SURELY THERE ARE SOME GENITALS WE CAN BLAME FOR ALL THIS
Why are we miserable? Why do we despair? Is it the endless grinding recession? The interminable wars? Health care anxiety? Partisan gridlock?
Nawww. According to Peggy Noonan, it's ... Adam Lambert!
... Sure, Americans are worried about long-term debt and endless deficits. We're worried about taxes and the burden we're bequeathing to our children, and their children.
But we are concerned about other things, too, and there are often signs in various polls that those things may dwarf economic concerns. Americans are worried about the core and character of the American nation, and about our culture.
... It was a broadcast network, it was prime time, it was the American Music Awards featuring singers your 11-year-old wants to see, and your 8-year-old. And Mr. Lambert came on and -- again, in front of your children, in the living room, in the middle of your peaceful evening -- uncorked an act in which he, in the words of various news reports the next day, performed "faux oral sex" featuring "S&M play," "bondage gear," "same-sex makeouts" and "walking a man and woman around the stage on a leash."
... Mr. Lambert's act left viewers feeling not just offended but assaulted....
I don't mean to make too much of it. In the great scheme of things a creepy musical act doesn't matter much. But increasingly people feel at the mercy of the Adam Lamberts, who of course view themselves, when criticized, as victims of prudery and closed-mindedness. America is not prudish or closed-minded, it is exhausted....
Yeah, maybe some people felt that way -- for about a day or two. But this is an incident most of America has forgotten, an incident that, by a long shot, isn't even the #1 celebrity sex story of the end of 2009, much less the #1 zeitgeist story. (Peg, I guess, wouldn't write a column about America's discomfort/fascination with the actual cheating involving actual sex of Tiger Woods -- Tiger, after all, is a rich straight guy, greatly respected by rich Republicans; you can't expect a multimillionaire golf pro to restrain his animal spirits any more than you can expect restraint on the part of the Wall Street tycoons who admire him, now can you? And besides, straight sex isn't icky.)
Peg's lead-in for all this is poll data:
The news came in numbers and the numbers were fairly grim, all the grimmer for being unsurprising. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll reported this week that more than half of Americans, 55%, think America is on the wrong track, with only 33% saying it is going in the right direction. A stunning 66% say they're not confident that their children's lives will be better than their own (27% are).
Um, Peg? Check the numbers (PDF) -- the "wrong track" number was in the 60s and 70s for most of 2007 and 2008. The only sex scandal involved then was George W. Bush's screwing of New Orleans, Terri Schiavo's husband, and an America that thought it should be able to trust a president not to send fellow Americans to die overseas for a lie.
The sad thing about Peggy's scolding-nun-with-a-pinch-of-Andy-Rooney schtick is that it's just so dated:
I'd like to see a poll on this. Yes or no: Have we become a more vulgar country? Are we coarser than, say, 50 years ago? Do we talk more about sensitivity and treat others less sensitively? Do you think standards of public behavior are rising or falling? Is there something called the American Character, and do you think it has, the past half-century, improved or degenerated? If the latter, what are the implications of this? Do you sense, as you look around you, that each year we have less or more of the glue that holds a great nation together? Is there less courtesy in America now than when you were a child, or more? Bonus question: Is "Excuse me" a request or a command?
Peggy? Nobody cares. Most of your fellow right-wingers don't care, if they ever did -- the top right-wing leaders certainly don't.
Want to know why?
Because fat cats like Dick Armey have figured out how to get the rabble to rally around corporate interests without having to use the smokescreen of saying "Democrats hate Jesus!" and "Democrats hate traditional values!" Yeah, gay marriage still riles up the rubes, and the tea party movement touches on abortion, but teabaggism is primarily about "Socialism!!!!1!1!!!" The teabag leaders don't need Christian rightists anymore to get Bubba to go to the polls and vote GOP. They've cut out the middleman.
Poor you, Peggy. All those speeches you wrote? They were just a smokescreen. And you're still trying to cling to the smoke.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
PAY ATTENTION TO ME PRETENDING TO BE UPSET THAT YOU PAID ATTENTION TO ME THE LAST TIME I TRIED TO GET YOU TO PAY ATTENTION TO ME!
Oh, good grief. From Politico:
Sarah Palin announced Thursday night that she ended a Hawaii vacation early because of the ruckus raised after she blacked out "McCain" on her sun visor in an effort to elude paparazzi.
After the former Alaska governor was photographed on the beach earlier this week, TMZ.com portrayed the visor marking as a slight of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), her running mate last year.
Palin, in the midst of a book tour for her million-selling "Going Rogue," released this statement:
"...Todd and I have since cut our vacation short because the incognito attempts didn't work and fellow vacationers were bothered for the two days we spent in the sun. So much for trying to go incognito."
She gets her name in the papers -- completely accidentally! no, really! -- and so she has no choice but to ... get her name in the papers again, by declaring that she's upset about getting her name in the papers! Gosh, she just can't win, can she?
Oh, good grief. From Politico:
Sarah Palin announced Thursday night that she ended a Hawaii vacation early because of the ruckus raised after she blacked out "McCain" on her sun visor in an effort to elude paparazzi.
After the former Alaska governor was photographed on the beach earlier this week, TMZ.com portrayed the visor marking as a slight of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), her running mate last year.
Palin, in the midst of a book tour for her million-selling "Going Rogue," released this statement:
"...Todd and I have since cut our vacation short because the incognito attempts didn't work and fellow vacationers were bothered for the two days we spent in the sun. So much for trying to go incognito."
She gets her name in the papers -- completely accidentally! no, really! -- and so she has no choice but to ... get her name in the papers again, by declaring that she's upset about getting her name in the papers! Gosh, she just can't win, can she?
EXTREMISM IN THE DEFENSE OF DISINFORMATION IS, APPARENTLY, NO VICE
Weep for your country, folks:
WSJ/NBC News Poll: Tea Party Tops Democrats and Republicans
The loosely organized group made of up mostly conservative activists and independent voters that's come to be known as the Tea Party movement currently boasts higher favorability ratings than either the Democratic or Republican Parties, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll coming out later today.
More than four in 10, 41%, of respondents said they had a very or somewhat favorable view of the Tea Party movement, while 24% said they had a somewhat or very negative view of the group....
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party... has a 35% positive rating compared with a 45% negative rating.
... Republicans currently hold a 28% favorability rating compared with a 43% negative one.
To some extent, this fills me with despair. On the other hand, things suck in this country right now, and even if the teabaggers have all the wrong solutions, and the movement is just a big hydra-headed Judas goat leading its followers right back intro the arms of exactly the same GOP that spent most of the decade making things suck (as well as the corporate interests who've never ceded their power to make things suck), at least the 'baggers seem to understand that things suck, and have sucked for a while, and that they suck largely because people in power have contempt for ordinary citizens. That impression of the 'baggers is utterly fake -- they don't represent people power at all, unless by "people" you mean people such as Dick Armey -- but I guess, in a desperate time like this, it's understandable that poll respondents like what they think they're seeing and hearing.
It's why I have no patience for the conclusion of Jonathan Cohn's hand-wringing denunciation of the liberal kill-the-individual-mandate movement:
I'm all for a loud, angry left. If nothing else, we need it to balance out the loud, angry right. But there's a fine line between being constructive and destructive. This latest gambit, I think, crosses it.
Even if you don't agree with this course of action, just pushing the debate to the left is destructive? After it's been dragged so far to the right by so many forces for so many months? Jesus Christ -- it's an argument, not a freaking gun pointed at someone's head. Even if it's an argument for what you believe is a reckless and irresponsible course of action, let's at least talk about it. Or do you mean, Jon, that you're " all for a loud, angry left" unless that loud, angry left actually succeeds in making non-right-wing people loud and angry, at which point it upsets you and you want it to just sit quietly and be nice?
Weep for your country, folks:
WSJ/NBC News Poll: Tea Party Tops Democrats and Republicans
The loosely organized group made of up mostly conservative activists and independent voters that's come to be known as the Tea Party movement currently boasts higher favorability ratings than either the Democratic or Republican Parties, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll coming out later today.
More than four in 10, 41%, of respondents said they had a very or somewhat favorable view of the Tea Party movement, while 24% said they had a somewhat or very negative view of the group....
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party... has a 35% positive rating compared with a 45% negative rating.
... Republicans currently hold a 28% favorability rating compared with a 43% negative one.
To some extent, this fills me with despair. On the other hand, things suck in this country right now, and even if the teabaggers have all the wrong solutions, and the movement is just a big hydra-headed Judas goat leading its followers right back intro the arms of exactly the same GOP that spent most of the decade making things suck (as well as the corporate interests who've never ceded their power to make things suck), at least the 'baggers seem to understand that things suck, and have sucked for a while, and that they suck largely because people in power have contempt for ordinary citizens. That impression of the 'baggers is utterly fake -- they don't represent people power at all, unless by "people" you mean people such as Dick Armey -- but I guess, in a desperate time like this, it's understandable that poll respondents like what they think they're seeing and hearing.
It's why I have no patience for the conclusion of Jonathan Cohn's hand-wringing denunciation of the liberal kill-the-individual-mandate movement:
I'm all for a loud, angry left. If nothing else, we need it to balance out the loud, angry right. But there's a fine line between being constructive and destructive. This latest gambit, I think, crosses it.
Even if you don't agree with this course of action, just pushing the debate to the left is destructive? After it's been dragged so far to the right by so many forces for so many months? Jesus Christ -- it's an argument, not a freaking gun pointed at someone's head. Even if it's an argument for what you believe is a reckless and irresponsible course of action, let's at least talk about it. Or do you mean, Jon, that you're " all for a loud, angry left" unless that loud, angry left actually succeeds in making non-right-wing people loud and angry, at which point it upsets you and you want it to just sit quietly and be nice?
This is what I'm talking about:
I've given up the woulda/shoulda/coulda debate. I think its very, very, very, clear at this point that, as Jane Hamsher argued, we couldn't have gotten a better bill because Obama and Rahm didn't want a better bill. They wanted the Senate Finance Bill, more or less, and they threw the fight and blew the opportunities they did have, such as they were, to get it. The anger that arises from this realization isn't, as Talking Points Memo's letter would have it "primal" as in "emotional" or somehow not rational--the anger is foundational, embedded in very good understanding of just how terrible this capitulation by our President is for us as a country and as a party and as a people.
For the really depressed among us, go read thereisnospoon, and then come back. Did you read it? Because it basically lays it out--from now on it has to be war to the knife with Obama and the corporatist Dems. I'm not recommending leaving the party. And I'm not recommending not voting. We have to do both. But we have to go back to Dean's fifty state strategy--his "get yourself elected dogcatcher" and "member of the school board" strategy. Because there isn't going to be any hero riding in on a wave of popular enthusiasm and actually doing anything for the people. I think Obama has made that abundantly clear. Either he can't, or he won't. Either way the big discussion about who or what Obama really is has to stop--what matters going forward is what we can force him, the Senate, and the House to do for us. And that begins, as thereisnospoon argues, with creating parallel organizations, voices, and propaganda outlets to push our policies until they become inevitable.*
*Steve and I and others have had ongoing discussions about whether "the Democrats" as in the entire party could have done more to shift the public dialogue to make a good public option, or medicare for all, an unstoppable part of this bill. I really believe they could have--they just didn't bother because they didn't want to. Things that they should have done, and could have done for very little money (really, very little all things considered) would be to have sponsored *all through the summer and august* free health clinics around the country, filmed them, passed out voter registration cards, collected names, and put together a pressure group of people without insurance, or with fragile insurance to fight for the bill publicly with their local representatives.
