good strong “opposition” arguments versus character assassins.
wrb
@Turgidson:
The teabaggers were the only ones who wanted to see the government shut down, but the whole GOP wanted the austerity and were concerned that their careers were over if they voted for a bill that did not include it.
And they have the majority.
Coming out of that that with the cap raised until after the election, only promises of future austerity (which promises can be ignored in the future) and default cuts that Democrats have been trying to achieve for years is kinda good, I think.
Loviatar
You Obots guys keep jumping an me about Lieberman. I’ve given you my reason why I think he may run (I don’t believe his pronouncements of retirement), so a simple question for you.
.
– He is a proven liar, so why do you believe him?
Samara Morgan
Halp halp ABL!
we have a front pager that is a bona fide firebagger and an Obama-concern-troll!
Omnes Omnibus
@Samara Morgan: The past isn’t even past. In the US, we are still fighting over issues from the 1700s and earlier. Knowing whence an idea came allows one to see how it developed and how it is likely to develop in the future. If you insist on your own definition of terms, it becomes impossible to actually carry on any kind of discussion with you.
Samara Morgan
run away freddie.
your tears are delicious.
Samara Morgan
@Omnes Omnibus: my dear, its generational.
do you honestly think Douglas has any bearing on contemporary american libertarians? i dont.
you are being a first culture intellectual like freddie.
Lol
@273: because “he’s lying” isn’t actually proof.
He’s announced he’s retiring, he has no campaign infrastructure or staff and he’s refunding money to donors.
In 2006, he piggy backed on the Rell campaign to get reelected. He won’t have that again.
He’s a surefire loser if he runs and Lieberman’s the kind of guy who would rather say he quit than got fired.
But I guess you’ve got your gut feeling and feelings are a kind of fact, right?
wrb
@Samara Morgan:
I disagree with the idea that a “first culture intellectual” is inherently a bad thing. It was originally used to describe the those with a literary, poetic or transcendental approach to understanding and describing reality, verses the mechanistic Cartesian manner. The argument in favor is that we have the ability to understand very complex and subtle things through transcendence that get lost when a more plodding meathod is used.
Dostoevesky, TS Eliot, Muir, Van Gogh and Siddartha are example of first culture intellectuals. I’d argue that they observed reality more deeply and accurately than is often achieved through the Cartesian method.
The coarsening of art and architecture after second culture intellectuals took over is pretty strong evidence.
I think you argument may be with fundamentalism, which is something different.
Samara Morgan
@wrb: read me
the second culture is scientists.
Loviatar
@278 – Lol:
.
no, I’ve got recent history and facts on my side.
.
you, you’ve got your belief in a proven liar.
.
hmmm, I wonder which one is more rational.
Omnes Omnibus
@Samara Morgan: Do you know who Douglas is? FYI he was not a libertarian. He matters to this discussion because he was a strong civil libertarian who could never be mistaken for a “bleeding heart libertarians, liberaltarian, classic liberal, neo-liberal.” I do not disagree with you that there are leftish libertarians. I continue to take issue with your contention that someone who self-identifies as a “civil libertarian” is a “libertarian.” A right winger on a hockey team could hold left of center views. Words have different meanings in different contexts.
wrb
@Samara Morgan:
I know that
Samara Morgan
Hey Cole, bring the hook for freddie and give wrb an FP slot.
i promise you will be charmed with my behavior.
he’s like Rosies crate for me.
Samara Morgan
@Omnes Omnibus: you continue to refuse to read Dr. Manzi’s essay, where he EXPLAINS ALL ABOUT LIBERTARIANS.
there are two kinds of libertarians, liberty-as-means and liberty-as-goal.
civil libertarians like freddie are liberty-as-goal type.
i simply do not care about Dead White Guy Phailosophy.
except for Jefferson.
;)
and are you ducking?
i axed what you thought of freddies statement.
AAA Bonds
@Mike Goetz:
It is!
TK-421
@FlipYrWhig:
Ok, but as far as I can tell you still haven’t answered my question. Yes yes, neither one of us is a centrist, so be it. We’re all just speculating here. Nevertheless, I don’t get the psychological/sociological dynamic at play.
