Every time the Democrats do something to betray the promises of the 2008 election and bitchslap the people who believed in them, someone comes into the comments and says “will you support a primary for Obama NOW Jane?”
I answered the question yesterday during the Democratic Irrelevance Senate Debt Ceiling Watch Party:
It just seems like the same-old same-old. When I hear ideas that seem like they could catch on and ignite the fire of public imagination, I can feel it. The spidy sense goes off. I’m sorry to disappoint everyone but that just seems tired and doomed to failure, like playing with loaded dice and hoping that this time you can win. The very thought of it bores me. The only thing that bores me more are the people whose names have been floated to do it. How many of them are out there right now calling bullshit on both parties over this ridiculous theater? Zero. The idea of putting 5 minutes of energy into any of them makes me want to take a nap.
It isn’t out of fear, or loyalty to the Democratic Party, or Obama, or anything else. I just think it sounds like a shopworn and very ordinary solution to a problem that demands extraordinary vision.
It is unquestionable that the Tea Party moved the entire debt ceiling deal to the right. How did they do it? By taking out the people who failed them. Arlen Specter. Charlie Crist. Lincoln Chaffee. The people they felt betrayed their principles. Even if you don’t agree with those principles, their consistent adherence to them got results.
Whenever the talk of a primary comes up, I always ask “who is going to do this?” The answer is always someone like Bernie Sanders or Jan Schakowsky, the same people whose job it is to put the Good Liberal Housekeeping Seal of Approval on whatever piece of neoliberal shit the White House cooks up to please the bond vigilantes. The people who suddenly become okay with war when the White House says so, who shake their fists in the air with outrage right before they fold, the people you can count on to always be there when there’s nothing they can do…and are nowhere to be found when they can.
There were 173 Democrats in the House – including Dennis Kucinich and every single member of the Progressive Caucus – who voted for Reid’s Catfood II Super Congress yesterday. The one that is designed to cut Social Security and Medicare. That’s what it’s there for. That’s the only reason it exists. To allow Congress to fork over the power entrusted to them by the citizens who elected them to an elite body that stands above congress itself, and escape electoral retribution for doing something that 82% of the country does not want them to do.
If you want my attention, tell me how you’re going to take out Bernie Sanders or Jan Schakowsky or Raul Grijalva or Peter Welch. Let me know how you plan to send a message and enforce discipline with the people who claim to represent your values, but betray them over and over again because they have no fear whatsoever of you. Dennis Kucinich is getting redistricted out of office, so the other side certainly knows how to make themselves heard. Message received.
Yesterday Bernie’s job was to stand up in the Senate and whine about Tea Party extremists. If Bernie had one-tenth of their conviction, his vote alone could have saved the country from the shitty health care bill that put them all in office.
If you want to have power, stop slobbering all over abject failure. And stop dreaming that you’ll ever have any influence at the top by elevating people whose only systemic function is to serve as an opiate for liberals when they’re getting screwed. Good lord, Mitch McConnell ran circles around the Democrats these past few weeks. Even as you watched him orchestrate the American decline, you had to marvel at his political skill — and acknowledge there was no one on the left who could do that.
How can you hope to challenge the established order when your leaders are nothing more than serial losers?
New leadership will not emerge until you make room for them by taking out the old, corrupt order. And that job starts with the enablers. The ones who will be rolling out any minute now to placate liberal outrage and whitewash the piece of shit they voted for yesterday. The ones who will wrap themselves in the flag and mewl that they “had to do it for the country.”
Few will admit they were willing to cast old people into poverty and deny them medical treatment for the sake of Barack Obama’s 2012 election hopes. They’ll just furrow their brows and shake their heads with concern over the final deal — now that their votes are no longer needed. Obama will cast himself as a centrist and curry favor with independents by dismissing them as extremists. You can already hear it. “Some on the left say….”
I give Obama credit. Just as Mitch McConnell forced him to show his bottom line (his 2012 election prospects), so Obama forced the progressives to show their bottom line (Obama’s 2012 election prospects).
Obama got what he wanted — a deal. What did these “heroes” get for you?





671 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
I’d add that Obama will get the kind of deal he wanted all along. The GOP and DP live in the same political space. A Venn diagram of the two parties and their political objectives would show two circles that mostly overlap. The opposition party needed by the demos does not yet exists. Without it, how could anyone rationally expect Washington, DC to change?
Great post. It nails it. “The people” in America are being enslaved by the oligarchs and don’t have a clue what’s going on because they have a complicit media and have been whipped into obedience by Orwellian messages, constant “war”, fast food, fear of God, wrong-headed morals and financial dependence to corporations.
I’m not going to get behind any of the players who acted in the PhRMA/health insurance protection vote, and Jane, you’ve been 100% right every step of the way about that crappy bill. It’s July 31,2011, and the theoretical primary hero(ine) is not around yet.
This is refreshing. It directs outrage at the right place. Last year, when I commented that the response to the Gulf disaster was not entirely the fault of Bush, I was told in comments it would be my fault if Obama is not reelected. I would be fine with that.
There is so much disgust and anger among former Hope & Changers that a real alternative political movement could happen, if anyone could organize and fund it. Tea Party had corporate money backing them.. not likely for our side.
A crystallizing event such as a march in DC to defend Social Security, Medicare, etc. would be just the ticket, but nobody is organizing that either..
It’s not enough to just get mad that we’re screwed blue.. Getting busy to mobilize this mass of people is the only way to change things..
But if this betrayal of trust isn’t enough to spark that kind of movement, then nothing will.
I’ve come to believe that you have to hold your representatives accountable for the outcomes. They play games with their votes and their vote matters nothing if the outcome is failure.
Deliver Al Franken. Deliver Amy Klobuchar. Deliver Barrack Obama. You get no vote from me for compromise, capitulation or a worthless vote cast when the outcome is preordained failure.
I don’t care how you vote. The only thing that matters is if you deliver.
Whether you vote for against the debt bill, your outcome is failure.
You’re right. Check out Kucinich’s website today:
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=254580
I think Hamsher has a point: the only viable response to this disaster is eliminating enablers.
“Opiate for the liberals” is spot-on, too.
The most important aspect of the 2010 election was not the Republican sweep in the House. It was the Tea Party defeat of establishment Republicans in the primaries. The Tea Party wins in the Delaware, Colorado, and Nevada primaries (among all the others) were critical to their affect on the situation even though those candidates lost in the general election. The Tea Party message is strong because they are willing to risk defeat in order to gain victory. They are no longer voting the lesser of two evils. Progressives need to adopt this attitude if they wish to remain relevant.
Dear Jane,
Jaded is an attitude, not a solution.
Yes a Primary challenge to Obama is the default and certainly not glamorously cool and trendy. It is also doomed to failure and will alienate some very important sections of the base. African American voters will not thank white liberals for bailing on the first black President no matter what he has done to us.
But this is not about getting Bernie Sanders elected. This is about suicide. We need to commit short term political suicide in order to do exactly what you say we should do. A Progressive walk out from the Democratic Party, an open revolt and a Primary challenge are the tools needed to force the Democrats to take us seriously, to realize we don’t take second place to anyone and that we insist on fighters. If even ten percent of Democrats agreed that Sanders was the absolute minimum we would accept then we would be seeing a massive turnover in Democrats. Sure we would lose this round. Got it. But you don’t start building a house until you clear the land.
So please stop with the oh so sad, jaded rhetoric that “their all bad’ We get it. But the solution is exactly what you say it isn’t. Primary! Tank Obama and all the rest with a walkout at the Convention. You may not be old enough to remember it but I highly recommend a youtube look at Chicago 1968 Dem Convention. We desperately need that passion again.
This post should really be required reading for everyone even remotely on the left. The most important sentence is probably “If you want my attention, tell me how you’re going to take out Bernie Sanders or Jan Schakowsky or Raul Grijalva or Peter Welch,” because that’s exactly what needs to happen.
When Dale Earhhardt died, all NASCAR drivers knew they were vulnerable. After all, if even “The Intimidator” could buy the farm, nothing could guarantee they couldn’t be killed too.
If someone like Sanders could be held to account, that would put the fear of God into the rest of the “progressives” in Congress, who would all understand that they too could easily be next.
It’s never been the case that the left should be going after Republicans. Rather, it’s always been the case that the left should be going after its “leftmost” “representatives” in Congress. If they roll, make them pay. They’re supposed to represent you and if they don’t, find someone who will.
This all actually should have been obvious as early as 2006, when John Conyers promised to initiate impeachment proceedings against Bush if voters gave Democrats control of the House. They did, and he promptly reneged. That should have been the immediate point at which everyone saw whose side John Conyers was really on.
Still, better late than never. The left should completely ignore the right. The left has never had any influence over the right; winners always ignore things they have no control over. The NFL is starting up again; listen to winning coaches and players when they talk. They focus on what they can control, and they ignore things they can’t. The amount of attention they direct to a thing is directly proportional to the amount of control they have over that thing.
It’s always been the case that the left should be ignoring the right. Screw the Republicans — who cares what they say, think, or otherwise do? You can’t do anything about it anyway. But you have power over those who claim to be on your side.
As Jane says, get a fuckwad like Grijalva kicked out of office for not towing the line. Screw Bernie Sanders; get him kicked out too. Fuck ‘em all if they’re not on your side. You owe them nothing. Make them kiss your ring and be grateful for the privilege. Winners don’t take this shit. It’s always about results. Everything else is bullshit.
Jane this may be the best thing you have ever written.
I think you’re wrong. Why? Because at this point you need to drive the debate left either that or accept that your intention for the an indeterminate number of cycles is going to be to complain that no one is listening to you because you haven’t actually got a player in the game.
Is Bernie perfect? No. However, if you’re planning on waiting around for perfect than you better be planning on waiting around for a long time and be content to watch the right side of the aisle pull this country into a shambles in the process.
Bernie’s the best we got. That may not be saying much but you have to start somewhere.
With all due respect Ms. Hamsher:
There were many of us who got “bitch-slapped” prior to the general election of 2008. What comes around goes around! Only now I have been “bitch-slapped” twice to your once!
Sad to say, its a binary 2 party system and thrird party option doesnt work, but what is to stop progressives from actually showing up for primary and mid-term elections and giving the usual Democrats hacks the boot in the same manner the teabaggers took over the Republican party? Seems to be our only chance at push back
i couldn’t agree more.
but it’s not just the players and enablers, even more importantly it’s ideas they push too.
we are disempowered by not understanding the basic economics and policy issues involved when we look to enablers for intellectual guidance.
it’s not enough to discredit the people if we leave their ideas unchallenged.
as a result we progressives have been intellectually captured. and i claim that our first step is to break free from that!
Incidentally, you want an idea for a strategy, I’ll give you one: The next big protest should be organized in Bernie Sanders’ office — I mean directed at Bernie Sanders. He’s the best-known guy, so go after him and send a message that he’s not left enough.
When the right, predictably, rails about the crazy socialists occupying Sanders’ office for not being far enough left, ignore them. When the liberals go apoplectic about it, tell them … “You’re next, motherfuckers.”
I’d suggest too that we reclaim the liberal label. This progressive stuff has been an utter failure. It was designed to blur what we’re about and I’ve never understood what it means.
I am a liberal. I support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, labor, education, civil rights, peace issues, the environment….and I DO NOT compromise my core values.
I am liberal I will vote for liberals.
Whe’re the Fuckawi?! (catatonic stupor)
I tried it your way for 40 years and I’ve got a President who brags about cutting Medicare.
That’s the attitude of a loser. That’s why the left keeps getting its ass kicked.
and acknowledge there was no one on the left who could do that.and acknowledge there was no one on the left who would do that.There. I fixed it.
Jane, go back and read Lance Selfa’s book The Democrats: A Critical History if you haven’t done so already.
The enablers are in power because that’s their job within the hierarchy of the Democratic Party. They have the positions they have because they deliver the progressive constituency to the neoliberal candidates at the top. If they weren’t enablers they wouldn’t be Democrats. Or, I suppose, they could be personae non grata: within the Democratic Party, but not with it.
But hey, if you want to continue with this argument of how “third parties don’t succeed in American politics,” then vote for some more enablers, or vote for nobody. Or whatever. Nobody here is going to buy into a non-strategy.
“There were 173 Democrats in the House – including Dennis Kucinich and every single member of the Progressive Caucus – who voted for Reid’s Catfood II Super Congress yesterday.”
Great points, Jane. Ed Schultz gave us a great lesson in that sort of duplicity last week. They can pivot on a dime, and they do.
You are absolutely correct. You cannot put new wine into old wineskins and these are so rotten and full of holes even a dumb old broad like me can remember what they do. Wishful thinking isn’t going to get us where we need to go.
I think that’s the relevent point we need to keep in the forefront every time we compare the left’s efforts and success (or lack of) to that of the tea party. The tea party is backed by corporate interests and have unlimited resources.
I agree with Jane. Frankly, it’s why I’ve always said that we’re better off without Russ Feingold. He was one of the ones that would stomp his feet and threaten, but was never around when it really mattered. When he could have made a difference, he flat out said he wouldn’t do it because he didn’t like the procedure being used. I like Bernie Sanders and Al Franken, but I’m willing to cut them loose if that’s what it takes to secure a better furture for my son.
We kick them out and replace them with whom? The government is fully corrupted, so you kick out this current group and you end up with the same problem. You need people to run against all of them who are interested in running for ideals, not the usual careerists who go with the flow. You’re fighting against the party machine and corporate money who is going to back the established, corrupt candidate over whatever challengers we can dig up in each race. Even if you can find challengers and win, they’re fighting against the corrupt Republicans, their party machine, and their corporate money.
Like I said in Cassiodorus’ diary, fixing our government this way is likely going to be more difficult and take far longer than rallying people to fight back the old fashion way, out in the streets. A government can be changed radically with just 10% united support for an idea. Compare that to the numerous hurdles and time needed for change through the election process designed for 2 parties, and those who have the most money and party leadership support within each party.
Bernie and Kucinich can be part of the problem when they give in to peer pressure, but they aren’t the source of it. They aren’t the solution either, but there’s nothing wrong in trying to get Bernie out there to run against this fully corrupt DINO in disguise.
Exactly!
Politicians don’t care if they piss off the voters so long as the other side doesn’t get an advantage. In backing the Ryan plan the the GOP took a one-sided early hit, and Kathy Hochul got elected in Buffalo.
Under Catfood-II, the blame gets spread. The voters will blame Washington, rather than the GOP. Neither side will get a relative advantage. They’ll share the blams. That what bipartisanship is all about, the ability to fuck-over the voters and not pay a price. And that’s why the oligarch like it so much. That’s why they sent Obama to the White House preaching a message of bipartisanship.
“Sad to say, its a binary 2 party system and thrird party option doesnt work”
Do you not know the history of the Whig Party? Yeah, the system is binary to two parties, but it doesn’t mean it has to be the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democratic Party could go the way of the Whigs, but they just hope people feel trapped to not let another party take its place.
The problem is eleventy-dimensional chess, it will bite you in the ass every time (just ask the mainstream Rs that thought they could gargle TEA and spit it out).
I’m tired of being asked to vote for corporocrats who purport to STAND for whatever progressive value, but won’t FIGHT for it.
(1) Clearly and in simple terms rebut all laissez-faire trumpeting from the addled such as Kristol, Norquist, and Paul. The other bloviators are tacticians; ignore tactics. Americans see through the Orwellianisms now.
(2) Take over local committees then on up to tactical enablers. Turn the Democratic Party leftward and use the infrastructure already there to do that. Starting anew is (almost?) always doomed because of the huge investment needed up front.
(3) Tolerate no steps backward by liberals who make deals for self advantage; be clean. Clean! Clean! Clean for Gene!
(4) Always rebut the anarchists and libertarians by using facts. They are wrong and can easily be shown to be wrong.
(5) Rotate leaders and groom new ones via the infrastructure, and, most of all,
(6) Keep the self-aggrandizers in our own party aware that it’s “us,” not them, that is the immediate value.
Ayn Rand was, and Rove, Norquist, the various Kristols are, hypocrites.
Holy Crap! The Cloture vote just failed, 50 49, no one is ready to vote for this dumbassed plan.
cwaltz, read Lance Selfa’s The Democrats: A Critical History. Jane is right in assuming that people like Sanders are there to deliver progressive constituencies over to whatever it is that the DLC wants at any particular time. Jane’s problem is that she really doesn’t have an alternative. Throw out the enablers, and the Democratic Party will supply more of them.
Jane’s point has been apparent for quite some time. Those such as grijalva and kucinich are always talking big when their votes won’t swing anything, but when they are needed, you can count on them folding after a show of resistance. Just remember kucinich and the plane ride. The problem is that whether we elect dims or not, the repugs will have the upper hand for some time. In the lifetime of anyone reading this blog, we may never regain a rational society once our country becomes solidly fascist. Right now the insane hold the balance of power, and they are not all teaparty people.
I normally don’t praise posts because, well, I’d rather discuss. But these points really don’t need elaboration or refutation or refinement. Great post.
In this spirit, should we have fought for single payer over public option?
I just want to know, if every single name floated as a challenger to the current establishment is not good enough and/or is already compromised, then who are some GOOD choices to vote for?
I think it’s a pretty serious issue. We here aren’t enough to change the voting landscape in a way that knocks popular politicians out of office, especially if we are going to be going after the people closest to our viewpoints – even if they are compromised by the establishment already – before trying to go after those directly opposed to our views, so how are we supposed to convince other people to vote them out when we ourselves admit that not other person who we could replace them with would be any better?
We need names. At least one person who wants to run for office and can earn your support.
Let’s link that diary, shall we?
http://my.firedoglake.com/cassiodorus/2011/07/30/72111/
That’s where I’m at. If we can’t have a 3rd party let’s eliminate one of the other two. We can’t win but we can make them lose and they have so earned that lesson. I mean if the President and leader of the supposed majority has determined that surrendering the majority to a commission is what we elected him to do, I think we might just let him know that he is wrong about that.
Did anyone really doubt the outcome of all of this frenzy? The day will come when Obama will pull his Republican clothes from his closet where they are hidden today and let the truth be known once and for all. There was never a doubt, really, that this man who couldn’t make it in the party of his choice, had to become a Democrat and prove his value to the only people that count in his book. It must be hard on him to have to hide the love fest he’d like to celebrate but can’t. He’s not a loser or someone that has been fast tracked to the right to save the country. He’s right on time for his deliverance of the people to the hoards waiting to finish off whatever democracy we thought we had.
You’re Vito Corleone. A shop owner won’t pay his protection money. You whack him. It makes no difference who takes over his shop; all the other shop owners get the message. That’s called “credibility,” which the left currently has zero of.
As details start to emerge I suspect we will be even more angry. I have long ago been coming to terms with some of the losses I see us enduring if I don’t vote for a main party candidate: supreme court nominations being the one that scares me the most. That said, I don’t control any of this and I certainly don’t approve of it. So while I wouldn’t put it like Jane has, I intend to vote for the candidate who most shares my views and who I think will most likely vote as I would want. I don’t expect perfection—that said, I don’t expect what happened with Obama—a trojan horse. I will be looking for actions, not words. Finally, I like FDL. I think it remains closer to my views than any other blog. However, I think sometimes it gets a little alcoholic in its anger. Let’s remain in the fight and turn our anger into constructive energy, not dissipate it in tirades. I wish for all someone who loves you and who you love to “fuck.” Sign me, Child of the 60s.
I’d like to hear your alternative. Honestly, I think doing what Jane’s recommending is just about the only viable route. Literally, the only thing that is both possible and message-sending. There are tons of things that could be message-sending, but that, right now, are impossible.
This presumes that the Presidential election is the only “debate” or “game.”
(argh — this isn’t a reply for Saltinwound but for cwaltz above)
Did the Tea Party exert influence by running a Presidential candidate? No. They took out Lincoln Chaffee, even though it threw the election to the Democrats.
Bernie is so far form perfect, he’s not even marginally capable. Has ever stood up to the Democratic leadership in a meaningful way? His vote was golden last year. They needed him to pass everything they did. He got some money for clinics in a terrible health care bill, money that they needed to pay off Planned Parenthood anyway, to keep them quiet about Hatch Act stuff.
You don’t get taken seriously for playing the game poorly — or rather, letting the game play you.
I appreciate that for many people, Bernie was the sole voice in the wilderness reflecting their beliefs all those years. But what did it get us? How did it keep us from winding up here?
I just do not accept that he is “the best we got” — there are hundreds of millions of people in this country not named Bernie Sanders. We know Bernie’s name because he plays his part in the status quo. We have to stop letting the system we are opposing determine the pool we choose from.
(argh — this wasn’t a reply to saltinwound like it says, but to cwaltz above)
That really really hurts.
Oh wait, not really.
Good luck with your campaign to find 535 perfect individuals before you start to own a stake in the process.
hear, hear. If the teabaggers can pull what they did off within the repug party, progressives who will not bend or waver on core principles can do it within the Democratic Party
Unless you get strong progressives candidates and play to win instead of spoil and punish. (If those progressives win, it doesn’t matter what party they win under.) Unless you get some wins, we are looking at a Congress of 100 conservative or Tea Party Republican Senators, 435 conservative or Tea Party Republican members of the House, and a conservative or Tea Party Republican President.
If you want to primary, primary conservative Republicans in Democratic strongholds with candidates more progressive than the Democrat. A few wins like that would make both parties (and the media) take notice. But that means mobilizing the local resources to win both the primary and the general, which involves some substantial changes in voter party registration if you are a closed primary state.
of course.
the price of having a “seat at the table” is to agree — knowingly or not — to be a reliable enabler.
one reason ralph nader is so despised by D party hacks is what he represents — the ability of the people’s interests to force their way through the enablers and onto the table.
maybe it hasn’t always been so (i don’t know) but in our age it’s quite clear that power rarely (maybe never) invites true representation of the people’s interest to the table.
Ms. Hamsher, seems that you have certain choices:
Continue to act out being a storm bringer (heavy metal culture term),
Or, outline something positive that folks can point towards.
Playing the political victim is not becoming to someone who is so politically aware, and so gifted with articulation, and a loud media opportunity such as FDL.
(Yes I know that you worked hard to get where you are, but it’s your innate “gifts” that empowered it all. As a Christian I would say “gifts of the Spirit,” but that may offend you.)
The Republicans are the Harlem Globetrotters.
The Democrats are the Washington Generals.
Good job, Jane, and well done.
Great post.
I’m going to mark Bernie Sander’s emails to me as phishing scams.
Hell, Jane’s been getting tons of crap for years from the diehard O-pologists over at DKos and other places for attacking Holy Bernie and the “rotating villains” game.
I’m tired of losing. Jesus, am I tired of losing!
I’d vote for him.
Wouldn’t you?
Let’s just stop voting for Democrats and vote for somebody else further left.
Anybody further left.
We can’t wait for somebody to create the perfect party for us – maybe a gaggle of billionaires longing to be taxed – before we jump ship.
Jump ship now and make it known to all and recommend it to all.
We need to create the pool of voters first to convince possible candidates that Bernie Sanders isn’t a fluke and running on the left outside the Democratic Party is not necessarily a noble educational gesture appropriate only for those who don’t actually want a career in office.
If we just refuse to vote for Democats long enough somebody will notice we’re out there for the taking for anybody who finally wants to get real.
Maybe a new party of the democratic left will then form.
Maybe an existing one will grow up to a national role.
But nothing will happen if we don’t move.
Anyway, aren’t you just tired of voting for the guy whose only merit is he cuts your throat more slowly?
That’s the Democrats, today.
Phooey.
http://ggracchus.blogspot.com/2011/07/if-we-build-it-they-will-come-creating.html
I wasn’t trying to insult you, and you’re setting up a straw man with your “535 perfect individuals” blast.
It’s all irrelevant. Winners pay attention to results, period.
Fuck Bernie Sanders. In fact, that should be the left’s new slogan. Seriously. There should be bumper stickers and T-shirts and ink pens that all say “Fuck Bernie Sanders.” By God, that would get people’s attention.
It also has the virtue of being true.
And constant caving has got us what?
Yes. This is what’s particularly galling to me about “the left.”
They don’t fight. They don’t stand up for the far left side of the debate. It isn’t any wonder their leaders don’t.
Frankly when Pelosi took single payer off the table there should have been an outpouring of outrage from the left that we didn’t start from the left side of the debate. Instead even on the internet I got to read about progressive A list bloggers banning people for being upset that their position was excluded from debate. I have had mixed feelings on single payer based on my military and VA experience. Still I supported the right of single payer advocates to have their say because I knew it drove the debate leftward and would set the stage for a better more inclusive public option.
Jane, great diary as always, and the points you make nail exactly WHY the calls for a primary challenger are “shopworn.”
You touched on it in a comment last week, but for whatever reason have not revisited it. I’m referring to the electoral “script” that the major parties have written, enforced, and used to squelch political movements for the past hundred years.
It’s not the primary challenge that fails, it is the challenger’s refusal to buck their party after losing, instead “throwing their support” to the incumbent – without question, their admission fee for challenging in the first place.
The thing is, a primary challenge can be mounted by anyone willing to register as a Democrat and enter the race – and due to the public nature of doing so and election law, they would have access to the process and the chance to “rewrite the script.”
Such a challenger would build public awareness and support – and would not need big funding – if s/he were supported by a broad coalition of common people. People who put the candidate up in their homes, who contribute frequent flyer miles and car rides to get them from stump speech to stump speech, thereby enabling them to run deep into the primaries on a comparable shoestring budget.
That challenger rewrites the script by standing up outside the convention – because they sure as hell won’t be invited inside – and announcing that they throw their support to an independent or third-party candidate. That would be a total departure from that shopworn, movement co-opting script you and I agree has kept Populism down, and if now is not the time for a rewrite, I’m not sure when is.
So why not lend your voice to those calling for it?
NewProgs.org
Just far out…but someone with some sense & sparkle….Maybe Oprah….or a similar person of influence. We could brain storm. If someone like Palin can create so much excitement, surely we can trump that 20 times over. Too bad Ann Richards is not around…smart, colorful, and powerful. There must be someone…wouldn’t you love to see her tear Sarah apart…what a contest to watch.
Done.
Good one, Jane. Great argument.
The only current member of congress that is worth a shit to me is Barbara Lee for her lone vote against AUMF. I wouldn’t piss on the rest of them if they were on fire.
Yeah I’ve been getting a lot of the “Hillary would have been better” nonsense lately.
Who are people kidding? She joined hands and started another war in the Middle East with Obama! We said we wouldn’t take sides in the primary battle because they were indistinguishable from each other. That was absolutely correct.
Seriously, get over the 2008 primary battle. It was stupid, an effort to make saviors out of people who didn’t deserve it. Move on.
Right again, Jane. I have been more disgusted every day by this circus going on. The first ‘speech’ by Bush III sounded pretty good, like for once he was not going to cave, however, he clarified his position in the second ‘speech’ on prime time TV.That was when he admitted that there was nothing he can do, and his advice to us all, “Write/call your Senators and Congressmen.”
So we are witness to the castration of the president (maybe he is showing his true colors, after all, Goldman Sachs allowed him to be elected), and a future of impoverished Americans, kowtowing to Saint Wall Street. No Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid. Hell, no social safety net whatsoever! Let ‘em die! And die quickly! On second thought, he doesn’t deserve the title of Bush III. Bush II had some compassion. No, he deserves his title of Caver in Chief or something more indicative of Wall St point man.