SteveM and I were having this argument somewhere, but I can't find it, about when and how Obama could have used the left to get a better bill. Its not that I thought that Howard Dean was all that, or had any armies or followers, but that the very presence of a strong voice on (as it now turns out, the left) pulls the discussion away from the purely rightist dialogue. It makes a difference whether you have Democrats like Landrieu being forced to fight for the bill against the aggressive left, or whether you have Democrats like Landrieu being courted by the far right. In any event, we know now they didn't use the left to pull the debate left and make Obama's health care reform the "mid point" between socialism and capitalism because they didn't want health care reform to get even that close to a good bill. They preferred to have the battle be between the center and the far right.MSNBC paired Howard Dean with Mary Landrieu on a health care segment last night on Hardball, which had the curious effect of forcing Landrieu -- a red state Dem who's been a hard sell on reform -- to be a staunch advocate of the Senate bill, which Dean wants to see killed for being insufficiently progressive. It made for a very interesting dynamic and compelling TV as a sitting Democratic senator and the previous chair of the DNC hashed it out.
I've given up the woulda/shoulda/coulda debate. I think its very, very, very, clear at this point that, as Jane Hamsher argued, we couldn't have gotten a better bill because Obama and Rahm didn't want a better bill. They wanted the Senate Finance Bill, more or less, and they threw the fight and blew the opportunities they did have, such as they were, to get it. The anger that arises from this realization isn't, as Talking Points Memo's letter would have it "primal" as in "emotional" or somehow not rational--the anger is foundational, embedded in very good understanding of just how terrible this capitulation by our President is for us as a country and as a party and as a people.
For the really depressed among us, go read thereisnospoon, and then come back. Did you read it? Because it basically lays it out--from now on it has to be war to the knife with Obama and the corporatist Dems. I'm not recommending leaving the party. And I'm not recommending not voting. We have to do both. But we have to go back to Dean's fifty state strategy--his "get yourself elected dogcatcher" and "member of the school board" strategy. Because there isn't going to be any hero riding in on a wave of popular enthusiasm and actually doing anything for the people. I think Obama has made that abundantly clear. Either he can't, or he won't. Either way the big discussion about who or what Obama really is has to stop--what matters going forward is what we can force him, the Senate, and the House to do for us. And that begins, as thereisnospoon argues, with creating parallel organizations, voices, and propaganda outlets to push our policies until they become inevitable.*
*Steve and I and others have had ongoing discussions about whether "the Democrats" as in the entire party could have done more to shift the public dialogue to make a good public option, or medicare for all, an unstoppable part of this bill. I really believe they could have--they just didn't bother because they didn't want to. Things that they should have done, and could have done for very little money (really, very little all things considered) would be to have sponsored *all through the summer and august* free health clinics around the country, filmed them, passed out voter registration cards, collected names, and put together a pressure group of people without insurance, or with fragile insurance to fight for the bill publicly with their local representatives.
A MILLION HARDCOVERS SOLD, BUT SHE CAN ONLY AFFORD ONE HAT
Yeah, times are tough and we're all scrimping on pennies -- that must be the explanation for this:
Declaring that she "was honored and proud to run with him," former Alaska governor Sarah Palin pushed back hard Wednesday against a report that she had disrespected Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by blacking out his name on a sun visor she wore on vacation.
The website TMZ accused Palin of "a frontal attack on Sen. John McCain" during a Hawaii vacation this week: "Sarah chose to wear a visor from her campaign -- a visor that was emblazoned with the former presidential candidate's name ... that is, until Palin redacted McCain's name with a black marker."
But Palin said in a statement to POLITICO that she was just trying to "be incognito" -- to go unrecognized and shield her children and husband, Todd, from paparazzi....
Oh, sure, every hotel gift shop in Hawaii will sell you a nondescript visor, but, what with this darn recession and all, you've got to use it up, wear it out, and make it do, right? Especially since Palin et famille are going to have to get by this year on book royalties that are only going to be in the high seven or low eight figures. And, of course, a McCain visor would automatically make everyone think she was part of the campaign, right? Hey, you know how it is -- doesn't everyone with an Obama/Biden bumper sticker get mistaken for the president?
The Note notes the wingnut fad for McCain/Palin bumper stickers with the "McCain" torn off, and says that Doug Hoffman's campaign car in NY-23 this fall bore just such a sticker. So now we know two things: Palin's addiction to attention is leading her to reach desperately for a fix every few days (last week it was the TV appearance with Shatner, next week it'll be God knows), and Palin is going to be tapping teabaggism for material. I'm surprised she wasn't wearing a "blood of tyrants" T-shirt -- y'know, in an incognito fashion.
Yeah, times are tough and we're all scrimping on pennies -- that must be the explanation for this:
Declaring that she "was honored and proud to run with him," former Alaska governor Sarah Palin pushed back hard Wednesday against a report that she had disrespected Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) by blacking out his name on a sun visor she wore on vacation.
The website TMZ accused Palin of "a frontal attack on Sen. John McCain" during a Hawaii vacation this week: "Sarah chose to wear a visor from her campaign -- a visor that was emblazoned with the former presidential candidate's name ... that is, until Palin redacted McCain's name with a black marker."
But Palin said in a statement to POLITICO that she was just trying to "be incognito" -- to go unrecognized and shield her children and husband, Todd, from paparazzi....
Oh, sure, every hotel gift shop in Hawaii will sell you a nondescript visor, but, what with this darn recession and all, you've got to use it up, wear it out, and make it do, right? Especially since Palin et famille are going to have to get by this year on book royalties that are only going to be in the high seven or low eight figures. And, of course, a McCain visor would automatically make everyone think she was part of the campaign, right? Hey, you know how it is -- doesn't everyone with an Obama/Biden bumper sticker get mistaken for the president?
The Note notes the wingnut fad for McCain/Palin bumper stickers with the "McCain" torn off, and says that Doug Hoffman's campaign car in NY-23 this fall bore just such a sticker. So now we know two things: Palin's addiction to attention is leading her to reach desperately for a fix every few days (last week it was the TV appearance with Shatner, next week it'll be God knows), and Palin is going to be tapping teabaggism for material. I'm surprised she wasn't wearing a "blood of tyrants" T-shirt -- y'know, in an incognito fashion.
COMPARE AND (MOSTLY) CONTRAST
Dana Milbank in The Washington Post:
Tea parties -- they aren't just for conservatives anymore.
Liberals are turning against President Obama with an energy that until now has been reserved for Fox News viewers who wear tri-corner hats and wave yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flags:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in a news conference Wednesday, declares that she won't ask House members to support Obama's Afghanistan troop increase in a January vote....
... Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) holds a news conference to denounce Obama's renomination of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke....
Howard Dean goes on the radio and says of the Senate health-care bill, which Obama is fighting mightily to pass: "The best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill." ...
Milbank offers a few more examples (MoveOn vs. Obama's Lieberman capitulation, Alan Grayson vs. the war, John Conyers angry about a lot of things) -- but they still don't amount to much so far. So far it's just a few isolated bits of noise, not really on the radar of anyone except pundits and prime-time MSNBC viewers.
Yeah, I know -- the people attacking the White House from the left are just getting started. Well, the right-wing tea party movement had a pretty fast learning curve -- it's been around for only a few month, and it's frighteningly effective already (although, arguably, it's just the same old Astroturf from lobbyists with years of experience, but with some Alinsky added to the mix).
Here's the left-right difference: the righty teabaggers can get large swaths of America to accept their interpretation of legislation. They say "death panels," much of America believes there's a proposal for death panels. They say Granny will die, many Americans start to believe Granny will die. They scream about deficits, much of America starts to worry about deficits.
If there are going to be lefty teabaggers, they need to be able to move the needle on public opinion. And then, like the teabaggers, they need to be able to get a legislative reaction to their anger.
I don't see that yet, though I guess it's early days for what I guess we could call post-Obama liberalism.
Maybe, in the days and weeks to come, as many Americans will express reservations about the health care bill in lefty-teabagger terms as in righty teabagger terms -- I doubt it, but we'll see.
I see more fertile ground on the economy and the Obama economic team. Come on, folks -- make the reappointment of Bernanke a big deal, for crissake. Milbank writes:
Sanders [called] a news conference ... to explain why he had put a "hold," or a delay of his own, on Obama's renomination of Bernanke. "I am going to do everything I can to see that he is not reappointed," the senator vowed in front of nine television cameras. "I am requesting President Obama give us a new nominee."
In a case of unlucky timing, Time magazine a few hours earlier had named Bernanke its Person of the Year for his role in rescuing the world economy from collapse.
Why is that unlucky timing? Attack the media, lefty 'baggers! That always works for the right, no?
Seriously -- this is the opportunity to create and put forth a liberal narrative with the potential to become America's narrative. And this is the opportunity to throw sand in the gears. Grind the process of reappointing Bernanke to a halt! Be Liebermans! Be Tom Coburns! It shouldn't just be Sanders -- make trouble, make news, get America to grasp the idea that liberalism is not corporatism. America doesn't get that right now, thanks to Obama.
Dana Milbank in The Washington Post:
Tea parties -- they aren't just for conservatives anymore.
Liberals are turning against President Obama with an energy that until now has been reserved for Fox News viewers who wear tri-corner hats and wave yellow "Don't Tread on Me" flags:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in a news conference Wednesday, declares that she won't ask House members to support Obama's Afghanistan troop increase in a January vote....
... Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) holds a news conference to denounce Obama's renomination of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke....
Howard Dean goes on the radio and says of the Senate health-care bill, which Obama is fighting mightily to pass: "The best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill." ...
Milbank offers a few more examples (MoveOn vs. Obama's Lieberman capitulation, Alan Grayson vs. the war, John Conyers angry about a lot of things) -- but they still don't amount to much so far. So far it's just a few isolated bits of noise, not really on the radar of anyone except pundits and prime-time MSNBC viewers.
Yeah, I know -- the people attacking the White House from the left are just getting started. Well, the right-wing tea party movement had a pretty fast learning curve -- it's been around for only a few month, and it's frighteningly effective already (although, arguably, it's just the same old Astroturf from lobbyists with years of experience, but with some Alinsky added to the mix).
Here's the left-right difference: the righty teabaggers can get large swaths of America to accept their interpretation of legislation. They say "death panels," much of America believes there's a proposal for death panels. They say Granny will die, many Americans start to believe Granny will die. They scream about deficits, much of America starts to worry about deficits.
If there are going to be lefty teabaggers, they need to be able to move the needle on public opinion. And then, like the teabaggers, they need to be able to get a legislative reaction to their anger.
I don't see that yet, though I guess it's early days for what I guess we could call post-Obama liberalism.
Maybe, in the days and weeks to come, as many Americans will express reservations about the health care bill in lefty-teabagger terms as in righty teabagger terms -- I doubt it, but we'll see.
I see more fertile ground on the economy and the Obama economic team. Come on, folks -- make the reappointment of Bernanke a big deal, for crissake. Milbank writes:
Sanders [called] a news conference ... to explain why he had put a "hold," or a delay of his own, on Obama's renomination of Bernanke. "I am going to do everything I can to see that he is not reappointed," the senator vowed in front of nine television cameras. "I am requesting President Obama give us a new nominee."
In a case of unlucky timing, Time magazine a few hours earlier had named Bernanke its Person of the Year for his role in rescuing the world economy from collapse.
Why is that unlucky timing? Attack the media, lefty 'baggers! That always works for the right, no?
