Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: American fantasies of sticking it to The Man Previous entry: Gay marriage and the patriarchy shell game

Someone tell Robert Gibbs: Jerry’s dead.  Everyone’s gone home.

You know what I don’t enjoy?  Waking up and reading, before my coffee pot has finished producing my lifeblood, the press secretary for the White House engaging in a spate of hippie-punching so broad as to sweep up the folks on this blog.  If I thought like Robert Gibbs apparently does, I would be unleashing my anger on Glenn Greenwald, because he was the messenger who put the link up on Twitter. But I’m a grown-up, so I’m going to hold Gibbs responsible for his tantrum-throwing statements like this:

The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: “They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.”

Which is, of course, pure bullshit, since the PL he hates so much backed Obama up, and many of us were openly critical of Kucinich for being a weirdo who is ineffectual and attracts people who like lost causes.  Which is why this statement from Gibbs is straight up self-defeating:

Gibbs said the professional left is not representative of the progressives who organized, campaigned, raised money and ultimately voted for Obama.

If he believes that, I have a bridge to sell him in the city he forgot to mention in his anti-hippie tirade.  I know I sent money to the Obama campaign, as did practically every person I know who nonetheless feels like it’s our job to hold Democrats’ feet to the fire when they go off on one of their missions to sell out on the grim chance that one of those Tea Crackers waving a sign about “Obamacare” will suddenly have a change of heart. The ugly reality is that the netroots that Gibbs is generically castigating, as well as cable TV hosts like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, are a major reason that Obama won.  Good luck with those midterms distancing yourself from the people that got you elected!  What’s really annoying is Gibbs is basically freaking out because Maddow and Olbermann do their jobs.  Sorry that the Obama administration doesn’t have a bunch of professional sycophants like Bush did with Fox News.  But it’s actually a good thing to have honest journalists who do their damn job of holding the government accountable. 

Remember, Gibbs: You work for us. 

I had two competing thoughts when confronted with this bout of hippie-punching, besides the initial, “So, like, Gibbs really wants the Republicans to sweep in November as a bunch of disenchanted liberals stay home, then?” 

1) I am not a hippie.  Seriously, these broad-based attacks on “The Left” for refusing to be sycophants are called hippie-punching for a good reason.  The problem is that while there are still some Baby Boomers that are fond of being barefoot and a few trustfarians out there with white boy dreadlocks, most of us aren’t fucking hippies.  On the contrary, a lot of us relate to the very people that work in the Obama administration—-hell, some on the The Left have friends and family in the Obama administration.  It’s an Othering of your own fucking people.  I don’t wear patchouli or sleep in a van.  I hate smoking pot and don’t do it.  Being supportive of gay marriage, being against torture, and believing that the government should do more during a depression, a la FDR?  These simply aren’t out-there crazy hat opinions, as much as cowardly Democrats would like to pretend otherwise.  As one of the non-hippie hippies who had the specific audacity to call bullshit on the Obama administration’s willingness to sell out the pro-choice movement that offers so much support, I’m especially annoyed.  I’ve often defended the Democrats against some attacks I thought were a tad unfair—-for instance, I’m really not sure how much you could have done to corral Bart Stupak, who was so self-absorbed on the abortion issue he actually ruined his own career over it—-but when the Obama administration does something straight up cowardly they didn’t have to do, then hell yeah, I’m going to say something.  That doesn’t mean that I abhor shoes and showers.


2) All kidding about hippies aside, what really makes me mad is this: The fucking slogan of the Democrats is, “Make us do it.”  We’re told over and over by major Democrats, including Obama, that they want us to pressure them because it makes it easier for them to do the right thing.  If all the pressure they get is from the right, they claim, they’ll be forced to move right.  So we have to keep the heat on. 

Examples:

[W]hereas the White House does not give a scintilla of attention to its right-wing critics, it does read, and will read, everything Glenn Greenwald writes. Obama, according to an administration official, finds this outside pressure healthy and useful.

Obama: “As president, I will lead a new era of accountability in education. But see, I don’t just want to hold our teachers accountable; I want to hold our government accountable. I want you to hold me accountable.”

It was in response to a person asking Obama about finding a just solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. After recounting the Randolph story, Obama said he was just one person, that he couldn’t do it alone. Obama’s final answer: “Make me do it.”

Later, talking about another bill, [Nancy Pelosi] also referenced ENDA: “I want to do it, you convinced me, now build the mass to make me do it.”

[Harry Reid] acknowledged as much today at Netroots Nation, the largest gathering of liberal bloggers and activists of the year: “I know there are times, I’m told, that I get on your nerves,” he said, eliciting laughter. “I’m here to tell you, you get on my nerves.”

Reid said, however, that he and the left need each other.

They demand that we hold their feet to the fire, and this is how Gibbs pays us, by hippie-punching us? 

I’m not a fan of blindly freaking out at everything the Obama administration does, and thinking they used us for votes and have no intention on giving us anything.  I demur when people get into that zone with me, but I understand why they get there, when the Obama administration does do right wing shit it doesn’t have to do.  The criticisms that Gibbs is freaking out over are legitimate stuff:

*Anger that the Obama administration has reneged on much of its promise to stop immediately the human rights abuses that the Bush administration had as a matter of policy.  Obama’s been President for two years, and Gitmo is still open

*An affection for bipartisanship that seems impervious to a reality obvious to anyone not sucked into the mania, which is that Republicans have no intention whatsoever on working with Democrats on effective legislation that the Democrats can then run on.  How much of the health care bill got compromised away in a desperate attempt to get a single Republican vote, when it was obvious that there was no way that you were ever going to get such a thing?