I don’t get the mindset that insists on the one hand that liberals are small in number and therefore should be ignored, but on the other hand they should not be ignored and should be yelled at because SHUT UP OMG 2012 OMG SHUT UP.
Just look at these threads for examples- Cole’s post about the Blue Dog Shitshow Fail Parade was full of invective hurled at liberals. A post crapping on Blue Dogs was somehow a reason to bitch about liberals (and there are plenty of other examples). Why?
It doesn’t make sense. The shitty world we’re living in right now is not because of liberals. They’re not that numerous and they don’t matter, remember? So why is it such a common refrain to bitch about liberals when something bad happens? How is that helpful, or even rational?
It smells like scapegoating to me- YES WASHINGTON SUCKS AND OBAMA IS GOING THE WRONG WAY BUT OMG DID YOU SEE WHAT THAT ONE LIBERAL TWEETED? How many times have we seen that morality play get staged here? And then people expect liberals to play along happily, forever and ever and ever? Come on, get real.
The problem is not the voting patterns for liberals. I don’t believe liberals will fully exorcise the memories of 2000 and the impact of that, at least not for awhile. Liberals are, for the most part, going to loyally vote D. No, I don’t believe that’s the problem centrists have with liberals right now. Rather, I speculate it’s the liberals’ withdrawal of money and time that is rankling some.
And, well, if you want liberals’ time and money in addition to their votes, then you’re going to have to earn that by embracing and advocating liberalism. To suggest otherwise is unreasonable and irrational, and possibly manipulative and/or abusive.
Liberals either matter, or they don’t. If they matter, then they deserve far more influence than they’ve gotten. If they don’t, well, then WTF do you care what they say or tweet or blog about?
Samara Morgan
@Elizabelle: dont bother. i have synopsized it.
you can thank me later.
:)
Rob
Well said, Freddie!!! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Omnes Omnibus
@Samara Morgan: I read the flipping essay months ago. It is obvious that you don’t care about political philosophy of any kind because you can’t be bothered to try to use the correct terminology. Your area is math, isn’t it? If I were to refer to integers when I mean fractions or say that Euler’s number was pi, I would not get very far in a discussion, would I?
ETA: I also indicated above the degree to which I agreed with Freddie. To the extent that I did not indicate that I agreed, one may conclude that I disagree.
Samara Morgan
@Rob: yes well said indeed.
i take it you dont read freddies blog?
i do.
firebagger alert.
eemom
@Lol:
imo, this whole ridiculous exercise is an attempt to cover up his embarrassment at not having known that Lieberman isn’t running for reelection.
You know, when you spend your days trolling blogs and throwing temper tantrums, the occasional well known fact does slip by you.
TK-421
@boss bitch:
The point that I previously was trying to make to Lolis, and I’ll make it to you as well: none of those people are here. Freddie didn’t say these things, people here didn’t say these things, I didn’t say these things, etc.
Talk to us, not some a–hole who’s not here and isn’t welcomed here. Engagement is about, uh, engaging people on what they believe, not what some other person said somewhere else at some other time. If you want to engage with things John said at AmericaBlog or if you want to (again for like the 10,000th time) point at Jane Hamsher, please spare us and just go to their blogs and engage them on things they said.
Jesus dancing tits, if I never hear about Jane Hamsher again it’ll be too soon. She is not the voice of liberalism, so please let go of that straw man. Pretty please.
Samara Morgan
@Omnes Omnibus: if i were to try to navigate an ocean with a flatearther map i wouldn’t get far would i?
the past is dust.
do you understand what a third culture intellectual is?
Loviatar
@292 – eemom:
maybe this whole exercise is to show Obots how ignorant their belief system is.
maybe its to show Obots not to be so trusting of politicians, even those supposedly on your side.
or
maybe its just to fuck with a bunch of assholes
Corner Stone
@Suffern ACE:
Not that you mentioned me here but I did want to add something to this.
There were some here who continually pushed the thought that Obama was overloading the scales and essentially giving the R’s more than they could say Yes to. And that this would force them to choke on the offer and eventually it would all lead to a “clean bill” and this was Obama’s grand plan the entire time. The line was that Obama would accept nothing but a clean bill or go the 14th. Those were the only two possibilities according to the “clean billers”.