Seriously -- this is the opportunity to create and put forth a liberal narrative with the potential to become America's narrative. And this is the opportunity to throw sand in the gears. Grind the process of reappointing Bernanke to a halt! Be Liebermans! Be Tom Coburns! It shouldn't just be Sanders -- make trouble, make news, get America to grasp the idea that liberalism is not corporatism. America doesn't get that right now, thanks to Obama.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
IN THE SPIRIT OF THE SEASON
Talking Points Memo:
In Delaying Health Care GOP Wants To Force August Repeat Over Holiday Break
August was bad for Democrats, and Republicans aiming to delay the Senate health care bill until after Christmas hope the holiday break will be even worse.
TPMDC checked in with Republican sources and some Democrats who say lawmakers could face the cold shoulder at best or angry constituents reminiscent of the summer town halls at worst if they leave town without voting on the bill.
That's exactly what the GOP is aiming for - a dual win of headline-grabbing theater and delay - in the latest effort to read Sen. Bernie Sanders' amendment for single-payer health care (which has no chance of passing) word-for-word on the Senate floor....
So Merry Christmas, America! Peace on earth, goodwill toward men!
Talking Points Memo:
In Delaying Health Care GOP Wants To Force August Repeat Over Holiday Break
August was bad for Democrats, and Republicans aiming to delay the Senate health care bill until after Christmas hope the holiday break will be even worse.
TPMDC checked in with Republican sources and some Democrats who say lawmakers could face the cold shoulder at best or angry constituents reminiscent of the summer town halls at worst if they leave town without voting on the bill.
That's exactly what the GOP is aiming for - a dual win of headline-grabbing theater and delay - in the latest effort to read Sen. Bernie Sanders' amendment for single-payer health care (which has no chance of passing) word-for-word on the Senate floor....
So Merry Christmas, America! Peace on earth, goodwill toward men!
THEY'VE GOT THE GUNS BUT WE'VE GOT THE ... WELL, I GUESS WE'RE ALSO A TAD SHORT ON THE NUMBERS, AREN'T WE?
I think John Neffinger is on the right track with his Huffington Post piece "Why We Lost Healthcare":
One of the most telling tales in politics is the one about the progressive activist who got a meeting with FDR to explain his great new policy idea.
As the story goes, FDR heard the fellow out, and then told him: "I agree with you, I want do do it... Now make me do it."
... on health insurance reform, Obama told progressives the exact opposite: "Don't make me do it. I'll handle this. Trust me."
... By abandoning Medicare-for-all approach at the outset and instead strongly advocating the public option compromise, progressives made the public option appear to be a radical left position.... in the end, conservative Democratic Senators (as well as Senator Lieberman) did not support the public option exactly because progressives had so noisily supported it. Conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson felt it was important politically for their relatively conservative constituents to see that they did not support the liberal position....
I don't think Obama could have gotten a very, very progressive bill through Congress, or past an American public that still hasn't really abandoned Reaganite thinking, but I think he might have been able to get a fairly good bill (much better than whatever could still pass, if anything still can) if he'd had a Bad Left-Wing Cop as a foil for his Good Left-Centrist Cop. (Early today, Aimai said something similar, but I have some disagreements with her -- see below.)
I'll note that it's not clear that FDR ever actually said "Now make me do it" -- he's reported to have said it to A. Philip Randolph, the civil rights leader, though the story doesn't come up in Randolph biographies, and FDR was notably weak on civil rights. Nevertheless, it's a good story.
This is a good yarn, too:
...As that story goes, not long after Clinton's health care reform proposal went down to defeat in the Senate, Bill ran into Bernie [Sanders, then a Vermont congressman], and Bernie approached him gravely and said "Mr. President, I am so sorry. I failed you on health care."
... "What do you mean, Bernie?" asked Clinton. "You were with me every step of the way!"
"Exactly," said Sanders. "I should have been burning you in effigy on the steps of the Capitol. Then people would have understood how moderate your plan really was."
And I agree -- that's close to what was needed.
But it wouldn't have been enough. Having a left-leaning member of Congress or two to the president's left isn't sufficient. (Aimai thinks Obama should have used Howard Dean as a foil. I don't think he and Anthony Weiner and a handful of other pols and ex-pols would have been nearly enough.) What was needed -- and, yes, I say this all the time -- was a movement to Obama's left on health care, a large number of people supporting a far more progressive plan than was politically feasible.
But (and I say this all the time, too) we don't have a large progressive bloc in this country. We need a bigger progressive bloc. I'll say it again: we need to make more liberals.
Could Obama, as Aimai says, have "whip[ped] up popular anger" and "create[d] a groundswell for major progressive reform"? I don't see it -- not in a still-quite-Reaganite country, not even with his rhetorical gifts. (He had a huge volunteer army in '08, but I think it's far from certain that they would have all agreed on this approach.) And even if he could, he'd be the scary radical with the scary radical plan -- he'd be the Bad Left Cop and it would be up to (probably) the Blue Dogs to play the Good Cops, and we'd be pretty much where we are now.
We needed to be to Obama's left -- and we never were in sufficient numbers and with sufficient force.
Which leads me to something else Neffinger says:
... As dispiriting as where this leaves us on healthcare is what it portends for the future. After this endgame, ... these jokers will be emboldened to be even more stubborn in legislative fights to come. Next up we have Wall Street reform, a desperately needed jobs bill, and even more desperately needed energy bill and the reliably contentious issue of immigration reform. What are the chances of passing any decent bill on any of those issues in the wake of this historic cave-in?
Well, yeah. But I say if you have no reasonable chance of success in a huge political fight, don't take that fight on. Pull back and hunker down. Play small ball for a while. Because every huge fight you lose makes you look weaker -- and thus makes the next big fight even less winnable. Every failure discredits the party and the liberalism with which it's (rightly or wrongly) associated.
For the love of God, don't do immigration next year. Talk about third rails in American politics -- hell, Bush, Saint McCain, the business community, and a Democratic Congress combined couldn't get this done. (There are a lot of ordinary people in favor of immigration reform, but they're, y'know, brown, so the rest of America feels free to ignore them.) And I'd put off cap-and-trade, at least until the pro-science community gets a pulse and learns how to mount a serious pushback against denialism.
But Wall Street reform and jobs? Mr. President, you have a huge crowd calling for blood out there. On Wall Street, a bit of the rhetoric from the Paulist right is almost identical to the rhetoric on the left.
Use the anger to get something good. Tell the fat cats that if there's a double dip and another round of bailouts is needed, you're going to agree with the teabaggers and say "No bailouts this time." Tell them, "Look, if I'm going down, if Main Street America is going down, this time you're going with us."
I know this is never going to happen. But it should.
I think John Neffinger is on the right track with his Huffington Post piece "Why We Lost Healthcare":
One of the most telling tales in politics is the one about the progressive activist who got a meeting with FDR to explain his great new policy idea.
As the story goes, FDR heard the fellow out, and then told him: "I agree with you, I want do do it... Now make me do it."
... on health insurance reform, Obama told progressives the exact opposite: "Don't make me do it. I'll handle this. Trust me."
... By abandoning Medicare-for-all approach at the outset and instead strongly advocating the public option compromise, progressives made the public option appear to be a radical left position.... in the end, conservative Democratic Senators (as well as Senator Lieberman) did not support the public option exactly because progressives had so noisily supported it. Conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson felt it was important politically for their relatively conservative constituents to see that they did not support the liberal position....
I don't think Obama could have gotten a very, very progressive bill through Congress, or past an American public that still hasn't really abandoned Reaganite thinking, but I think he might have been able to get a fairly good bill (much better than whatever could still pass, if anything still can) if he'd had a Bad Left-Wing Cop as a foil for his Good Left-Centrist Cop. (Early today, Aimai said something similar, but I have some disagreements with her -- see below.)
I'll note that it's not clear that FDR ever actually said "Now make me do it" -- he's reported to have said it to A. Philip Randolph, the civil rights leader, though the story doesn't come up in Randolph biographies, and FDR was notably weak on civil rights. Nevertheless, it's a good story.
This is a good yarn, too:
...As that story goes, not long after Clinton's health care reform proposal went down to defeat in the Senate, Bill ran into Bernie [Sanders, then a Vermont congressman], and Bernie approached him gravely and said "Mr. President, I am so sorry. I failed you on health care."
... "What do you mean, Bernie?" asked Clinton. "You were with me every step of the way!"
"Exactly," said Sanders. "I should have been burning you in effigy on the steps of the Capitol. Then people would have understood how moderate your plan really was."
And I agree -- that's close to what was needed.
But it wouldn't have been enough. Having a left-leaning member of Congress or two to the president's left isn't sufficient. (Aimai thinks Obama should have used Howard Dean as a foil. I don't think he and Anthony Weiner and a handful of other pols and ex-pols would have been nearly enough.) What was needed -- and, yes, I say this all the time -- was a movement to Obama's left on health care, a large number of people supporting a far more progressive plan than was politically feasible.
But (and I say this all the time, too) we don't have a large progressive bloc in this country. We need a bigger progressive bloc. I'll say it again: we need to make more liberals.
Could Obama, as Aimai says, have "whip[ped] up popular anger" and "create[d] a groundswell for major progressive reform"? I don't see it -- not in a still-quite-Reaganite country, not even with his rhetorical gifts. (He had a huge volunteer army in '08, but I think it's far from certain that they would have all agreed on this approach.) And even if he could, he'd be the scary radical with the scary radical plan -- he'd be the Bad Left Cop and it would be up to (probably) the Blue Dogs to play the Good Cops, and we'd be pretty much where we are now.
We needed to be to Obama's left -- and we never were in sufficient numbers and with sufficient force.
Which leads me to something else Neffinger says:
... As dispiriting as where this leaves us on healthcare is what it portends for the future. After this endgame, ... these jokers will be emboldened to be even more stubborn in legislative fights to come. Next up we have Wall Street reform, a desperately needed jobs bill, and even more desperately needed energy bill and the reliably contentious issue of immigration reform. What are the chances of passing any decent bill on any of those issues in the wake of this historic cave-in?
Well, yeah. But I say if you have no reasonable chance of success in a huge political fight, don't take that fight on. Pull back and hunker down. Play small ball for a while. Because every huge fight you lose makes you look weaker -- and thus makes the next big fight even less winnable. Every failure discredits the party and the liberalism with which it's (rightly or wrongly) associated.
For the love of God, don't do immigration next year. Talk about third rails in American politics -- hell, Bush, Saint McCain, the business community, and a Democratic Congress combined couldn't get this done. (There are a lot of ordinary people in favor of immigration reform, but they're, y'know, brown, so the rest of America feels free to ignore them.) And I'd put off cap-and-trade, at least until the pro-science community gets a pulse and learns how to mount a serious pushback against denialism.
But Wall Street reform and jobs? Mr. President, you have a huge crowd calling for blood out there. On Wall Street, a bit of the rhetoric from the Paulist right is almost identical to the rhetoric on the left.
Use the anger to get something good. Tell the fat cats that if there's a double dip and another round of bailouts is needed, you're going to agree with the teabaggers and say "No bailouts this time." Tell them, "Look, if I'm going down, if Main Street America is going down, this time you're going with us."
I know this is never going to happen. But it should.
The Greatest Ethnography of American Guyness as Performance of All Time.**
Well, maybe not. But I saw it yesterday for the first time and I was truly in awe. Clint Eastwood tries to teach a young Hmong kid how to "man up" and interact with older white guys. The point of the scene is that Eastwood is sure that manliness is a set of specific traits that can easily be learned and imitated: be aggressive, talk obscenely, don't be afraid of racial epithets, shake hands with a firm grip, look people in the eyes, have a pair of work gloves... But he quickly discovers that there are all kinds of hidden rules that he, himself, was unaware of. Actually, the age, race, history of the relationship, and formalities of the interaction matter quite a bit. When the kid tries to do as he's told and say the right words, he gets it wrong. Then Eastwood and his "Italian Prick Barber" have to figure out, for the first time, what the unspoken rules of engagement are. They have to back up out of their own unexplored relationship and examine it. It turns out that instead of being merely casually obscene *to* a stranger you should break the ice by being casually obscene about "people not in the room" that the stranger may also dislike.