The best analogy yet. Fuck political parties and the corporate whores who sponsor said political parties. They fuck all America as Washington warned Jefferson feared, and Ike realized. To bad we don’t see this on the corporate owned media whores cable networks while subscribers pay to be brainwashed? brainwashed?????????????????????????????????????
Yeah….all well and good Jane. But it’s time to get real.
Ask yourself: If I had to vote for Obama or Sanders or a generic R for President, who would I vote for?
If your answer is Obama or the generic R….then your article is real.
Yes, Hillary is as much a criminal as Bush, Obama – or her husband.
Jane,
There is no one worthy of support now and you are correct about either side and Obama. My main drive right now is to work to rid ourselves of every back stabber in Congress. I’m mad as hell and don’t want to take it anymore. We do not need career politicians in this country and we certainly don’t need corporate backed entities!
What the Hell happened to citizen legislature?
Post says it ALL
Thanks
Yes. The public option was an attempt at 11 dimensional chess, too.
Screw the games.
Just be liberals.
That’s another problem for the left to have to figure out. There doesn’t seem to be good lines on when to be pragmatic and when to be realistic. Furthermore, I’d argue that Barack Obama was dragged across the finish line because people were worried about “losing.” Even to the point where people were willing to abandon principles such as fairness to win. It was disheartening to see half the party tell the other half to sit down and shut up and ignore what they had to say -simply because they wanted a “win” so badly. The signs Barack Obama was a bad candidate were there long before he was elected.
So tell me what is positive today. I have an aunt who has dementia. Her husband was at Pearl Harbor and fought in every major naval battle in WWII and she cared for him for decades until he died.
Obama wants to cut her Medicare. My Senator Amy Klobuchar will be thrilled to cut her Medicare.
If you aren’t pot boiling mad as hell you aren’t paying attention.
Salient points except for one key thing. Senator Sanders never “folded” on any of the bills you mention here. Ever. Wars, tax cuts, cuts to Medicare/Social Security you name it…
Where is the outcry from other commenters on this? Pick a better target!
I’m fully in agreement with purging the Dems that don’t represent Left wing values.
We already had somebody who created Palin’s type of excitement. He made it to the White House.
Simply having a popular media personality for people to flock to isn’t any different than how things work now, regardless of how much better at debates they are than the opposition. And that certainly doesn’t seem to be what everyone else here is looking for…what that is, I don’t know, other than that it isn’t anything currently existing in national politics beyond the internet.
I haven’t been around FDL in ages – frankly, because I’m disillusioned, disgusted, and trying to salvage what mental health I can now that America is over and America, Inc. is entrenched.
This post sums up my feelings perfectly. Right on, Jane.
So, Jane, what do we do instead? You’re a bold voice and some (including myself) would say that you’re a leader- please lead. You have the voice and a good deal of cache- help us fix this. If you want Bernie’s (figurative) head on a pike, hand us a (figurative) sword…
How about “permits” instead of “invites”?
Would that not be closer to truth, selise?
DW
“There were 173 Democrats in the House – including Dennis Kucinich and every single member of the Progressive Caucus – who voted for Reid’s Catfood II Super Congress yesterday.”
Didn’t realize the betrayal was so vast.
And as for Bernie in the primary, anybody primaying that bastard Obama just to punish him is a good idea.
I wrote at another blog I would vote for Hillary, even, against him in a primary.
Anybody will do for that purpose.
But I think I am done with voting for Democrats in general elections.
And that’s a different matter.
Jane great post
A lot of people who blog, want to give their congress prople, their values and beliefs.
Folks 99% of people in Congress are complete Ass Holes and Do not give a Damn about YOU!!! wake up
Sun Tzu says it best!
In times of Peace, one prepares for War, and in times of War one prepares for Peace. this means “At all times one must point a gun at his Congress People or Party to keep them in line, we progressives point water guns at our so call leaders, they get a little wet, but at the end of day the sun comes out, and they get dry again.”
Progressives must be willing to slaughter those who don’t do what they say! Period.
99% of congress people knew that this Debt Ceiling debate was going to end the way it did before it started.
SUN TZU
All War Is Base On Deception
Dems and Gopers just deceived the hell out of USA citizens. Do you really think Dems and Gopers in congress hate each other? really Bernie Sanders for all we know may have Tee Time with Mitch and John on Wednesday.
for LOL
the MSM will say OBAMA is smart, but he always loses to people like Palin who the MSM says is Dumb, “see up is down, and down is up in DC”
in the last 30 years what has USA citizens won?
Reagan did not do shit for the USA middle class
Bush sr did not do shit for the USA middle class
Clinton did not do shit for the USA middle class
Bush Jr did not do shit for the USA middle class
OBAMA is not doing shit for the USA middle class
this is the Reality every Progressive must Face!
Unions must create their on players to put in the Game, just like Wall Street
Progressive must create their on players to put in the Game, just like Wall Street
Wall Street and the Military own the Dem Party and GOP Party.
You can’t win a football game, when you have shitty players, and as of now Progressives don’t even have a team!
Imagine having someone like Jane in congress? Cenk in congress? with Union and Progressive support and money that could strike fear in the corporate Dems and Gopers or at least show the shit taking place in dark rooms to kill the middle class.
Paolo is correct. Check out 1967-1968 for the playbook. Humphrey was the heir apparent to the Dem war machine, Robert Kennedy challenged the assumed order and had just won Calif primary when killed, and he would have defeated Nixon. The message is, a primary from the left can unseat the presumed candidate, in this case Obama, in times of social upheaval. Every black person I know is also disgusted with Obama. And social upheaval is what we have now, and 80% of the country knows it. A progressive who came out as Kennedy did and put the large issues of the day on the table and took the populist position will always be a serious threat to the status quo. Obama used that path to get elected, albeit deceptively as we now know, but the point is that the populist path will always challenge and often win elections. It’s such a well known concept, that the candidate is sometimes killed by the status quo to prevent it, JFK and RFK. So progressive primary (with good security people) is the proven prescription here, not resignation and inaction. Also, agree that centrist Congress dems should all be challenged by progressives.
So in other words, “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
I think that one has already gotten deeply under the skin of just about everyone here, for obvious reasons.
Don’t you understand? Good isn’t good enough. Gotta find perfect somewhere. Good luck.
This post of her is all about how to be more effective in a positive way. The first step in being more effective is to clearly understand the problem, and if you think the problem is that more people didn’t just clap louder, then you’re doomed to fail.
As for past FDL efforts, it was her activism via “Students Not Banks” that got genuine student loan reform passed, and it was FDL’s pointing out that reconciliation was possible for the health care bill (even when Obama apologists were saying it wasn’t and attacked Jane over it) that kept the public option alive long after the deal Obama cut with the industry lobby to kill it.
There is no point in having the “progressive caucus” if they are just there to rubber stamp all the neo-liberal ideas of President Obama. The two legacy parties are completely dysfunctional in regards to ANY issue that actually makes this country better for citizens…they both want to appease corporate and powerful elite but want to maintain an illusion of party differences so people still believe we have a semblance of “democracy”.
Since 2006–the first wave election for Dems–the climb for progressives and progressive policy results/framing has gotten steeper and steeper as the number of Democrats has risen. How the fuck do you answer for that?
Thank you Mz Hamsher for ramming the truth home regarding our fully corrupted political, financial and social system that’s owned and operated by the corporate fascist elites.
To play within the political (aside from casting one’s vote which is almost meaningless but still a personal responsibility IMHO) system as it exists is a waste of time, staff and money unless you are getting rid of some of those so called ‘progs’ to send a message
N I don’t see ANY org in this nation really doing that.
NONE of them, including the one’s who come to this forum and bemoan our (Pups) lack of support for their (to me, hare brained schemes of ivory tower dimensions and self aggrandized grandeur) efforts.
Love this town! Congress, not so much . . . do we call Senate offices today for any reason, or is this over for the most part?
Any hope of pressure on our Senators at the last minute to force a 14th or coining (which I still am greatly skeptical about but hey, it’s our last two options it seems to fight the Cat2)?
Oh, n bless ya Mz. Hamsher and yer staff and Pups . . . great info exchanges recent days past . . . it all bores straight to the core of the matter with the details revealed.
Proud to be Firebaggin on it all!
Bullshit. HCR. He could have voted against it and didn’t.
Bernie is all bluster.
You are missing the point of 2008. It isn’t about “Hillary is better.” It’s about ignoring half the base and allowing their debasement. It’s about being called a Republican for pointing out Obama’s flaws. It’s about being called a racist for suggesting that his plans were vague. It’s about taking the half of the party base that voted and saying sit down and shut up you aren’t getting a floor vote.
If you fail to identify a problem correctly. It’s a pretty sure thing that you’ll get the solution wrong too. But hey keep digging a ditch. The whole creative class thing is working swimmingly.
Perfect? I’d settle for Richard Nixon at this point.
Rupert Murdoch given $27M no-bid contract from state Department of Education
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2011/07/3…
More than a dozen private firms wanted to work on a project like the one the state Education Department is set to award to a Rupert Murdoch-owned company in a $27 million no-bid contract.
Agency officials have cited “an extremely challenging time line” in their decision to partner with News Corp. subsidiary Wireless Generation to build a data system of student test scores and other information.
The Daily News has learned that the agency has explored the project for at least two years – proof, critics say, state officials had ample time to competitively bid out the contract and still meet a fall 2012 deadline for a federal Race to the Top grant.
(snip)
The News has also learned that Wireless Generation paid as much as $5,000 a month to lobbying firms to advocate for the contract and Race to the Top funds with state officials.
I’m a progressive. I support a fight against corruption, the right to fair elections, minority rights, and the right to collectively bargain on a level playing field.
I’m a liberal. I support freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from fear, freedom from want. I support equal rights under the law. I support the defense of the rights itemized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I’m a democrat. I support the power of ordinary people, not elites or vanguards, to shape the rules that affect their lives.
These are not mutually exclusive, and they go beyond branding.
maybe it took me to long, but the health insurance reform fiasco sealed the deal on these people–sanders, et al.-with me.
now if you’ll excuse me. i’m going to the pool and bake myself a bit.
anyone who actually cares about their constituency can be manipulated by threatening to turn their CD into the next detroit.
i don’t think it’s only about finding better people.
in a way it’s similar to a gresham’s dynamic (a la bill black) because the system, as it exists, rewards frauds.
that’s why i think it’s so important to understanding how we’ve been set up.
progressives are lied to: the Ds create faux “problems” and faux “solutions.” it’s a pattern and we need to recognized that in order to stop letting them distract us from paying attention to what’s really going on.
they lied to us about the bogus “public option,” they lied about the senate filibuster rules and they are lying now, not just about their phony debt limit crisis, but also about fed govt deficit spending in general. (and i’m sure there are many more lies i haven’t figured out.)
so long as those lies are allowed to stand inadequately challenged, we have no way to stop ourselves from being used as enablers too.
that’s what intellectual capture does… even to poeple with the best of intentions.
You must have missed my recent diary.
http://my.firedoglake.com/cassiodorus/2011/07/30/72111/
Yep. The fact that his principles are totally for sale means you need to starve him of what he craves most: his sinecure, his seat in the Senate. Take away his toy.
Don’t blame this President on me. I didn’t vote for him.
Hillary’s a Third-Way DINO, just like her husband and Obama. It’s why she’s such a “good fit” as Obama’s Secretary of State.
It was Hillary’s good friend Lanny Davis who got $500K from the Honduran coup leaders to make sure Obama didn’t do anything to save democracy from the multi-national firms that resented Zelaya’s raising the minimum wage.
“Both in this life or any previous incarnations I have been able to check out, I never wanted to be President. This innate decision was confirmed when I became literate and saw the President pawing babies and spouting bullshit.
[snip]
I never wanted to be a front man like Harding or Nixon–taking the rap, shaking hands, and making speeches all day, family reunions once a year. Who in his right mind would want a job like that?
[snip]
What would you do if you were in the President’s place? You would be inexorably pressured by the forces and the individuals that made you President, and by your own desire to be President in the first place; so you would wind up doing just what they all have done. It’s enough to stop any sane man from wanting to be President.”
–William S Burroughs, “When Did You Stop Wanting to Be President?”
yup. and his opponent was a loser who made things worse for himself by picking another loser as a running mate. maybe he realized he was a loser so he took a gamble. but still, Obama had help having such a lame-o opponent.
who da thunk BHO could be worse than Bush?…retire him
Being bored by the names that are floated is understandable. Being bored by thought of doing it is not understandable. Surely someone is more likely to rise to the challenge if he or she knows that there are people who are looking to get behind somebody. And I don’t understand this either: “I’m sorry to disappoint everyone but that just seems tired and doomed to failure, like playing with loaded dice and hoping that this time you can win.” So if the primary is like playing with loaded dice, is the general election also? Is this a general rejection of the Democratic party or just a rejection with respect to the primary mechanism? The former is understandable. The latter indefensible.
Nixon would never have dared try NAFTA, much less gut Social Security and Medicare during a depression.
probably. good point.
i’m just trying to figure this stuff out too.
not claiming to have all the answers… just trying to share where i’m standing at this moment in time.
and i don’t plan on standing still!
If you go in and continually just pull the D lever you empower these clowns. Obama has shown he doesn’t really subscribe to the principles of the Democratic Party. Hell he doesn’t even believe in the words that come out of his own mouth. When he starts campaigning and tries to give these rousing speeches remember what he’s probably thinking. I can dupe these dopes.
Obama is an arrogant, narcisstic, bastard. Don’t get mad. Get even. Don’t vote for the SOB. You’re going to have to take a few defeats on order to get this back on the right track.
Jane, you know that politicians are self serving sob’s. It doesn’t make any difference what side of the isle they are from. The law gives us examples, when person breaks the law and get’s caught, that indivisual pays dearly but when a politians get caught, they get a slap on the back of the hand get to keep everything. I want see heads roll, loss of all their worldly posetions but no prison, why should the American taxpayer support these s o b’s. When a person get’s a job, he or she get’s paid after the job is done right, other wise you don’t get to the keep job.
A quotation from a previous President” ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU, BUT WHAT CAN YOU DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY.” The sob’s in DC must have missed that!
Jane, who has the integrity of principle to stand for the truth?
Who has worked to build genuine trust that their actions will match and back-up their words?
Who has created a community of considered thought and considered imagination?
Who has championed new and truly useful ideas and ideals?
I know such a one.
And so does everyone else who gathers here.
The person whom I have in mind is not Elizabeth Warren.
However, she is a she.
I wonder if anyone can guess who that person might be?
(Success does not come over night, the terms are long … and hard … in this existential fight.)
DW
Is it a foregone conclusion that that stuff cannot be challenged in view of RM’s legal troubles? You can smell the stink from here….
What, in 68 McGovern got shoved under the bus with the rest of Democratic Party to be taken over by the new Corp. Masters. We lost in 68 in the streets and in the party of the people, utube it all you want but we lost and been a downhill ride since. Voting Green in 12
Got $500 million lying around? Then you can try primarying Obama. You still won’t win, but you can try.
It would only take a thousandth of that to primary Bernie Sanders.
I reject the premise. Easy to do because it won’t happen anyway.
Why are people letting a corrupt system pre-select the talent pool? Who ever heard of Marco Rubio or Pat Toomey? Letting the system you oppose determine the people you choose from is self-defeating from the outset. It’s like letting the coach of the opposing team select every fat, slow, stupid, uncoordinated, pimply-faced kid to be your starting line. Why would anyone think this is a good idea?
Find your own leaders.
I can tell you one thing about FDL traffic, and the traffic of every other liberal blog — it is heavily clustered in districts that have a high Democratic PVIs. It self-selects for high density in liberal-leaning districts.
Well over half the people who come here probably live in places where it’s possible to challenge a Democratic member of Congress from the left. Find one. Be one. It doesn’t matter. Let people know you’re willing to throw the bums out, and that’s when energy starts to build and leaders start to emerge.
There are people out there who are superstars, but you won’t meet each other until you start creating the energy that will bring you together. Not Obama, or Hillary, or Bernie Sanders, or anyone else is going to do that for you.
Well, like a lot of what passes for contemporary cultural wisdom, this is ultimately a defeatist non-starter. It translates into the world sucks and there is nothing you can do about it. We can do better.
If we stay home Dem’s just think it’s because there wasn’t a Hot topic to vote on, voting for Indepenants don’t work, that’s why there is only 1 of them in the Senate. To send a huge message why don’t we all reregister as Republicans just before the primaries. That would put the scare into Dems more than any thing else we have tried so far, IMO.
Nixon was playing against a moderate-to-liberal Democratic Congress. He unsuccessfully tried under Howard Phillips to scuttle the Office of Economic Opportunity (War on Poverty).
Against his base’s wishes, he signed the EPA into existence, expanded funding for CETA employer-of-last-resort jobs, signed a peace treaty with Vietnam, and went to China.
He did not lose his base. A lot of them are the nitwits controlling Congress today.
I don’t disagree with that as such, but I fail to see how that addresses my questions.
Thanks, Please take time to read this, there are other parties in Amerika. Voting local to move on to the National stage later. Think Germany
http://my.firedoglake.com/cassiodorus/2011/07/30/72111/
50-49. good thing harry got that up/down vote. if berfnie’s vote was anything close to being needed reid had it, of course. senate dems eating crow after busting Boner for running a circus. they knew they needed 60 votes and that wouldn’t be easy. schumer-you talk too damn much and too damn dumb.
Indeed. Make a point in 2012 to vote against every single pretend liberal or progressive member of Congress, which is to say all of them. Thank them for their years of useless, pretty words and be done with them.
The problem then would be, where it find an actual liberal candidate who would act as one as well?
The reality come ’12 is that the Dims WILL go down to the most blood thirsty defeat of their entire lifespan as a political party.
The stay at homes and the disgruntled like me who went indie or undecided or green are going to DECIMATE the party.
it might be enough to cripple it completely, so you’ll HAVE your massive impact.
The primary route? Rubbish . . . the system as is, is soooo gamed and fixed as to utterly prevent any headway from being made along those lines.
And I think the reality of that is proven, and if those like you think not, just wait to see the impact on primarying groups as we hit ’12 and come to the erection in the fall.
But like Obamabots who failed to see his true allegiance to the elite overlords even AFTER he announced his cabinet picks, and all the horrid positions he’s taken on proggy issues and needs since, you just won’t believe what’s in front of ya.
Good luck with your endeavors what ever they may be, DO vote, please as it’s just something one should do.
But the bloodbath for the DIMS is coming . . . it’s gonna be fugly. N that’s a start AFAIC, in terms of dealing a blow to the present system.
Here here.
Wait a minute… The Democratic Party has moved so far to the right that the only way Hamsher thinks we can take it back is to… get rid of those Democrats furthest to the left? That screams “Counter-intuitive!” to me.
Democrats need to rid the party of those members who are too far right, in favor of elevating the Sanderses and the Kuciniches. Take out the REAL Obama enablers, the ones most responsible for lining up the votes for his right-wing agenda: Schumer, Durbin, Hoyer, Reid, Pelosi, Stabenow.
The Tea Party wing of the GOP successfully hijacked the Republican Party by going after Republican moderates (or those deemed moderate), not by purging those who agreed with them most.
Nice, n thank you!
You’re right, Jane, as tough as it is to hear. Bernie’s votes on so-called health care reform and the Fed were horrible. And there really seems to be no reliable liberal voice anymore; this White House is indistinguishable from the right wingers–imagine what they damage they could do in a second term. I will never, ever vote from Obama or any other faux Democrat–which right now is pretty much the whole bunch of them. Thank you for your courage and clarity, Jane–so needed!
When Massachusetts is ready DW, I think it will happen. Right now, it’s hypothetical, so Scott Brown polls ahead.
In terms of sober reality, thanks, I needed that.
In terms of kindling any remaining hope I have, thanks, I didn’t need that.
Excellent post, Jane. Absolutely right on the money, in my view. Depressing as hell, but right on the money.
Anyone who knows me knows that I am more idealist than pragmatist. That being said IDEALISTICALLY it’s better to actually be part of the debate then be sitting on the sidelines griping about the players in most cases.
That’s my position.
Unlike:
Obama as saviour unity “unicorn” that craps skittles, and will make the world whole.
Wasn’t alot of credit given to Obama that was neither owed nor deserved? Where was the record of accomplishments? Where were the firm stances of principle? They didn’t exist.
People wanted him to be something he never was….you were never his base and his $400 million warchest was never a “ma and pa kettle” creation.
We laugh at religious extremists who look for Jesus in a moonbeam or a grilled cheese sandwich. Well, the secular version of mass psychosis was the mantra of “Hope and Change” subscribed to man with no accomplishments other than usually being at the right place at the right time! Very Bush-like, wouldn’t you say?
And I say vote your values. I don’t expect everyone to vote mine. But we’ve been lead down the garden path for more than 30 years told that if we just compromise our values for the lesser evil that all will be well. Well, we see where we are now!
We won’t all draw the same line but if you are passionate about politics because you are passionate about outcomes, at some point you have to be willing to draw your line.
Obama has allowed the tea party to run the country. He should be primaried for incompetence if nothing else.
PUMA whining?
Centrist blogging?
It rings hollow . . .
Summary: take the existing progressives and make them fear selling out, because a primary challenge from the left is credible for them, whereas a primary challenge for Ben Nelson from the left is not credible.
I’m counting 72 members on the CPC page. That block is plenty big enough to dominate the House if they held their ground. The TP is running the show with about 60.
Remember, it not just a primary challenge, it’s a credible primary challenge that makes them change their behavior. Or replaces them with someone better.
I’d say it does. I’m guessing Jane is saying that primarying Obama is insufficient, not necessarily bad or wrong or evil in and of itself. Just not all that alluring.
I’m beginning to suspect the oligarch Birchers finally got the control they craved in the spring and summer of 1968, when RFK got shot and LBJ refused to publicly call out Nixon on his treasonous sabotage of the Paris peace talks. Everything since then has been (with the brief blip caused by Nixon’s overreach with Watergate, which he did too early in the oligarchic slow-motion coup for it to succeed) going the way of the rich elites, as the institutional left failed to do what was needed to counter them.
You have changed your ways. Less than two years ago you told me that you would blame me specifically if Obama lost in 2012. Needless to say, I didn’t appreciate it. But I do remember it. Should I dig up the link?
The first time I voted it for Humphrey- knowing both that he had abandoned principle for the sake of getting elected andd that Nixon would be far worse. How may times have we made this calculation AND STILL LOST? The “lesser off 2 evils” has become the evil of 2 lessers, as the man said. I voted ffor Nader in California more with the hope that it would send a meessage to the DNC than that tthe GReens would become viable. A big Gore leaad in California made it a safe protest- I was safe from the bogeyman in that sense, though he ggot sworn in anyway. The DEms claimed that Naader brought us bush- incorrect at best and the meme they need to deflct attenttion from ttheir own epic failure. But even if they really believe this, they’ve demonstrated that they didn’t hear the lesson I (we?) thought we were sending. Clearly they were unaffected by a significant push from the left. What to do?
This is key. The fact is, without an understanding of the economics and the policies that apply it, one is not competent to have an intelligent opinion. The current manifestation of this is the framing of this current clusterfuck as a debt issue, when in reality it is a jobs issue. If jobs and growth improve, the ratio of debt to GDP drops, and the situation improves without cutting anything. The problem, as I see it, is not too much debt, but too few jobs. The larger issue-how to educate people to the degree that they are capable of intelligently engaging in the debate about these issues-I just don’t know.
I’ll say it again. This presumes the Presidential election is the only game in town. It’s not.
Movements that elect presidents don’t start there. First you have to have the movement. It ain’t here yet.
Not being able to think outside the Presidential election is like letting the 6:00 news determine your world of possibilities.
But if the dice are loaded during the primary aren’t they loaded during the general??
somebody, somewhere said they thought the dems were dead as a national party and wouldn’t win anything except on the state level. don’t get that. that’s where rubio and these clowns come from. we sure as hell heard of him down here. the state is a decent farm system. for us though, when any of our rookies got to DC they’d be chewed up and spit out if they dared act like we’d want.
My college political science teacher wrapped up poli sci in one Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules! The Republican and Democratic parties represent only those who have the gold, ie. industries of banking, insurance, defense contacting, big pharma, energy and, to an increasingly lesser extent, unions. Repulicans dupe the middle and lower classes into voting for them by pandering to their bigotted and racist social concerns, then they go ahead and advance and protect the intersts of those industries anyway. The Democrats dupe the middle and lower classes into voting for them by pandering to their idealistic gullability on both economic and social issues and then, they too, go ahead and advance and protect the intersts of those industries anyway. This is the fatal flaw in a capitilistic democracy. It is the seed of its own demise.
Bernie Sanders isn’t a member of the Democratic Party, and I have no interest in “taking it over” per se.
I have an interest in getting the enablers out of office who stop making the sell-outs okay. You’ll notice that the Blue Dogs got purged in the last election. It didn’t help.
Absolutely. But these things aren’t mutually exclusive either. One can start a movement and at the same time call for a primary challenger.
Yup. Plus, whereas $500 million wouldn’t suffice to successfully primary Obama, $500 thousand would very likely take out Bernie Sanders.
Right on Juliania!
Upon hearing of that House vote, looking up MY rep’s vote on the link Mz. Hamsher provided, I caller Matsui’s office in DC and fired her!
I fully intend to do the same with SciFI n Boxer, my senators, on Monday.
Come ’12′s erection, no offals will get my vote . . . either Green or write in.
Make them pay! Do NOT give a single House or Senate Dim your vote! Make them pay! The worst is we will still have a Cat2 and a party in charge trying to wipe out the middle class, just like the DIMS are.
a.k.a. the Shit Sandwich Theory of Life:
The more Bread you got, the less shit you gotta eat.
Yes pretty much everyone decide they could go fight save some animal or other cause and the right just went on about their business in the background while progressive went to sleep. Once divided it was easy to slowly strangle the life out of the party of the people.
Well, I think this is positive.
I now envision that one of these enablers could well ‘primary’ Our Leader and proceed to fold when in the spotlight, so that a false argument ensued which would take up all the headlines and we’d be no further along. Instead Our Glib Pretender would be in receipt of kudos, huzzaners, and applause for roundly defeating his dimwit challenger.
And we’d be chewing our fingernails in frustration.
They lied. They were pretty transparent so maybe you need to ask yourself why you/progressives were willing to believe them for so long(or at least until the point where it no longer mattered?)
Don’t be a victim. Recognize that part of the process problem is progressives themselves. Hand wringing needs to be followed up by action. How many progressives were on the ballot in 2010 to primary Democrats? The answer: not nearly enough
Haven’t read the comments yet, but Jane… BRILLIANT!
Since 2007 I’ve dreamed of The Great Debate.
My guy, Ron Paul, vs. a true believer leftie. I figured Bernie or Dennis, but your post says it all.
How wonderful would it be to see left and right come together to each nominate a good government type who generally avoids the partisan talking points that are often simply used to obfuscate the real issues? The could discuss the issues!
People here can blast away at Ron Paul, but he is a true believer and he doesn’t get caught up in the kabuki. Agree with him or not, he basically says what he believes and votes that way.
I would be THRILLED if the Dems would nominate a true-believer. The Presidential debates could occur as they are intended: a debate of ideas… not hairstyles or personalities.
Hate him all you want, Ron Paul kickstarted a revolution on the right side of the aisle. You can do the same on the left.
I have to comment on this issue. I live in one of the reddest states outside of Texas. My vote is continually stolen via black box voting with no paper trails. One thing I wish we could all focus on is taking back our votes.