And just speaking for myself, you had me saying that a deal was baked and all the sturm and drang and showmanship and “Don’t call my bluff, Eric” was nothing but a show. Kabuki, if you will. And that eventually a last minute “compromise” deal would be revealed, the House would sign it and Obama would sign whatever came to his desk. I never believed a “clean bill” was the desired, or eventual, outcome and said over a span of time and threads here that a compromise bill would magically be done before default deadline.
So, I don’t remember anyone combining some form of those two views here but it could have happened and I didn’t read it.
Corner Stone
@TK-421:
They can’t. Just like the zombie lie of liberals staying home because of FDL or Ed or some nebulous emo-prog, and this caused low voter turnout and cost the D’s the 2010 election.
They have to keep these things burning brightly.
TK-421
@FlipYrWhig:
I hadn’t thought of that. My first reaction is, well, the hypothetical you put forth implies that Austerity Shit Sandwich was inevitable. It was either happening in December, or now, or in the next budget debate. If that was inevitable, then it didn’t matter what President Obama did. Period.
If it didn’t matter what President Obama did, then would it have been worse if President Obama at least tried to remove the debt ceiling hostage back in December? My own opinion is no, and even if I’m wrong I’m still not sure how trying for it would have made anything worse.
More conceptually, if the outcome is inevitable no matter what you do (or say), then doesn’t that make it easier to do & say the “right” thing? I say yes. I say so-called inevitable outcomes are actually liberating…again, you can do and say whatever you want because it won’t matter!
Omnes Omnibus
@Samara Morgan: If the past is dust, I take it we will hear no more stories from you about your past experiences. Your conversations with Dr. Manzi. Your lessons in horsemanship from someone who’s achievements are in the past. Or even something that EDK said yesterday on one of his blogs. As a third culture intellectual, you don’t need the past, right?
Edited slightly.
wrb
@Samara Morgan:
Nah
There are no architects alive today able to build anything as sophisticated and powerful as Pantheon, the Parthenon, the Hagia Sophia, Chartes, or Ryo-an-ji.
“And what there is to conquer
By strength and submission, has already been discovered
Once or twice, or several times, by men whom one cannot hope
To emulate- but there is no competition-
is only the fight to recover what has been lost
And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business”
Lol
@281: So far your recent history has been finding someone who announced he was going to retire, didn’t run for reelection and then left office. You’ve failed to explain how that helps your case.
You’ve also cited his cash on hand. The vast majority of his cash is left over from his 2006 campaign five years ago and nearly all of the remainder came in before he announced his retirement. Again, you haven’t explained how this means he’s actually running.
I on the other hand have noted that his actual behavior is consistent with a campaign retiring and that he’s too prideful to go down in defeat.
Of course, you dont actually believe he’s going to run again. You just can’t admit you were wrong so you’re now flailing around.
rpl
The 14th amendment has 5 sections. Below are number 4 and number 5. It is not clear that Obama would have the power to enforce section 4, in light of section 5. This might be why he wouldn’t try to use it. The rightist Supreme Court might know the difference between the legislative and executive branches of government.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
General Stuck
delightful thread
Omnes Omnibus
@General Stuck: We do our best.
replicnt6
@FlipYrWhig:
Yeah, I’ve been assuming that the precious metal aspect was just a rhetorical device.
aisce
wow, you guys sure let temple grandin…i mean matoko, i mean samara whateverthefuckhernameis do a number on this thread.
you coddle her by letting her get away with calling herself some type of intellectual. she’s gonna get a big head. jesus, the only way she’s even able to use the internet is because her state-sponsored social worker enables the speech-to-text function on her computer every morning. that fucker.
Corner Stone
@Stillwater:
I’m winning ’em over one at a time with my ineffable charm and grace.
Loviatar
@301 – Lol:
you win. I’m done.
.
People, people, Lieberman will definitely retire next year, I was wrong for not believing him. Even though he has lied repeatedly in the past, this time I should have believed him. I am ashamed of my skepticism and as atonement I will now believe anything told to me by all politicians.
.
Its no fun when the assholes don’t know when they’re beaten.
No matter what proof you provide, all you get is I’m right and you’re wrong, nahna, nanha, nanha. How do you argue with that.