In the next scene in the movie Thao tries out his new skill during an interview for a job and successfully deflects questions about himself ("you don't have a car?") into a friendly discussion of the evils ofcar repair guys who have "fucked him" over an (imaginary) "busted gasket." Without even knowing why, the new boss happily joins in the round robin of complaints about evil car dealers, goes from suspicious to friendly, and offers Thao the job. He completes the interview by shaking his new boss's hand hard, and looking him in the eye (things we've already been told the Hmong don't like to do.)
**Since the scene in The Birdcage when Robin Williams has to teach Nathan Lane to walk like a man.
Well, maybe not. But I saw it yesterday for the first time and I was truly in awe. Clint Eastwood tries to teach a young Hmong kid how to "man up" and interact with older white guys. The point of the scene is that Eastwood is sure that manliness is a set of specific traits that can easily be learned and imitated: be aggressive, talk obscenely, don't be afraid of racial epithets, shake hands with a firm grip, look people in the eyes, have a pair of work gloves... But he quickly discovers that there are all kinds of hidden rules that he, himself, was unaware of. Actually, the age, race, history of the relationship, and formalities of the interaction matter quite a bit. When the kid tries to do as he's told and say the right words, he gets it wrong. Then Eastwood and his "Italian Prick Barber" have to figure out, for the first time, what the unspoken rules of engagement are. They have to back up out of their own unexplored relationship and examine it. It turns out that instead of being merely casually obscene *to* a stranger you should break the ice by being casually obscene about "people not in the room" that the stranger may also dislike.
In the next scene in the movie Thao tries out his new skill during an interview for a job and successfully deflects questions about himself ("you don't have a car?") into a friendly discussion of the evils ofcar repair guys who have "fucked him" over an (imaginary) "busted gasket." Without even knowing why, the new boss happily joins in the round robin of complaints about evil car dealers, goes from suspicious to friendly, and offers Thao the job. He completes the interview by shaking his new boss's hand hard, and looking him in the eye (things we've already been told the Hmong don't like to do.)
**Since the scene in The Birdcage when Robin Williams has to teach Nathan Lane to walk like a man.
Negotiation 101.
Its too late to say this, but it bears repeating: we are where we are on Health Care Reform because the White House doesn't understand how negotiations work. They wanted the backing of Pharma and of the Insurance Companies during the next election cycle. They wanted that money, in other words, to run Democratic candidates and they didn't want that money going to Republican candidates. In addition, they wanted some of that corporate money to go into advertising to actually support the bill as it came time to get the votes. So Obama and Rahm thought they could use Corporate money to do the work that the grassroots could have done, and would have done, for free.
That wasn't a stupid decision. In fact, it might have been quite clever. But in order to get the deal they wound up losing their political shirts because they worked backwards. As far as we know they agreed to use Congress and the Bill Making process as a bargaining chip to be bargained *away* instead of as a threat to induce compliance. What I mean is that they offered to squelch real reform--drug reimportation, the public option, etc...etc...etc... in return for a promise of funds to be disbursed later instead of pushing for the most drastically radical bill they could get and then backing off it. Similarly, Obama and Rahm preferred to keep the grassroots quiet as a gift to the deal making process, instead of using populism as a tool to force the best bargain. Instead of activating their own voters and pressuring Pharmaetc with popular rage and populist demands O and R told the most progressive members of the coalition--MoveOn for example and the Unions, to keep their mouths shut.
This violated what I'm sure are well known rules of bargaining--I myself only know what I picked up bargaining for rugs in a Nepali bazaar.* If I'd been Rahm and Obama I would have done things in exactly the opposite fashion: whip up popular anger, create a groundswell for major progressive reform, and *then* go to individual Senators and the Pharmaetc... and say:
And then, instead of putting all those things off the table, as Obama did, and squelching progressive amendments and moves in the House, as Rahm did, Obama and Rahm should have gone to the Blue Dogs and insisted on party loyalty on the best, most progressive, health care bill imaginable. At that point they could have gone back to Pharmaetc and offered to shave off a little here or there.
The same is true for the way the White House handled individual Senators. If the Manager's Bill that Reid put forward had been ten times stronger when Lieberman and Nelson kicked up their hissy fits there would have been tons of fat to trim. As it is the Bill doesn't contain enough liberal goodies for any shaving of the edges to be less than harmful.
Enter Howard Dean, Reconciliation, and the Public Option/Medicare Buy In. In an ideal world the White House would recognize that having Howard Dean out there demanding the bill be killed is good for negotiations with Lieberman and Nelson. Why? Because Lieberman and Nelson either want to kill the bill (in which case they will do it anyway, regardless of Dean) or they want to vote for the bill after gutting it and represent themselves as saviors--in which case every time Dean and the House act like they are the deciders and not Lieberman or Nelson L and N will move closer to an accommodation. This is why Progressives begged Reid not to take Reconciliation off the table at the start. Reconciliation, which removes Lieberman's pivotal position, should always have been kept as the stick to render Lieberman's filibuster meaningless. So when Howard Dean and the Progressives say they won't support the bill you don't say "they are irrelevant"--you say "Oh, this is terrible! We won't be able to restrain our wild eyed left wing flank. What can you, Lieberman and Pharma and the Insurance Companies do to buy them off and make them accept this bill with its mandates and 30 million new customers?"
I have no objection to Obama running against us DFH's, in Digby's felicitious term. That's what he would do if he wanted to get to a seriously progressive Health Care Reform Act. Because only when he can say to Pharmaetc, also known as Joe Lieberman's masters, that Obamacare is the only bulwark between them and the pitchforks can he get a good bill. Needless to say the same went double for the bailouts--I have no problem bailing out the banks but it ought always to have been done with the understanding that regulation would be the price the bankers would have to pay for not being strung up by their guts on the nearest lamp post.
Here endeth the lesson.
aimai
*For instance, if you want a small blue rug go into the shop and ask to see all the red rugs with green backgrounds, in large size. After they've shown you fifty of those rugs, each of which is not perfect, let them start showing you others until they get down to the one that is farthest in style and color from where you started, and they are completely demoralized and desperate to make the sale. During this time the price will have been dropping, and they will have become more and more invested in selling you something. Finally, just before you walk out, as a gesture of pity, allow them to sell you the rug you wanted in the first place, at the lowest price. It will be the lowest price because, as you will have pointed out to them, its not what you really wanted, its the wrong size and color, and you feel bad about wasting their time otherwise.
Its too late to say this, but it bears repeating: we are where we are on Health Care Reform because the White House doesn't understand how negotiations work. They wanted the backing of Pharma and of the Insurance Companies during the next election cycle. They wanted that money, in other words, to run Democratic candidates and they didn't want that money going to Republican candidates. In addition, they wanted some of that corporate money to go into advertising to actually support the bill as it came time to get the votes. So Obama and Rahm thought they could use Corporate money to do the work that the grassroots could have done, and would have done, for free.
That wasn't a stupid decision. In fact, it might have been quite clever. But in order to get the deal they wound up losing their political shirts because they worked backwards. As far as we know they agreed to use Congress and the Bill Making process as a bargaining chip to be bargained *away* instead of as a threat to induce compliance. What I mean is that they offered to squelch real reform--drug reimportation, the public option, etc...etc...etc... in return for a promise of funds to be disbursed later instead of pushing for the most drastically radical bill they could get and then backing off it. Similarly, Obama and Rahm preferred to keep the grassroots quiet as a gift to the deal making process, instead of using populism as a tool to force the best bargain. Instead of activating their own voters and pressuring Pharmaetc with popular rage and populist demands O and R told the most progressive members of the coalition--MoveOn for example and the Unions, to keep their mouths shut.
This violated what I'm sure are well known rules of bargaining--I myself only know what I picked up bargaining for rugs in a Nepali bazaar.* If I'd been Rahm and Obama I would have done things in exactly the opposite fashion: whip up popular anger, create a groundswell for major progressive reform, and *then* go to individual Senators and the Pharmaetc... and say:
"I don't think we can restrain the House and the Senate from going all out and demanding Single Payer and a cap on Drug prices. Its going to happen unless you back a very strong but slightly less perfectly liberal bill. And I mean back it. To the hilt. All your bought and paid for Senators are going to have to toe the party line on this or its going to be much, much, much worse than you can imagine."
And then, instead of putting all those things off the table, as Obama did, and squelching progressive amendments and moves in the House, as Rahm did, Obama and Rahm should have gone to the Blue Dogs and insisted on party loyalty on the best, most progressive, health care bill imaginable. At that point they could have gone back to Pharmaetc and offered to shave off a little here or there.
The same is true for the way the White House handled individual Senators. If the Manager's Bill that Reid put forward had been ten times stronger when Lieberman and Nelson kicked up their hissy fits there would have been tons of fat to trim. As it is the Bill doesn't contain enough liberal goodies for any shaving of the edges to be less than harmful.
Enter Howard Dean, Reconciliation, and the Public Option/Medicare Buy In. In an ideal world the White House would recognize that having Howard Dean out there demanding the bill be killed is good for negotiations with Lieberman and Nelson. Why? Because Lieberman and Nelson either want to kill the bill (in which case they will do it anyway, regardless of Dean) or they want to vote for the bill after gutting it and represent themselves as saviors--in which case every time Dean and the House act like they are the deciders and not Lieberman or Nelson L and N will move closer to an accommodation. This is why Progressives begged Reid not to take Reconciliation off the table at the start. Reconciliation, which removes Lieberman's pivotal position, should always have been kept as the stick to render Lieberman's filibuster meaningless. So when Howard Dean and the Progressives say they won't support the bill you don't say "they are irrelevant"--you say "Oh, this is terrible! We won't be able to restrain our wild eyed left wing flank. What can you, Lieberman and Pharma and the Insurance Companies do to buy them off and make them accept this bill with its mandates and 30 million new customers?"
I have no objection to Obama running against us DFH's, in Digby's felicitious term. That's what he would do if he wanted to get to a seriously progressive Health Care Reform Act. Because only when he can say to Pharmaetc, also known as Joe Lieberman's masters, that Obamacare is the only bulwark between them and the pitchforks can he get a good bill. Needless to say the same went double for the bailouts--I have no problem bailing out the banks but it ought always to have been done with the understanding that regulation would be the price the bankers would have to pay for not being strung up by their guts on the nearest lamp post.
Here endeth the lesson.
aimai
*For instance, if you want a small blue rug go into the shop and ask to see all the red rugs with green backgrounds, in large size. After they've shown you fifty of those rugs, each of which is not perfect, let them start showing you others until they get down to the one that is farthest in style and color from where you started, and they are completely demoralized and desperate to make the sale. During this time the price will have been dropping, and they will have become more and more invested in selling you something. Finally, just before you walk out, as a gesture of pity, allow them to sell you the rug you wanted in the first place, at the lowest price. It will be the lowest price because, as you will have pointed out to them, its not what you really wanted, its the wrong size and color, and you feel bad about wasting their time otherwise.
OH, TEABAGGERS, WHERE'S YOUR POLITICAL PURITY NOW?
CNN:
Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat who sits with Democratic caucus, said Tuesday that he would not rule out running for re-election in 2012 as a Republican.
..."I like being an independent, so that's definitely a possibility," the Connecticut senator said. "But I'd say all options are open."