That is fucking genius. I live in Steve Cohen’s (yet another progressive causus sellout) district. I know an *honorable* leftist who could probably beat him in an election. WOW.
$500 thousand might not take out Bernie Sanders. The people of Vermont may just love him, and no amount of money could do that.
It would, however, get his attention and make him think twice before he signs on to some neoliberal piece of shit like he’s been doing for the past two years, if he knew his little “oh we tried but those mean old Republicans” act was just not going over any more.
I’m NOT talking about Mooseachusetts, TD.
I’ll leave that to Warren if she’s so inclined …
I’m talking about someone who people, here, know, and respect more deeply, even better than they know Warren, someone who would galvanize an educated minority into an action in which they would not cease engaging, regardless of what happens, once they’ve begun.
Of course, I wouldn’t wish the Presidency on anyone.
Yet, sometimes, as a true act of compassion and concern, we do have to realize that true leaders are recognized through what others hasve learned.
Sometimes, the difficult personal choice is the only viable, and honest, one.
DW
Hey, Amy Klobuchar is up for election in 2012. Maybe we can finally get rid of her.
When the king’s favorite concubines were executed, the rest of them strangely fell right into line. If Sanders is one of your favorites, then start by executing him. You’ll be amazed at the discipline you’ll then get from the rest of them.
I know it’s baffling isn’t it?
We’re going to move the debate left by purging the debate of those furthest to the left that we have. Woohoo! Can you feel the win?
entrenched C0sa Nostra,with a gun at our head,demanding OUR MONEY
What a primary could do is provide a platform for the expression of Progressive views. As things stand now, Progressivis gets aired on, in Jane’s words, ‘a few blogs nobody reads.’ Seems to me we’ve got to scratch and claw for any chance we can get to be heard. As to the perfidy of ‘progressive’ Congress critters: I’m thinking the Party has ways to deal with dissidents. They can make sure they are never the chair of anything, that they are not even a member of anything, that they never have their pictures taken with the popular crowd, that they eat their lunch alone, whatever.
So, yeah, I’d put Bernie up, if he were willing, just for the chance to say the things that need to be said. He would be met with ridicule and marginalization but if we were smart and tenacious, we could raise some issues. (I mean, people, in their hearts really do know that something is horribly wrong. They just can’t quite frame and articulate what it is.)
Cass, you forget what Mz. Hamsher alluded to, twice, in the past week.
Forgit the erected offals, fight the corporate machine that owns them.
There might be a new direction being suggested soon, so let’s wait and see where FDL decides to go.
It if IS to march on the offices of the bumz like Sanders.Grijalva et al, I’m all for it . . . . if it’s something else in terms of a tack in a dif direction, I’m ready to hear ALL about it.
I’ve been outpouring my rage at her ever since she took Bush’s impeachment off the table. ( Of course all that disappeared from the record when PBS blithely erased those forums.) Ah, memories…
Politics is about power. People gain power by convincing or deceiving others to follow them or by becoming friends with those who already have power. Most grass roots efforts in this day and age of media are not grass roots, as the Tea Party proves out. In order to gain the “friendship” of those already with power, you must either be or pose to be one of “them”. Few get into the good graces of those with power out of good work and honesty.
Because of all this, few who have what it takes in the sense of morality, decency, and the ability to independently think and make decisions find themselves in a place where they can or would be accepted. Even those who have either sold out for a time or found themselves used but are better people for it cannot gain that position. This is why we have so few good choices, because the “good choices” don’t fit into the system that excludes any who aren’t the “man in the grey flannel suit”.
So instead, we end up with groomed media queens on both sides who put on a nice show but show nothing of what they truly are until it’s too late for the rest of us.
I’ll personally give $100 to the campaign of anyone who challenges a member of the CPC from the left, and says they do it because of their vote for the Super Congress yesterday.
If they’re willing to vote for that, as Teddy says, it’s not like they like their jobs anyway.
She is credible. And like my guy, I’ve gotta assume “she” has a donor base that would not only give money, but probably take a bullet for her… that’s how much true-believers tend to motivate the huddled masses…
The Democrats would see it as a sign they need to move to the right.
Many did, despite the fact that single payer was eliminated from consideration VERY early in the battle. And it was our own proggy loving DIM LEADERS in both houses who ensured SP would never BE on the table.
Don’t blame FDL, blame the erected offals and their corporate owners.
That’s what I’m saying. Although I question that an “Independant” can primary a Democrat. I’m pretty sure that it would need to be someone intra party. That being said Someone mentioned Barbara Lee. Has anyone asked tried a draft Barbara Lee petition? At this point almost anyone would be better than status quo.
So in the interest of not boring you, let me suggest “none of the above.” It’s time to get off the treadmill. With all due respect to your efforts, you are right in respect to there being no way we are going to influence what is going to come out of this now. No primary challenge is going to stop the bloody machinery now in motion to eviscerate Social Security.
My notion of a primary challenge does not depend on getting some big name to step in, nor does it have any illusions about being able to influence the current debate. Had we had even a non-name in the field a couple months ago, it might have had some impact. The notion of a primary challenge sends chills up their spines. But that is water over the dam.
One point of running someone who is not a big name is that they will stand out despite their anonymity, because the challenge field is EMPTY.
This week is not Armageddon, though it comes too close for my taste. The problems we see facing us will be around in spades for years and years to come. The purpose of a primary challenge is to lay groundwork for future fights, doing something with what the American public is learning about our system now. It is developing the core of an organization that can operate WITHIN and OUTSIDE the Democratic Party. This is a long-term task.
So yes, the common wisdom, so to speak, is to say that a primary challenge now won’t have money and won’t win, yadda yadda yadda. Of course all that’s true. But that’s also completely beside the point.
The point is to begin it now. Otherwise, we’ll keep having this same old discussion, and frankly, it’s beginning to bore me also.
She is the absolute icon for the moral bankruptcy of the Democratic Party.
Here’s what Amy is standing for today, no where will you find what she stands for or who she stands for because she stands for nothing and no one…..
In a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar called for compromise on the budget stalemate in Washington and urged her colleagues in Congress to put politics aside and come together to avoid crippling the nation’s economy.”
You don’t get it. WE DON’T HAVE ANYBODY ON THE LEFT. All we have are people who sell us the ass-kicking.
We’re losing. Or does this feel like a “win” to you?
This is an outstanding post, and it speaks directly to concerns I’ve been having for over a year and a half.
I read a lot of bravado — even on the comments section of this website — that says we need the likes of Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Alan Grayson, or Raul Grijalva, to “primary Obama” or otherwise save the liberal cause.
Sorry, but I don’t trust these folks anymore than I trust President Obama (which is nil). Every last one of them caved to corporatist legislature. These so-called liberals may have neat excuses, but Obama has excuses too. If I wanted to read such excuses, I’d go to HP or DKos where they’re in great abundance.
I realize it’s an extremely bitter pill to swallow, but all these high profile liberals not only can’t bring results, they end up capitulating to the corporatist agenda.
I think we need to vote out every incumbent, from the tea partiers, right down to the false liberals.
I think that Jane is hinting at in a round about way that electoral politics is DOA in america. The War was won when the Regan Democrats elected the great Communicator to usher in the era of neo-con and neo-lib ideology. Since that time we have been under occupation like other third world nations. Our so called leaders are extremist Right Wingers and Vichicrat slightly less Right Wingers.
The only response available to people under occupation is insurrection as the people of Palestine, Afganistan, Iraq and MENA have shown.
Americans have been slow to react to reality since americans are generally slow. What form this insurrection will take if it occurs is impossible to predict but it will not happen at the ballot box.
EXACTLY!
It is not Obama’s call. It WAS a call to Congress to act, but as we have seen repeatedly these past two and half years they have allowed Obama to make the deals and leave them standing with their pants down. They have not pushed or fought for one thing that the people wanted. NOTHING!
A worthy point. It will have to be build from the bottom up.
HOWEVER, given the American people’s fetishism of the 6 o’clock news, we can take advantage of that visibility to raise the concept of independents primarying the Democrats, and then take that local in subsequent races.
Astute, of course. But you’re — what? — among the one percent who understand and can analyze and synthesize the breadth of deception? How can you and the rest of the one percent reach beyond the very few who get it?
(And Bernie’s comb-over is also a kind of lie, even a contemptuous one, as though no one can see it for what it is.)
I — and I’m sure most liberals — will simply not go along with a plan that aims to get rid of the most liberal members/allies of the Democratic Party’s caucus, especially since those liberals are low-hanging fruit in the scheme of things. Again, the House and Senate Democratic leaders are the ones who should be targeted, not Sanders and Kucinich. The media, the DINOs, and the GOP would simply spin a left-wing campaign against Dennis and Bernie as, “See, those guys are so far left they’re too far left for the Democratic Party.” On the other hand, if you target Pelosi and Reid for failing to stop the GOP from getting everything they wanted with the debt ceiling debacle (and for doing what Obama wanted done all along, as Digby has pointed out), neither the media nor the GOP will be able to spin that.
I have no illusions about winning but I would really like somewhere to register my “no” vote because we really need to be able to register our opposition most especially to cuts in the safety net.
I want to be counted against this. More than anything I just cannot affirm the current state of affairs.
If she announced for POTUS, all the networks would have to carry her for several days. Organize a money bomb, she probably clears a million bucks that day. Polls start coming out for Iowa caucus (SHE vs Obama). It could catch fire… I saw Lamont up close and personal in CT 2006.
Your vision is out of focus. It’s not about what happens to the ones we “lose” (Sanders et. al.). It’s about what happens to the ones left behind.
If Sanders can be killed, then by God so can any of them, so they’d better get in line or risk being next.
Again, it’s about mafia-style credibility. Why do you think all the Republicans are so scared shitless about voting for ANY tax increases? They’ve had the fear of God put into them.
Well, I just just suggested the most intelligent, charismatic, and honest person who has some respect on the public stage … as a person whom we ALL could support and no one is interested?
I apologize, most profusely, for having made such a suggestion, but am thankful, that so far, at least, I’ve not been taken to task for my brazen stupidity and lack of relistically serious grasp.
Now is a time of immense opportunity, a tremendous vacumn exists, an ooportunity of genuine new possibility …
Ah, well, at least no one has laughed …
DW
Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.” — Theodore Roosevelt
You don’t get a clean slate of choices each time. You get confused choices that may or may not have marginal advantage.
Suppose Sanders and Schumer are both vulnerable, but you only have the money and resources to concentrate on one primary. Each has an equally virtuou primary opponent. Do you focus on dumping Schumer or dumping Sanders. My money goes against Schumer.
If it’s Levin or McCaskill,I go after McCaskill. Boxer versus Sherrod Borwn? Probably Boxer.
You try to keep moving the center of your group in the right direction, and you make choices about which action moves it the most., given what you can accomplish. That is why we went after Lieberman, but never claimed our guy was perfect, and why we went after Senator from Arkansas, even though her opponent was almost as bad, and even though we knew we would likely get a Republican.
We never get the luxury of clean choices or of taking out everyone we don’t like all at once.
Oh, OK. Refresh my “memory” then.
you are the one failing to identify the problem correctly. We saw Hillary’s problem, and for crying out loud, what is she doing for us right now?? We didn’t see Obama’s (and mea culpa for that).
There may be a zillion really good people who want to serve, but every one of them know there are a gazillion guns out there and half a gazillion willful haters.
i am now so cynical ,i think they dont care…..it reminds me of the old 80s Avis comercials…we re #2…we try harder,just skip the try harder part….G
Threatening Harry Reid, who isn’t up for reelection in 5 years, is just stupid. And Nancy Pelosi is probably the safest seat in the House.
You don’t start with the most powerful players. Jesus. Wake up. You start where you can have an impact, and that’s with the people who need your support and ostensibly share your values. If you can’t make them respond to what you want, good luck with the Republicans who eat your hate like candy.
“I — and I’m sure most liberals — will simply not go along with a plan that aims to get rid of the most liberal members/allies of the Democratic Party’s caucus”
Who gives a shit? Enjoy your merlot and reruns of “The L Word.”
Why don’t you just tell me I have to burn the village to save the village? Or better yet, in order to save myself from cancer I should shoot myself in the head?
I refuse to go along with any plan that targets the few liberals left in the Democratic Party when the real problem is our first black Republican president and the Democratic leaders like Reid and Pelosi who have been far more instrumental in getting his agenda passed than Sanders and Kucinich ever have.
Oh, but “we” do have such a person, Jane.
I guess I should apologize for my great presumption.
I have carefully observed the political “scene” for more than fifty years.
And no one, is more perfectly prepared and well suited to break the stranglehold of deceit and electoral abuse than … Jane Hamsher.
I hope that someday you might consider that terrible truth.
DW
Blame him on me and a lot of other well intentioned parents and children.
Wrong. It takes about $100 million to run a New York Senate challenge, because of the expensive media market. Vermont is much cheaper. And it would be impossible to run against Schumer form the left in New York. In Vermont it might work.
There are a lot of things that going into defining targets, but the first one should be viability of your race Even if Schumer were in Vermont and Sanders were in New York, you should still pick Vermont.
What about the media Jane? The so called “progressive voices”, Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell, Stephanie Miller… etc etc… They are the true shills and enablers, time and time a gain liberals get sold out by this administration and they send their minions out (Axelrod, Carney et al) to distribute the talking points which the “progressive voices” just eat up and regurgitate ad nauseum. No push back at all, they go right back into the routine of blaming the “bad ole Republicans/tea party”… its shooting fish in a barrel, and it obfuscates any honest debate… “look over there, a Republican did something stupid!!” nevermind that Obama himself wants to gut the social saftey net. Maddow is the queen of this nonsense, with Hartmann not far behind.
You are correct. Instead he hired criminals to do dirty political work and claimed he was not a criminal, failed to accept accountability and resigned, in disgrace. In short a political loser. Seems America has to make a unsavory choice between heroin addiction or crack addiction. Both are losing propositions as are our political choices for quality leadership, in the absence of quality leadership from both political corporate owned parties? BTW, History shows Lincoln did not compromise with slave owners. He abolished them after the slave owners lost the civil war. Put that on your constitutional law pipe Mr. President and have a couple of good puffs, inhale then get a ladder and look outside the Washington DC box at reality and our history. Compromise is not always a good thing. Ask a drug addict how compromised sobriety, for a quick fix and pleasure feels as he lies cold and dead ready for Dr. G’s probing autopsy?
Let us now return our souls to the creator. As we stand on the edge of eternal darkness. Let our chant fill the void, that others may know, in the land of the night the ship of the sun is drawn by the DFH. Let’s run a corporation for preznit. Corporations are people to or am i wrong on that point.
Actually, Sanders and Kucinich have been FAR more instrumental in getting Obama’s agenda through than Pelosi or Reid.
I don’t believe that.
The way you are describing this possible effect of Sanders being kicked out of office seems to depend on the majority of Democrats in Congress believing that Bernie Sanders is somehow the strongest and most popular of them all – something I seriously doubt they believe since they continue to race further and further to the right of him.
The only effect I see a campaign aimed at kicking out Sanders having is to give the media and corporatists in Congress an opening to claim that the far left has no support and to drive the debate even MORE to the right.
I’ve always liked you DW. Why would you wish that on me?
;)
I happen to live in the only place in the continental United States where I can’t run for Congress. But I appreciate the thought.
I wouldn’t defend Maddow, but I think Sanders makes a better target. There’s a clear goal: Get his ass out of office. With Maddow, what’s the goal? Get her off the air? Good luck with that.
Jane, you make wonderful points regarding the supposed primary candidates against the president.
I feel compelled to mention though, that if we had a mainstream media that would promulgate ANY Progressive messages, such as the Progressive Budget plan, for example; a plan put forth by roughly the equivalent number of Progressive Congress-people as Tea-Partiers, whose plan is THE framework for the deficit ‘crisis’; there just MIGHT be a different conversation being had.
As such, there would have been the possibility of REAL adults creating a path to REAL progress on the jobs front(our real crisis), and not the certainty of passing into action a budget plan and legislation which will result in the reinforcement of the deficit crisis meme; and the slashing of funding whose beneficiaries are the American public; and the further feather-bedding of the richest among us.
There was a book on Obama that pointed that out. Was it Eric Alterman’s? It said that getting Kucinich on board the health care bill was a turning point for them. Without him to validate it for liberals, they might not have been able to get it through. That’s what they thought anyway.
What “hate” Jane? Is my disagreeing with you suddenly “hate?” Is my saying that you’re targeting the wrong Democrats, in my opinion, suddenly “hate?” What an awfully thin skin you have.
You are crippled by your insistence on viability. If we wait to be viable, we will never be viable.
If we fight now, and lose, that is the start on the long path to viability. But by fighting now, that might mean giving up on one’s friends who insist on viability.
Such are the joys of being a nobody.
Yes, one of the reasons, I supported Obama, and took my, then, nine years-old daughter along to campaign for Obama was that he had children of almost the same age … but I now understand that he has no interest, real deep, abinging interest in any children but his own and no values no lives but those whom he counts as “friends” and family.
Silly me.
DW
The objective is not get rid of Bernie Sanders, but to elect more LIKE him. The ideologically pure argument is BS. There is no such thing. With Bernie Sanders, it is a good start. THEN, hold their feet to the fire. His views most closely resemble my own. But he cannot do any thing as a lone voice.
With all due respect to FDL, they did some purging of single payer advocates back when they were carrying water for the public option. I had to go over to Corrente to see what actions single payer advocates were launching. No I wouldn’t say this site actually helped single payer back when it mattered in the beginning of the debate.
Do they support it now? Sure. And that’s great but I think it’s a disservice to folks that were launching actions and highlighting the actual policy to position to paint this site as in the same category on that particular issue.
No, it shows the left is serious.
Look, if you don’t like idea, fine. Keep supporting Sanders and keep losing. Again, it’s about results, and the left is currently not getting any of the results it CLAIMS to want.
You want to keep slurping Bernie? Go right ahead.
As human beings we make mistakes. If it helps, I forgive you. At least now you’re trying to make a difference and I appreciate that.
:)
I understand the sentiment, but it seems to me that change has to start with the education of the public, most of whom are fairly clueless. Even though Sanders can’t actually carry out any actions, he at least says some the right words. So maybe giving him a bigger platform and a larger audience would be helpful. It seems like the time is right to try to make the American public see that they’ve been sold a bill of goods. And the country definitely needs a messenger. I don’t know how this can be best accomplished, or who the messenger should be. But I sense some considerable danger in entirely abandoning the existing framework because it could easily be seen as giving up and letting the tea party set walk away the winners.
As I read the exchanges above, I get the feeling there is a uniform desire to move the debate left, the policies left, and the leadership left. The issue seems to be one of method. Do you find people closer to the top of the organizational pyramid in the Dem Party (or other progressive party if you like) who can shift left and pull a crowd of followers over in a relatively short time? Or do you move grassroots style in increments (years and years) to the left on the expectation that the “leaders” will “follow”? I gather Jane wants to some way to do it all at once; that is, at the Presidential level, primary President Zero. And she seems to agree lower levels of government (Congress, statehouses) need to do this too. Ideally, both the practical politicians and/or the media would recognize the magnitude of displeasure over “Business as Usual” if such a shift were to take place.
If Liberals, Lefties, Progressives were coherently organized and well-funded, I think this sweeping movement might be possible with the intended consequence. But I do not see coherence on the organizational side, and so I am left with the feeling we are talking multiple election cycles well beyond 2014-16. And that is assuming eloquent and determined leaders were cultivated—and I think that is what it takes: cultivation.
I cannot blame the media entirely for screwing over the message of progressives. They certainly do if they cover it at all. But I am sorely disappointed at the inability of progressive politicians to stay on message, to speak eloquently rather than virulently or snarkily, and to keep connecting the dots over-and-over, day-after-day. It is going to take that by an army of like-minded people instead of people who accept the daily sound-byte riposte.
Krugman writes well, but he is pain to listen to. One of my favorite Bloggers is Ian Welsh, but have you heard him on internet radio? We need the guys who can speak as well as these guys write. I once believed President Zero had that talent. He is a high-average speaker in my opinion. He can deliver a message if he chooses to. He just doesn’t choose to.
I know I am rambling a bit. My main point is that progressive change is not going to happen quickly, and it will not happen unless the politicians who are cultivated become more eloquent about what they are trying to do, and why they are trying to do it.
Jane, You deserve a LOT better than you get. I don’t know HOW you do it?
Yes it’s completely beside the point. Let me print it in bold because it seems to be escaping notice.
This presumes that the Presidential election is not only the best, but the only game in town. I reject the premise that it is either.
Never heard of the book. Anyway, it should be obvious: The system can’t function properly without liberals demarcating the left edge of acceptable debate. Blow that edge away, and the system will come apart.
Intuitively, the liberals around here know it. That’s why they keep defending Sanders. They’re trying to protect the system, whether they’re aware of that or not.
Attitude of a loser.
are you claiming it was transparent? if so, where are your comments telling the rest of us what you knew?
jmo, but i don’t think it was so transparent. that’s nonsense… at least for the three lies i mentioned — the ones i know about….
first, it took a year of watching, in painful detail, the D fisa kabuki, in order to have a clue how it was done.
second, the lies:
on the public option fraud, i just happened to be lucky enough to have some minor interactions with pnhp folks early in the 00′s. that’s the only reason i saw through that one.
on the filibuster fraud, it took several months to do the research (only possible for me with powwow’s help and guidance) and convince myself that the story we were being told wasn’t just wrong in the details, it was completely and utterly wrong.
on the deficit fraud, i only started looking for some non-stupid marcoeconomics after sept 2008. that one took me much longer and a lot of dead ends (mostly because i had to do that one on my own) to even find an intellectually reasonable approach… and i have still have a v long ways to go.
“Who gives a shit? Enjoy your merlot and reruns of The L Word.”
And a hearty “Go fuck yourself, ashhole,” to you too, Eric. Wow, I got banned from Cessca’s Obot cesspool for defneding Hamsher and dickheads like you at FDL, but it seems they were much less wrong than I thought. Hamsher hasn’t just jumped the shark, she landed in a manatee’s asshole and covered herself in shit.
Excuse me, I have to delete FDL’s RSS feed from Google Reader. Clearly, there is nothing left here (and I mean “left” as “remaining” and “left” as in “left-wing”) worth reading.
The answer is in our history books, which we neglect to read.
When the rich rape the poor too much, the poor revolt, or threaten to revolt.
The rich are cowards by nature, and the threat of danger makes them tone down their lousy treatment of the masses.
Notice, I said revolt, not faxes. Revolt, not emails. Revolt, not voting for whomever is the second richest bastard and expecting things to change.
Civil rights came from revolt. Gay rights came from marches that included some scary looking people that probably frightened many a rich prude.
Union rights came from revolt, and months of pickets, and dead workers killed by Pinkertons and other agencies, and even the police and national guard.
We managed to defeat the greatest armies of the 20th Century – Germany and Japan, and yet everyone has a reason to not even try to scare twerps like Paul “The Hair” Ryan, Orange Boner or “Old” McConnell,(69, and never has to worry about Social Security.)
Is the solution to train a cadre of potential lunatics, like the Teabaggers did with coporate bucks, or just to finally, finally, finally realize that we have to stand up and scare the Hell out of these nasty, self-centered, isolated, elite, educated morons.
There’s a point. I just heard Senator Claire what’s her name blaming the “far left” — after the utter capitulation of the party to the farthest corners of the far right.
That woman is more dangerous than the whole tea party. Evict her!
I assure you I’ve got the problem down. Progressives are their own worst enemies. They eliminate their natural allies because it’s an easier “win.” They did it on health care and now it looks like you’ll are moving on to the Senate.
Instead of starting with someone like Feinstein you are going to attempt to eliminate the only voice in Congress that even mouths progressive policy effectively. Knock yourselves out I guess. Sigh.
Freakin’ awesome diary. Freakin’ AWESOME.
I will note, though, that a Sanders challenge against Obama (after Sanders registers as a Dem, of course) would still be welcome, provided Sanders didn’t “tack right” and become even just rhetorically indistinct from Obama. However, the logic behind such a candidacy would be the philosophy behind jeffroby’s Full Court Press, and NPA’s primary strategy. The function of such runs would be to grow real progressive movements, to teach, and to organize. A loss is assumed.
However, when most people ask you to sign onto a Sanders (e.g.) running, they don’t have Full Court Press or NPA strategy in mind, hence your diary is correct for most such appeals.
Regarding the aggressiveness of the Tea Party candidates, you are spot on (also), and I’m glad to see more articles mentioning this fact. E.g., alternet carried an article called In Bid for Control of GOP, Tea Party Brings U.S. to Brink of Economic Calamity
So, Tea Parties also exert their political muscle, despite their smallish numbers, by threatening the leadership of their status as leaders.
Tea Parties are growing in agressiveness, and at least some of them are now ready to throw Republicans under the bus in a general election. Progressives should get their butts in gear, and check their own spines rather than whine about the spines of Nancy Pelosi, et.al. See Tea Party about to cross the Rubicon, become more effective – Wimpy Progressives, watch out!
BTW, I don’t know if you saw my comment here about addthis.com. Addthis allows you to add tell-a-friend email features (plus other social networking links), of the better, web-based variety, just by adding a script to individual diaries. Addthis uses their own email server to do so, and is free.
i seriously doubt i “get it,” that’s what freaks me out!
i think the ONLY way for us to break through the flack and propaganda is to work together. it’s just too much for one person to do alone (at least it is for me).
I
I did not “insist” on viability. I said if you’re weighing two races, it should be a deciding factor.
If you can’t get on the air in New York, you can’t have the impact you could have in a race where you could.
As I said to Phonenix Woman above:
Clearly there have been reasons to support races that had no chance of winning. Bill Halter was one.
The “crippled” ones here are those who let the NBC nightly news determine their world of possibilities. This fixation on the Presidential race, as if it’s the only thing that’s real, makes Brian Williams the arbiter of what’s possible. I reject that tiny little box.
People have to get their minds around the idea that the ENTIRE political proces, at least Federally, has been captured by finance capital. We cant continue to try to play the electoral politics game and expect to acheive any of the results we need. What we are really seeing is much less some kind of political operation put into effect by “the tea party” than it is the natural and predictable result of american society becoming more and more polarized into two classes. the wealthy elite powerful who control the entire political process, also what everything we read, see and hear in 99% of the “news” … and all the rest of us.The word “kabuki” gets used here a whole lot…so much that i think some people who use it dont kniow what it means…it is a kind of stage play where the final ending and all of the outcomes are known to the audience. Kabuki actors are preforming a ritual, and that is the perfect metaphor for american politics. whats the answer? i dont know. i know that its NOT going to come from electoral politics…at least not until the majority ( we ARE the overwhelming majority after all , not billionaires) have all the information we need to make reasonable decisions, and undertand whats being done to them and are motivated to stop it. a petition delivered not by email, but by a million people camped in washington dc for month or two would be a GREAT start.
I swear, it was those Joe Isuzu commercials, with the on-screen captions “He’s lying”, that made deception and lying not just okay, but entertaining, fun, perversely ethical, and an art form.
Remember the Full Court Press, my plan to primary all the congressional races to build local organization?
You correctly raised the objection that it was very hard to get candidates. But still …
No need. Why don’t you welcome the change?
I agree but one thing it does is scare the party about down ballot races so it’s useful to get them worrying about turnout and it may make them think about the danger of supporting the catfood commission etc.
howdy rond!
it seems to me the larger issue is how to educate ourselves first.
I heard there are some deals in Alexandria… or do you think Kaine will right the Senate? Ha!