.
TK-421
@Commenting at Ballon Juice since 1937:
I understand your logic, but 10% unemployment trumps everything you just said. I will never understand the Democratic Party’s constant overestimation and pursuit of “good” optics, especially when good optics comes at the expense of good economic policy.
Throughout our nation’s history (and probably other nations as well), economic issues have been the only factor that consistently affects the rate of incumbent success. We’re at 9.6% unemployment now, with absolutely horrid economic growth and no hope for improvement for at least a couple years. That’s going to be the driving force in 2012, not anything on that list.
And…President Obama’s economic strategy has been inadequate to the situation he inherited. I don’t think anyone is arguing that point anymore, because now it’s moot- even if he wanted to do something about the economy, he’s now limited to using his bully pulpit and maybe coaxing Bernanke to help. Unfortunately, he’s not doing the former and it’s doubtful or at least unclear that he’s doing the latter. So even though he’s now very limited on economic policy, he’s declining to do the little he can do. That’s inexcusable.
And, well, I don’t see why I should help a guy who doesn’t appear to want to help himself. I’m shrill like that.
Just Some Fuckhead
@TK-421:
He is definitely the wrong president for the times. I donated, volunteered and canvassed but that was for Candidate Obama that seemed to realize real change was required.
I think he’d make an excellent caretaker President.
Loviatar
@310 – Just Some Fuckhead:
Just because a person is a good candidate does not make them a good president or that they can govern well. The Republicans prove that all the time, so why do people think that Democrats our outside the norm, we can also have our all hat no cattle presidents.
boss bitch
@TK-421:
Jesus dancing tits indeed. I simply commented on Alpha-Liberal(?) saying he’s never seen anyone call Obama those names. I responded that these types of things aren’t just found in the comments section (nutpicking) but also on the front page of blogs – well know blogs, TV and radio. This is fact. I’ve seen it. I’ve heard it. Where do you think people in the comments get this stuff from?
Yes, they are. Didn’t say he did, yes they have, didn’t say you did, etc.
I don’t know what this lecture was about. Alpha (someone here and present on this blog) made a statement and I pointed out it wasn’t true. I wasn’t even thinking about John or Jane because well, they are not the only prominent libs that do this.
I don’t give a shit about Jane either. She is not the voice of any thing except herself but the MSM keeps putting her ass on TV saying she represents me, the “base”. And you or someone else brought her up not me. Don’t put words in my post.
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: Winning ’em over to what though?
TK-421
@boss bitch:
First, I apologize if you feel like I jumped down your throat. That was not my intent. My bad.
Second, I think if you peruse this thread and a couple others from the last few days, you’ll see a definite pattern of “well, it’s true that Obama is doing some things wrong and liberals are sometimes right but OMG did you see what ___________ said/did? Liberals suck!” My point is, enough. Get past whatever ridiculousness going on with Jane Hamsher or John Aravosis or Ward Churchill (look that last one up, it’s an oldie but goodie). Enough. Liberals are not the problem here, no matter what some random liberal said or did, and therefore bitching about them isn’t the solution either.
I’m a little tired of the Jane Hamsher strawman, and I took it out on you. Sorry about that.
THE
@wrb:
Those are temples of SUPERSTITION and IGNORANCE. wrb.
The Temples of Science and Knowledge are the Large Hadron Collider or the Hubble Space Telescope.
General Stuck
@TK-421:
No, they aren’t. I’m a liberal of the pragmatic stripe. The problem is that some folks think they can say whatever they want and be shielded from challenge, and scribble out whiny comments like yours that just reeks of entitlement and some kind of co dependent plea for sympathy. Pathetic. And not part of this blogs ethos. Never has been.
The bullshit that is being accelerated here, is not good faith criticisms, for the most part. It is attempting to establish an anti Obama space, like so many other liberal blog comment sections. You don’t have that right. You can try, but some of us will resist that effort. Just so you knows.
OzoneR
@Turgidson:
the GOP leadership is not in control of the caucus, how many times have we seen this in action?
OzoneR
@dollared:
you should, but you’re going to need to forsake some people to do it, and you’re going to need people who they can trust and relate to.