He called running as a Republican "unlikely" but added that he wouldn't "foreclose any possibility." ...
Some of us would argue that the Republican Party already allowed Lieberman to run as the de facto GOP candidate in 2006, as the nominal Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, took a dive by barely campaigning, while Lieberman practically lived on the GOP's house organs, Fox News and talk radio.
But it's different in the GOP now. Angry voices are demanding purity of Republican politicians. Lieberman is pro-choice! Lieberman supports gay rights! Lieberman thinks climate change is an actual problem!
Won't he have to be brutally purged? Won't he be facing a well-financed primary challenge from an angry tea party candidate?
Nahhh. If he wants to run as a Republican, he'll be in the clear. He'll be exempt from any tea party purge. Why? Because he pisses us off. Because we hate him. That's what's important to the angry right -- not issues, not the totality of one's political philosophy. What's important is infuriating and thwarting us. Lieberman's a master at that, so he won't be Dede Scozzafava or Charlie Crist. He'll be spared.
CNN:
Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat who sits with Democratic caucus, said Tuesday that he would not rule out running for re-election in 2012 as a Republican.
..."I like being an independent, so that's definitely a possibility," the Connecticut senator said. "But I'd say all options are open."
He called running as a Republican "unlikely" but added that he wouldn't "foreclose any possibility." ...
Some of us would argue that the Republican Party already allowed Lieberman to run as the de facto GOP candidate in 2006, as the nominal Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, took a dive by barely campaigning, while Lieberman practically lived on the GOP's house organs, Fox News and talk radio.
But it's different in the GOP now. Angry voices are demanding purity of Republican politicians. Lieberman is pro-choice! Lieberman supports gay rights! Lieberman thinks climate change is an actual problem!
Won't he have to be brutally purged? Won't he be facing a well-financed primary challenge from an angry tea party candidate?
Nahhh. If he wants to run as a Republican, he'll be in the clear. He'll be exempt from any tea party purge. Why? Because he pisses us off. Because we hate him. That's what's important to the angry right -- not issues, not the totality of one's political philosophy. What's important is infuriating and thwarting us. Lieberman's a master at that, so he won't be Dede Scozzafava or Charlie Crist. He'll be spared.
Teachable Moment.
In theory I agree with Howard Dean that the bill should be killed. That's not because I loved the "Public Option" as it was configured in the House Bill or, for five seconds in the Senate Bill. And its not because I loved dropping Medicare down to 55--although I thought that was a good start on things. I think the bill should be killed because Obama and Rahm and Reid made such huge, tactical, errors and such gargantuan errors in judgement that they will be unable to do anything else if they don't learn their lesson now. The errors, which have been pretty well discussed throughout the bloggosphere, include:
Failure to assume a strong bargaining position from the beginning.
Failure to work closely with natural allies on the center/left.
Failure to activate the grass roots and the actual voters.
Failure to correctly "sell the bill" through the use of propaganda, bathos, sarcasm, and imagery.
Failure to demonize (portions) of the opposition in order to force (portions) to compromise--that would be Snowe and Collins.
Failure to eliminate or sideline opposition like Lieberman before the start.
Failure to neuter or muzzle internal opposition like Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln and Baucus until very late in the game.
Failure to control Baucus and the timeline
Failure to force Senators to negotiate in good faith--no one who did not commit to vote for cloture should have been permitted to enter into any negotiations, private or public, or permitted to offer amendments (to other than shouts of derision.)
Failure to reward Senators who acted in good faith--that is, Senators who accepted Reid's pleas to cut back on their own amendments were not rewarded in any way when negotiations broke down.
On the other hand, I also think this may be a teachable moment for the Progressives and for Obama and Rahm. I think the Progressives should go to the White House and say "we will stick with you and the bill on several conditions."
One: remove the mandates.
Two: agree to force the good parts of the bill through reconciliation before 2010 is out.
Three: take a fucking class in negotiations.
Four: Reid and the Dems have to blow up the filibuster, immediately if possible, when the new Senate rules are hammered out in 2010 if necessary.
Five: Lieberman takes punishment. As soon as the vote is finalizes Lieberman is stripped of his chairmanship, stripped of his seniority, dumped into a coatroom for his offices, and he is not permitted to offer any legislation with a Democratic sponsor--no matter how good the legislation.
As long as the Democrats think Lieberman is indispensable for something they will continue to cater to him and that is inherently destructive of good government since Lieberman is, in fact, opposed to good government. I'm all for the results and I'd never say this if Lieberman could be shown to be trustworthy on any individual thing--like Cloture--but that ship has sailed.
Six: Nelson, too, takes punishment. Whatever it is, it should be harsh. Party discipline on major initiatives must be maintained.
I think, on balance, the Bill needs to go through, flawed though it is. But the notion that it goes through and we can "build on it" is a fantasy--Obama won't build on it if he doesn't have to. If the Democrats--the real ones--in the House and the Senate are to go to bat to preserve this flawed, botched bill they must demand something in exchange. Everyone else got their slice of the pie. Its the progressives' turn. Lieberman has shown them the way: the more you demand, and at a pivotal time, the more you get. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The progressives should go to the President and demand all the concessions they can get in exchange for their support for the bill. And the biggest concession of all is, to my mind, that he should fire Rahm and hire someone who actually knows what he's doing.
aimai
In theory I agree with Howard Dean that the bill should be killed. That's not because I loved the "Public Option" as it was configured in the House Bill or, for five seconds in the Senate Bill. And its not because I loved dropping Medicare down to 55--although I thought that was a good start on things. I think the bill should be killed because Obama and Rahm and Reid made such huge, tactical, errors and such gargantuan errors in judgement that they will be unable to do anything else if they don't learn their lesson now. The errors, which have been pretty well discussed throughout the bloggosphere, include:
Failure to assume a strong bargaining position from the beginning.
Failure to work closely with natural allies on the center/left.
Failure to activate the grass roots and the actual voters.
Failure to correctly "sell the bill" through the use of propaganda, bathos, sarcasm, and imagery.
Failure to demonize (portions) of the opposition in order to force (portions) to compromise--that would be Snowe and Collins.
Failure to eliminate or sideline opposition like Lieberman before the start.
Failure to neuter or muzzle internal opposition like Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln and Baucus until very late in the game.
Failure to control Baucus and the timeline
Failure to force Senators to negotiate in good faith--no one who did not commit to vote for cloture should have been permitted to enter into any negotiations, private or public, or permitted to offer amendments (to other than shouts of derision.)
Failure to reward Senators who acted in good faith--that is, Senators who accepted Reid's pleas to cut back on their own amendments were not rewarded in any way when negotiations broke down.
On the other hand, I also think this may be a teachable moment for the Progressives and for Obama and Rahm. I think the Progressives should go to the White House and say "we will stick with you and the bill on several conditions."
One: remove the mandates.
Two: agree to force the good parts of the bill through reconciliation before 2010 is out.
Three: take a fucking class in negotiations.
Four: Reid and the Dems have to blow up the filibuster, immediately if possible, when the new Senate rules are hammered out in 2010 if necessary.
Five: Lieberman takes punishment. As soon as the vote is finalizes Lieberman is stripped of his chairmanship, stripped of his seniority, dumped into a coatroom for his offices, and he is not permitted to offer any legislation with a Democratic sponsor--no matter how good the legislation.
As long as the Democrats think Lieberman is indispensable for something they will continue to cater to him and that is inherently destructive of good government since Lieberman is, in fact, opposed to good government. I'm all for the results and I'd never say this if Lieberman could be shown to be trustworthy on any individual thing--like Cloture--but that ship has sailed.
Six: Nelson, too, takes punishment. Whatever it is, it should be harsh. Party discipline on major initiatives must be maintained.
I think, on balance, the Bill needs to go through, flawed though it is. But the notion that it goes through and we can "build on it" is a fantasy--Obama won't build on it if he doesn't have to. If the Democrats--the real ones--in the House and the Senate are to go to bat to preserve this flawed, botched bill they must demand something in exchange. Everyone else got their slice of the pie. Its the progressives' turn. Lieberman has shown them the way: the more you demand, and at a pivotal time, the more you get. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The progressives should go to the President and demand all the concessions they can get in exchange for their support for the bill. And the biggest concession of all is, to my mind, that he should fire Rahm and hire someone who actually knows what he's doing.
aimai
TIME, HUNTING WHERE THE DUCKS ARE
Ben Bernanke is Time's Person of the Year. I haven't read the cover story, but I don't think we should be surprised or angry at the choice -- in hindsight it seems inevitable.
It's a crummy economy. Media giants are hurting. Who has money? Who would have the wherewithal to buy stuff advertised alongside the end-of-the-year Time content? The financial crowd, obviously. So Time chose a financial guy. It's simple economic common sense.
If any of the rest of us ever get jobs or raises again, Time will pick someone we admire for this honor in the future. But for 2009, this was a perfectly understandable business decision.
Ben Bernanke is Time's Person of the Year. I haven't read the cover story, but I don't think we should be surprised or angry at the choice -- in hindsight it seems inevitable.
It's a crummy economy. Media giants are hurting. Who has money? Who would have the wherewithal to buy stuff advertised alongside the end-of-the-year Time content? The financial crowd, obviously. So Time chose a financial guy. It's simple economic common sense.
If any of the rest of us ever get jobs or raises again, Time will pick someone we admire for this honor in the future. But for 2009, this was a perfectly understandable business decision.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A QUO EVEN WITHOUT THE QUID
From Charles Gasparino's New York Post story about President Obama's meeting with top bank CEOs:
...Yes, White House spinmeisters advertised the gathering as a chance for Obama to channel the public's disgust over Wall Street's celebrating while Main Street still suffers 10 percent unemployment, thanks largely to Wall Street's bungling. But that's not what he did.
... Said one CEO who attended: "I expected to be taken to the woodshed, but the tone was quite the opposite."
Said another senior exec with knowledge of the meeting: "The whole thing was so telegraphed that not much was accomplished, other than giving Obama a PR stunt ... He might have sounded mean on '60 Minutes,' but during the meeting he was a hell of a lot nicer."
Maybe Obama's softened tone was recognition of Wall Street's election help. Campaign-finance filings show that firms like Goldman ... favored Obama over John McCain by a fairly wide margin. Nearly all the major Wall Street CEOs -- including Dimon, Blankfein and Mack -- have told people that they voted for Obama....
Yeah, I'm sure he's grateful for the money and the votes. But he would have been like that even if he weren't grateful.
Do Republicans ever do anything for Obama? Does Joe Lieberman ever do anything for Obama? No and no -- and yet he's always nice to them when he meets them face to face. He always compromises when they demand it. No quid pro quo there.
It would at least be understandable if Obama held his fire whenever someone who deserved to be taken to the woodshed did something in Obama's self-interest. But Obama doesn't bother with self-interest. He just doesn't take people to the woodshed for the sake of not taking people to the woodshed.
Bankers, next time, save your money -- don't give it to Obama. Give him nothing, and give a lot to his opponent. And tell the world you're not voting for him.
He'll probably be even nicer to you.
From Charles Gasparino's New York Post story about President Obama's meeting with top bank CEOs:
...Yes, White House spinmeisters advertised the gathering as a chance for Obama to channel the public's disgust over Wall Street's celebrating while Main Street still suffers 10 percent unemployment, thanks largely to Wall Street's bungling. But that's not what he did.
... Said one CEO who attended: "I expected to be taken to the woodshed, but the tone was quite the opposite."
Said another senior exec with knowledge of the meeting: "The whole thing was so telegraphed that not much was accomplished, other than giving Obama a PR stunt ... He might have sounded mean on '60 Minutes,' but during the meeting he was a hell of a lot nicer."