With Powwow on your side, you COULD have a major impact.
I’m with Paulo above in the sense that Jane’s diary here–which gathers steam as it unfolds, otherwise convincing me–takes a little bit for its assumption that we/progressives have to win out of the box, that a Bernie Sanders is a net negative/loss when that is not necessarily the case. That is not HOW you win; that is not HOW the Republicans have come to have such an undemocratic stranglehold–to routinely pass bills that 82% of people oppose. We need infrastructure (can we grab Obama’s, all the disenchanted?) It’s what you build that endures along the way that counts. (When was the last time that a candidacy carried genuine progressive hope? What can we learn from Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition?)
The question of Black people’s response is huge here, and I am grateful to Harry Belafonte and John Conyers for speaking out in the last few days (better late than never); one wishes that there were more visible Hispanic leaders to stand with them; one wishes for a demonstrable radical/liberal figure to add to that mix, to even offer the APPEARANCE of a gathering shitstorm for Obama. It is crazy that there has been so little fury over Mr. Obama’s actions, but we were ALL cowed/overawed; Nation magazine stalwarts were partying with him! And he is a disaster.
For now what we need is merely OPPOSITION, some semblance of same, SOMETHING to build on. Radicals have LONG known that Bernie Sanders wasn’t up to much, but that doesn’t mean he can’t strike a chord in people, a fire that they carry farther down the road as they move past him. Simply registering opposition in the next cycle, scaring a few people, building on that would be a start. And AT THE SAME TIME we need a new party, or party mechanism. And at voting time we have to have a very serious conversation about whether a Republican who brings disaster really COULD be more productive in the long run for this country–lefties have taken that idea seriously in other parts of the world for 100 years and more. I for one won’t vote Obama unless Rick Perry is the opponent. (Romney is Obama with a different coiffure; Obama won’t need my vote for Bachmann.)
I’m headed off to look at what the Working People’s party has to offer; maybe Tallahassee, FL needs a chapter. . . seems they have made some noise in New York. If Wisconsin shows anything, it is that this has to happen from the grassroots. And in that way, the prospects are good–everyone is out of work and facing starvation! They may not be militating in my neighborhood, but they are planting gardens. We’ve got a great new co-op if anyone is down our way.
In your scenario, why wouldn’t Bernie Sanders vote for corporatist legislature? He knows you’re going to vote for him anyway.
That’s ducking the issue. I meant to set up an all other things being equal choice. You note, correctly that all thingss are not equal. In a NY vs Vermont choice. But suppose they were. Pick any two states, or any district, where you think all else is equal. Then ask, does it make sense to go after the more liberal person or the less liberal person?
What is there to fight for? There is no “far left side of the debate” in the US. There are no leaders on the left because their is no left in the US. Whose a Communist? Where are the anarchists? Can we find a “leader” who is genuinely Socialist? The Left?! What the hell are you talking about?
You’re right. I am an asshole. The left needs more assholes, not fewer. And I’m being completely serious about that.
The left is fighting a war, for Christ’s sake. And you can’t win a war without having a streak of dick in you.
Watch some football this fall. Individual players might be nice guys off the field — and such guys do exist. But on the field, you have to have balls. Look at, say, Tom Brady? He’s practically demure in his press conferences. But during the games, he’s giving his guys hell — his own guys!
Did I mention he has three rings? Kobe’s a dick on the court — a stone killer. He has five rings. Jordan was a total son of a bitch when he played. You have to be a prick when it counts, or else you’re getting to get your little weenie handed to you.
I don’t really give a shit if you like me or not. If everyone liked me, that would mean I was doing something wrong.
Maybe a primer on tactics vs. strategy for those following or (not following) at home?
One concern I have vis. going after someone like Raul Grivalja might be that in a district like his, he feels he has to capitulate on terrible shit because he gets strong-armed or even threatened with ICE agents showing up if he doesn’t go along (“now you wouldn’t want *that* would you, Raul?”). I’m not sure the desire to go after someone like him doesn’t have potential worse unintended consequences. So maybe choosing wisely and humanely when primarying.
Did you say “mewl? “As in “pukihg and mewling?” Oh, I love you all over again.
Here we go with the whole “viability” game again. Way to dream big we’re going to target the guy farthest to the left because realistically that’s where we can win. Geez. The progressives last “viable” candidate that they needed to “win” is presently working on dismantling Social Security as we speak.
Target the freakin candidate that you have the least in common with. Forget the whole entire “win” aspect of it.
Well, if the debate weren’t complicated enough, I would throw one more thing into the mix: changing circumstances. Whatever plan one thinks is optimal, one should ask how well will this work as circumstances change. 1) It seems quite likely that the economic situation will worsen and gas and food prices will go up. The move away from the USD will pick up steam by the BRIC nations and the IMF will try to counteract that by pushing for a global currency and new debt. 2) War with Iran seems like a possibility also at least according to Bob Baer; and who knows how that will be precipitated. So I would just say that any successful challenge to the powers that be may well have to take place in such changing circumstances and must therefore anticipate how to take advantage of how people feel about things then. The war is making you poor seems like a good message.
People laughed at Gene McCarthy too, but his strong showing in New Hampshire led LBJ to step down. Obama needs to be challenged from the left in order to get him to govern from the left instead of the squishy center.
Mock Bernie Sanders all you like, but he’s an ideal protest candidate for sending a wake up call to the DNC.
Im with you greenbell and I want to see Klobuchar and Franken working at Wallmart. I have been saying this for a long time. WE NEED TO DUMP THEM ALL AND START NEW. Its going to be hard living with the right but I know a lot of Republicans who are going to get hammered with me. So now how do we do it?? I keep thinking that the Labor Unions have the power and the money to overturn that whole Washington Scum Barrel. Could they ever be convinced to spend their money running a whole new slate in 2012 ?????
Time passes, things change, I sure did . . . I should have KNOWN, and in fact did worry a lot, as did my pal Tanbark, we were in trouble the moment Obama announced his cabinet picks.
I got over my mistake rapidly. But back then it was ANYbody but HRC for me . . . and my reasons still stand for that one.
Yer gonna be happy when the DIMS finally pull Obama aside, put up HRC . . . but then Jeb Bush will win the general . . . it’s all so PUMA unfair, isn’t it . . . .
I understand and do not “wish” that upon you.
Many years ago, I was talking with my grandmother, someone who knew Elenor Roosevelt very slightly but admired her very greatly.
My grandmother was a true mover and shaker, her parents and grandparents were active in women’s sufferage and the initial building of public education, as was she, and one day I asked her, “Grandma, how do people know if they are leaders?”
Her reply was, “Those who believe themselves to be leaders, most often are not, and true leadership is recognized by others, and it has to do with a love of justice, compassion, understanding, tolerance and courage shown clear in a person’s everyday life.”
I have always remembered that moment with an acute clarity, and pondered it often in my journey through life.
I have taken it as part of my responsibility to recognize AND appreciate those who evidence those traits.
You, Jane, are one of the very few whom I have encountered whom I believe could govern with justice, compassion and all of the rest.
It is a burden and a price that I do not lightly suggest.
It reflects my considered opinion, Jane, that you are, simply, one of a very few who could honestly lead, in the sense of having explored new thought horizons and shared what you have discovered and found with the rest of us.
You see beyond the present, I know that you do, and I think humanity has great need of that and all the rest that you do.
Among those things is to inspire both hope and better angels in all who experiece what you do every single day.
DW
N/A
Yeah I knew.
It was fairly apparent from closed door sessions from President Transparency and Pelosi taking single payer off the table and the progressive community being okay with it because and I’m going to use lambert’s words “they were going to get a public option sparkle pony.” It was also apparent when people started telling women to sit down and shut up because they were going to be marginally better off with Obamacare then nothing.
If you start from the center then don’t expect much from the left. The right has a far sharper game when it comes to understanding bargaining.
Oprah??? Yikes! Umm, and where has she been all this time? And what makes you think she’d do what you/we want? She’s never seemed all that progressive to me, and not particularly sensible, either.
Dems traditionally have been so all over the map that instead of campaigning on a platform they go for ‘charisma’. How’s that working out for us so far?
Why don’t we try ‘sincere’ and ‘track record’? Me, I’d vote for *anybody* who said s/he’d end all the wars and made me believe it. I think a lot of people would. I’d believe, say, Cindy Sheehan, or Southern Dragon, or Jane or Marcy or you. Wanna run?
If the left was serious, there wouldn’t be an issue since they wouldn’t have elected the people currently in office.
I just don’t understand the reasoning behind voting out the people closest to your viewpoints in the hope that other people, who are actively moving to the right ideologically, would suddenly start moving to support a viewpoint held by one of their most left-leaning members who was just voted out of office.
If “the left” truly could create that kind of pull in this corporate and media-controlled landscape, then I’d think challenging Sanders would be a moot point because we would have enough power to challenge ANY member of Congress – such as the ones pulling the debate to the right.
how, exactly, do we progressives determine how virtuous a candidate is?
my answer is we can’t – not yet. we can’t because we don’t yet understand the issues (policy and economics) well enough to tell who is telling the truth and who is blowing smoke.
that, at least, has been clear on the three issues i mentioned above.
Well, I never like HRC, so I’m not sure where you got that from. But this was long after the election.
Good point, once again. Here’s the counter-argument:
There are indeed ways we can chip away at the system, and at the Democratic Party, and make progress. But the history since McGovern is that there are tides working against us that are stronger than our chipping away, thus we continue to lose ground despite our small victories.
Where we differ, I think, is around working in such a way to challenge the entire system, however quixotic it may seem. I read the times differently than you. Yes, radicals keep crying wolf, now is the crisis, the revolution is at hand, etc. And life goes on.
Well, I would argue that now IS the crisis. We are in new territory. The public disgust and horror is like never before. I don’t expect the masses to be on the verge of rising up, I’m not that naive. But I do think the time is ripe for some new ideas, some new forms of organization, because relying on old tactics of incremental wins, tons of phone calls, write or visit your congressmen, etc., has run its course.
These tactics have become empty rituals, a cost of doing business for our so-called representatives.
You could throw back at me that my ideas are old as well. I think not. Inside/outside tactics have not been put to the test. Instead, leftists have EITHER focused on influencing the Democratic Party from within, or fleeing to the 3rd party ghetto. The notion of building an alliance between progressive Democrats and progressive independents has never been put to the test, and frankly, better to give that a serious shot than following the old scripts.
Thank you so much DB, that is really sweet. I know my strengths and limitations however. I’m a better behind-the-scenes operator. It’s what makes me happy.
the Corporate boob tube,is pretty much all lies/all the time
If you can’t understand the point by now, then you never will.
Well, my first goal is to make it painful for them. It needs to be costing Senator Amy to be standing for nothing and no one. She needs to know that there are many of us particularly in good old MN-5, where she needs 80% of the vote, who are just plain going to make it difficult. She needs to know that she is going to have to buy the vote she could have got from me for free.
So I am talking. I am spreading the word. I’m letting all those boomers my age know that Senator Amy has a peculiar difficulty supporting Social Security and Medicare.
Just keep talking…..I’m making it my game to see how many votes I can lose her. If nothing else, it will cost her money….
There is no debate from the left because the center(hey that’s you guys) continually insists on shutting them down.
Exhibit A: The only guy in the Senate who spoke about the working class in a real manner is going to be primaried because going after someone like a Feinstein(who didn’t even bother to show up or pretend to care about the working class )would be “too hard” and “unrealistic.”
The strategery burns.
Hey DW, I missed the name . . . who you talking about?
I’d guess Warren, or ‘that Hamsher woman’ off the top of my head.
;-)
BOTH good suggestions I might add . . .
Jane has already handed you a great blog to post on, and the benefit of her observation, energy and analysis, built a community of gifted and dedicated posters and commenters, now you want you to hand you a sword?
Get your own damned sword.
I recommend you begin by reading Dean Baker’s critiques of Robert Samuelson.
Wow, this thread moves fast.
Great piece by Jane, AGAIN.
Although in Jane’s comments, here usual concise level-headed self is not coming through as it usually does as a razor-sharp ballistic projectile.
IMHO:
Primary-ing (sp?) will only make the rest move more to the right. Have no idea why anyone would suggest it. Seems kinda vindictive. Not defending Kucinich or Sanders, both of whom sold out. Less than the others, but still. They will argue they had poor choices. Maybe, but that’s a weak response.
This is why I support FDL. Calling bullshit on the handwringing apologists. We saw it with Blanche Lincoln, who supported the Employee Free Choice Act when it had no chance of passing. When the Democrats (through Herculean hard work of grassroots progressives) acquired a super-majority in the Senate, she couldn’t be bothered. And she was for the public option until it could pass, by her word alone, and again she couldn’t be bothered. Good post, Jane, these things need to be said out loud–tear the bandaid off to expose the running sore that is beneath.
Howdy! Point taken…
That’s another distraction. Of course we dont have perfect knowledge or clear criteria, but so what? We make judgments very day. You can’t say in a democracy, I don’t know everything,so I am not voting.
To understand why people expected more from obama you have to fully understand the history of racial oppression in the US .. racial oppresion exists many other places including western europe but im talking about american politics. Obama as the first black president benefitted from a lot of assumptions. it helped him that he encouraged people to make these assumptions. the main assumption was that obama, as a black man from a working class mixed race familly, would have the interests of people like himself at heart. the assumption was also that as a black politician he would approach governing and policy coming from same place that black politicians have historically come from. the black democratic caucus is anti war and pro social welfare spending. they are and always have been, out of long and bitter experience, at odds with the right wing capitalist ruling class agenda of unrestricted, unregulated “free trade” and no taxes.that so many people made these assumptions without any evidence at all, based on a stereotype (especially those “tea party” morons on the right who still, insanely , against all rational arguments insist obama is a “radical socialist”) shows where we still are with respect to race.
If someone runs on ending the wars and saving SS, I’ll vote for them. But the military industrial complex would kill them before then anyway.
That’s fine with me. I’ve never enjoyed purity tests anyway, whether than come from the left or from the right.
Spot on Jane. The only thing the “Democrats” in the Congress have is bluster. They’ll fall in line because the most important thing to them is money and they’ll do exactly as they are told to keep the spigot turned on.
It came up during the webinar and then a couple of times in threads she was either posting or commenting in . . I don’t save those kinds of links . . . take it on face value, it’s not that big of a deal to do so.
We wait . . . and listen to what she says . . . . takes time sometimes, but sooner than later there’s always a call to action . . . patterns, ya know.
*G*
DW; you are correct on your assesment. Jane has more knowledge and understanding of what goes on in DC, in her little finger, than all off them put together!
I think one point though it that you need to carefully examine whether or not a given Democrat is really with you. I have my own Senator Klobuchar as the example because many many Democrats assume she is a liberal because she’s very careful in what she SAYS and people don’t pay attention to what she DOES. So do not assume the Democrat representing you is representing YOU. Pay attention. Hold them accountable. Let them know you will hold them accountable for results.
As they ALL do. You need to have a message and only vote those who agree in Principle. Bernie Sanders. It’s a good start.
I have no problem primarying any dick. I think Jane’s post–as I read it–is not demanding going after just progressive caucus types. I think she’s debunking the conventional wisdom that they’re off-limits for a primary, that they’re the “good guys.” They’re not. They’re just as (if not more) complicit in cementing this cruel, cruel status quo. She’s absolutely correct on that. How that’s even arguable is mystifying to me.
Hey!
That’s MY merlot, and I’m with ya!
lol
Of course one should do what one does best. But at the same time I think two things are worth noting:
1) When one goes in for politics, one has to keep evolving otherwise one becomes part of the status quo. Isn’t that part of what we are seeing with Sanders? He’s reached his comfort level. And despite the fact that he is “on the left”, he has become part of the problem, part of the status quo. Challenging the status quo requires something new every day.
2) Don’t ever forget the importance of setting examples for others. One can fail directly and indirectly succeed.
[Supposed to be a reply to 262]
You either (a) enjoy losing, or (b) don’t need to win. I’m guessing b.
Not necessarily.
Why bother when once they get elected, they can do whatever they want.
See O? Wars? Gitmo? …
List goes on.
Paul could get elected and then do whatever he wanted.
Any “anti-war” candidate could.
Greenwald on this issue:
“How can the leader of the Democratic Party wage an all-out war on the ostensible core beliefs of the Party’s voters in this manner and expect not just to survive, but thrive politically? Democratic Party functionaries are not shy about saying exactly what they’re thinking in this regard:
“Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said polling data showed that at this point in his term, Mr. Obama, compared with past Democratic presidents, was doing as well or better with Democratic voters. “Whatever qualms or questions they may have about this policy or that policy, at the end of the day the one thing they’re absolutely certain of — they’re going to hate these Republican candidates,” Mr. Mellman said. “So I’m not honestly all that worried about a solid or enthusiastic base.”
“In other words: it makes no difference to us how much we stomp on liberals’ beliefs or how much they squawk, because we’ll just wave around enough pictures of Michele Bachmann and scare them into unconditional submission. That’s the Democratic Party’s core calculation: from “hope” in 2008 to a rank fear-mongering campaign in 2012. Will it work? The ones who will determine if it will are the intended victims of that tactic: angry, impotent liberals whom the White House expects will snap dutifully into line no matter what else happens (even, as seems likely, massive Social Security and Medicare cuts) between now and next November.”
Are they really liberals if they vote for austerity planning and Romneycare?
Is that a title?
Where is the rest of your response?
The candidate presents you with values that are either resonant with yours or not. If you select the candidate and make them a winner in a surprise move, your values might get into the political mix. But impotently voting your values doesn’t do anything but salve your conscience.
Oh I get it. I just disagree with your strategy vehemently.
You don’t start your purge from the closest you have to the left, you start from the furthest right.
That was NOT Mz. Hamsher, that was Jason Rosenbaum and Sentinel. I recall it vividly . . . HCAN! So centrist and bought by Pharma it was sick.
I do understand … feeling the same way.
Yet, Jane, I shall reserve the option of, occassionally, saying to you, “Dammit, Jane, if you were ‘there’, what would you do?”
So, now I ask you, as an observer, as keen as has ever been my privilege to encounter, just whom you would, now, trust with the future of this nation?
There is no one, apparently now “in” whom we may consider to be reliably concerned with what we are all discussing and cussing who will dare speak up or speak out.
Who has the capacity to dispell fear and doubt?
And the desire to do so, either “in” or “out”?
Behind the scenes whom do you see who you are convinced, even part-ways, might not simply sell-out?
And here’s hoping, Jane, that you have ever more “clout”.
Namaste.
DW
Well, to me it’s not about “winning” or “losing”, it’s more about policy. I’m not really interested in what they call themselves. Hell, Lanny Davis insists he’s a progressive and that’s pretty egregiously wrong. Playing “Democrat vs Republican” has gotten us where we are. I don’t think more of the same is the answer.
The Tea Party did not try to judge candidates based on what they said, one way or another. They took out people based on their actions, and created anxiety in the rest that it might happen to them.
80 members of Congress pledged not to vote for any war funding that didn’t have troop withdrawals. I think 30 of them have kept that promise. And without litigating that debate again, 65 promised not to vote for any bill that didn’t have a public option. Every last one of them did. As did Bernie Sanders.
They had the power to stop the supplemental war funding bill from going through. They did not use that power. They paid no price. They could have blocked the health care bill if they kept their promise (Bernie could have done it by himself). They did not.
The fact of the matter is that they have demonstrated over and over that as long as people give them credit for being good liberals when it doesn’t matter, that’s all they need to do to keep both elites and the base happy. They have to choose.
It isn’t a matter of virtue, and it isn’t theoretical. It’s like the dog that pees on the carpet. If nobody trains it to do anything differently, it’s going to keep peeing there.
People keep saying “fight the Blue Dogs.” Why? They don’t care what we think. They get money and prizes for peeing on the carpet. If you can’t keep the people who supposedly represent you from playing you and looking like unprincipled losers in front of the whole world, how are you going to convince anyone that there is a movement worth supporting? I think that’s where we’re at.
Just when we think things can’t get any worse – they do, tenfold.
This is the latest headline at TPM:
“Senate Votes Down Reid Bill, Awaits Obama/McConnell Spending-Cut-Only Debt Limit Bill.”
When we jerk-offs shed those adoring tears, did we ever, EVER think we’d see the health of the whole country “await” the McConnell/Obama( let’s call it what it really is)bill?
wow..
Same conversation I had yesterday with a very nice but desperate for customers food delivery guy. We chatted about the unnecessary wars, and about how excited our kids had been in 2008. And of course, I couldn’t become his customer, much as I would have liked to help him out.
An icon for us is the little girl who died in that Tucson parkinglot. Her neighbor had the same good intention. It hurts very much when we unintentionally betray our children. So, folk who are doing the crowing that they knew better; you don’t need to do that. We know already.
This is incorrect, stated as a general fact. It may have been “hard” relative to the effort you and I made, at the time, but that wasn’t much, correct?
I placed limited craigslist ads for a primary challenger to Obama, to support NPA, and got a decent response, even if not overwhelming. One respondent had even already run for Congress, previously. I would have done so for FCP, but was quite broke during that period of my life.
Should I forward these emails to you, so you can reconsider?
Of course, the respondents assumed NPA would support them in a significant way. Maybe some of them would have proceeded with no help from NPA, at all, but I doubt it.
Anyway, the task of running for House of Representatives is easier for everybody involved – candidate plus supporters. IMO, we simply didn’t push the idea long enough to attract a nucleus of supporters that had more stability than you and I. Why not wait until FCP is really started with enough energy and resources to do it justice, before giving up on it?
As you may know, I’ve recently been arguing not just for a Democratic-party FCP (your idea), but also a Republican-party FCP, wherein progressives crash Republican parties and both educate, and drive wedges between Repub base and Repub leadership, in Wanted: Republicans who plan to sell off CA and NY, to pay the national debt
Hmmm. Maybe to drive home the point, I’ll contact Tea Parties and ask them to crash Democratic primaries. Certainly, if the Tea Parties could crash Democratic primaries, progressives can, correct?
Damn, Jane, you’re beginning to sound like me.
There ya go, confirming my appreciations!
Yes, precisely.
DW
Excellent point.
Do you honestly think that if your complaint is that people aren’t “left enough” that taking out the guy who is farthest left is going to cause those furthest right to do anything other than move further right? Have you even been paying attention to the direction of political debate in this country? They aren’t going to resist gravitational pull if you take out Sanders. Nope. Not only that the right will pat you on the back and laugh at you. Take out someone sympathetic to your viewpoint. Brilliant.
DW… quite elegant, especially your grandmother’s words.
As I recently mentioned here, I think Jane is a perfect candidate for a variety of reasons, particularly at this moment in time. But one very important reason that I like the ring of “Senator Hamsher” is that she doesn’t want it. To me, that speaks volumes.
In 2007, Jay Leno asked Ron Paul why people loved him. Ron Paul’s response “They don’t love me. I’m just the messenger. They love the message.” It’s very much part of the reason why I would vote FOR either Ron Paul or Jane Hamsher in any election. It’s not about them. It’s about the cause.
We need to elect more people who will do nothing meaningful against neoliberal rule. Then we can have more powerful voices on our side which amount in practice to damn little.
As I read what she says, it is that no one can tell you how you would get a candidate to run in a primary against Obama. And no one can give a credible scenario of how a third party would have someone popular enough as a candidate to give Obama pause. Of course, if you want to spoil, the obvious scenario is to run a third party candidate in Florida that will pull enough Democratic votes to throw Florida. That in fact, is the only scenario that I see leading to Obama’s defeat–if that is what you want.
Thank you.
Politicians will continue to shit on us as long as it is politically more safe to do so. The teabaggers recognize this. Until we do so, prepare to witness the dismantling of all fairness in policy and the rise of The Feudal States of America.
You can attack me personally all you want.
Hopefully someone else can avoid such things and actually answer my question of who is supposed to represent us if we keep going after the people closest to our ideals for not being absolutely in lock-step with them at all times.
We don’t need to be Democrats who compromise every value we hold simply to win, and we don’t need to be Republicans who demand their politicians be only mouthpieces for the loudest and most extreme.
No more response is required.
Truth.
DW
I haven’t given up. It’s a matter of tactics, what can be done NOW. I think that focusing on presidential primary is the best way of building that “nucleus of supporters” which the NPA is in fact building.
I find it remarkable that anyone could be here right now, at this moment, defending the leadership of the people who have sold us out over and over again just because they say nicer things than the ones who take pride in stabbing us. But if you want to defend them as successful leaders just because they’re not as bad as the next guy, I will say we have a dramatically different idea of what constitutes victory and leave it at that.
i am not afraid of a prez Bachman,wall street runs the government….the MONEY MAFIA is in control…period,and in the end ,nobody can stop them except us,if we refuse to use the TBTF banks
Ultimately, Blanche Lincoln was seemingly proud of being against the public option. She treated it like a selling point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDopnb1H_Zg#t=13s
How has Bernie Sanders helped the cause of liberal policy, furthered coalition building, challenged the status quo in any way? This country needs to throw a wrench into the machine. Bernie Sanders is oil.
TV by its electronic and mechanical design already distorts and corrupts whatever it shows, and so much so that the viewer already accepts the built-in deception unconsciously. When the content also lies and deceives, it’s perceived as true because it’s ‘there’. Since 1960 (a watershed), first, elective politics figured out how to use TV’s built-in deceptiveness, then later legislative politics figured out how to use TV to manipulate and use polls.
I feel like a broken record (I know there are a few, here, who nderstand that allusion), Tim.
Yes, precisely.
DW
As if the post itself wasn’t good enough, I start reading your comments.
And this IS the bottom line. Right there.
You do realize I’m falling in love with you, don’t you? *g*
What folks need to realize is we don’t need huge numbers either. Has anyone noticed how the GOP has power even when the Democrats have huge majorities?? Or when Democrats control two or three houses of the legislative process?
It’s because they not only talk the talk, THEY WALK THE WALK.
You get 80 REAL PROGRESSIVE fighters in the House and 20 in the Senate, and you’ve sent the message that pissing on the floor is no longer acceptable, BOOM, you’re going to see a whole new ballgame.
The 80 that pissed on the floor will be replaced, and every other D still there is going to look for a door everytime they need to piss too, I guarantee you.
You’re. The’ Real. Deal. Jane.
Just keep on keepin’ on.
Thank you.
It’s not a personal attack. I just don’t think you need to win.
You might want to go through the thread then and read the “strategy”
The thought process is to go after Bernie because a campaign against him in Vermont is more “viable” then a campaign against someone like Pelosi. Somehow creating a primary against your left most member is going to magically scare everyone into being more leftward. I can see the GOP laughing now.
Jane, I wrote that before I read your #281. Great minds and all.
i’m gonna guess you don’t know me very well.
The more liberal, because in these districts that the CPC congress people, the chances of a winger or a blue dog getting elected are slim to none. We CAN move these seats to the left. EASILY. They get their money primarily from unions, and unions don’t like the mandate.
I missed the webinar.
The point is not to scare everyone. The point is to scare the pseudo-left into being more left.
it is comical,if it werent so sad….the arguments spewed on the tube,are just baseless.but people buy it,because a pundit..(Nehru rolls in his grave)sez so
What would happen on the battlefield if a soldier shot one of his buddies “on rare occasions?” Since they are both on the same side, would it be okay, or would they bounce his ass?
and STOP THE SHITTY ACTING
Sentinel? Seminal?