You’re going to need a Southern white governor with a military background, and a party made up of them
Or you’re going to have to rebrand yourself as the party of coastal elites and social liberals.
Loviatar
@315 – THE:
Disagree totally.
Some of the greatest scientist in the past were religious figures, don’t let the worst of any group lead you into demagoguing the whole group.
The Pantheon, the Parthenon, the Hagia Sophia, Chartes, or Ryo-an-ji are as much temples of science and knowledge as the more modern institutions you’ve listed. They held the science, knowledge and history of the people who built them, yes it may have been of a religious manner, but it was still science, knowledge and history or does that not count.
Don’t demagogue.
Samara Morgan
@aisce: aiite assclown.
what do you think of freddies statement on his blog?
c’mon aisce, can you stick up for a firebagger?
dumbass, this pompous little prick is just another libertarian Obama concern troll.
strutting his stuff on the front page of a soi disant LIBERAL blog.
no wunner i have zero respect for Cole. or you.
or freddie.
notice he doesnt have the nads to defend this.
can you?
THE
@Loviatar:
ROFLMAO.
Samara Morgan
@wrb: thass right…Frank Lloyd Wright is dead.
terraformer
Damn, great discussion going on here.
Particularly like the back and forth between dollared and FlipyrWhig, and ThatLeftTurninAlbuquerque.
If we could have this kind of discussion on a national scale then we’d really be somewhere good.
ETA: Is Samara Morgan the new-and-improved Mat–ko_Ch_n?
Samara Morgan
@Omnes Omnibus:
read the book dude.
General Stuck
@THE:
Loviatar is a regular bad ass, that is going to end the fight, or whatever, that Obots started. He just ain’t gonna take it anymore. Some kind of prog crusade. teehee
Loneoak
@wrb:
Late on this, but word to that. Word.
Samara Morgan
@terraformer: its my latest aspect.
THE knows why.
im getting in touch with my inner child.
TK-421
@Lolis:
Ahem. If you “allow” criticism while trying to knock down that criticism by beating up a straw man (by, for example, constantly evoking the rhetoric used by somebody else somewhere else at some other time), then I’m not sure how that’s allowing criticism. It’s an attempt to paint a group member’s opinion as less than valid because of the words or deeds of another member of the group. It’s certainly not any engagement on policy critiques, and Freddie’s point becomes a little more valid.
Or, as another example, if a post critical of Blue Dogs is met with frequent comments bitching about how bad liberals are, then Freddie’s point becomes a little more valid.
Or, as another example, if ABL, in trying to distract everyone from the Obama Admin’s and the Democratic Party’s weird touchdown dance at paying a gut-wrenching ransom for a freed hostage and an ugly vote for the Austerity Shit Sandwich, points out a liberal’s critical tweet as some sort of ungodly immoral act because that criticism was leveled at Gabrielle Giffords, then Freddie’s point becomes a little more valid.
Or, as yet one final example, if John Cole himself decides to yell at a single liberal for a single tweet and extrapolates that into a massive “this is why we we can’t win because some liberals aren’t good team players” essay, then Freddie’s point becomes valid.
All but the last was from the last week, and John’s “root for your team” post was only like a month ago. Enough with Jane Hamsher. Enough with John Aravosis. Enough with obsessing on random tweets 15 months before the election and in the middle of the Second Depression. The frustration with liberals just looks like scapegoating to me. Yes, things suck right now, but liberals didn’t do this to you.
Stop yelling at them, and stop ferreting out Every.Single.Bad.Thing a random liberal does, because that’s not the problem, and it never was.
Stillwater
@FlipYrWhig:
This needs to be block-quoted because it’s a Big Fucking Deal. All the griping about procedure and decisions presupposes that a) the TP had the power to hold some bill hostage and that b) Obama could have averted this by being more cagey and clever during the preceding months. But how is that even coherent? If the TP realized it had leverage (they’re smart enough for that, right?), then the showdown was gonna occur at some point, and on their terms. So all the revisionism about what Obama could have done is meaningless, and entirely confused. And the further suggestion that he deliberately made those choices to fuck over liberals and progressives is, in my view, delusional.
Samara Morgan
@TK-421: yup.
THIS is what freddie said on his own blog.