Maybe Obama's softened tone was recognition of Wall Street's election help. Campaign-finance filings show that firms like Goldman ... favored Obama over John McCain by a fairly wide margin. Nearly all the major Wall Street CEOs -- including Dimon, Blankfein and Mack -- have told people that they voted for Obama....
Yeah, I'm sure he's grateful for the money and the votes. But he would have been like that even if he weren't grateful.
Do Republicans ever do anything for Obama? Does Joe Lieberman ever do anything for Obama? No and no -- and yet he's always nice to them when he meets them face to face. He always compromises when they demand it. No quid pro quo there.
It would at least be understandable if Obama held his fire whenever someone who deserved to be taken to the woodshed did something in Obama's self-interest. But Obama doesn't bother with self-interest. He just doesn't take people to the woodshed for the sake of not taking people to the woodshed.
Bankers, next time, save your money -- don't give it to Obama. Give him nothing, and give a lot to his opponent. And tell the world you're not voting for him.
He'll probably be even nicer to you.
You Can't Always Get What You Want--No, Really.
Obama has just come out and, according to TPM, made one of the most enraging statements of all time.
If he is, he's the only one.
stop right there--why don't the American People know what's in the bill? Because there is no bill. There are only a series of contentious, badly understood amendments to a sprawling, jerry rigged, corporate giveaway. Sometimes poor people are being helped, sometimes the sick, sometimes the elderly, sometimes children. Sometimes there are good subsidies, sometimes the subsidies are too small. As far as the American People are concerned some old white democratic dude, what's his name? Lieberman, just tanked the bill over something huge, like a government takeover of health care. And the Democrats didn't care enough to stop him. If "the people" even know there's a different House Bill, they heard the same thing there--some old white democrat, what's his name, Stupak?, barely prevented the House from killing lots of babies with taxpayer money. Everyone else, who is pro Health Care Reform because they are unemployed, or underinsured, or sane has been promised a series of changes which are not going to be in the bill--perhaps they never were but people thought they would be. Again, that's not because people are stupid but because the White House and the Dems couldn't sucessfully sell something that was changing every day, sometimes minute to minute for the worse.
On what planet can Obama claim that the Senate "doesn't know what is in the bill?" This line just makes him look out of touch. No Senators are claiming not to know what is in the bill. All of them are on record not liking it for one reason or another--too liberal or too conservative. The lines have been drawn, and were drawn long before the battle started. This statement is wholly disingenous and just makes Obama look like a rube.
Can someone tell me who Obama is warning here? Because the progressives and the rank and file Democrats know very well that they didn't get anything that they wanted. Since it does no good to warn the Republicans, who don't want HCR at all, he must be speaking to his own side. But this kind of haranguing of his own supporters, his own party, and (presumably) people like Howard Dean and the progressive bloggosphere, is really misplaced. You don't go to your own side publicly and tell them they are unrealistic, whiny, titty babies. For one thing its not true. For another thing its hugely impolitic. If you have to beg and plead with your own party to vote for your own signature initiative it should be done privately, and with a little regard for everyone's face. Because in fact your own party and the progressives have already given up everything else to please your enemies.
This is irrelevant. The fact that "the bill meets his own requirements" is neither here nor there--he has yet to make the case that the bill meets the people's requirements, especially once so many goodies were cut out. Lastly, the bill will not get a "fair reading." There is going to be no cease fire from the center/right attacking this bill and its authors. The sooner Obama grasps that fact and grasps that he and his party must be on the offensive every minute the better.
The problem the Democrats are having with this bill is that they oversold what they would do, and underfought the bill--very, very, very, publicly. Obama came in with a huge reservoir of good will and a big rolodex of names and friends to push for the policies he said he wanted. Health Care Reform was one of his signature issues and he immiediately set about talking, in very vague terms, about getting it done. For pretty good policy reasons he nominally turned it over to the House and Senate to "get it done" while setting out, broadly, some guidelines about what he thought should be in the bill. Those guidelines, of course, ought to have been the most comprehensive, well thought, out, clearly stated set of bullet points he could have come up with. Because those guidelines were what Obama and the Democrats were going to be campaigning on. Those would be "the bill" as far as the public was concerned.
From the get go they refused to aggressively market a single set of bullet points that were clear, cogent, and defensible. Then they refused to activate their own activist network. They refused to demonize a subset of their opposition to force another subset to compromise. They didn't drum up enough support in the country as a whole--for instance, they didn't back and organize the free health clinics that we later saw emerge. They allowed Baucus to move from a supporter to an enemy of reform and to drag the entire process out of whack in August. They didn't organize and orchestrate the August Town Halls and they let them be taken over by the Tea Partiers. Because of their own refusal to activate Obama's network--which came about because they didn't want to back actually popular reforms and were wedded to the most insurance friendly set of minor tinkers--they lost the August recess. They didn't send the Democratic Senators and House members out with a single set of talking points. They didn't strong arm the weak or conservative members of their own caucus.
Worse, they undercut and undersold the most progressive members of both the Senate and the House while cozening up to, and bargaining with, Pharma, the Insurance Companies, the Hospitals, the Blue Dogs, Baucus, Lieberman, Snowe, Collins, and all the rest of them. When progressives warned them not to let Baucus push the Senate bill farther and farther out that was ignored. In the House the blue dogs were given benefits and attention that the progressive caucus never was, and the progressives found themselves outgunned and outmaneuvered on Stupak. Then we were all promised that, somehow, things would be fixed in the conference report. Now, of course, we are being told that there won't be any conference report, or at any rate that to placate the worst elements of the Senate and the House there is no chance of ameliorating the worst bits of either bill.
And now Obama goes hat in hand to the progressives and begs them to back the bill right now?
Obama and TPM, and others take the attitude that the progressives--hell, just your run of the mill democrats, should trust Obama and Reid and to somehow take a bad bill and make it better "later." Now later means not in conference but in the distant future. Its a fair argument--if it hadn't already been gutted by our experience with Obama and Reid and the Democrats during the run up to the bill itself. There's no doubt in my mind that Obama would have a better shot at making this argument--in fact, would never be in the position of pleading with his own supporters to support his own bill--if he'd shown any respect for the progressives and their amendments earlier. Or any serious passion for getting it right. I'm not saying that because this all comes down to some kind of pissing contest and if only Obama had been politer, or hosted more parties, or something he could count on his own party. I'm saying that Obama and Rahm and Reid have, in effect, broken any tacit promises to support their own supporters. They never went to the mat--even rhetorically--for their own side: not women, with Stupak, not the public with a good public option, not their new constituency for medicare at 55. When they relentlessly courted the worst elements of the center/right they were also repudiating or undercutting their own supporters at every turn. You might say that's the problem with bargaining at all with people who bargain in bad faith--every time they forced their own side to concede something important to one of the reactionaries, who then rejected the compromise, Obama and Reid showed their own side that principle, even the principle of winning, meant nothing to them. Its been all tactics and no strategy and the tactics were all capitulation. Obama and Reid together have shown that there is nothing that a center/right Senator or Congressman can do that will earn any punishment, and that there is nothing that a progressive can do that will earn any support. Now they want to make the argument that, in the long run, they will have a strategy to make up lost ground? They've already lost that argument. Does anyone believe that these guys have a long range strategy that is progressive? Because I don't. They've lost the trust of their own membership, just as they are losing the trust of their own voters for very good reason.
As I watch this health care debacle break out into open warfare I'm just stunned. Just personally stunned by the utter incompetence of Obama and his administrative staff. If you have to come out and plead with your own party to support a signature initiative you've already fucked up beyond imagining.
Edited to add my apologies. Every time I come back and read this post I find another typo. Put it down to rage.
Obama has just come out and, according to TPM, made one of the most enraging statements of all time.
Speaking to reporters after meeting with Senate Democrats this afternoon, President Obama said he is "cautiously optimistic" about health care reform's chances for passage.
If he is, he's the only one.
"I am absolutely confident that if the American people know what's in this bill..."
stop right there--why don't the American People know what's in the bill? Because there is no bill. There are only a series of contentious, badly understood amendments to a sprawling, jerry rigged, corporate giveaway. Sometimes poor people are being helped, sometimes the sick, sometimes the elderly, sometimes children. Sometimes there are good subsidies, sometimes the subsidies are too small. As far as the American People are concerned some old white democratic dude, what's his name? Lieberman, just tanked the bill over something huge, like a government takeover of health care. And the Democrats didn't care enough to stop him. If "the people" even know there's a different House Bill, they heard the same thing there--some old white democrat, what's his name, Stupak?, barely prevented the House from killing lots of babies with taxpayer money. Everyone else, who is pro Health Care Reform because they are unemployed, or underinsured, or sane has been promised a series of changes which are not going to be in the bill--perhaps they never were but people thought they would be. Again, that's not because people are stupid but because the White House and the Dems couldn't sucessfully sell something that was changing every day, sometimes minute to minute for the worse.
...and the Senate knows what's in this bill, it will pass, because it's right for America," he said, adding that he welcomes "the scrutiny of the press."
On what planet can Obama claim that the Senate "doesn't know what is in the bill?" This line just makes him look out of touch. No Senators are claiming not to know what is in the bill. All of them are on record not liking it for one reason or another--too liberal or too conservative. The lines have been drawn, and were drawn long before the battle started. This statement is wholly disingenous and just makes Obama look like a rube.
He warned that "the final bill won't include everything that everybody wants," but senators "simply cannot allow differences" over specific elements of the bill to derail reform.
Can someone tell me who Obama is warning here? Because the progressives and the rank and file Democrats know very well that they didn't get anything that they wanted. Since it does no good to warn the Republicans, who don't want HCR at all, he must be speaking to his own side. But this kind of haranguing of his own supporters, his own party, and (presumably) people like Howard Dean and the progressive bloggosphere, is really misplaced. You don't go to your own side publicly and tell them they are unrealistic, whiny, titty babies. For one thing its not true. For another thing its hugely impolitic. If you have to beg and plead with your own party to vote for your own signature initiative it should be done privately, and with a little regard for everyone's face. Because in fact your own party and the progressives have already given up everything else to please your enemies.
The bill meets his own requirements, he said.
"Any fair reading of the bill will show that all the criteria I laid out, before a joint session of Congress, have been met," he said.
This is irrelevant. The fact that "the bill meets his own requirements" is neither here nor there--he has yet to make the case that the bill meets the people's requirements, especially once so many goodies were cut out. Lastly, the bill will not get a "fair reading." There is going to be no cease fire from the center/right attacking this bill and its authors. The sooner Obama grasps that fact and grasps that he and his party must be on the offensive every minute the better.
The problem the Democrats are having with this bill is that they oversold what they would do, and underfought the bill--very, very, very, publicly. Obama came in with a huge reservoir of good will and a big rolodex of names and friends to push for the policies he said he wanted. Health Care Reform was one of his signature issues and he immiediately set about talking, in very vague terms, about getting it done. For pretty good policy reasons he nominally turned it over to the House and Senate to "get it done" while setting out, broadly, some guidelines about what he thought should be in the bill. Those guidelines, of course, ought to have been the most comprehensive, well thought, out, clearly stated set of bullet points he could have come up with. Because those guidelines were what Obama and the Democrats were going to be campaigning on. Those would be "the bill" as far as the public was concerned.