See how quickly I forget my sordid and ugly past . . . ;-)
Spot on. People, (the DNC), keep whining about “wasting your vote” on a third party candidate. Well if the Democrats take a bath because for once the progressive voters fail to “fall in line”, and it has the effect of A) removing Vichycrats and B) putting a fear of the left in the survivors’ hearts, then I wouldn’t consider that a “wasted vote”.
I give you total credit for working to put what you think will work into action. I absolutely respect it.
I just think things have to catch fire at the grassroots level before it’s possible to have an impact at that level. Ron Paul can have an impact on the Republicans even though he’ll never win because there really is genuine grassroots energy behind him, and he has worked for decades to cultivate that. Kucinich doesn’t have that, so he never manages to draw the debate to the left.
I think we are at the movement building stage and it’s difficult to start that at the Presidential level. But if you can make it work, more power to you.
Please just don’t invest your hopes in Bernie Sanders.
;)
Jane, let me be clear. I think yours is an important diary, despite our disagreements on the primary tactic. Calling out the pseudo-left rather than falling in line with carping at either Obama or the Republicans takes guts. I’ve never said you didn’t have guts.
Who will you replace her with?
There are roughly 3 million registered voters in MN. A 60% turnout would be 1.8 million. So you would need 900,00 to 1.1 million voters to vote for your candidate in the general election. Do you know how many from each precinct in Minnesota would vote for a new face that isn’t conservative Republican?
Well said.
The democratic congress is not on our side.
Jane, I couldn’t agree with you more and have been saying something similar for years.
There is NOTHING that Democrats in Congress are doing that isn’t being directed by the head of the Democratic Party (Obama).
Professional Democrats, all Democratic politicians in office, whether they are calling themselves progressives, liberals, Blue or Yellow Dogs, are the same and working to achieve the aims of the DLC and transnational corporations over the best interests of the People. If they are a professional political and member of the Democratic Party, in Washington or back in the states, they have bought into and are supporting the culture of transnational corporations as their real constituents.
Their only problem with this is that corporations don’t vote, and politicians need votes to get into office. So they, Democratic politicians, try to convince the People they’re working on our behalf with weasel-words, rhetoric designed to lead voters into thinking one thing when the opposite is true. Obama can say, “I tried to do it, but those mean, crazy Republicans wouldn’t let me.”
Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. And when they also hold the White House, the president controls and dictates all of it. They identify what they hope to achieve (pro-corporate legislation) and then strategize how to get it while saving each other’s hides with constituents come election time. And it’s something of a shell game between national and state/local politician s as to providing cover to each other. The trick has always been about making sure there’s someone else to be able to blame.
Democratic politicians in liberal districts get to talk a good game about being champions of the People, but when push comes to shove, if their votes are needed to cross over and k!ill liberal legislation (like a public option or access to abortion or reinstating the rule of law and closing Guantanamo and trying detainees in federal courts), the DNC will make sure they are covered come election time, with massive infusions of money into their campaign war chests and crushing any principled challenges to them from the left in their primaries.
Here’s an example of how they tag-team us:
Lynn Woolsey, head of the Progressive Caucus, likes to brag that she was the first to bring a resolution to end the war in Iraq. She, and congressional Democrats, and Obama, ran on ending the practice of paying for the wars through supplemental emergency spending bills, and putting the wars on budget (see why that is significant here).
Democrats had the ability to accomplish putting the wars on budget (and thus end the wars) when they took over control of Congress in 2006 and didn’t done it. They didn’t need Republicans to do it.
As the head of the Progressive Caucus, Lynn Woolsey led 79 of the 82 members of the caucus to pledge that they would not vote for any healthcare reform legislation that didn’t include a public option.
Woolsey then led the 79 to renege on the pledge.
Unbeknownst to Lynn Woolsey’s constitutents (it was never reported in her district’s newspapers ): Progressive Congresswoman Woolsey Endorses Pro-War Blue Dog Jane Harman Over Progressive Marcy Winograd
Democrats have let Obama continue with just about all of Bush-Cheney’s policies, and wars, and let Obama go Bush-Cheney even better, by letting Obama assert, unchallenged, that presidents have the right to kill Americans with no due process or oversight, push for ‘preventive detention’ and no transparency of anything a president asserts should be his secret.
Democrats have abdicated their Constitutionally-required role of oversight of the executive branch; they failed to perform it during the Bush-Cheney administration, and still don’t with one of their own in the White House. They all need to go, but especially the liberals/progressives.
Let’s go with your premise that he didn’t. Let’s go with the idea that all he does is 2 hour diatribes and mouth pretty words.
How does targetting him specifically move the debate leftward? You lose the guy who even pretends to care about the issues you care about. How does that help your agenda?
Now compare that to the idea that you start with someone like Feinstein who doesn’t even bother to pretend.
Please feel free to come to my Congressional district to campaign against David Dreier, the third-richest Republican in the House. And good luck.
If they ALL do, then what’s the point of voting in the first place? We do know that while Bernie Sanders makes a nice show of talking liberalism, he votes for the corporatist agenda. There are legislators all over the right-wing spectrum who have no qualms with being hold-outs and voting against the grain. That’s one reason why the right is a strong force. A lot of people like to ridicule liberals in principle for wanting the same “purity tests” that the far right want, but it seems to be a very effective tool for them.
Likewise, I respect you for putting action behind your conviction, even if we disagree on tactics. I don’t claim to know what the best way forward is. But I’m glad we agree that putting money on the horse that keeps losing every race is a bad bet.
One thing that’s happening is a lot of changing electoral conditions; A) redistricting and B) regular average people who don’t normally follow politics are mad as hell.
So, not in movement territory yet, but probably getting there. I think voters will be more inclined to fire incumbents than in years past, verging on a “throw the bums out!” movement.
Conventional political strategies and thinking aren’t suited to today’s world -and while the new ideas start out ridiculed, once they’re effective become the new way to get things done.
We all lose some battles but that doesn’t mean you surrender the war. The values need to be out there in the public square:
“The only kinds of fights worth fighting are those you are going to lose, because somebody has to fight them and lose and lose and lose until someday, somebody who believes as you do wins. In order for somebody to win an important, major fight 100 years hence, a lot of other people have got to be willing – for the sheer fun and joy of it – to go right ahead and fight, knowing you’re going to lose. You mustn’t feel like a martyr. You’ve got to enjoy it.” I.F. Stone
Hey Bernie, try a primary on Single Payer…. “Taxes to crush the aristocracy,” “Jefferson” “The danger of political parties..” Washington or Ike and the corporate war whores fleecing America. Then point out historical facts……
All the conserves want accountable government while most Americans want accountable corporations??? Everything goes right back to the legalized bribes from corporations to politicians, as slavery was once allowed under the color of law.
WE did it on healthcare? ? Oh, I guess that was us riding around in Airforce One, us slamming the White House gate on those good doctors and nurses, us leading folk up the garden path this way and that way and this way and that way – so insurance companies could get exactly what they wanted and then some. Don’t get me started, cwaltz. I was in on the beginning of that charade.
How did you feel at the end of all that when those guys fell in line ‘for the good of the country’? That was a victory for somebody and it wasn’t us and we didn’t cause it by dragging our feet.
We supported those schmucks; we listened attentively to those ‘progresssive’ radio enablers.
No more. Enough. (Not the way the Great Decider says it with a flourishing exclamation point that means nothing. Just a period.)
Enough.
But, Jane, aren’t you undercutting your own argument here?
You’re saying NY is inaccessible due to $$, so turn to VT; take out Bernie Sanders so as to make Chuck Schumer nervous (and, therefore, more receptive to our agenda).
But, with Bernie gone, NY is still inaccessible due to $$. So how have we made Schumer nervous? He knows we can’t afford to come after him in NY.
(P.S. I’m not disagreeing with all you’ve been saying; I’m just pointing out what looks like a hole in the reasoning that undergirds it.)
ROFLMAO
Can you please make that into a diary?
Make sure you mention the supremely patronizing “let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
i didn’t say or mean “perfect” or that it was about voting.
you posed a hypothetical question about which campaign to support (in different states).
i claim progressives understanding of the issues is not “good enough” for that yet. and for three pieces of evidence i gave the following: the public option campaign, the campaign to change the senate filibuster rules and the deficit dove campaign. in each case we progressives have been conned by D party enablers… and there are lots of other issues i could add to the list, like cap and trade for climate change.
we progressives have not seen through these faux “solutions.” and i claim that’s a problem we need to face and do something about.
there’s no shame in admitting it. failure is probably the best tool for learning, if we are willing to use it.
And in exchange you get someone in Congress who doesn’t pretend, and who acts. If they don’t behave as if they’re on your team, they’re not on your team.
Look, I do hear what you’re saying vis. Feinstein. But I’d like a primary victory, not a replay of pissing money down a rathole on a Nazi in a Nazi district like Blanche Lincoln’s. Victory matters. Doing political violence to a corrupt diseased system matters. Just a couple of principled people holding out votes for neoliberal horseshit matters. It matters a lot more than symbolic (and embarrassing) cash-flushes.
I am at most trying to put in place one tiny piece of the progressive puzzle, because I see that piece as missing. I do not mistake it for the totality of what progressives should be doing.
Small players can move more quickly than big players, it’s just the laws of physics. But with less force. In fact, I recognize that you are in motion. Otherwise, people like me would have no hope.
Just for the record, I invest no hopes in Bernie Sanders.
:>)
Izzie got it, and shared it, greenbell.
We’re in “this” for the very long haul.
DW
You don’t have to guess that. I freely admit I don’t know you. Nor do you know me. I tend to believe people aren’t so shallow that I can converse with them a time or two on the internet and claim to know them.
Further, I think the people are so mad that there are a lot of unanticipated consequences and literally freaky events going to happen.
For instance, maybe Anonymous hacks TV satellites and there’s a kind of “V for Victory” moment.
Maybe there’s some sort of “Bouazizi” moment that concentrates the country’s attention and focuses it into pure outrage.
It’s just wild times right now, and utterly unpredictable what people are going to do in the face of this Austerity Assault.
Nowadays, the democrats see anything and everything as a sign to move further to the right.
He would have my vote. The president should run as a republican. He has been more supportive of their positions. He does not seem to like the people but cares deeply for the rich. The Affordable Health Care Law is more republican then democratic. He has deported more immigrates and has turned over backwards to please republicans and their fellow travelers.
The Republicans have the Democrats playing their game and as such, they have no chance of winning. It would be like Tiger Woods challenging Wandy Rodriguez to a game of golf. Rodriguez may even play golf but he has no chance of beating Woods. His only option is to persuade Woods to try to pitch against him. The left has to change the game to one that favors us and our strengths. That of course means going against the entire beltway political and media apparatus but that’s our only chance. We can’t beat them at their game. We have to maneuver them into playing ours.
The thing is if Bernie Saunders is your left most member, then you’re already dead in the water.
Same for Kucinich and all the other “real progressives” who fold, time after time, issue after issue.
If you were truly left, you demanded single payer, you fought for single payer, and you DAMN SURE NEVER, EVER voted for the piece of shit that passed. No one that’s really “left” would ever vote for that corporate giveaway, under any circumstance.
That’s the point. Saunders may well be left of any Senator in the Senate, but that doesn’t mean he’s necessarily left. Oh, he talks left. Brilliantly. Passionately. I LOVED his “filibuster” last year. Brilliant.
But everytime the shit starts to get serious, he pisses on the floor (to use Jane’s analogy). And that is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
First rule of most major battles is to strenthen your flanks. We’ve got to start to strenthen ours IMO.
All that said, if the kabuki theater is still running as is next year and the primaries get here (Virginia is where I live so they’re almost always decided by then) and Saunders name is on the ballot, I’m gonna fill it out, short of another, better option.
mebbe we need to send alot of faxes to the White House and Congress….sending APPLAUSE…but stating we know this “crisis” is an act,and the soap opera will have dire consequences for those who least deserve it…..stop the act,represent 80% of what the people want ,or be primaried…right now,i think they believe we dont know its all a big act
Minnesotans elected Paul Wellstone. Minnesotans only recently elected Mark Dayton governor in spite of opposition from the party.
A liberal often wins in Minnesota. Our current Senator just wants the win to be easy and cheap. She doesn’t want to have to work for every vote as Paul Wellstone did.
Americans will vote for liberals IF they believe they are authentic. Unfortunately, few are.
My memory is that the consensus at FDL was that single payer was impossible and that it was a waste of time advocating for it. People who did so were told no. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but that’s what I remember. Can anyone say whether this is true or not?
I just emailed my politically-connected friend, already a local superstar for his local leftie projects, begging him to challenge Cohen in TN, with a link to this post.
:)
womens rights amen…dear Susan B. Anthony
This is a great debate for the left to have but frankly I’m torn on it.
Yes–Sanders voted for the health care bill but he DID get something important in return for Community Health Centers to the tune of 11 billion dollars. Without him they never would have put that in the bill. Never.
So, although small, he did get something good from a pile of garbage.
He is the only one who would have done that.
Beyond that, he’s a voice. The left has no voices–not on the news(except the rare moments Jane and a few others get on television) and not by the politician or even the President himself. Blogs just can’t get the attention of a senator.
So if we kill the few voices we have in Washington, will that result in just smothering our voice completely? The news only cared about 14th amendment options once politicians started saying it.
Yes we can primary Bernie with someone who will insist they’ll be all about action. But we’d better be sure they can win the general election or we lose even that voice. It’s chips all in.
And maybe that is the answer. I don’t know. Like I said, I’m torn on the subject. It’s easy to walk away from Obama or corporate Dems who don not even bother giving us that voice. That’s easy.
I sense the anger and feel it myself. Most of my posts are angry.
But I have to honestly say, I just don’t know yet about dumping a guy like Sanders. I suppose I haven’t thought about it a lot really. I do agree that we need all options on the table.
But I really need to give that some thought.
Although personally, my senators are Bob Casey and Pat Toomey. I’d miss neither of them and welcome a primary challenge to Casey.
Jane is arguing under the assumption that progressive organizations (and not merely organizations that recruit progressives for neoliberal goals) will start to collect serious money once their representatives stop selling them out.
Absolute truth, Kelly.
Consider the opportunities for reaching people’s deeper understanding.
This is something that MUST be gone “through”.
DW
bailey, thanks for the suggestion. but i started almost 3 years ago… and i’m so past baker that i can bare stand to read most of what he writes. he may be a great guy, loyal friend, etc….
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-dean-baker-has-gone-off-rails-on.html
http://seekingalpha.com/article/262724-defaulting-on-debt-is-not-the-end-of-the-world
Great article! the emotion you convey speaks for most on the left. I am afraid, as in the IRON HEEL, the only solution to the oligarchs lock on power is illegal. The system is dangerously corrupt.
A Presidential primary would be a Quixotic tilt. We should pick a few that aren’t. Maybe Bernie is one, or maybe not. The Lincoln/Halter Arkansas Senate primary was a good one. Lincoln would have lost the general election no matter what and at least Halter had a chance. Halter lost only by the Administration using the full weight of support, including sending out the Big Dawg. When Blanche won the primary, the Administration spiked the ball, gloated and said “neener neener” to progressives and labor for “flushing their money down the toilet, and expected us to sing kumbaya and support Blanche in the general. It pissed off the Administration further and began ridiculing the left with declarations of “drug testing” us and stuff, which widened the rift. The result was the 2010 bloodbath suffered by Democrats, mostly by the Blue dogs. I don’t know if the consultants have picked up on this or not. I would guess not by the cutting of social services to pay for tax cuts to billionaire hedge fund managers.
i was referring to your comment @147. seemed to imply some knowledge of my past positions and actions.
I’m having a hard time understanding how taking out Bernie Sanders and replacing him with someone to the LEFT of him silences “the only liberal voice we have.” We cheer for uniforms; we (should) vote for ideologies, not people.
It’s a matter of who will admit what. The Tea Party drags everything to the right because they openly advocate what the Republicrats/Demopublicans really want but won’t dare mention.
As long as lefties keep supporting and voting for Democrats they (lefties) will remain impotent. The Party is your prison.
It’s great that I have your guarantee on that.
I sure hope that it’s better than the whole bet everything on Barack Obama strategy the progressives engaged in circa 2008.
You know what I’m going to just end the dialogue with saying we disagree. I don’t think this strategy will work.
I’ve sat back and watched and listened and think people here are probably well intentioned but I definitely disagree with them on strategy. I think I’ve articulated why and that’s the best I can do.
Best of luck
Mitch McConnell is safe for the next five years. Yet every article says that he is conscious of keeping the Tea Party happy as he negotiates the deal.
That didn’t happen because the Tea Party challenged him — and lost. It’s because they now have a fair number of Senators who are loyal to them, and McConnell doesn’t want to lose a power struggle with DeMint.
If you want to influence Pelosi, you don’t run someone against her because they’ll lose. But she depends on the votes of the progressive caucus for her leadership role. If she has to work to get those votes, and can’t just take them for granted, it upsets the dynamics that are currently tilted toward imposing the will of the White House on her caucus.
There are no hard and fast rules, and leverage points will be different for every race. But if you want to influence Schumer, you’re probably going to be better off leveraging the caucus dynamics rather than taking him on directly. At least at the moment. Things change.
Exactly!
I’m tired of excuses. I’m about this far from voting 100% Teabagger just out of spite!
Guys, what are they going to do us if we stop voting for the current crop of Democrats? What else can they take from us? We’ve already seen our core values mocked by the corporate media and betrayed by the people we voted into office. I don’t know about you, but I have nothing left. My future is screwed thanks to 30 years of voodoo economics.
I’m not voting for any of these idiots again. I’ve left messages for both of my Senators (Franken and Klobuchar) to tell them that I’m holding them personally accountable for what happens next.
Sanders voted for Obamacare.
Ding, ding, ding
Haven’t read the comments yet, but this is what I mentioned in a comment about the ads over the last couple weeks being misdirected.
I forget what I said, but it was something about how the focus should be on the Congresspeople and not Zero, because we’re never going change him (a leopard can’t change its spots) and there’s no time to primary him, or anyone willing to buck the party muckety-mucks anyway. But we could put the fear of god into them by primarying Congress from the left.
And FWIW I think it’d be most effective with the so-called progressive caucus. All you’d have to do is point out their record of caving.
Why there? To paraphrase Willie Sutton, “because that’s where the voters are”
I’m not mocking Senator Sanders. But his record does speak for itself. We can’t just support those who don’t stay consistent when the clutch moment arrives. You press down on the pedal and instead of braking, over the cliff we go. Not just one time; again and again. Then, it really doesn’t matter if they are saying the same things you would; that’s precisely our CinC’s problem. We have to get over it.
Lemme know when to send my hundred bucks.
I intend to -starting next election.
I think you need to reread Jane’s post.
And Vermont is very lovely in the fall. :~)
too bad BHO co-opted Hope and Change
“You must be willing to die in order to live.” (Amir Vahedi)
It’s a great line, actually. And it applies here (Vahedi was a professional poker player).
Actually, I think an attack on Bernie Sanders would be depicted by the media as either an “extremist left wing hit job” or as some sort of signal that the country is moving to the right. It just seems very counter-intuitive and doesn’t seem like a viable plan for fomenting any kind of public outrage against those who should really be experiencing the outrage the most. Doesn’t it make much more sense to target vulnerable blue dog democrats?
For the record, Sanders voted against Reid’s bill. I really think singling Sanders out is off target unless he turns around and supports whatever the next bill may be. The “progressives” in the Democratic Party on the other hand do have a more consistent record of folding at the last second. Not all of them are equal capitulators however.
Like I said before, if your solution is to keep relying on elections, throwing them out and replacing them, odds are against this working in the first place and if it did, you’re betting your future on a new group of unknowns who will be affected by the same forces that help corrupt the current bunch. If you’re relying on Republicans winning as punishment, that as well has not worked in our favor. The people with the money and power in the party always blame this on the party not being right and compromising enough, and historically, they’ll have power once again no matter what they do because people vote against the party in power (both of whom are screwing them over), back and forth.
I think we have better power in numbers in the streets to be quite honest. The path and end result is not as clear cut as elections, but the election process does not work in the favor of the working and middle class anymore. It’s nearly as much of a rigged charade as a one party “democratic” election.
He uses Argentina as a comparison? Sheesh.
Somehow, Jane, you are going to have to find MORE time to comment on threads as that is when the true sparks of inspiration (and consequence) “fly” …. you express the fluidity of opportunity with breath-taking precision, but also with soul-satisfying encouragement.
The “mark” of a truly effective leader.
;~DW
I like a lot of the things Democrats have to say, but when they get backed into a corner, and the only way available is to act according to their rhetoric, they find a way to slip out and “sigh, unfortunately (if only there was another way!)” do the bidding of their financés. We can’t, as liberal progressives, get any more irrelevant than we are when we beg, cajole, petition, rant, plead with, CONTRIBUTE to, these ass-hats. We need to find a way to really hurt so-called progressives’ chances. Jane, as usual, is absolutely right. We may end up giving the right the government they had hoped for and maybe that’s our only chance of getting rid of that “government”.
I say skip the Presidential primary and take Powwow to the Senate!
Rand Paul didn’t convince Harry to care aobut the rule of law when he pushed on the Patriot Act renewal, BUT Rand helped elevate the dialogue. He helped increase public awareness that there are two sides to that issue.
If my understanding of Powwow’s explanations are correct, then one Senator — ONE SENATOR — can at least begin the debate of ideas by using Senate rules against Harry’s machine.
I think it’d be a fascininating and worthwhile exercise to be undertaken. The problem — as I’m sure many are aware — is not so much the difficulty in electing someone to the Senate. The problem is finding someone with the intestinal fortitude to stand up to Reid.
Actually if you read the post again you’ll notice that I stated “you/progressives” The reason I did this was to avoid the implication I knew what your personal viewpoint was and instead put the positions held on a movement rather than on a single individual.
Everything in the media is depicted as “move to the right.” Everything. We can’t control every variable at all times. What can be controlled is: if you’re weak and you don’t fight for me, you’re out. No free lunches.
yeah or “are you willing to pay 40 million for 5′ 10″ tall 180 lb. sack of bullshit without purity testing it??”
The Tea Party is a creation of the corp. media. Those who claim the Tea Party mantra now, are the same creeps that caused the Tea Party to form. Now Boehner, Bachmann, McConnell and the rest have hijacked the movement to avoid their past.
good point as to Sanders being real – usually (the vote Jane refers to is getting the first version of ACA out of the Senate via a 60 vote requirement to stop the GOP) – but then Hillary was and is well to the left of half the Dems on the national stage, at least on the domestic front. Jane is correct that she is a clone of Obama as to war – but was she a better alternative in 08? – the answer is obvious. But also obvious is the fact she will not offer herself to us because of the bad taste from 08.
But there is a lot of anger today – I am angry. And there is no answer to how do we get non-violent change quickly if the college kids will not take to the streets.
It is not easy to admit we have little power – but what power we do have needs to be used – and that means defeating Dems that ignore us. Indeed a GOP controlled by the rich is not our home -but with the current Dems there is no difference.
That’s a good point about Obama winning much support by talking a progressive line, albeit lying in his teeth while doing so. (Actually his “progressive” aura was mostly just that, plus his being Af Am, and he was pertty vague about details.) I was feeling very depressed, but being reminded of the fact that many will respond to a progressive message (if it is allowed to get through to them) makes me feel a little better. Thanks.
Merely supporting Medicare is now far left extremist. When liberals were cowed into becoming progressives in terror of being labeled extremist the road was paved for the tea party which is now running our government.
Sheesh, only this second I’m hearing some idiot on MSNBC calling progressives “extreme”.
Ah, the lumped-in “you” people … tact, always successful for generalized discussion.
Actually, I hope that you might stick around, cwaltz, as you help people clarify their own thoughts and convictions.
Which is, or should be, appreciated.
I do.
DW
Concur.
N the depth of this Austerity Assault is gonna be DEEP.
That alone, is gonna cause crazy.
Along with all the other forces you’ve already mentioned . . . lost wars, maybe an attack on Iran (that alone will have INCREDIBLE global and domestic consequences) etc. I’ll add, false flag events both here at home and/or abroad.
Nice musings, simple but all too often overlooked IMHO.
We are effectively into HST Bat Flying Crazy . . .
I guess we need a target list and a way to vet challengers. Have an fdl approved electoral primary agenda.
As usual, yer comments are stellar today, thanks for them all.
You’re assuming that the goal would actually be accomplished. But, in truth, it would be extraordinarily difficult to replace Sanders, even assuming that would be a good idea in the first place. And the fight to do so would result in a lot of blood spilled among people who fundamentally agree with each other. It’s like auto immune disease, you destroy yourself while the tea party continues to grow healthier. How about directing some of the passion and the rage against people who more richly deserve it?
Not necessarily FDL, but HCAN influenced Seminal, as I recall it.
SP WAS off the table tho, way early . . . would make sense to back PO when SP had already been eliminated early on thru the pact with PhArma/Big Med/Insurance Lobby and WH/COngress.
Course, PO was eliminated too, by and for the same forces and reasons.
oh jeebs on a cracker,HRC is the best we can come up with….let me escape this pathetic land
Grandma must eat catfood so banksters can afford caviar.
60 members of the Tea Party caucus–powerful
83 members of the Progressive Caucus–useless.
If 60 members can say “F-you!” to drive their agenda, what’s preventing 83? 83 member could effectively prevent any debt ceiling rise that slashed spending, period, or any “austerity” plan that didn’t include tax increases on rich people.
83 members right now could prevent Catfood Commissions, given the dynamics of this scenario, and could effectively either:
a) force a clean debt bill;
b) failing that, land it back in Obama’s lap to cite the 14th amendment;
c) failing Obama’s wanting to play–the resulting sh*t that hits the fan will effect Wall Street and the banks, given that either a) or b) will happen PRONTO. And all without economy-busting spending cuts.
If we only had real “bold progressives” and not these faux ones.
-stewartm
AAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!
New York state gov’t is the most dysfunctional in the country!
that is trully AMAZING…merkins are so very very teh stoopit…..why will they give up their hard one rights?,why,why why?
Thanks for explaining it for me.
who was the company 2 peeps,that stole 600 million from NYC?
This is so refreshing. And it’s ALWAYS been so easy.
MAKE THEM EARN YOUR VOTE. EVERY election.
That’s really all there is to it.
But we on the left outsmart ourselves. We start thinking about “lesser of two evils” and “well, at least this might be better than that” and etc. etc. etc.
No. You either earn our votes, or you didn’t. If you didn’t, YOU DON’T GET THEM. It doesn’t matter who’s running against you, NOTHING else matters. You want our votes, you earn them. You don’t earn them, you don’t get them.
And when they don’t earn them, DON’T GIVE IT TO THEM out of some bullshit strategy that maybe this or that will be better than that or this.
It’s always been simple, but for forever liberals, progressives, whatever label you want, intentionally tries to make it complicated by suggesting “well that might mean this” or “well we can’t have that person win” or some other bullshit. You keep doing that, you keep getting what we’ve been getting.
You make them earn your vote (assuming the electoral process isn’t also corrupted) and things will change. And yes, maybe they might change for the worse for a short time before they change for the better. But so what?? You wanna keep things going the way they are??
Doesn’t it seem a little strange to punish one of the only people who would actually support your views if there was enough support in Congress for them to make them doable?
Getting firm pledges on the safety net is a place to start. For example, I cannot get the Democrats pretending to represent me to make a firm commitment to defend Social Security and Medicare benefits. I mean if they won’t even say it, you know they aren’t going to do it.