WARNING WARNING
firebagger alert
General Products Anti-libertarian Shield deployed in STASIS mode
do not touch the sheild
LanceThruster
The Teahadists are the brownshirts of the GOP. I just don’t think they’ll be as easily dispatched as Ernst Röhm.
Samara Morgan
@TK-421: WTF?
did you even read what freddie said on his blog?
hes a firebagger.
this is all lies.
liar liar pants on fire.
and where is the brave freddie to defend this statement?
that pompous little prick ran like a scalded cat the minnit i quoted him.
TK-421
I’m going to assume you weren’t referring to me directly. I try very hard to operate in good faith and I try very hard to keep my Obama Admin critiques very narrow/specific. I may not always succeed but I try because, well, WTF else am I going to do? Overgeneralize and stereotype? I’ll leave that to others, thanks.
I don’t come here for comfort, because I don’t see the point in that. I come here to take the temp of moderates/centrists/non-liberal-whatevers, because those are the ones that are able to be persuaded. And my take is that at this moment in time, moderates et al are piiiiiiiiiiiissed at this debt ceiling debacle. Yeah, well, join the club and stop yelling at the liberals- they didn’t do this to you, and they’re pissed too (and oh BTW they sometimes have good ideas and maybe we should start listening to them blah blah blah).
Having said that, however, I’m no longer a fan of ABL’s work. Watching her contort herself through this debt ceiling absurdity makes me think she’s not to be trusted. I think this blog is better than her.
Loviatar
@325 – General Stuck:
I see you haven’t gotten over your butt hurt from the last time we met. I told you dude don’t clench, it only hurts worse if you clench.
Lube up and lets get started, I’ve been looking to hit me some old meat.
Samara Morgan
@TK-421: okfine, you dont dig ABL’s style….but what about freddie?
you dig this, homes?
you invited me here.
the least you can do is answer my questions.
Stillwater
@TK-421: People are pissed. no doubt. Two things about this: 1) Are they justified in being pissed. 2) And if so, where does the blame lay?
By my lights, the compromise was actually, given certain very real possibilities, a victory for the Dems. The trigger stipulates that 50% of all cuts come from defense, and exempts Medicaid and SS. That’s a pretty good deal for us, especially given that defense spending cuts have been a goal of the liberal/progressive agenda for a very long time.
Given that the trigger is so odious to TPGOPers, the likelihood of a deal increases, one that includes revenue increases. Win again. I don’t see how this is a bad deal for the Democrats. But maybe that’s because I’m not wedded to the idea that cuts are an intrinsically bad thing.
Samara Morgan
@TK-421: its like vamphyres.
you invited me into the House.
TK-421
@Samara Morgan:
I’m not sure if you’re claiming that the “he bragged…” statement is a lie, or the “This is a person who is not a liberal” statement is a lie. I’ll take them both on.
It is true that President Obama praised the vote to raise the debt ceiling. He praised the effect the bill was going to have, and he praised a bunch of other stuff involved with the bill. Is that “bragging?” Eh, that’s defensible. It’s certainly not a lie, in my opinion. If you want to argue that he had to praise it, well, then we’re not arguing about the accuracy of labeling it bragging, we’re simply arguing about the wisdom of it. Calling it bragging is provocative, but not dishonest IMO.
The second statement seems pretty definitive, but not inexorably so. One can rail that President Obama is not a liberal (I think I do that a lot), while also intending to vote for President Obama in 2012. I don’t think that’s what Freddie was saying there. I think he was saying he’s planning on sitting 2012 out. And, well, that may or may not be a lie. I guess we’ll find out.
Regardless, looking at Freddie’s statements, I think the Obama Admin has some work to do with him and others. The economy is not in a good place and won’t be during the election, and that might make things a little tight. In a tight election, it’s probably a good idea to start working on your base and making sure they’re with you.
Suffern ACE
@Loneoak: No shit. But lets yell about Obama. Or we could, you know, actually look at the two big items on the table and figure out which parts of the military or medicare don’t actually advance progessive values and which do and go after the committee.
But but no….not one cut to homeland security! It’s a recession don’t ya know. We love homeland security now. It’s what we’re all for. And those drones and landmines are fabulous. Lets order more!