From the get go they refused to aggressively market a single set of bullet points that were clear, cogent, and defensible. Then they refused to activate their own activist network. They refused to demonize a subset of their opposition to force another subset to compromise. They didn't drum up enough support in the country as a whole--for instance, they didn't back and organize the free health clinics that we later saw emerge. They allowed Baucus to move from a supporter to an enemy of reform and to drag the entire process out of whack in August. They didn't organize and orchestrate the August Town Halls and they let them be taken over by the Tea Partiers. Because of their own refusal to activate Obama's network--which came about because they didn't want to back actually popular reforms and were wedded to the most insurance friendly set of minor tinkers--they lost the August recess. They didn't send the Democratic Senators and House members out with a single set of talking points. They didn't strong arm the weak or conservative members of their own caucus.
Worse, they undercut and undersold the most progressive members of both the Senate and the House while cozening up to, and bargaining with, Pharma, the Insurance Companies, the Hospitals, the Blue Dogs, Baucus, Lieberman, Snowe, Collins, and all the rest of them. When progressives warned them not to let Baucus push the Senate bill farther and farther out that was ignored. In the House the blue dogs were given benefits and attention that the progressive caucus never was, and the progressives found themselves outgunned and outmaneuvered on Stupak. Then we were all promised that, somehow, things would be fixed in the conference report. Now, of course, we are being told that there won't be any conference report, or at any rate that to placate the worst elements of the Senate and the House there is no chance of ameliorating the worst bits of either bill.
And now Obama goes hat in hand to the progressives and begs them to back the bill right now?
Obama and TPM, and others take the attitude that the progressives--hell, just your run of the mill democrats, should trust Obama and Reid and to somehow take a bad bill and make it better "later." Now later means not in conference but in the distant future. Its a fair argument--if it hadn't already been gutted by our experience with Obama and Reid and the Democrats during the run up to the bill itself. There's no doubt in my mind that Obama would have a better shot at making this argument--in fact, would never be in the position of pleading with his own supporters to support his own bill--if he'd shown any respect for the progressives and their amendments earlier. Or any serious passion for getting it right. I'm not saying that because this all comes down to some kind of pissing contest and if only Obama had been politer, or hosted more parties, or something he could count on his own party. I'm saying that Obama and Rahm and Reid have, in effect, broken any tacit promises to support their own supporters. They never went to the mat--even rhetorically--for their own side: not women, with Stupak, not the public with a good public option, not their new constituency for medicare at 55. When they relentlessly courted the worst elements of the center/right they were also repudiating or undercutting their own supporters at every turn. You might say that's the problem with bargaining at all with people who bargain in bad faith--every time they forced their own side to concede something important to one of the reactionaries, who then rejected the compromise, Obama and Reid showed their own side that principle, even the principle of winning, meant nothing to them. Its been all tactics and no strategy and the tactics were all capitulation. Obama and Reid together have shown that there is nothing that a center/right Senator or Congressman can do that will earn any punishment, and that there is nothing that a progressive can do that will earn any support. Now they want to make the argument that, in the long run, they will have a strategy to make up lost ground? They've already lost that argument. Does anyone believe that these guys have a long range strategy that is progressive? Because I don't. They've lost the trust of their own membership, just as they are losing the trust of their own voters for very good reason.
As I watch this health care debacle break out into open warfare I'm just stunned. Just personally stunned by the utter incompetence of Obama and his administrative staff. If you have to come out and plead with your own party to support a signature initiative you've already fucked up beyond imagining.
Edited to add my apologies. Every time I come back and read this post I find another typo. Put it down to rage.
WHAT ARIANNA SAID
Can this presidency be saved? Arianna Huffington has it exactly right:
If the Obama White House is going to change course in time to avoid hitting the looming electoral iceberg, the president and his advisors need to immediately jettison two false ideas that are taking them wildly off course.
The first of these is the notion that the public's widespread anger over joblessness and the bank bailout will be dissipated by the magic bullet of passing a health care reform bill. Over the last few weeks, I've talked to several high-ranking White House staffers and this idea seems as deeply entrenched among them as the idea of Obama's Kenyan birth is among the birthers. And about as valid.
Health care is vital, but it's still the economy, stupid. Especially since many parts of health care reform, even if it passes, won't take effect until 2014. Nate Silver has crunched the numbers. His conclusion: "I don't particularly expect a boost in the Democrats' numbers if they pass a health care bill: the plan, after all, has become somewhat unpopular."
The other false idea that I've heard from White House advisors is that, even if they take a hit in 2010, they're going to be okay for 2012 because they'll bring back David Plouffe and recapture the magic of 2008. If this is really their plan for 2012, they might do better to bring in James Cameron. Perhaps he could CGI in all the voters who turned out in 2008, inspired by the message of "Yes, We Can," and who are now watching disillusioned from the sidelines.
... there are two steps [Obama] must take if he is to course-correct. First: stop listening to Larry Summers. Second: stop thinking that reaching a consensus is the same thing as leadership.
Fire Rahm? Fine, go ahead -- as a way of pleasing a relatively small number of lefty bloggers and blog readers. Far better, though, to fire the whole damn economic team. That alone would raise Obama's approval ratings half a dozen points literally overnight.
Only economic populism can get Obama out of this mess. I'm not saying I think there's much of a chance it can happen, I'm saying nothing else is going to work, unless a miraculously robust economic turnaround simply emerges, and that the naturally political tendency to do what your big contributors want has to be weighed against the likely loss of millions of votes if you follow that path of least resistance.
And if Obama can't actually get anything past the Berlin Wall that is GOP/Blue Dog obstructionism, he at least needs to be seen trying. The ideas have to be pro-ordinary citizen and seem pro-ordinary citizen. They have to make sense or he has to use his great rhetorical gifts to explain them in ways that, to the ordinary American, make sense. It's his only hope.
Can this presidency be saved? Arianna Huffington has it exactly right:
If the Obama White House is going to change course in time to avoid hitting the looming electoral iceberg, the president and his advisors need to immediately jettison two false ideas that are taking them wildly off course.
The first of these is the notion that the public's widespread anger over joblessness and the bank bailout will be dissipated by the magic bullet of passing a health care reform bill. Over the last few weeks, I've talked to several high-ranking White House staffers and this idea seems as deeply entrenched among them as the idea of Obama's Kenyan birth is among the birthers. And about as valid.
Health care is vital, but it's still the economy, stupid. Especially since many parts of health care reform, even if it passes, won't take effect until 2014. Nate Silver has crunched the numbers. His conclusion: "I don't particularly expect a boost in the Democrats' numbers if they pass a health care bill: the plan, after all, has become somewhat unpopular."
The other false idea that I've heard from White House advisors is that, even if they take a hit in 2010, they're going to be okay for 2012 because they'll bring back David Plouffe and recapture the magic of 2008. If this is really their plan for 2012, they might do better to bring in James Cameron. Perhaps he could CGI in all the voters who turned out in 2008, inspired by the message of "Yes, We Can," and who are now watching disillusioned from the sidelines.
... there are two steps [Obama] must take if he is to course-correct. First: stop listening to Larry Summers. Second: stop thinking that reaching a consensus is the same thing as leadership.
Fire Rahm? Fine, go ahead -- as a way of pleasing a relatively small number of lefty bloggers and blog readers. Far better, though, to fire the whole damn economic team. That alone would raise Obama's approval ratings half a dozen points literally overnight.
Only economic populism can get Obama out of this mess. I'm not saying I think there's much of a chance it can happen, I'm saying nothing else is going to work, unless a miraculously robust economic turnaround simply emerges, and that the naturally political tendency to do what your big contributors want has to be weighed against the likely loss of millions of votes if you follow that path of least resistance.
And if Obama can't actually get anything past the Berlin Wall that is GOP/Blue Dog obstructionism, he at least needs to be seen trying. The ideas have to be pro-ordinary citizen and seem pro-ordinary citizen. They have to make sense or he has to use his great rhetorical gifts to explain them in ways that, to the ordinary American, make sense. It's his only hope.
Sew His Foreskin Back.
That's pretty much all I have to say on the question of "Joe Lieberman--Evil or Stupid?" Whichever, he's an embarrassment to our shared ethnicity. Zol er krenken er gedenken is too good for him. And the others, also, too mild.
That's pretty much all I have to say on the question of "Joe Lieberman--Evil or Stupid?" Whichever, he's an embarrassment to our shared ethnicity. Zol er krenken er gedenken is too good for him. And the others, also, too mild.
WHEN THE GOING GETS DEMAGOGIC, THE DEMAGOGUES TURN PRO
ha you think it's funny / Turning rebellion into money --The Clash
Politico tells us what all that "authentic" "grassroots" Tea Party activism was leading up to:
Conservative leaders are eager to turn Tea Party anger into election-year cash -- and to do that, they're launching a flurry of new political action committees aimed at collecting small-dollar donations from newly engaged anti-tax, anti-spending activists.
The latest entrant: Take Back America PAC, to be launched this week by FreedomWorks, the conservative group and Tea Party leader run by former House Republican leader Dick Armey.
... When Take America Back sends out its first fundraising email this week to FreedomWorks' 415,000 online members, it will join a crowded and growing field of campaign vehicles vying for Tea Partiers’ donations.
The Liberty First PAC was officially launched last week by early Tea Party organizer Eric Odom. GrassRootsPAC, a new project organized partly by the president of the Tea Party-linked American Majority organizing group, is planning a hard rollout next year. And the California-based Our Country Deserves Better PAC–TeaPartyExpress.org, added the "TeaPartyExpress.org" to its name in October after raking in big bucks for an eponymous cross-country bus tour.
Dick Armey you know about For the others, go here and here.
A big reason that Republicans have controlled American politics for nearly thirty years (and, as far as I can tell, still control American politics) is that, while most Americans are moderate or liberal, the power of motivated GOP base voters plus fat-cat money has been enough to keep Democrats out of power or squelch Democratic initiatives when Democrats are in power.
But in the past, the groups that kept GOP voters motivated weren't actually run by the real beneficiaries of Republican dominance -- the Christian Right got the base riled up, but fat cats were the primary beneficiaries. This is new: the rabble-rousers and the plutocrat beneficiaries are now the same people.
Now, I'd love to believe this, but I don't:
... the sudden emergence of so many groups has raised concerns among activists about dissipating the energy behind the already fractured Tea Party movement, and has buoyed Democratic hopes that the Tea Party movement will spark a Republican civil war, resulting in bloody primaries that will leave the GOP limping into the 2010 midterm elections with damaged or fringe candidates.
... Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation, acknowledged there's some disagreement among activists about whether raising money for candidates runs afoul of the issue-based focus that spurred the movement....
To those activists who don't like the direction the movement is taking, I say: This is the bus. This is the underside of the bus. Familiarize yourself with the underside of the bus, because that's going to be your new home in the tae party movement if you don't get on board with what the fat cats want.
If history is any indication, these folks are going to get their candidates elected. (I'm deeply pessimistic about Democrats retaining either house of Congress or the White House past 2012.) And then, a few years down the line, we'll hear the rank-and-file complaining about "betrayal" by their leaders. It'll be partly true -- just as the candidates promoted by the Christian Right never came through with that constitutional amendment banning abortion (despite many, many other victories in the culture wars), the tea party candidates will (surprise!) disappoint the base by suddenlyly discover the value of bailouts when they're in power and another economic bubble has burst (those bailouts will, however, be accompanied by tax cuts).
I don't know what ends this cycle. I know a lot of you are counting on Republicans to sabotage themselves by supporting candidates who are far too extreme. Alas, that's what we thought they'd done in 1980 after picking their presidential nominee.
ha you think it's funny / Turning rebellion into money --The Clash
Politico tells us what all that "authentic" "grassroots" Tea Party activism was leading up to:
Conservative leaders are eager to turn Tea Party anger into election-year cash -- and to do that, they're launching a flurry of new political action committees aimed at collecting small-dollar donations from newly engaged anti-tax, anti-spending activists.