The only thing they’ll put on the record is that they are (hoists white flag) ready, willing and able to compromise!
As I said upthread, the framing, the discussions, the viability of any and all progressive policy has been more and more marginalized as the number of Democrats has increased in Congress and the White House (starting in 2006). To paraphrase Reagan: Are you better off now than you were two and a half years ago? Hell no you’re not. It used to be a fight, now we’re just getting carpet-bombed with rightwing shit from both parties. It’s unrelenting.
Right on. This is fundamental.
yeah. exactly. and no mention of the effect the lost spending would have…..
like i said, nothing against him personally. i just think progressives are going to have to do a lot better if we’re going to be able to do reasonable policy analysis. and frankly we it’s not just that suck on that, we’ve been outsourcing it to people and organizations we shouldn’t be.
Sanders doesn’t support either to Jane’s views or mine. He supports some rhetorically, but when push comes to shove, he goes with the pack.
Yes. Democrats draw a firm line in the sand. Unfortunately it’s always inside the republicans tent.
Let me try to understand this. We want to replace so-called liberals like Sanders and Kucinich with “true” liberals who will stand their ground no matter what and will not compromise their principles regardless of the situation at hand. Basically, it seems that we want people on the left side who are the exact mirror-image of the intransigent Tea Party republicans. Meanwhile, people like Sanders or Kucinich will be damned if they do (if they side with the rest of the Democrats) or damned if they don’t (if they propose their own bills but get zero support).
But what about withdrawing our support for the most center-right Democrats and moving steadily left until people like Sanders and Kucinich are the ones who are the most center-right — at which time, they can be voted out of congress. As it is, even when Sanders et al.’s votes do not always pass the 100% liberal purity test, their voice still bring attention to issues that are not touched by the media.
In behavioral psychology, we know that fear-based punishment does not work in shaping behavior in the long-run. Reward does. Withholding of something desired does. Why not reward those who show inclinations/inklings of progressiveness, e.g., money is donated to each candidate who votes according to liberal principles; money is withheld if they don’t? Moreover, given the current political climate, even the most progressive candidate is going to end up compromising at one point. How do we keep supporting them so that, for the most part, they can maintain their progressive beliefs. HINT: threatening to get rid of them at once will not do that.
Fraid I don’t understand what you’re referring to. My dumb.
theme for next Senate vote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhmQ1TDOlSo
OK, in fairness:
The difference between Progressives and Tea Partiers is that the latter have:
a) Money, given to them from their handlers;
b) and with the above, media exposure, given the right-wing media. Even when a few dozen kooks shows up, the cameras are rolling.
With the money issue–we have some deep-pocket liberals on “our side”, but limousine liberals are usually more concerned with gay rights and/or environmental or social issues than they are with economic justice. Very few if any are for a return to the tax rates on the rich that we had pre-Reagan. That’s why the triangulation strategy has worked so well for the DNC; it results in a contest between “their” elites vs “our” elites, and the common people are left voiceless.
-stewartm
707
which is backed up to Wall Street,and Maiden Lane
I am listening to that lady from the 26th district (Hochul). She is defending SS and medicare and she is from a thug district. She even said the horror:that maybe the rich should pay more taxes. I want a rep like that.
Only if you’re a loser.
Can’t be a “progressive” and a neoliberal at the same time. The House Democrats, in toto, have the power to do nothing, with or without the so-called progressive caucus. Each and every one can say anything they want to on the House floor. The members of the so-called progressive caucus give us these lovely leftist sound bites then hit the neoliberial button when they vote.
Especially when they didn’t vote for either of these bills. I’d understand this post had he just voted for it after railing against it. He railed against it and voted against it. He doesn’t have a perfect record (voted for the HCR bill at the very end), but I really don’t understand singling him out right now. If he goes along and supports whatever Obama’s awful final plan will be, then I’m on board.
Otherwise, we need to face up to the fact the election process and government as a whole is beyond repair through elections at this point and we need to start getting ourselves out in the streets like in Israel, Spain, the UK, and so on.
no your not!
http://perdidostreetschool.blogspot.com/2011/06/citytime-fraud-couldnt-have-happened.html
Others may contest my version of it . . . but without going back thru archives and such for hours at a time, it’s what I generally recall.
I was wrong on Obama (not on HRC) and I look back in hindsight and wonder if any of us proggies could have kept SP on the table, is there something we could have done if we KNEW there had already been a sellout. I got hoodwinked on it, and then again on PO . . . my bad.
Never again.
Why not just grab your ankles and ask for a tub of Crisco?
There is much merit in what you say. But progressives/liberals have been doing that all along and this is where we’ve ended up. I think the sense right now is that something drastically new has to be tried, a new paradigm.
That would be a start.
In driving a mule, carrots only go so far. In the real world, we know that the stick is also necessary.
well yes
its a game to them
Well, my friend, we’ve got a lot of work to do. *g*
I agree with you 100%.
But perhaps this discussion should leave Bernie alone and focus on a couple of open 2012 seats? CT and VA both come to mind.
So to put aside the Sanders argument for a moment, I offer my state, CT.
Lieberman is retiring. It’s an open seat. The frontrunner is Rep. Chris Murphy. I know him and like him. He and I both call Cheshire home and we’ve met several times, most recently (about a year ago) at the local sushi joint. But from my perspective, he is very much part of the problem. My limited knowledge leads me to believe that he consistently asks “how high?” when Nancy tells him to jump.
Besides him, there are two other candidates (Tong & Bysiewicz) currently in the Dem race. Neither of them strike me as an FDL true-believer type.
BUT the CT Dem nomination is far from decided. And CT is largely a blue state. Whoever wins the Dem nomination will *likely* win the general. (Disclaimer: Republican Chris Shays is being discussed and he’s liked in CT… and McMahon has mucho dinero.)
Why not take a pass on Bernie at the moment and discuss open seat possibilities? FWIW, I really do think Murphy will do whatever Reid tells him to do… so why bother electing him?
He voted against Reid’s bill today. Singling him out is pointless right now. We got much bigger fish to fry.
Oh, and in regards to the current debt ceiling mess:
One of the advantages of forcing the issue into Obama’s lap and the 14th amendment solution is that Bachmann and the Tea Partiers say that that is grounds for impeachment. If Obama is impeached by the House, if the Lewinsky affair is any guide, (the Lewinsky affair forced Clinton to abandon HIS ideas on privatizing SS) an impeachment will force Obama to pander to his base.
Even though I don’t trust Obama further than I can throw him, I’d welcome that kind of pressure.
-stewartm
I understand the compulsion to want to be fair, to count the votes before acting, etc. But do you really and truly believe Sanders is going to vote against Obama’s bargain if he ends being a decisive vote (not a no vote that doesn’t ultimately matter)?
Democrats CANNOT vote to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid so billionaire hedge fund managers can keep their massive tax cuts. All I hear is “tax cuts are off the table” so the only option is cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, because that is not “off the table.” That dynamic must change and it will only change if we force it.
Ah, now I see. And aarrgh again. Thanks.
I see. Thanks much.
me likey
I’ll probably just pop in from time to time.
I’m not much into tilting at windmills. Time is a premium and all that(I live in Appalachia, many of my neighbors are not well off so perhaps my resources are better spent protecting them the best I can.)
Here’s to hoping I’m wrong.
Yes, never again.
sorry for more bad news about the criminals running things
600 MILL soon we will be talking about real money hahahaha sigh
Can I get a Ronnie Reagan reacharound with that?
Well petra, I wish you’d have a wee chat with the “top” 1%, the MilitaryIndustrial Congressional Complex (as Eisenhower originally termed it) and a President who has threatened not to allow the gummit to send out Social Security checks while making it very plain that Treasury Bond holders will be paid, come hell or high water …
The punishment (fear) and rewards thinggie (we won’t get into torture, for the moment) meme is not well-practiced as best-practice in the fashionable “trickle down” paradigm practiced in America, today, any more than we observe it being practiced throughout history.
One presumes that your background is in psychology?
Would that be correct?
And true fundamental principle does matter, although Mitchell and Jessup, whom I’m certain you have heard of, would vehemently disagree … one imagines?
DW
Stop it. You’re making me hot.
IMO single payer was never on the table. There were many here who kept up strong support for SP and took a hell of a lot of shit for it. To this day I deeply regret not being on their side. It was the right thing to do. I too thought we had a chance for a public option, fool that I can be.
Like you said, never again. We’ll get another chance for Medicare-for-all. If I’m still around I won’t let it go this time.
Didn’t a sometime liberal say something like: “make me do it.” Put someone on the leftmost (that doesn’t soil the carpet) and drag the bastards back.
I don’t know, but I’ll wait before lumping the blame on him for not standing his ground. If he doesn’t, then I can understand this post to some extent, but again, the solution offered is the same old failed crap that Markos/Daily Kos cons people into. Vote for better Democrats, or the previous failed solution, make them pay by letting Republicans win (and they’ll have to move to the left, except they didn’t). The election process is rigged against us in favor of the interests of the most powerful in the 2 parties. The government as a whole is completely corrupted.
We’re living Groundhog’s Day. Always the next election, some magic solution will work through the election process. Wait 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 more years, we’ll eventually get all the bad people out, blah blah blah, yet it gets worse and worse.
Yes, my wife and I are asking neighbors if elderly people in our Pittsburgh suburban community may need help if Social Security checks are delayed … with things like food and energy bills …
Appreciate your human sensibilities, cwaltz.
Very much.
DW
Yes, because it does no practical good to do otherwise and he would only marginalize himself entirely if he never supported democratic compromises. I have come to hate the word “compromise” as much as the next person, but the real problem is not Bernie Sanders; it’s the fact that most Democrats either don’t believe they can really bring any change, or they simply don’t want to. And the even larger problem is that the American public has no idea what would be in its best interests because they’re entirely brainwashed and too busy struggling to survive to be able to discern the difference between fact and fiction. In my view, it’s entirely myopic to believe the public would rally behind the removal of Sanders because he’s not progressive enough.
To have a viable Progressive Party you will need to get the current Progressives in Congress to join. With Sanders you have a face that people recognise. He does not have to be President and said he won’t be. But you need a face to the message. And not only his. Kuchinich, Franken, Nader, and others. Both Parties are owned by Wall Street. If the ones who pretend to be Progressives don’t come aboard, then so be it.
btw It impresses me no end that a socialist was voted into the Senate. That is very impressive. It shows me there is real hope not the charlatan President we now have.
As an aside, Woolsey is retiring and will not seek reelection. Perhaps the work of FDL whipping the CPC and laying blame at the feet of Woolsey in particular for failing on HCR has played into her decision. I like to think so.
It’s strategically impossible. At least that’s the argument being plied here.
I wish you luck if your intent is look at this from the viewpoint of policy position instead of strategy.
I wish all of us luck because “strategy” is exactly how we got Barack Obama to begin with.
There seem to be some differences on when to be principled and when to be pragmatic. The larger group here seems to believe they can find someone more to the left than Bernie Sanders and that will scare Schumer into being more left(shrugs shoulders maybe Vermont has some bastion of progressives that just aren’t being talked about.)
The whole thing rather gives me a headache.
the progressive movement needs to forget the Dems…I don’t know how this could be done but the Dems leadership has no interest in progressives and it is time fo a 3rd party movement…both parties have made it very difficult for any new party to exist but somehow this has to happen,,,,also the Tea Party got traction because it was funded by the right wing/GOP…the progressive movement has been thrown aside by the Dems…Ralph Nader has an idea that some among the super rich w/progressive ideas would come forward as a leader. I don’t know if this would happen or not. I do know we are losing the battle for ideas because the Corporate elites have bought the Dems and we don’t have much of a national voice…short term we need to do everything we can to keep Obama from being relected and try and punish those DEms who screwed the American people…also need to remember the Progressive ideas are positive not the neoliberal slave movement…people don’t matter to Washington anymore only money,,,,the only reason for catfood 2 is because Obama knows the people will take it out on him…Obama is a coward and I will NEVER vote for him…
i totally agree with your point about actions.
i also agree with your statement, “It isn’t a matter of virtue, and it isn’t theoretical.” i used those terms only in reply to scarecrow’s comment, they don’t reflect my world view.
that said, i stand by my claim that while we progressives are pretty clear on the outcomes we want, it’s the policy analysis piece that is sorely lacking and that, imo, we need to create the bridge between our values and goals and the policies to advocate for to get us there (and the policies on which to judge the actions of politicians too).
[Reply to 440]
Of course they wouldn’t rally behind it. They wouldn’t even know it was happening until after it happened, and even then they wouldn’t understand it.
But by God everyone in power would understand it.
If your point is that we’re steeped in pure nihilistic shit, well, yeah, trying something different (and I’ve never once heard Markos favor going after teacher’s pet types like Bernie Sanders) probably isn’t going to stir the blood. Even without hope, my urge to fight is unquenchable. It’s just who I am.
i do contest. but i’m not going to go there here.
Huh? Frankly, I don’t believe that the left needs more assholes. Standing our ground, speaking out for what we believe in, living our lives according to our values and principles, being righteously angry… those things I support. Being an asshole and showing disrespect, especially to people who are sincerely trying to have a conversation, only shows disregard for other people’ points of view, a lack of a sense of connectedness, compassion, and perspective-taking, that unfortunately seems to be lacking in those who espouse rigid and inflexible beliefs.
Yep.
N thanks . . . we were bought out and sold long before we knew there was a battle . . . man have us proggies learnt a lot since Libbygate . . . I thot I knew a lot about the level of depravity of our political system going back to my teens and the late 60′s.
Boy howdy I have learnt my worst fears were not only true, but I couldn’t even IMAGINE the truth and reality taking place around me daily . . . FDL/Pups sure have schooled me some over the years.
;-)
here’s hoping.
and gotta say the world is better place for people like you and DWB, watching out for their neighbors. thank you.
thank you SD. that means a lot.
yes,we are all in this together
How dare you take such an extreme position?! Don’t you know that defense of Medicare and Social Security is extreme, sir. You are an extremist! And those in the “center” will be sure to inform America! They must be compromised! Compromised! Cut in half to be fair and balanced! And cut in half again to show how willing we are to compromise!
thanks, my apologies. i get lots of stuff wrong, and i don’t mind (i hope!) being called on it. but that particular issue is still a sore spot.
Must. Get. Sunlight.
*wavestoall*
Certainly, in each election, we should aim to vote for the more progressive candidate, which for me, has meant voting for the Green candidate since 2000 (yes, I voted for Nader). I just don’t understand why we should target the more progressive members of the Congress first when there are so many low-hanging fruit to go after (e.g., Blue Dog democrats, Kerry, Feinstein, etc.)
Ever heard of changing your views upon realizing – from the evidence – you were wrong? Being willing to change your mind and to admit having been mistaken, as Larue has done (see 416), is a courageous thing and all too rare.
Generally, I agree with your comments, Jane, but you may be too hard on Kucinich and Sanders. It is highly possible that Kucinich was threatened, physically or otherwise, when Obama took him aboard Air Force 1 just before the health care vote and persuaded him to suddenly change his vote. Concerning Sanders, I have heard him criticize the Democrats on TV, and don’t rule out the possibility that he will challenge Obama, either in the Democratic primaries or as a third party candidate. Remember that he has enough integrity not to be a Democrat.
Why? The only way you could replace Sanders is by having his base in Vermont, a very liberal base compared to most constituencies, turn against him. So you somehow manage to defeat a liberal in a liberal state and replace him with someone who is apparently more liberal. So what? I really don’t see how that strikes fear in the hearts of other democrats. Now if you could defeat a blue dog democrat and replace him with a liberal in a swing state you’d be talking turkey.
yowse! Tom Paine would be proud.
say the words, Jane. Say the words!
I don’t think it’s a matter of either/or. Go after lowhanging fruit by all means. But someone like Sanders who postures himself as left wing and Socialist who votes for a healthcare bill with the individual mandate that forces people to buy insurance from private companies MUST be called out on it.
“So you somehow manage to defeat a liberal in a liberal state and replace him with someone who is apparently more liberal.”
No, it makes no difference who replaces Sanders. It could be Adolf Hitler — I don’t give a shit. As long as everyone else left standing understands that the consequences of disobedience are death, I’m happy. And winning.
See, Sanders is irrelevant. He’s just the unfortunate motherfucker I have to take out in order to make my point.
You run a business. One of your employees starts organizing a union. You fire the employee. I don’t give a fuck what my now ex-employee does after that. The REMAINING employees understand the message loud and clear.
This is how real power operates. Why can’t you figure this shit out?
Why wouldn’t his vote on HCR make his base turn on him. If Vermonters are truly liberal that must have turned the stomachs of many.
Because even if you could somehow defeat the Blue Dog with a liberal, that liberal would get destroyed in a general election. Primarying Blue Dogs is never anything more than symbolic. The idea here is to actually get liberals seated and actually vote against bad legislation, not just pout about it.
I’m going to have to call bullshit on this.
Google “Bernie Sanders says he will not vote for Reid bill.” Find anything? No you didn’t, because Bernie never came out and said that.
What he did do — and I watched it happen — was hang back until the very last minute to cast his vote just in case Reid pulled a miracle out of his ass (Reid announced he had the the votes at the outset). He didn’t. Bernie would have been there if he was needed. He wasn’t.
It’s an old trick.
What you said regarding Congressman Kucinich’s change of support regarding the health insurance bailout sounds like a perfectly reasonable explanation. In fact, I’m inclined to agree with your theory.
However, I don’t see how that justifies keeping him in Congress. If Kucinich was manipulated before (regardless of how egregious that manipulation process was), what’s to keep him from being manipulated again? I don’t believe Kucinich serves any useful purpose to the liberal cause.
I wasn’t the least bit disappointed when liberals in words and not deeds like Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson lost their seats last year, and I wont be the least bit disappointed if Kucinich loses his seat, either.
In the long run, it does seem like the best thing to have happen. Obama gets to see what he’s really up against and either gives up and lets himself be replaced, or he grows a spine and begins to realize he needs us more than we need him.
What is this obsession with measuring every. single. thing. on the left-righth contiuum? It’s like that old Saturday Night Live skit, Qui Es Muy Macho?
There are other measurements. Like “does he do what he says he will do.” “Does he keep his word.” “Is he an effective leader.” “Does he use the power he has or does he just gas on when it doesn’t matter.”
It isn’t about being “more liberal” (although since Bernie ultimately winds up being a liberal validator for neoliberal corporatism, that wouldnl’t be hard). It’s about having the courage to back up your rhetoric with action.
So the question then, is how to free the politicians (and by corollary, us citizens) from the hold of the top 1% (media, finance, military). Personally, I try not only to vote through the voting booth but with my money and my lifestyle choices.
But, I am still not convinced that punishing those who espouse the more progressive ideas but don’t always follow through with them is the way to go. That is, should the majority of our energies and savings(!) really be directed to that effort? Given my own limited resources, I would much rather find and support alternative candidates to Republicans (and Democrats who not only support the status quo but stay silent while the poor and the middle class get gutted).
Yup. Some would say he is uncouth.
Let’s say for the moment it’s true (though I doubt it). I do not see how this recommends him for the job.
All they have to do is threaten someone physically, and the person folds, and we’re okay with that?
If that’s the case, there are probably jobs for him — and better people for his.
If it doesn’t work out you get the important reward of not feeling obliged to pretend that the election winner is “on your side” for the remainder of the term.
Practically speaking, having one guy who votes against legislation isn’t going to do much good. How do you know you couldn’t get a liberal elected in a blue dog state? I think you could if people in the state were properly educated on the issues. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Fine, let’s keep losing to the Tea Party then, because they do. And they’re winning.
When Politicians go after the Third Rail, then a Third Party becomes viable.
Small point here Jane, it is Rand Paul that is safe for five more years, not McConnell. He last ran in 2008, so thAt puts him up for reelection in 2014.
One real question about that is whether Chuck Schumer will again save his election for him by having the Democratic Party apparatus support a former Republican turned heath care company professional (very wealthy) to run against any actual Democrat in the primary, ensuring the voting public will stay home.
Choosing the lesser of two evils means that what you get is evil.
Markos doesn’t bring up Sanders at all. Sanders isn’t in the Democratic Party. Maybe they’re able to play him for their own ends, but I’m not fully convinced that’s the case. I think this argument can be made more convincingly of Democratic progressive caucus members . They oppose when their vote isn’t needed, support when it is. Like what’s happening right now. It may be the same with Bernie, but in his case he’s not doing it for the Democratic Party, he’s being played by those in power. I’m not willing to say that yet.
And again, what’s the solution to this madness? More progressive progressives? We’re royally f#cked and so long as we keep relying on elections and fixing the unfixable (the Democratic Party) within this rigged process we have, we’re going to continue to get f#cked more and more.
Your point is well taken. In general, I believe it is necessary to look into the strong possibility that the Obama coalition is being held together largely by raw muscle and threats by the pro-Obama forces (these threats could take the form of just a threat to deny campaign funding, though in the case of Kucinich it appears there was something more sinister). It is just uncanny that the entire Democratic Congressional contingnet could be so slavish, as they proceed to commit what is probably party suicide.
Bernie’s vote alone could have stopped almost any piece of legislation in the past two years.
Why should they respect us? We have utterly failed as agents of change. Who are we going to point to? Bernie Sanders? And all his amazing successes?
“Better than the other guy” got everyone’s ass kicked in 2010. “If we just had more people who agreed with Bernie, he could, you know, maybe do something” would not fare much better.
And if your argument is “look at the Tea Party,” don’t forget they’re backed by big money and secretly by powerful Republicans (as their extremism makes the powerful Republicans look reasonable). Leftists will never get that support in money nor those in power in the Democratic Party.
Ha! Indeed. The very first thing that is required, the most important Big Idea if one wants to get past Corporatism, the Two Party System, the absence of reasoned debate, lack of representation, etc., is for folks to shut off the TV.
Electing a Blue Dogs has destroyed the Democratic Party.
Merely defending Social Security and Medicare is now EXTREME.
I heard that Claire idiot from MO today branding anyone supporting Medicare and Social Security as a far left extremist.
Democrats are destroying the safety net. Democrats. There is a Democrat in the White House. It ought to be an impeachable offense for a Democrat to put raising the Medicare eligibility age on the table. It will be a Democrat in charge when Catfood II determines who should eat mice. It will be Democrats suggesting that a compromise will be subtracting the value of each mouse from your Social Security check.
We are the party of Compromise. We have no other value. Compromise yesterday. Compromise today. Compromise tomorrow. Compromise forever.
I don’t see anything about “choosing” Chuck Schumer.
I’d say the simple fact is, people need to vote. Simply telling them not to vote for somebody isn’t going to help get people involved in fixing the system. We need people to vote FOR, not more people to add to the list of people to NOT vote for – I’m in SC, and I have plenty of those on the ballot already.
One thing that would be helpful is if we could all decide on where we would like our taxes to go, perhaps via an itemized checklist on our tax returns. This would be more useful than worrying about who gets into Congress.
That is true. But it’s not what gives them their power within the party. It’s the fact that they have challenged the party and won’t toe the line when leadership yanks their leash that gives them their power now.
The progressive caucus will always toady to leadership, until it becomes difficult. I can not in all seriousness understand how anybody can look at that vote yesterday for a Catfood II Supercongress and defend any of them as being “liberal” If that doesn’t rip the mask off for you, I don’t know what will.
The Veal Pen was always ripe for the taking. The ONLY thing separating our current government from purer forms of kleptocracy is the possibility of popular revolt.
No one needs to be perfect to be superior to most members of the two legacy parties. Mediocrity and mendacity are also enemies of the good.
Again, things look bleak. What else you got?
Count me out of the “Catfood II, good enough for you” movement.
Should we really be making excuses for people that are allegedly on our side but give in? That doesn’t seem to be how the other side operates at all, and as Eric Patton says, they’re a lot more effective.
“I’d say the simple fact is, people need to vote.”
Attitude of a loser. You can’t control it, so spending a nanosecond thinking about it is pointless.
Here’s a graphic which pretty much proves your foregoing points:
http://s40.photobucket.com/albums/e228/SenecaDoane/?action=view¤t=CompromiseDemsReps.jpg
There are party lines, but, the graphic speaks for itself.
So let’s call Sanders out on it. He has a facebook and twitter account. He solicits opinion (unlike other members of congress, I should say). Let’s force him to explain/justify his votes.
I know what you’re saying. It definitely sucks to have representatives who are afraid not to toe the line. But I think you would be taking away as much as you would gain if you were able to defeat him – which would be no mean feat. In addition, a lot of completely unintentional damage could result from that type of fight. It seems to me that the disagreement on this might stem from differing perceptions of Sanders. Rightly or wrongly, I see him as a person who actually does hold the views he espouses, but continues to believe he has to show some solidarity with democrats in case he strengthens republicans. He doesn’t see the benefit in votes that do nothing more than stake out a position. If I’m understanding you correctly, however, you see him as a sham and a fake who doesn’t actually have the strength of his convictions. But, beyond his votes, has he done anything to make you believe that?
I’ve never mentioned the Catfood Commission part 2, so I really don’t know what you mean by that.
Unless you want me to vote for Republicans who support such things to punish the Democrats who support such things, I still need actual candidates who are more trustworthy to be on the ballot or at least with their name out there for me to know they are worth writing in their name.
Correct.
Only losers offer excuses and explanations.
Ding.
Wanting people to vote and be involved in the political process is the attitude of a loser?
Rehabilitate Elliot Spitzer.He’ a whole lot closer to what I think than Obama. I only suggest him because I don’t think Jon Edwards can be rehabbed. Also, he refutes Republican talking points without getting angry or irritated. If not Spitzer, lets think of other names. I like Oprah, but doubt she could be drafted (but perhaps…)
Jane H. is Brilliant.
Jane is tired, needs a nap. I greatly admire and respect her, but
Jane is wrong.
The point of primarying Obama is not in hopes of beating him, but to move the discourse within the party, as well as the country, to the left again. If we wait till we can win, we’ll wait forever.
George Carlin ~ The American Dream –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
Do you really think TPTB are going to just hand power over to the people because we play by the “rules”? The rules will be changed (or ignored) to get the desired results. We can’t win a rigged game. One citizen one vote? That was never the case. It has always been one dollar / one vote… Millions of voters = Millions of votes, Billions of dollars = Billions of votes. So what is the great equalizer? Organized resistance. (((revolution))) Not what’s safe, not what’s pretty, not what fat lazy people do. It is what people do when faced with slavery or starvation. Are we there yet? Wait for it… wait for it…
One of the oldest tools in the political book that is never talked about on this site is “blackmail”. Perhaps I am cynical but I think this is a lever that is used with almost every politician. In fact, I tend to think that a individual will not be considered for major office by the powers that be unless they have a unknown vunerability that can be used against them. I also think there are lobbying groups out there who specifically try to entrap pols in blackmail positions.
A key strategy, to overcome this very effective strategy is “the light of day”. What if we utilized our people, talents and financial resources to investigate and expose the vunerabilities of current politicians. Make it clear that if they are blackmail able they have no place in government. We could probably completely clean house in the next election. I understand that this might eliminate many qualified candidates who support our views, but I think we have to make honesty and transparency the norm if we are ever to get ahead.
It’s too late for that shit. Sanders should have thought of that when he had the chance. Fuck him. If he’s unhappy about losing his job, I don’t give a shit. I’m not worried about his wittle feewings.
I want to win. Fuck that rat bastard.
Perhaps not in some other case, but in this case, yes.
Since we’re only going to need 12 members to run the show, I figure we have 523 extra folks we don’t need at all. I’m forming the Send Your Cat to Congress campaign. My cat will be much more useful than any of the 523 extras — and she NEVER compromises.