General Stuck
@TK-421:
Oh, I see, your an evangelizing prog, passing through to enlighten us native moderate savages to be nice to, and honor our progressive betters.
Let me clue you in, so called Obots, come in all stripes of gradation to center left ideology. Some are hardcore far left liberals, others more moderate, but most are just mainstream liberals, like the kind that have given Obama record high approvals since he’s been in office. The data for this is on Gallups presidential polling center.
The reason some progs, ergo liberal ideologues, have a hard time here, is that they bring with them all sorts of memes from other lefty blogs and deposit them in the comment section of BJ. And the reason they have a hard time of it, is that when they are challenged on a lack of factual basis for their claims, they get pissy and scream “hippy punchers” .
No one here gets a free pass on the requirement to back up what you claim, some folks sure do whine about it though, when they are asked for evidence, and have none, or won’t listen to other evidence that counters their claims.
Good luck with your recruiting though. You’re going to need it.
TK-421
In this thread I saw a lot of people challenge Freddie’s assertion that the vitriol here in posts and in comments against left wing critics has gotten out of hand. Uh, there’s definitely evidence in the comments of that. And some posts seem to have gone out of their way to find some wrong thing a liberal did. I pointed out a few examples upthread, if you’re interested.
Goodnight all, have a good one.
General Stuck
@TK-421:
Come back and see us. Obots are meat eaters, but with sunny personalities. :0)
Samara Morgan
@TK-421: wallah.
the bonfire of the firebaggers.
freddie already SAID he wasn’t going to vote for O.
don’t come back.
you are weak, run run away like freddie.
you need a warrior soul to firebag here.
EmmATX
TK-421, I co-sign your comments (and love your pseudonym). I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said.
The vitriol here HAS gotten out of hand. You have people like Bruce S in previous threads, who made reasonable comments criticizing Obama on policy while emphasizing that he had supported him to the extent of giving money/blockwalking etc, and you STILL had commenters here going absolutely apeshit on him and calling him all sorts of things.
Unlike some, I do love ABL’s posts on sexism and racism; they’re funny and spot-on. But I agree that her condescending dismissal of any criticism of Obama, and the amount of attention she pays to irrelevant fools (look, it’s Jane Hamsher! Look, it’s Adam Green!) is getting ridiculous.
-Longtime lurker, very infrequent commenter
EmmATX
Oh, and for the requisite defense against charges of emo firebaggism: the only time I have ever visited FDL was to read TBogg or Marcy Wheeler, I supported Obama in the primary and will vote for him in 2012, and yes I did vote in the 2010 election.
Samara Morgan
@EmmATX: its freddie’s vitriol that bothers me.
i think as a BJ frontpager he should have to defend this statement.
Obama did that? i think that is a pack of hysterical lies and spin.
Here is some pure venom for you.
libertarians and evangelical progs never stand and deliver.
they allus run away.
:)
FlipYrWhig
@TK-421: I think you’re gravely wrong about the direction of the abuse. From where I’m sitting, just about every thread gets derailed into anti-Obama invective within 20 comments. And that’s here. Most of the other popular blogs go straight for anti-Obama invective. Snippy, grudge-nurturing, content-free anti-Obama people are _overrepresented_ in the blogosphere. They tend to pass themselves as the True Liberal Conscience of America. That shit gets old fast. That’s who could stand a good stiff dose of Shut The Fuck Up. Not liberals. “Liberals.”
MAGMA
@Samara Morgan: @Samara Morgan:hi! Do you have a boyfriend?
serena1313
@FlipYrWhig:
Better yet: not if, but “when”
buermann
@Samara Morgan: “Obama did that? i think that is a pack of hysterical lies and spin.”
He was referring to this:
So he stresses that everybody agreed on the Eisenhower baseline early, lies that it won’t be a drag on the economy, and then spins about public investments that they may or may not afford at Dwightian levels because where the cuts come from hasn’t been decided yet, they just kicked that can down the road. I would say Freddie was being generous in merely accusing him of being a braggart.