The latest entrant: Take Back America PAC, to be launched this week by FreedomWorks, the conservative group and Tea Party leader run by former House Republican leader Dick Armey.
... When Take America Back sends out its first fundraising email this week to FreedomWorks' 415,000 online members, it will join a crowded and growing field of campaign vehicles vying for Tea Partiers’ donations.
The Liberty First PAC was officially launched last week by early Tea Party organizer Eric Odom. GrassRootsPAC, a new project organized partly by the president of the Tea Party-linked American Majority organizing group, is planning a hard rollout next year. And the California-based Our Country Deserves Better PAC–TeaPartyExpress.org, added the "TeaPartyExpress.org" to its name in October after raking in big bucks for an eponymous cross-country bus tour.
Dick Armey you know about For the others, go here and here.
A big reason that Republicans have controlled American politics for nearly thirty years (and, as far as I can tell, still control American politics) is that, while most Americans are moderate or liberal, the power of motivated GOP base voters plus fat-cat money has been enough to keep Democrats out of power or squelch Democratic initiatives when Democrats are in power.
But in the past, the groups that kept GOP voters motivated weren't actually run by the real beneficiaries of Republican dominance -- the Christian Right got the base riled up, but fat cats were the primary beneficiaries. This is new: the rabble-rousers and the plutocrat beneficiaries are now the same people.
Now, I'd love to believe this, but I don't:
... the sudden emergence of so many groups has raised concerns among activists about dissipating the energy behind the already fractured Tea Party movement, and has buoyed Democratic hopes that the Tea Party movement will spark a Republican civil war, resulting in bloody primaries that will leave the GOP limping into the 2010 midterm elections with damaged or fringe candidates.
... Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation, acknowledged there's some disagreement among activists about whether raising money for candidates runs afoul of the issue-based focus that spurred the movement....
To those activists who don't like the direction the movement is taking, I say: This is the bus. This is the underside of the bus. Familiarize yourself with the underside of the bus, because that's going to be your new home in the tae party movement if you don't get on board with what the fat cats want.
If history is any indication, these folks are going to get their candidates elected. (I'm deeply pessimistic about Democrats retaining either house of Congress or the White House past 2012.) And then, a few years down the line, we'll hear the rank-and-file complaining about "betrayal" by their leaders. It'll be partly true -- just as the candidates promoted by the Christian Right never came through with that constitutional amendment banning abortion (despite many, many other victories in the culture wars), the tea party candidates will (surprise!) disappoint the base by suddenlyly discover the value of bailouts when they're in power and another economic bubble has burst (those bailouts will, however, be accompanied by tax cuts).
I don't know what ends this cycle. I know a lot of you are counting on Republicans to sabotage themselves by supporting candidates who are far too extreme. Alas, that's what we thought they'd done in 1980 after picking their presidential nominee.
Monday, December 14, 2009
LIEBERMAN: SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THERE'S NO DOWNSIDE TO BEING STUPID
Jonathan Chait, writing for The New Republic:
... I ... think liberals, myself included, might be driving ourselves a little nuts trying to divine Lieberman's motives. He keeps flip-flopping and explaining his shifts by making demonstrably false claims. What's his game? Why does he keep saying these wrong, uninformed things?
I think one answer here is that Lieberman isn't actually all that smart. He speaks, and seems to think, exclusively in terms of generalities and broad statements of principle. But there's little evidence that he's a sharp or clear thinker, and certainly no evidence that he knows or cares about the details of health care reform....
No, Lieberman doesn't have any particular sense of what the Medicare buy-in option would do to the national debt. If the liberals like it, then he figures it's big government and he should oppose it. I think it's basically that simple.
I think Chait's basically right about how much detail Lieberman grasps -- but that doesn't mean he's stupid. He's smart enough (or, to put it another way, he has sufficient low cunning) to understand that there's no point in understanding the details -- he recognizes that if you're hell-bent on screwing Democrats and liberals, you can say anything you want, because the right-wing media will back you to the hilt, while the non-right-wing media will merely balance what you say with the words of someone on the other side who speaks factually, with the two statements creating what's said to be a "balanced" story. So Joe can just make stuff up and there are no negative consequences.
If there's no upside to getting your facts straight and not having your facts straight allows you to say any undermining thing you want and get away with it, then it's smart not to be smart. And that's the kind of smart Lieberman is.
Jonathan Chait, writing for The New Republic:
... I ... think liberals, myself included, might be driving ourselves a little nuts trying to divine Lieberman's motives. He keeps flip-flopping and explaining his shifts by making demonstrably false claims. What's his game? Why does he keep saying these wrong, uninformed things?
I think one answer here is that Lieberman isn't actually all that smart. He speaks, and seems to think, exclusively in terms of generalities and broad statements of principle. But there's little evidence that he's a sharp or clear thinker, and certainly no evidence that he knows or cares about the details of health care reform....
No, Lieberman doesn't have any particular sense of what the Medicare buy-in option would do to the national debt. If the liberals like it, then he figures it's big government and he should oppose it. I think it's basically that simple.
I think Chait's basically right about how much detail Lieberman grasps -- but that doesn't mean he's stupid. He's smart enough (or, to put it another way, he has sufficient low cunning) to understand that there's no point in understanding the details -- he recognizes that if you're hell-bent on screwing Democrats and liberals, you can say anything you want, because the right-wing media will back you to the hilt, while the non-right-wing media will merely balance what you say with the words of someone on the other side who speaks factually, with the two statements creating what's said to be a "balanced" story. So Joe can just make stuff up and there are no negative consequences.
If there's no upside to getting your facts straight and not having your facts straight allows you to say any undermining thing you want and get away with it, then it's smart not to be smart. And that's the kind of smart Lieberman is.
SEEKING A RETURN TO DUMBOCRACY
I noticed something familiar in a quote from today's New York Times article about John McCain. The speaker was J.D. Hayworth, who's considering a primary challenge when McCain runs for reelection:
"The question that people are asking is this," Mr. Hayworth said in an interview. "Do we want to send John McCain back to the United States Senate again, or is it time to change to a clear, consistent, common-sense Republican?"
A while back, many of us noticed that Sarah Palin was talking about "common sense" over and over and over again in interviews. It's becoming obvious now that this wasn't just a Palin tic -- it's a meme Republicans think could really catch on.
* Governor-Elect Bob McDonnell of Virginia, discussing the budget deficit he'sfacing: "I think this provides us an opportunity to put our common-sense, Republican, conservative ideas in place."
* John Boehner, talking about a GOP motion in the House of Representatives to end the TARP program: "This common-sense Republican proposal takes an important step towards getting government out of the bailout business and stopping wasteful Washington spending."
* Vermont's Bennington Banner, in an article about GOP Senate aspirant Len Britton: "Britton said he will look to unseat [Pat] Leahy as a 'common-sense Republican,' in the mold of prominent Republicans from Vermont's past."
* The Times Record News of Wichita Falls, Texas, in an article about GOP DA candidate Mark Barber: "Barber described himself as a lifelong Republican, and said he would bring 'common sense conservative values' to the office."
* Ethan Hastert, son of Dennis, responding to the news that fellow Republican Mark Vargas wouldn't challenge him for the GOP congressional nomination in Illinois's 14th District: "I know that Mark got into this race for Congress because he believes that the Republican Party needs to return to its common-sense conservative roots and that new leadership is needed to accomplish that goal."
And that's just from the past week.
I hope you realize what the Republicans mean by "common sense." They mean whatever seems to jibe with simplistic home truths; they mean the opposite of "counterintuitive."
But in real life, we do all sorts of things that seem counterintuitive because experience has determined that they actually work. If you have cancer, we may heal you by poisoning you with drugs and radiation. If there are wildfires, we sometimes fight them by setting more fires -- back fires that draw the main fires away from areas we don't want them to go. We vaccinate against diseases by injecting people with forms of the very disease agents we don't want them to be sickened by. And on and on.
Deficit spending in a recession seems counterintuitive -- but if done right, it works. Government spending on health care seems like a bad idea in a recession -- but if it can reduce health care costs for struggling individuals and small businesses, it strengthens rather than saps the economy.
America elects presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush when it decides that the smarter you are, the less you really know about how the world works -- ignorance is seen as the rode to true wisdom. When Republicans say "common sense," that's what they mean -- they want us to trust pure uninformed instinct rather than knowledge and experience.
Barack Obama was elected with a very small window of time to prove that smartness is actually good for America -- even after eight years of Bush proved disastrous, the burden of proof was on him to demonstrate the efficacy of an anti-Bush approach. The Republicans are trying to close that window as fast as possible. The repeated use of "common sense" is a big part of how they hope to do that.
I noticed something familiar in a quote from today's New York Times article about John McCain. The speaker was J.D. Hayworth, who's considering a primary challenge when McCain runs for reelection:
"The question that people are asking is this," Mr. Hayworth said in an interview. "Do we want to send John McCain back to the United States Senate again, or is it time to change to a clear, consistent, common-sense Republican?"
A while back, many of us noticed that Sarah Palin was talking about "common sense" over and over and over again in interviews. It's becoming obvious now that this wasn't just a Palin tic -- it's a meme Republicans think could really catch on.
* Governor-Elect Bob McDonnell of Virginia, discussing the budget deficit he'sfacing: "I think this provides us an opportunity to put our common-sense, Republican, conservative ideas in place."
* John Boehner, talking about a GOP motion in the House of Representatives to end the TARP program: "This common-sense Republican proposal takes an important step towards getting government out of the bailout business and stopping wasteful Washington spending."
* Vermont's Bennington Banner, in an article about GOP Senate aspirant Len Britton: "Britton said he will look to unseat [Pat] Leahy as a 'common-sense Republican,' in the mold of prominent Republicans from Vermont's past."
* The Times Record News of Wichita Falls, Texas, in an article about GOP DA candidate Mark Barber: "Barber described himself as a lifelong Republican, and said he would bring 'common sense conservative values' to the office."
* Ethan Hastert, son of Dennis, responding to the news that fellow Republican Mark Vargas wouldn't challenge him for the GOP congressional nomination in Illinois's 14th District: "I know that Mark got into this race for Congress because he believes that the Republican Party needs to return to its common-sense conservative roots and that new leadership is needed to accomplish that goal."
And that's just from the past week.
I hope you realize what the Republicans mean by "common sense." They mean whatever seems to jibe with simplistic home truths; they mean the opposite of "counterintuitive."
But in real life, we do all sorts of things that seem counterintuitive because experience has determined that they actually work. If you have cancer, we may heal you by poisoning you with drugs and radiation. If there are wildfires, we sometimes fight them by setting more fires -- back fires that draw the main fires away from areas we don't want them to go. We vaccinate against diseases by injecting people with forms of the very disease agents we don't want them to be sickened by. And on and on.
Deficit spending in a recession seems counterintuitive -- but if done right, it works. Government spending on health care seems like a bad idea in a recession -- but if it can reduce health care costs for struggling individuals and small businesses, it strengthens rather than saps the economy.
America elects presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush when it decides that the smarter you are, the less you really know about how the world works -- ignorance is seen as the rode to true wisdom. When Republicans say "common sense," that's what they mean -- they want us to trust pure uninformed instinct rather than knowledge and experience.
Barack Obama was elected with a very small window of time to prove that smartness is actually good for America -- even after eight years of Bush proved disastrous, the burden of proof was on him to demonstrate the efficacy of an anti-Bush approach. The Republicans are trying to close that window as fast as possible. The repeated use of "common sense" is a big part of how they hope to do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)