I may have been a bit too oblique, I apologize for not being more clear in the haste of this quick moving thread. The main point was that Schumer massively helped reelect McConnell, the part about getting evil when you choose the lesser of two evils is more tangential.
“beyond his votes has he done anything to make you believe that”. He’s a lawmaker, his votes are the key component of his job as a representative of the people.
We might also be encouraged by laws permitting us to think for ourselves and do what we want. We can’t do anything without laws y’know.
Speaking of the Catfood Committee — did you hear Plouffe say that Congress should appoint members willing to get out of the party’s comfort zone. In other words, the Democrats should appoint all DINOS. Obama has ALREADY proposed that the committee surrender!
Just re-read Ms. Hamsher’s piece, and I don’t think we’re on the right track here. As someone obsessed with the Washington process she seems to think that it’s about finding some personality that will wrest back the nation from another personality, who turned out not to be virtuous after all. Or about slugging along in this “representative democratic” process, so obviously rigged against us, to find more radical/progressive legislators? Going after the few middling progressive camels that have managed to move through that needle’s eye.
While they have our eyes trained on Washington, on this bogus debt crisis, they are winning. For several weeks I have watched the progressive punditry declare repeatedly that the process was a hoax. . . without ever taking their eyes off of it.
What’s USEFUL in Jane’s piece is the point that ALL of these people sell us out, regularly.
But as the Marseillaise says, “No savior from on high” is going to get it done, folks. In that sense, old John Conyers is closer to speaking to what we really need than this discussion about primaries, that all this earnest hand-wringing about our technical failures in a process that is rigged against us to begin with.
There is no getting this country back through the polls.
Yep, outstanding way of showing it with an image.
Wow.
Look at that.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how ALL battles are going to end when one side is hell bent on sticking to it’s principles and the other is hell bent on compromising.
There’s only ONE direction that compromising is going to go.
That was not a theoretical question. It was a practical one relative to the idea of primarying Klobuchar. Minnesota used to be DFL country, but somehow folks like Bachmann and Pawlenty slipped in. It is foolish to stand on the assumption that liberalism is a genetic or geographical condition. You have to work for it every election.
“But, beyond his votes, has he done anything to make you believe that?”
I don’t care if he collects child pornography as long as he votes the right way. And he doesn’t.
Oh for fuck’s sake, just stop.
NPA’s nucleus will, AFAIK, have limited interest in running to win in Democratic primaries. Therefore, their strategy will be rejected as unviable by many progressive Democrats, even those who see the necessity of throwing some Democratic incumbents under the bus.
IMO, in the near term, the number of progressive Democrats who will not take a chance on a new party will exceed what NPA can gather together. Thus, the progressive inclinations of the Democratic-Party-Only progressives will not be utilized as they could be.
The most sense I can make out of your post is that running a Full Court Press will cost NPA some volunteers. That will be true in some cases. However, that doesn’t strike me as sufficient justification for not pursuing an FCP, now. If anything, launching FCP looks even more propitious now. Obama’s putting SS on the table has woken a lot of people up. Conyers has called for massing “thousands” in front of the White House (though an apparent news blackout means most Americans don’t know this). Also, as I’ve noted above, the political value of the Tea Party’s aggressiveness is being increasingly realized. People are starting to get it that they’re not just a reaction to Obama’s black skin, and can’t be controlled completely by Republican bigwigs.
I don’t think most of them will want to wait until 2014 before looking to emulate the Tea Party’s success, if they can help it.
All candidates are really saying the same thing. “I am going to tell you what you want to hear, and then when I am elected I will do what the neoliberals in power want me to do.” Having another sell-out candidate tell us something different is, in this light, not “moving the discourse.”
The Tea Party is currently winning because they are backed by money and by the media. They represent what, about 10% of the population (if that), and get 95% of the media coverage? They have hijacked congress because in their black and white thinking, they are 100% in the right and will not compromise at any cost. Still, I don’t know that I would feel comfortable with a left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party. Do we really have no other alternatives, no other way to weaken the Tea Party’s hold, than to jettison the more left-leaning members of congress?
You may be right. In fact, today it may be doubly impossible simply because of outright fraud by the corporations counting the votes.
But I do want to say, that IMO real change, REAL CHANGE, has occurred at the polls before.
What FDR did wasn’t perfect, it wasn’t all positive, and in a lot of ways maybe it didn’t go far enough.
But you can’t say that it wasn’t REAL CHANGE. At least not with any degree of credibility. The elections of 1932 had real consequences, and resulted in real changes, and an awful lot of those changes were of the kind that really did benefit the lower and middle class.
The only change we ever get today screws the poor and middle clase and aids the wealthy. But I’m just not yet ready to 100% give up on the polls. That’s not to say I won’t join other efforts, as IMO there does need to be a real movement. But I’m a nobody, with no connections, no money, and no influence. Until that movement gets under way, I’m going to still use the one tool I do have available to me. My vote.
And I’m gonna advocate that others do the same as well.
The Tea Party is “winning” because its politicians dare to say what the neoliberal consensus wants, but which the neoliberals themselves dare not say for fear of inciting popular revolt.
Happened recently, too. In Venezuela.
It’s just as foolish to not understand that Mark Dayton replaced Pawlenty because he won the DFL primary by running ads saying he wanted to tax the rich.
I’m not crazy. I know that the party will renominate Klobuchar but I also know that she refuses to defend Social Security and Medicare and I believe that no Minnesota Democrat should go to the polls in 2012 without knowing that she will compromise Medicare and Social Security into oblivion.
I can’t get Paul Wellstone on my ballot next year. Chuck Schumer, not a Minnesotan, helped foist Amy on us just as Cheney foisted Norm and Tim on us. The national parties screw with the people in the states so they can get biddable robots to do what the party wants not what the people want.
I’m not a robot and I’m not voting for one.
History correction: The tea party grew out of the 2008 Ron Paul campaign, and was true grassroots with almost equal representation from both sides. When the Rethugs saw how potentially dangerous it was, Dick Armey started the ball rolling in the co-opting process, and it was afterwards that the reactionary Koch Bros. came on board.
The basis for the Tea Party is justified. We are not living under the Constitution anymore, and being gradually folded into a world gulag with 24/7 surveillance and full spectrum dominance. But of course suckers for the left-right paradigm like the phony narrative as proffered by magilla because it creates a nice, easy enemy for the Two Minute Hate.
Left and Right must unite, or we both get crushed under the boot heel in our face forever.
Much of this discussion will soon be merely academic. Thanks to the spending cut legislation, the Democrats are facing imminent disintegration as a party. The Democratic “brand” was always mainly defense of Social Security and Medicare. They were never truly a progressive party, but at least they could solicit support on the basis that they protected a minimal safety net. Now this “brand” has been destroyed. The Republicans have suffered no such damage, as their reactionary “brand” has remained intact. The only remaining supporters of the Democrats are those who are institutionally bound to the party structure–party officials on different levels of government and the Veal Pen lobbyists. As a major Depression accelerates due to the massive governmental spending cuts, the Democrats will lose a great deal of their remaining voter support.
It blows my mind that nobody has yet launched a dues-paying social-network site aimed at creating/promoting a progressive platform.
If a viable third party is to be formed, this seems like a realistic, “do-able” possibility.
Bruce Sterling (also mentioned on FDL today) gave a speech recently expressing his surprise that a Global Youth Movement has not yet formed.
I’m HOPING it’s only a matter of time…
It’s true we do not have the corporate money, but we do have 80% of the country and people power. There is no way for Obama to get re-elected without people.
I’ve gotten that a lot. In fact, at one site where I rant a lot, the new rule is “no Obama bashing: which means simply nothing critical of the prez and it applies to comments too. Lind of hard to state an opinion about what you think is wrong when you can only talk about one side of the coin.
I like this idea a lot, and I think it might cause a lot of pain to them in some very surprising ways.
Vote for the DMCA or its worse successors? What happens when everyone finds out that you and your family pirate music just as much as practically anyone else.
You’re right. Poor choice of words on my part. What I really mean is what good does it do to replace someone with someone else who supports essentially the same views. You’re saying that someone else would never compromise and always vote in a principled manner. That would be nice to see, but would it really change things. The tea party is the example you’re using to show the power of strength of conviction. But, as a minority, the tea party can only stop things from happening. Conservatives like to preserve, so that’s a good strategy for them. But is it also a good strategy for people who want change? I’m not so sure about that.
Well having read the whole thread a couple of times it seems like the main theme is: “For crying out loud. Gimme one fucking 100% progressive Senator!” Pretty reasonable actually. Hehe.
And because they do not cave into what the other side wants under any circumstance.
I agree that the progressive caucus should, not just when their votes are not needed, but they don’t do that, so what do we do? The whole party, included its progressive enablers, is a problem. It’s fantasy to think we can just kick them out and find better ones, until they fail us, and finding more. The real people you’re looking for to rescue the Democratic Party are running in other parties (Socialists, Greens, and various other marginal left parties) as they have already given up on the charade. I’m not advocating despair, rather we have to look for options outside of the elections and appealing to the parties. I don’t think we have time for elections, even if the process was more democratic. Replacing ineffective and corrupt Democrats with good ones isn’t a one or two or three time event and so far it’s been working out quite poorly.
This is probably the best (or at least most valuable) piece that I’ve read from Jane. It is also something I’ve been saying in here for quite some time.
The Tea Party showed Progressives what they need to do to become relevant… they must be willing to risk some losses to the other side in order to have influence with your own side. So far, Progressives have steadfastly refused to learn. People in here mocked, insulted and laughed at the Tea Party when their candidates in Nevada and Delaware cost Republicans control of the Senate. While the Tea Party is still running third behind the Democrats and Republicans, does anyone in here doubt their influence? You still hear the insults and the mocking from many in the FDL crowd towards the Tea Party, but there’s not so much laughter these days.
So, Progressives, you’ve been given a roadmap and a choice: take the perilous road that leads to influence or continue along the easy road to irrelevance. You really will deserve whichever fate you choose.
Meta, you are full of great ideas, but tend not to come to grips with questions of who’s gonna do what?
People in general aren’t going to do any of these things. The numbers required for various projects aren’t that large to get things rolling, but they have to be real and have concrete organization.
Consider Machiavelli’s The Prince. It wasn’t written ABOUT the Prince, it was written FOR the Prince.
Well I remember at least one time I saw Sanders flip. He put up an amendment, rider or new bill (I can’t recall which) in favor of the Single-Payer. He did a great speech and then the Republicans said they were going to read it aloud in the chamber. He then quickly withdrew his bill. He said because he did not want the Senate to spend the time, we had to hurry and get a bill. I thought what a crock, they had spent 14 months on the issue and he didn’t want to waste a day. He is the same as the others.
No! We all support essentially the same views, from Social Security to puppy dogs. But Jane’s piece is about their actions. And no, we obviously don’t support the same actions. If we did, we wouldn’t be in this crisis.
IMO, this is a typical example of progressive’s wimpiness. Wouldn’t it be better to bring Sanders’ true nature to the attention of his constituents? In general, isn’t it smarter to educate constituents, rather than complaining to those constituents’ Congress critter? If you accept Jane’s argument re Sanders, it follows that he’s a FRAUD. Why would a FRAUD care what you say? A FRAUD will care when you credibly threaten their position in life (in his case, his Senator’s seat). Not a pretty picture, but a realistic one, IMHO.
To credibly threaten Sanders’ seat, would it not be more efficacious to print out copies of this diary, and pass it out to people in the street, and schoolchildren after work? (either asking them to show it to their parents; or else begging them not, since their parents won’t be able to handle the truth; either method will surpass just passing it out to kids with no comment).
It is only a ” defeatist non-starter” if one assumes and accepts the prevailing paradigm. You are right, we can do better. I just don’t think that participating in the current system is the way to get there.
Why is it necessary for any President to spout bullshit? Why is it that one of the axioms of political speech at this level that whatever is said publicly, the opposite is true? Why is it reasonable to think that a President of member of Congress will represent the will of folks who did not provide the tens or hundreds of millions they require to get their jobs?
Heavens forbid we ask anything of anyone. Go to hell.
Let’s imagine that Bernie had voted against the health bill. What do you think would have happened next?
They unquestionably shifted this entire debate, and the final bill, dramatically to the right. They affirmatively got just about everything they wanted.
At many point during the past two years about 39 House progressives, or one Bernie Sanders, could have done the same thing. They didn’t.
We’re not even talking about maintaining the status quo any more. Their ineptitude, their inability to use power when they had it, created a situation where it was easy for the neolibeals to dominate the party and pass unpopular corporatist legislation that the Tea Party exploited to gain power. So we are sliding dramatically to the right as a direct consequence of their inability/unwillingness to wield power when they have it.
Moreover, then liberals/progressives get the blame. We wanted nothing to do with a health care bill that Democrats hated when it was the Republican alternative to Hillary Care, but now we have to take on the brand damage because it was sold to the public as “progressive” — quite reasonably, because they all voted for it. And it makes it that much harder to get single payer in the future.
So the CPC is not an inert force. They enable the corporatist agenda and feed the right wing. Having more of them will not help, because if they won’t use the power they have, then giving them more is not going to change things.
Every one of them voted for the Catfood Commmission II super Congress yesterday. Every. Single. One. Is that really something should find acceptable in any way?
Hey, I’m with you. You’ll get no argument here. Hell, FDL is the most right wing blog I read. I didn’t even mind you quoting Burroughs. You didn’t even comment on it so I don’t know your full view. Just thought I would give mine.
We wouldn’t have the massive subsidy of the insurance industry via the Mandate, and we wouldn’t have additional restrictions on abortion rights.
The White House would have been forced into a compromise that was better for the American people rather than corporations, the Tea Party would not have been able to use the rage against the mandate to take control Congress and we wouldn’t be looking at 70 of them who now dictate what goes on there?
Just for starters.
Well, one tactic is to take out those who pretend to be on the left by staking out a position that is actually left, thereby exposing those who, at best, deliver only agreeable words but no concomitant action, and also moving the political environment to the left as well. The Tea Baggers did this on their end of the political spectrum.
Had his vote been necessary, and he voted against it anyway, all his money would have dried up. He’d never be on TV again (to whatever extent he is now). He’d never be invited to speak at any Democratic events (to whatever extent he is now). He’d be punished in every way the big people could possibly punish him. And that punishment would continue for the rest of his life.
Because THAT’S HOW YOU SEND A MESSAGE TO ALL THE OTHER STUPID FUCKS YOU’RE TRYING TO CONTROL.
Thank you for indulging me on the quote. :)
The quote gets me to think about a couple of questions: Why does the US have a political system wherein it is essential that the President must “spout bullshit”? Why is the most important element in becoming President looking good on television, from Kennedy v. Nixon to Reagan to The Obama Brand?
Sounds worth it to me.
I would’ve gladly lived through those consequences.
And had NOTHING passed we’d be better than this POS.
At least the issue would’ve remained alive. Now health care is dead. Because we already “fixed” that.
Amen, unfortunately…
Maybe. Assuming someone else wouldn’t have changed his or her vote, which is a huge assumption. I hate the health legislation too. But, even assuming Sanders could have stopped it from going through, he would have been blamed for scuttling what was being pedaled as the best we could do in terms of health reform. However bad it may be, it has real consequences for real people who are sick and dying. Stopping the legislation would have been a huge victory for the republicans and probably would have assured a republican victory in the next election. I guess you can argue that would have been a good thing but I still believe that there really is a greater evil.
Oh thanks for bringing that up! I forgot about that. Bernie DID cave to pressure to pull the Single Payer bill.
Good points. I hadn’t thought about that.
Because the Democrats didn’t want to have to vote against it on the record.
Even RAHM was advocating to abandon the omnibus health care bill and go with a stripped down version that did not have the mandate. There was tremendous internal pressure already. Maybe the one time Rahm and I agreed.
And there is no fantasy world that anyone can conjur up that would have seen no health care bill pass at all. Have to have the “win,” right?
Can I draw you out a little more about what “Oh, for fuck’s sakes, just stop” might mean?
What I’M saying is that we don’t revive democracy through the legislative process, which keeps most people on the internet mesmerized. If you don’t agree, that’s cool, but it’s not like it’s not a quite arguable assumption, especially when you look at history. Those safeguards we have did not spring from the hands of enlightened legislators, because we FINALLY found the RIGHT ones, with backbone, but were forced through by pressure from below.
Whew, good thing we didn’t stop it then. Otherwise those elections last November would’ve been a bloodbath for the Democrats…
One of the key advantages of, if not motivations for, running minimalist candidates (ala FCP) was that of lowering the barriers to entry into the political process. Those barriers applied to both candidates, and their supporters. If, in spite of low barriers to entry, people do not support a Full Court Press, then there isn’t going to be one. On this we can readily agree.
However, it’s hard to see what other efforts that carry the potential for deep reform of the political process will succeed, either, in the near term. As I argued above, many progressive Democrats will never support an NPA. How should they donate their time, energy, and money? Although Mike Hersh, the strategist for the PDA, assured us that PDA’s strategy was successful, I think this diary of Janes, alone, blows that idea out of the water, completely. If PDA took my advice and got more aggressive, they might succeed, but I can’t put too much hope in them.
What options do you suggest for progressive Democrats who reject NPA?
=================
Here’s a potential scenario for rapid growth of an FCP. FCP get all of one enthusiastic contributor to chip in $500/month. That, my friend, will buy a lot of craistlist ads. :-) Some of the respondents to the craigslist ads that I placed offered to help support a candidate, not be the candidate. FCP grows to, oh, say 30 potential candidates and 300 volunteers.
At this point, PCCC bigwigs read this diary (after efforts are made to put it in front of their eyes), and say, “OMG, Jane Hamsher is right! We’ve been getting played by the Kucinich types, meanwhile, the Tea Parties are clearly executing a superior electoral and political strategy!” Quick as you can say “bold progressive”, PCCC embraces FCP as it’s very own, and soon thereafter we start reading about PCCC /FCP candidates in the mainstream media as often as we read of Tea Party candidates.
There is a parallel to the common philosophy of startup business ventures, here. A lot of startups don’t believe they will ever become dominant players, and so look to carve out a niche, that makes them an attractive acquisition target of corporations with bigger pockets. PCCC in this analogy is the corporation with deep pockets, and FCP is the startup.
I can’t judge the viability of this scenario, in large part because i don’t really know how coopted PCCC may be. I had given up on them, but they have recently shown a respectable level of spine.
No way. I definitely don’t think they should get away with that one.
Okay – I have big soft spot for the only guy in Congress who isn’t ashamed to call himself a “socialist.” I realize it’s mostly symbolic, but it does mean something. Americans get to hear from someone who unabashedly calls himself a “socialist” and figure out that he’s not talking about gulags and totalitarianism. I think that’s really important for America. More important, in my mind, than to try to make an example of someone who has his heart in the right place. The key to change is to change the psyche of the country.
But, in reality, you have to have a mandate for that type of plan. So they would have passed dishonest legislation that couldn’t have worked. Should Bernie have voted for that?
You struck a very good point. A lot of the rank-and-file progressives I see on various media are afraid of risk. Many are afraid to challenge the democrats, stating that any kind of challenge to democrats will only give power to the republicans. If you give them a bold option to truly change the dark situation of this country, all they can do is visualize defeat. They can’t accept that the only way things will get better is by challenging the very establishment that gives lip service to liberal causes and then gives it all away to corporatist interests.
Too many of them are self proclaimed progressives that are also rabid supporters of Obama. Their favorite mantra seems to be “don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good”, and then I have a quote of my own that comes to mind: “Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.” — Theodore Roosevelt
Calling our current situation “gray twilight” would be way too generous, in my opinion.
Ding!
One of the problems or fallacies of the change-the-system-from-within model is that those elements interested in making the change typically have to conform to or be changed by the system to such a degree that they end up working in its interests. An imbalance of power, among other things, is often at the root of this dynamic.
As internal change becomes more and more difficult, as Hamsher is pointing out, then perhaps the only solution is change from without.
I meant the presidential election. But don’t you think the same thing would have happened even if the legislation hadn’t passed? The theme would be that the democrats are not only weak wasting all their time on legislation that nobody wants, if they have their way, they’ll impose a mandate for health care. Same result in my opinion.
” . . . in the case of Kucinich it appears there was something more sinister . . .”
Okay, I don’t know this story. Someone please enlighten me or give me a link to something that will.
Thanks.
I dunno what would’ve happened had they not passed this POS.
I think Jane above is right, that SOMETHING would’ve passed.
But what that result would’ve meant to the 2010 elections I have no idea.
I THINK the Democrats lost because of a combination of not doing enough for the economy and losing a lot of their base because of the Health Insurance Profit Protection Act (HIPPA) that they passed. So they may have lost big time anyway. I’ve gotta believe it wouldn’t have been as bad though, especially since some other bill likely wouldn’t have resulted in the “cuts” to Medicare that the cynical Republicans used so effectively in 2010.
What I DO believe, in the most strongest of terms, is that had they used the mandate and majorities they were given and passed single payer health care that they would’ve at least maintained their hold on the House as I have no doubt that once single payer is experienced by Americans they will love it. They love Medicare, and that’s all Medicare is.
And I further believe that had they used the mandate and majorities given to them to not only pass single payer health care, but to pass some real stimilus that included a massive direct jobs program, that they not only would’ve won in 2010, they would have guaranteed D majority status for at least a generation.
FDR won FOUR terms, after all.
If you want to beat DC
Do the following!
Progressives need to declare which corporations they will support
For Example, progressives will only shop at Target, fuck Wal-Mart
tell all of your firends Wal-Mart wants to take Grand Ma social security.
For example, progressives will only back at Bank Of America, let a million people show up wells fargo, chase, etc. taking their money out and giving it to Bank of America
this will get their attention
force the corporations to kill each other.
the USA is a consumer society
control the consumer spending,
progressives need to decide which corporations live and which one die.
corporations have 1 major weak ness, if they don’t make profits, they die
make the corporations beg FDL or pay FDL safety money.
the USA is under Mafia rule, it is time Progressives play like MOB bosses.
attack, and attack, the corporations we progressives could care less which ones die,
this will scare the shit out DC
Hey, I work at the airport and I talk to people all day who tell me that they would vote specifically, based on Social Security, to remove anyone who votes to take their SS away…..I talked to both Dems and Reps. At the DFL Convention in Rochester in 2008, Jack Nelson Pallmier (sp) ran against Al Franken for the endorsement……..he was a hell of a great liberal. A Prof at St Thomas…Good looking candidate. I keep thinking that we should try to get him to run. I think we could raise money from labor, move on etc to run ads in MN soley based on SS Security , Medicare and Medicaid….incorporating into the ad that these bastards in Washington will continue to collect their pay, retirement and health insurance without and reductions or reform.
He also voted for Dodd/Frank, rolling on Audit the Fed and TBTF… right?
I strongly agree with you about single payer. Somehow, even though we’re mired in debt, we can still afford the most expensive and byzantine health care system in the world. But, for some reason,none of our elected representatives try to make this point with the American people. Appalling!!
How come no D ever puts a legislative “hold” on anything or uses the filibuster? Why is it always the R that does these things? How come a D never calls an R “unamerican” by name? How come a D never says an R does not support the troops and therefore hates America?
If there is anyone left without greed for money or power I wish he or she would hold this legislation, let the default happen and in two days there would be a debt ceiling raised without any “attachments” ….. but what do I know I am only a concerned citizen.
I agree with that.
Okay, you can ignore my previous remark. Sometimes I like to preemptively attack. Part of my
assholepredatory nature.Enough with the left-right. They’re ineffectual.
I don’t care what they say when it doesn’t matter. When measured in terms of what they actually do, they’re ineffectual and weak.
It’s like saying “Let’s hire that guy as a typist. He only uses his thumbs and he can’t spell, but we agree on just about everything.”
But if you want to talk about the adequacy of these “left-leaning members of congress,” I’d love to hear a defense of their vote for the Catfood II Super Congress yesterday. Can you do it without making mention of the fact that somebody else is worse? I bet you can’t.
Voting doesn’t get the change we need quickly enough, it’s too slow and costly.
We need two term limits. A term should be 2 or 3 years, with totals 4 or 6 years. What’s good enough for the Presidency is good enough for all gov elected officials, Governors, Senators, Representatives, Ambassadors, Supreme Court Justices, etc.
We need a way to “fire” an elected official that has failed in his or her duties or did an unlawful act, the same as a corporation does. Corporations don’t keep losers just because of a contract, so why should the American people? And I’m not talking impeachment, only Congress can do that and they don’t do it or do it for the wrong reasons. When the union bashing was at it’s heights recently, and an Oprah show was about bad teachers and teachers getting tenure, Oprah gasped “who get’s guarantied a job for 30 years” (paraphrasing here). Well crazy Supreme Justices get life long jobs and don’t even bother to retire, even when their feeble-minded or dieing. Lets chang that process!
The pols tells us one thing and then work for corporate interests after elected. How do we change/fight that when they have the media in their back pockets telling us whats good for us?
Elected officials should not be able to spend money 10 years in advance when they will no longer be around.
NBC, CNN…..how about a talk show where the middle class host the show and middle class strategists opinions and predictions are highlights of the show??? I am tired of wealthy talk show hosts and wealthy contributors who could care less if they ever collect a penny of SS and Medicare are telling me whats good for me and the country.
I think one of the disconnects we’re having here is that people presume (without thinking about it) that all districts have an equal distribution of liberal and conservative voters, and that if you lose a liberal, the seat is up for grabs and could go to anyone. And that the liberal deserves points just for being a liberal in this world. They know about gerrymandering, but they don’t think about its practical implications.
In reality these members have their seats because their districts are very liberal, and if they lost that seat the person who would replace them would also be a liberal. The question then becomes — we only have so many of those districts, where our opinion (and our votes) matter.
Is what we’ve got really the best we can do?
Holy… just left this thread and my homework for the first time in hours… HuffPo headline is SCARY…
Amen, solerso. The class divide and finance capital. Indeed.
When the US economy was based much more on production–before the US moved to the perhaps final, financial stage of empire–the voice of those in the lower and middle classes counted for more. Good paying jobs were at stake, unions were strong, etc. This economic and political reality has largely gone away. It has been replaced with a finance economy that involves fewer people on the production end, so to speak. The gap in wealth has increased as a result. Now, power, money and political voice is far more concentrated at the top. Television exacerbates this imbalance tremendously. It has become someone else’s game to a degree that is probably without historical precedent in the US.
I don’t know what to do either, other than stop playing that game, stop excepting its rules.
You know, on a larger scale, I really have to agree with the point you’re making. Nobody shows any guts at all and that’s a huge, huge problem that has to be remedied. When you listen to the tea party people, you at least believe that they think they’re doing the right thing based on their own principles – however misguided they might be. But we never hear the same sort of thing from democrats. Their wishi-washiness translates to the public as lack of conviction and lack of certitude. Very bad.
Oh… just reading it… I guess that’s what you mentioned a couple hrs ago… sry… slow today… so scary tho… can’t wait til we hear how the Super Duper needs to become a permanent committee!
You were on a role today Eric. Made a lot of good points. Hate to see you back off now. ;)
From HuffPo:
Uh-oh… with all this chest-pounding, I’m sure Nancy is now running scared!
By George, she’s got it! I am not laughing and I am not voting for any more Democrats-that have voted for this or health care sell out or any other sell out. I didn’t last election and it wasn’t that hard. Sorry Ron Wyden you are better than most, but not good enough. I have no representation either way! But at least I am not a stupid ass sucker like any Democrat that ever votes for Obama again.