ABL
Having skimmed the comments briefly, I have these two links for those who think I’ve glamoured myself into believing the bill isn’t an Austerity Shit Catfood Super Congress Obama Wants to Murder Your Family Sandwich:
http://vichydems.blogspot.com/2011/08/democrats-powerful-negotiating.html
http://www.editedforclarity.com/2011/08/01/debt-ceiling-deal-the-devil-is-in-the-details/
Loviatar, you’ve been running around the blog saying the same shit and lobbing the same insults for about two months. Prior to that ????? Profit?
Commenters smack you down and you pop up like a wack-a-mole on another thread saying the same shit, and then you cry that you’re being mistreated? Ninja please.
Say, when are you going to start demanding that everyone provide itemized lists about what Obama has done that Reagan wouldn’t have done? Y’know, cuz he’s a Repullican and all? Now that was a super fun game.
/eyeroll
I agree with Matoko 3: The Reckoning.
As you were.
::exits::
Mike D.
I agree that the Left should act in a similar way, simply because it’s how you move parties. There’s no mystery to it.
But the Left should also be cognizant that they are working on a party that is itself naturally centrist, and has been drifting rightward stradily over the last thirty years. Most of the major players in the party are dispositionally perfectly comfortable with that – it’s who they are. The Tea Party, on the other hand, I amconvinced, was simply a group that came along at the right time for the the the right party to get it to make the move it has. This Republican Party needed very little prodding to make the moves it has, and it didn’t give up any territory in the center that it wasn’t essentially inclined and looking for an excuse to give up for the last few years. Remember, the Obama-era GOP total rejectionist strategy was fully deployed before the Tea Party really got up and running. And Sarah Palin’s appeal in large parts of the country was apparent long before that. This was already getting to be an extremist, overrepresented rump party before the Tea Party came along; indeed it’s entirely unclear which way the causation actually runs. Tea Partiers have always looked to me largely like nothing so much as an unrestrained inner core of the far right wing of the GOP. I think they get too much of the credit for what the main party has become. Not that they deserve none. But they haven’t been dragging an unwilling partner in a direction it didn’t want to go.
The same will not be true of the task Left-wing groups will carve out for themselves if they aim to bring about similar movement by the Democratic Party at large to what they think the Tea Party brought about in the GOP in 2009-11.
bob h
“How did they do it?”
All they did was show up in 2010, which many 2008 Obama bandwagon voters did not. All we have to do is show up in 2012, especially those of us who are young and brown/black.
Samara Morgan
@buermann:
that is not a lie.
fuck off troll.
buermann
@samara, why fuck you very much.
J.P. Morgan: “we continue to believe federal fiscal policy will subtract around 1.5%-points from GDP growth in 2012”; Tim Duy: “0.6 and 0.7 percent, respectively, for the final two quarters of [2011]”; Brad Delong “At the moment fiscal policy is already a ‘drag on a fragile economy’: fiscal contraction is shrinking annual GDP growth by 1 percentage point without corresponding monetary ease. The most Obama can correctly claim is that he has not just raised this drag on a fragile economy by very much.”.
Samara Morgan
@buermann: he raised it as much as he could, given the country is still half bubba.
The teabaggersTeam Reaver just tried to crash the global economy so they could reign amid chaos.what do retards like you and de Bore not understand about that?
Samara Morgan
@MAGMA:
im actually in the market for a sperm broadcaster.
send me your chromosome map and/or genomic profile.
buermann
Here you’re saying he “raised it”, what the hell does that even mean when they shrunk it, amidst their previously planned shrinking, and he pledged to shrinking it some more. Does he score points with you for raising it from his own proposals for $4T in fiscal contraction?
AlphaLiberal
Honestly I am very frustrated that we need to still have these debates we were having 202-5 years ago.
a) Yes, it matters legislatively if a party does not speak up in favor of the issues they care about. Or if they do a crappy job of communications.
b) Yes, it matters if a party practices “dance with them what brought you” or if they follow the post-Reagan Dem Party model, which has been a miserable failure:
“Hose them what brought you.”
This is Politics 101. Really, it’s pretty simple stuff. Because Obama does not want to be an advocate, or at least a strong one, for any particular values or positions, we have people all of a sudden wondering if the Bully Pulpit really works after all, if we can get ahead by giving the American people a real alternative to Republicans.
Time to play hardball with the Dem Party elite who exploit us and then pass crappy policies that hurt working people in this country.