They don’t represent me. Any one that calls themselves a Democrat and votes for Obama or anyone else that betrayed them is a fool. Case solved.
Hillary gave an impassioned speech doubting the wisdom of the war in Iraq, then voted for it. Sound familiar?
Can’t rule out the simple fact that a lot of Congress members are recalcitrant lardasses who have been either unable or unwilling to learn to use a computer, and who are now further lost but dangerous b/c they rely overmuch on staff. So many of them must have gloated, though, when Anthony Weiner screwed the pooch.
You smashed the nail on the head.
he is no different then Obama, talks a good game and then votes against everything he just talked about.
Signatures are final and telling.
oh no, this is beyond that. grandma must eat catfood so banksters can afford to feed caviar to stray cats.
And I am tired of foreign born people giving me National and Political tv news.
T-Holes got “active” after Obama care and they sent 80 of them to congress. Progressives sat out the last election because of the health care sell out and we got the T-Holes. And either way it didn’t matter a wit because the establishment Republicans screwed the T-Holes and the establishment Democrats screwed the progressives. Why? Because the six industries that own this country also own the establishment Republicans and the establishment Democrats. The only way this will change is if we have publicly funded elections. What do you think the odds are of that? Exactly why it doesn’t matter whose in office. The masses get screwed.
“There is no debate from the left because the center(hey that’s you guys) . . .”
“It ain’t me, babe.”
There is no left in the US because some folks think it might be a good idea to get rid of those who pretend to be left, who are apparently talk without action? Hamsher is suggesting a “centrist” position here, led to such a position out of deference to other options being “too hard”? There is no left because lefties, in their cowardice and weakness, prefer a conservative status quo? Perhaps we are not operating under the same definition of “left”?
I suspect it is far more likely that there is no left in the US because in the left wing-right wing fight over the last century or so, Corporatism won.
Three trillion in savings they’re touting, and Stieglitz says that’s what we’ve spent on the Iraq War since 2011. That’s the ruling class’s priorities.
Liberals hold up half the capitalist sky. Trying to win in a liberal democracy, by liberal democratic rules, helps hold the sky up (even though it’s crashing down around us.) As long as we’re racking our brains trying to figure out how to win playing by their rules (how to somehow find and squeak through “serious, real-deal” pols?), we’re losers, guaranteed.
We need to fight this on two fronts–a new party (slow, patient build by a tech-addled populace, not easy) that demands structural change, and a no-compromises, growing, militant organization on the streets.
“Best analogy yet?”
I liked the Harlem Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals but at least in that example there is some presumed competition. A better analogy, I think, for what we’ve been enduring for the last few weeks (or years?) is a charade called “good cop/bad cop” with the chief of police (the corporatocracy) getting exactly what he has paid for.
Sanders says he’s not voting for the deal:
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=75f2ef69-95c1-4bfe-bb9b-6495d763c11e
“I cannot support legislation like the Reid proposal which balances the budget on the backs of struggling Americans while not requiring one penny of sacrifice from the wealthiest people in our country. That is not only grotesquely immoral, it is bad economic policy.”
“If you want my attention, tell me how you’re going to take out Bernie Sanders or Jan Schakowsky or Raul Grijalva or Peter Welch. Let me know how you plan to send a message and enforce discipline with the people who claim to represent your values, but betray them over and over again because they have no fear whatsoever of you.”
What total nonsense! First, Paul claiming that Bernie sold out isn’t good enough to claim that Sanders betrayed us “over and over” (pretty sloppy thinking Jane). Second, taking out the corporocrats of either party is indeed necessary to move forward but start with the right wing of the Dem party, not the few isolated progressives left in congress. You appear to want to cut off your nose despite your face.
There is plenty of “left” folks in the US. Progressives just don’t know how to leverage that support at all.
Not surprising when the strategy is to go after the far left side of the debate instead of incrementally moving it farther left.
I hear how “progressives” got rid of the blue dogs. Uh no you didn’t. The tea party did that you just watched them.
Even now by Jane’s own admission she has stated she doesn’t care who replaces him- liberal or not liberal, no matter. The only problem is that in reality who you replace may very well matter and the rest of us get to live with the consequences of it(God this argument sounds so 2007.)
Anyways, this is Jane’s site so if she wants to primary Sanders for the sake of primarying him and if others wish to follow her because “they are darned angry and they aren’t going to take in anymore darn it” so be it. I’ll just caution people that sometimes it’s better not to act on emotion. Sometimes it’s better to start from the conclusion you want and work backward questioning whether each step gets you closer to where you want things to be and correcting where needed(yeah I got to work on tons of process action teams during my time in the military.)
And with that I think I’ve pretty much exhausted myself on the subject.
That three trillion for Iraq and three trillion now to come out of working people’s hides may be particularly ironic given that Obama got to the White House by carefully outflanking Hillary on the left ABOUT Iraq, then made clear from jump street that he was ALL ABOUT American military adventurism and maintenance of hegemony via the military route and MIC.
Thanks. However, when I get on a roll, sometimes I do say things and afterwards think, No, maybe THAT wasn’t right.
I don’t mind being a dick. However, I like to agree with myself after I read what I’ve written.
Heh- how much you want to bet that “actions matter” folks will now say that they only matter under x conditions and it doesn’t matter because Harry already has the votes etc,etc,.?
“Sanders says…”
I’ll hold off on congratulations to Bernie until his actual conscienced vote against it,even if he has to be the sole vote to stop it.
Bernie is supposed to single handedly save us from each and every piece of legislation that the President, the 99 others in Congress and the 435 in the House come up with . If he can’t then his head belongs on a stick./s
He actually can; stand there and filibuster this bullshit deal all night long Bernie and put your mouth where your ideals are.
If he doesn’t, well, there’s your proof as to his convictions.
But then again, it is not so much the answer that counts, but the question asked, isn’t it?
My question: When a virus is causing a disease, do you mount a fight against the virus or against the insufficient and weak defense of the immune system? I say, go after the virus first. Then, either strengthen the immune system or introduce new life that would strengthen it. But first, try to figure out how the immune system became so weak in the first place.
Either way, it’s quite obviously all about you. :)
One way we get immune systems so weak we can’t fight off infections such as viruses is when our immune systems go haywire: white cells wildly proliferate, diverting our bodies’ finite capacity so severely that we become physically weak.. The white cells’ purpose changes from protecting us to ensuring their own expansion.
The rogue white cells, if we do nothing, kill us.
The condition is known as leukemia. In the acute forms, the only way we can survive is to destroy the rogue white cells.
Of course, I’m not advocating the Congressional Dems who make Barry’s destruction of the New Deal and Great Society should face physical destruction: I want them to live out the rest of the natural lives. I want everyone to live out their natural lives.
That’s why I want to see destruction of the complicit Dems’ political lives – their defeat. By any legal means neccessary.
This is how the Tea Party and the billionaires who created them and modern conservatism have gained the power they are using to destroy our well-being so the corporatists can get richer.
Far past time for progressives to destroy every Dem they can until the elected Dems fear us more than they do our opponents. Far past time we started winning.
Fragging, if it doesn’t send a message to other leaders, at least keeps a guy who is charged with leading your unit from fucking you over.
Yeah, keep in mind that (IMO) there are two issues here:
1) voting for a bill
2) advocating for a bill
For some, voting is enough. But the other point in this thread is that Sanders could (if my understanding is correct) KILL this bill as a single vote in the US Senate. But Powwow is probably needed for that analysis… I have a feeling I may be conflating the Super Duper vote with a general analysis of Senate rules.
Ding!
Booyakasha! “Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose.” And when one comes to that point, they realize there is nothing to be afraid of, if indeed there ever was.
Now that I agree with.
God, I’m an arrogant bastard. It’s a good thing I have plenty of charisma to back it up.
Progressives need a few more dicks in their ranks. Provokes more to speak up and out AND allow us to play good cop bad once in a while. You should write up a diary about it actually: Wanted Immediately: Progressive Dicks.
This is only a partial answer to your entire comment but there were/are a lot of readers who support SP
http://my.firedoglake.com/letsgetitdone/2009/09/19/%E2%80%9Cmedicare-for-all%E2%80%9D-folks-at-firedog-lake/
I think any consensus that was against it, was limited
Such appreciation seconded.
Thank you, Jane.
Ding X1000
Loved this, Jane! immediately after the dirty deal is signed, and we are royally screwed, OUR royalty..Bambam, and family will take off for Cape Cod, exactly as they did after the last phoney crisis!
I presume that to be the electorate…
Yes, lots of guns out there. It doesn’t matter if it is running for office or rioting in the streets. Nothing will change in the US until prople are willing to die for it.
Le sigh. That was to AitchD at 183. reply not workin for me, nor edit, that’s people, not prople.
Sure. I wasn’t suggesting it was a case of either-or. Just another idea.
Although, can’t we do anything without laws? Do we need permission to think for ourselves? :)
Indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r83sdnV2eLU
I guess the writing is on the wall. The vast majority of American voters have no influence on policy at all. It’s not just Progressive impotence, large majorities advocate taxing the wealthy, leaving the safety net alone, and cutting foriegn wars. The ruling class seems to know that they can just do whatever they wish—-public be damned.
Exactly.
If Bernie Saunders is so against this bill, he (and any other D Senator) can object to the vote tomorrow, thus causing the threshold to be 60.
They may have 60, but we should find out.
Unless, you know, you’re not really against the bill you just want to say you are….
And that is a big part of the rub: Authoritarians and their followers (e.g. Tea Party) typically think in black and white terms with themselves on the side of the Right Answers. Part of what makes liberals and progressives who they are is a willingness to make practical compromises, empathize and consider that they might be wrong. In order for liberals or progressives to adopt Authoritarian tactics they would have to trade away a big part of what defines their character.
So a question: What is it about our political system that rewards Authoritarians over compromise, empathy and dispassionate objectivity in pursuit of a greatest-good solution? And what might be done to fix that system?
Good pt. Jane’s the one whining now. But who will do the dirty deed? Sanders won’t , Dean no way. Kennedy is dead, so that leaves who?
Let me see if I understand what you said. As a doctor, if an immunocompromised patient presents with an infection caused by a bacteria because their white cells have failed, you would destroy their white cells FIRST rather than going after the infection first? That is, you would hold off on the antibiotics and let the bacteria proliferate as you destroy the white cells that have gotten out of hand? Is that the standard of care?
I understand prevention and I understand deterrence — but is not treating an infection and instead, going after rogue white cells, the right approach during an acute crisis?
Punishment and control. There is a point on the political spectrum, if we imagine it to be a continuum, where the worldview and actions of those on the far left merge with those on the far right and the two become indistinguishable.
We have a media that fails to inform the citizenry and fails to cover the full range of political voices. We have mostly unregulated corporations that have the rights of personhood who have undue influence on our political system.
Their narrative makes for easy soundbites. And yet, even a person in the early stages of dementia can see through their political games. I think we have to drop the Republican-Democrat label and really go after the corporate/media structure that helps maintain the narrative of Authoritarianism.
I also think we have to stop “othering” and dehumanizing people who hold different views and instead, try to understand where they are coming from and find a common ground.
to petra at 495
“So let’s call Sanders out on it. He has a facebook and twitter account. He solicits opinion (unlike other members of congress, I should say). Let’s force him to explain/justify his votes.”
How do you propose to force him?
“There is plenty of “left” folks in the US. Progressives just don’t know how to leverage that support at all.”
You may be quite right on this one.
“Not surprising when the strategy is to go after the far left side of the debate instead of incrementally moving it farther left.”
Well, I don’t see the “far left side of the debate.” I see no one in Congress or the WH acting on lefty issues. And part of Hamsher’s point was, in my understanding, that one should not continue to support politicians who represents liberal interests in word only. More generally, the bit about not caring who may next might occupy the political seat is a call to get away from personalities and return to a plank-platform focus to voting–a model largely taken away in recent decades, as most (if not all) politicians of both parties represent corporate interest.
Amen.
A follow up question: How do we undo the decades of tremendous, crippling, near-sociopathic Fear we have all been fed that is essential to maintaing Corporatism, Authoritarianism, identifying with one’s oppressors, and dehumanizing the objectified, dichotomous “other”? Is there a way to get there short of the system crashing and burning to the point where most folks then have nothing left to loose and therefore The Fear is irrelevant?
Exactly!
Where are our millions of dollars to fund astroturf organizations going to come from? The teabaggers are funded by right-wing donors with ties to Birchers and other unsavory groups.
Nah, he’s just going for that lovable absent-minded professor, wild-eyed socialist look.
Remember in the Michael Moore movie when someone said the government of France is scared of its people and the people of America are scared of their government?
We need to make make principled demands of our government and then unite to press them, instead of casting around for someone who we think “might” represent us. We have to have constant pressure, not vote and go home pressure.
I hope some of you are coming to DC in October 2011 http://october2011.org/welcome
Jane, great post. The limited range of critical, creative thinking among the left – or an approximation thereof – leaves much to be desired.
I haven’t had the time nor sufficiently large stash of Visine to read through all of the 630+ comments preceding mine, so I may repeat something others have written.
So, prospective primary challengers to Barak Millhouse Obama. How about Liz Warren with Maddow as campaign chair – backed by true pros from the left to fill-out the staff and back stop the high visibility low campaign experience women at the top. To my mind, there are several options who are outside of the left’s own conventional wisdom speakers’ bureau.
Lastly, it’s crucial for lefties to rethink their (our) patterns of campaign donations of both time and money. BMO is hell bent on vacuuming up every dollar in play to hot or top his $1 billion target. As such, NO money should be donated to any of the established funding committees – DCCC, DSCC, DNC, ….. Any monies that land in their accounts will be auto-transferred to BMO’s coffers. So too with many “issues” oriented 527s. Any and all donations should, IMO, be made to campaigns directly.
Before anyone donates, consider this. Can Obams win reelection with an unemployment rate above 9% and likely at or over 10%? If you think he can, I have no advice for you. If you are swayed by the hard facts of history, then donate directly to your chosen candidates and DO NOT FEED THE BEAST. $1 billion is a terrible thing to waste. Don’t throw the Congressional babies out with the Presidential bathwater.
Prayer. They’ll do what they do, and we gain nothing by figuring out ways they can amuse themselves.
Nailed it!!
Jane, I think you are extremely smart, creative, and I recognize that you know more about Washington inside baseball than I can ever hope to.
BUT, one thing I’ve noticed:
time and again in your posts you credit the Tea Party for having super discipline, and “taking out” the people that disagreed with them.
But we know based on great journalism that the Tea Party is actually a small astro-turfed “movement” invented by corporate media ( Fox News ) & corporate oligarchs ( like the Koch Bros ).
It’s not like the Tea Party are brilliant little-guy organizers, or politically savvy geniuses. It’s just that they side with the rich corporate oligarchs that actually run this country!
My point is, isn’t it the case that the right-wing movement is _always_ more politically effective than the left-wing one BECAUSE it sides with the rich and powerful?
It just seems like you’re making the Tea Party out to be more effective than they actually are. When really, it’s just that those deluded fools happen to be cheering for the side that is _actually_ effective: ( i.e. the corporate oligarchs ).
Thank you.
Hey
dummy, they come from HEAVY D+ districts and states. You lose NOTHING, because you’re primarying them from the LEFT. As Jane pointed out, even the threat of a primary from the left has a chilling effect on their wingnut leanings.Primaries in HEAVY D districts attract media attention to LIBERAL values. Media time is less expensive and therefore more available to progressive candidates. Those same lib/prog values frequently get choked out in the general. In heavy D districts, the primary is the General.
Van Jones is the one person who could primary Barry without tearing the party apart.
It’s a poor use of scarce financial resources. We have to start in Heavy D House districts. Madison, WI’s Tammy Baldwin …..
bullseye.
Thank you for pointing this out.
In June 2010, we asked House Dems to take the “pledge,” to not vote for anything which did not at least include a public option. We got killed from the left, because everyone said we were against single payer. We weren’t. Everyone wanted single-payer, Jane just understood that it was unlikely. The PO was last-stand-hill. By November, when single-payer was GONE, suddenly, FDL and Jane were all that was left of the LEFT. Everyone, but Jane caved on the PO.
cwaltz either has no clue, or is willfully distorting the facts, or a little of both.
The only thing blue dogs are vulnerable to are Republicans.
We have to START in heavy D Congressional districts, the voting districts that share our values. Look at what Bart Stupak and a very small number of anti-choice guys did to choice in the Obamacare vote. We need lib/prog reps with those kinds of guts and skill on OUR issues.
Thank you so much for this catch.
I no longer hold Dean in such high regard.
I’m going to stand with Bernie. I get what you are saying, Jane Hamsher, but on a few points I know you are wrong. I don’t call supporting Bernie slobbering all over abject failure. You won’t find me holding the same high regard for the progressive caucus, rather I share contempt for them.
And how did the Tea Party do it? With the support of billionaires and other robber barons, maybe? You find a way to get that kind of financial backing and then we can harshly compare what we do or do not do to the Tea Party.
This seemed more despair than a vision, though there was some of that to be fair. I still think it’s pretty f*cking shitt* to dump this on an independent. He’s not even a member of the Party for f*cksakes.
The enablers in the Party, fine, have at em. Lucky for all of us reading this you targeted the high profile ones as you see them, as if they were the only ones worth mentioning by name.
I guess the official FDL line is going to be, screw Kucinich and Sanders? If so, I’m glad I hadn’t joined yet. Love what we all do here. I get it there is a strategy that may be solid and I am not saying certain people should be off limits but damn if doesn’t seem entirely like a betrayal. If you want to separate the true enablers from the ones who only seem to be, I’m for it.
The op seems to be written more out of frustration than genuine thoughtfulness, even if it comes from a great mind whom I admire.
Excellent points! Life is a balance of power and if we want to stop them from doing something (like decimating the social safety net, for example) we have to hit the streets and repeatedly show them that it will cause so much blowback that it is not worth doing.
This reply is late, but go over to redstate dot com and read Erick Ericksons posts sometime.
It’s essential to read more that one to get a feel for his tactics. The other day the Republicans were calling on a Tparty caucus staffer to be fired, by the end of the day, E.E. was threatening them.
Heres one. http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/07/25/the-absolution-i-cannot-give/
This guy is an insurgent within the Republican machine.
http://www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2011/07/27/some-dos-and-donts-for-redstate-political-activists-based-upon-the-performance-of-our-partys-leadership/
See what purity trolls they are within supporters.
They are kicking out the gays. http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2011/07/29/on-goproud-and-cpac/#comment-14328
there is more than one teaparty. These are extreme conservatives, they aren’t the libertarians of Ron Paul.
Their message is strong because there is no counter to it. Democrats essentially advocate the same message. Nader was right all along. Liberals are still having trouble accepting that reality. Like the tea party crazies, liberals still want to believe in the myth that there is a significant difference between the two parties.
Bernie is symbol for all Dems in SAFE districts. Most of this post applies to Congressional districts, but Bernie got thrown in.
“SAFE” districts = Congressional districts which are ALWAYS going to elect a liberal, or someone they they think is liberal. In these districts, the primary is usually the GENERAL.
We lose NOTHING, by primarying DEMS in SAFE districts.
We gain discipline.
Look at what Bart Stupak did to choice with just a very few anti-choice votes on Obamacare. We need libs/progs with that same spine, but on our issues.
Rich backers is not what gives the teaparty their power. Its a willingness to purge them for being traitors,
For being willing to risk, to use all leverage and play for keeps. The Funders pay for get togethers and speakers.
They also find and groom candidates which are introduced at these events. They have someone ready to fill the vacuum.
You would have to go see and read to understand them – or this concept.
LIke the case of Admiral Bing, who was arraigned for treason and cowardice after losing a naval battle with less well equipped ships. Voltair wrote to Enland in defense of Bings life, telling them that if he hadn’t ran from the battle the whole fleet would have been lost. The court martial found him to be brave and true, but they executed him anyway.
“[Voltaire] his defender, the author of Candide, added to it an immortal phrase, “In this country (England) it is as well to put an admiral to death now and then, to encourage the others.”
Sometimes you have to make examples out of them- electorally.
If it’s any consolation–and it shouldn’t be–the rest of the “progressive” world elects the same bunch of dumbfucks as US progressives.
Need I say more than prime minister Papandreou of Greece is running to the right of Greece’s conservative party in endorsing the neo-liberal sell-off of Greek assets to satisfy the bankster bondholders?
And Papandreou is the president of the Socialist International for gawdsake!!!
Let’s all join in a rousing chorus of the Internationale.
Fortunately, Tea Partiers who refused to even consider voting third party or Democratic (i.e., most all of them, until recently) found that they could not have a dramatic effect on politics, so resorted to prayer to amuse themselves. Which didn’t work. As we can see by, e.g., Paul Krugman’s column, today, The President Surrenders. Or even some of Jane’s comments in this diary.
I strongly believe that the recent (AFAIK) decision by some Tea Partiers to throw Republicans under the bus, even in a general election, will make them even more feared by Republican incumbents. However, since they’re not feared by Republican incumbents now, that’s not saying much, is it?
“Throw them all out”. Energy spent on re-electing lousy actors to play leading roles in our lives is energy ill spent. Sirius Left radio no longer has any one “left” on it except on weekends with Mike Feder and Dave Marsh. The regular hosts are all Sirius Democrats dedicated to getting Democrats elected.
Lynn Samuels was on Sirius Left and got booted to Sirius Stars on the weekends. She was anti-Obama and an independent thinker who voted for Cynthia McKinney, but loves to read Matt Drudge. Many of us believe she was kicked off because of her Obama, Sanders, Democrats criticism. Her latest campaign is to vote out your representative whether you like them or not. She’s right that we rail against other reps and senators, but then vote our guy or gal in.
We must be consistent and convince our Republican/conservative friends to do the same.
The Tea Party’s message is strong because mainstream media gives voice to them. I hardly watch cable news but just recently I saw CNN showing Tea Party protesters and their message throughout the show as backdrop during commentaries. And don’t get me started about how NPR is always managing to interview Republicans without challenge.
I think the coverage goes like this: 100 Tea Party protesters show up at DC and get 200 journalists to cover them with news about them replayed over and over again in the evening news. 10000 progressives show up and get 10 journalists to cover them with news about them in in obscure, hard to find sources.
Regardless of how many times progressives may counter the Tea Party message, they are not heard. In the mainstream media, real progressives are rarely interviewed and are rarely written about. So let’s not blame progressives. Let’s look at how the media manipulates information and find ways to subvert it instead.
If you want to start a Progressive counter movement against the slimy Democrats then you need someone to primary Obama. Since we have little money, the only thing we have to work with is our message. The media will give that individual some air time because of ratings. Everyone loves a fight. We need a voice. Our candidate should be someone who can clearly articulate a Progressive platform. Also, they should be from the outside DC, not a career politician like Sanders. This is a good place to start. Use the innertia of the electoral process to project a counter message to Obama’s neoliberalism. Honestly, it doesn’t even matter if our candidate can win or not. People will listen. It will help the other insurgent Progressive candidates.
If we had a viable candidate to primary Obama, we would get some air time. Now, there would be an aggressive take-down initiated in the media, of course. But that should not stop us. It’s time to start the insurgency. And then start again. And then again.
I agree! Why the defeatism? And why not add the american people to the list of sell-outs then? Over here in Europe, when politicians and corporations go after the welfare state they get massive push-back from the streets. The people let them know there will be a political cost to corporatism by showing up in the streets and bringing the country to its knees, greek-style. Whats the american response? Letting off some steam at FDL or a similar radical blog, and then what?
Where were the angry, concerned ordinary americans in the health care debate? Where were the unions? Dont look to one or two politicians and expect miracles. OK, maybe theyre not the leaders you need. But the response has to come from the street: massive organizing! And bring forth alternatives then, find a positiva cause to channel all that anger into. I find it amazing that you guys still havent agreed on what third party to get behind in the next election, and started building some momentum in that direction. Anger alone wont save you, organization could.
Points for good humor, though. I’ve been lacking it the last few days–I am ripshit.
Absolutely.
Dems here in a Norm Dicks’ safe congressional district are afraid of using that anger almost as much as their own shadows. I spent several years getting to know them.
Those safe districts need to be made uncomfortable for these congress people. One way to do that is show up at their events and do everything to annoy them up to getting arrested.
Without the organization and FOX sponsorship, the Tea Party would have been as weak as the progressives. Very much agreed we can learn something from their tactics. I’m not fond of overstating their capacity or great strength even if it is to make a valuable point. Without restating the kind of concrete support they have received, to be anything but a toothless rudderless and just another small movement would be fantasy.
We can improve our tactics to be more effective but Dems will fight us to prove they don’t need progressives. That’s what the corporatists Clinton and Obama prove time after time.
Otherwise, I’m in complete agreement. Make them fear us, turn the tables on them as best we can. Like they expose us at airports let’s hang some Dems out there naked for the sheep, the progressive caucus, to see. When it comes to someone like Bernie though, there ought to be hard evidence not just harsh words.
Concrete solutions to be found at Harry Braun, the Phoenix Project.
Sure, the tea party’s message gets coverage. That’s bound to happen. My point was only that the democrats, that is the party, have no counter message at all. They’re mute 85% of the time. When they do voice an opinion it’s in large part not that different from the talking points of the tea party.
I talked with Norm Dicks’ staffer in DC this morning for about a half hour. He was tossing corporatist talking points left and right – not recognizing them as excuses but they were really insulation from anything other than beltway logic. We don’t speak the same language. I mean yeah, we speak English, of course, but we don’t speak the same worldview.
Dems are incapable of offering a competing vision.
At best they maintain the status quo instead of pushing back against grinding poverty, unemployment, and unhousing.
Dems and Republicans working together to create more suffering and generational poverty, hooray.
It’s Obama’s fault, and by extension, the fault of all his 2008 cheerleaders. They should swallow their pride, admit their your part in this mess, and work to draft the person who should have had the nomination.
Of course 1968 was a failure electorally-starting with 68 Dems lost 5 of next 6 presidential elections
.
If LBJ had advertised Tricky Dick’s treasonous dealings with the North Vietnamese through Kissinger and Anna Chennault that election would have gone to the Democrats. If Reagan hadn’t had moles in Carter’s NSC (Donald Gregg and Robert (yes that one) Gates) and the treasonous dealings with the Iranians had been made public, the Democrats would have won that election. If Bush’s involvement in Iran-Contra (again with the help of Donald Gregg and Bob Gates) was made public instead of being buried by Lee Hamilton and John Kerry, the Democrats would have won that election.
IOW, if the GOP hadn’t been so busy committing treason and being enabled by the Washington press corps, this might be a very different place.
in reply to montanamaven 654 I agree! Throw them all out! BTW Mike Malloy is telling it like it is, and not supporting Obomber. He is on xm, and I believe Sirius as well…9 til midnight.
But if Sanders votes the same as Feinstein on crucial issues, why not target him as well as Feinstein? How is he any better than Feinstein? The point of focussing on Sanders is that he portrays himself left/progressive. If he could be voted out – or even given a tough time by progressives – it would send a message to other so-called progressives in Congress, those in the CPC, that they have to do more than talk the talk, that finally progressives have seen through the kabuki and are not going to be placated by anything less than action: votes for their issues.
So is this happening to any of you? My pc is soooo slow when on FDL. Can’t even type. Was fine till opened FDL.
ISP throtteling? Not sure may keep me away from the lake. So aggrevating.