*While Obama actually promised to escalate the war in Afghanistan, that doesn’t mean said escalation is off-limits for criticism.  Rachel Maddow may annoy the Obama administration by dwelling on the impossibility of accomplishing the stated goals in Afghanistan, but she has a point.  Encouraging the government not to throw good money after bad is an admirable trait in a journalist, because most people shy away from that kind of discussion.

*Random, two-bit pointless sellouts deserve criticism.  The Obama administration banned abortion coverage in high risk pools before they even faced real public pressure over it.  They gave in without a fight to avoid a fight.  Same story with the controversy over appointing Elizabeth Warren to head up this consumer protection agency.  So what if Republicans put up a fight?  Respond by hitting every TV show in sight to explain that Republicans refuse to vote for anyone that won’t sell out consumers to predatory banks.  Giving in because you think there could be a fight is cowardice, and calling it such is no crime.

Glenn Greenwald is compiling a list of people who Gibbs apparently thinks are drug-laden hippies.  People like, oh, Talking Points Memo, Charlie Savage, Bob Herbert, Anthony Romero, and Russ Feingold. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 09:46 AM • (202) Comments

So because the Obama administration has decided to attack its most energetic supporters in this way, we their supporters have to hit them back. And it has to hurt. There must be a way to hit them back so that they feel it, and yet at the same time are reminded that we would really like to support them, in fact we’ve already put a bunch of energy into supporting them, if they would just do something we could support!

Comment #1: atheist  on  08/10  at  11:20 AM

Obama is beating the brush trying to scare up money for Democratic candidates and Gibbs just told me that the Democratic Party doesn’t want my vote.  I’m okay with that.  Saves me a little extra effort.

Comment #2: DBK  on  08/10  at  11:22 AM

It irritates me that the White House will snap to attention any time Andy Breitbart says boo, but when it comes to the people who are actually on their side, they get ignored and derided for the crime of not being 100% on board.

Comment #3: Scott  on  08/10  at  11:23 AM

Keep sucking that banker cock gibbs…lets see how many votes that gets you in NOV.

Comment #4: madmatt  on  08/10  at  11:31 AM

*headdesk*

Comment #5: Rumblelizard  on  08/10  at  11:36 AM

I think Obama and his crowd are going to far in being the anti-George Bush. For example, as opposed to solidifying the base, Obama chooses to betray the base. And as a result, instead of being a two term president, he will likely be a one. Unfortunately, it looks like he may not be the anti- Bush when it comes to being the worst president ever. Bush no doubt will have ended up doing worse things, but it looks like Obama will have blown a historical opportunity that will not come this way again any time soon. Oh well, I guess from his perspective he’ll always have fond memories of having Joe Lieberman’s fist lodged so far up his ass.

Comment #6: chuckling  on  08/10  at  11:37 AM

Okay, just sent an e-mail to the White House about it, ‘cause this is a bit irritating. I’m sure it’ll get round-filed.

Comment #7: Scott  on  08/10  at  11:38 AM

I think he’s angling for a new job and feels the need to distance himself from the left to get it. After all, most media corporations are run by pricks like Rupert Murdoch and in order for Gibbs to suck up to them, he has to knife Obama’s supporters in the back. If he’s still the press secretary on Thanksgiving, I will be surprised.

Comment #8: DC Fem  on  08/10  at  11:38 AM

I think Obama and his crowd are going to far in being the anti-George Bush.

Really, that’s not true policy-wise, read Glenn Greenwalds’ past columns on this issue, if you don’t believe me.

Comment #9: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  08/10  at  11:42 AM

I wish there were a way to send your post to Gibbs’ own email.  I’m fucking tired of being insulted by the people I helped elect.  It’s been bad enough digesting the pablum that is the Dems’ continued caving to conservatives in all things, but personal insults, now?  Screw you, Mr. Gibbs.

Comment #10: bomberE  on  08/10  at  11:46 AM

Gibbs has been a liability from the start. He does not seem to understand the difference between being a campaign spokesman and being press secretary AFTER the election.

Also, Obama seems to be almost as thin-skinned as LBJ or Nixon. That’s a bad quality that leads to bad decisions.

Comment #11: Steve LaBonne  on  08/10  at  11:46 AM

The whole Sherrod affair robs the admin of much credibility on this.

I think though, that hippie-punching is mandatory for dems as the permanent estate doesn’t want the leaders to forget who really runs this country.

Comment #12: shah8  on  08/10  at  11:47 AM

Sorry to go way, way off target, but I had to share when you mentioned Faux News.  This morning, the spouse turned on to Bloomberg while I was starting coffee and got…a Japanese morning talk show (we had seen it before when in Tokyo).  Flipped channels around a bit and found CNN and Faux were also getting incorrect satelite feeds.  I could just imagine the reaction of Faux viewers when they flip on the tv and get an Indian talk show, in what I think was Hindi.  I have to admit it made me much more cheerful this morning.  The Japanese show didn’t hurt as I prefer it to London Biz news.

Comment #13: helen w. h.  on  08/10  at  11:47 AM

Saying Obama is as thin-skinned as LBJ or Nixon is kinda crazy when you think about it.  Those two did take it to extremes even for people who work in super-intense environments.

Comment #14: shah8  on  08/10  at  11:49 AM

I did say “almost”. But there is definitely a personal quality to the hippie-punching- it’s not just calculated and formulaic. And that is a real problem. Obama seems to have genuine difficulty distinguishing between “ideological purity” and the simple desire for good, effective policy. And taking criticism so personally will certainly not help him to get out of that mental trap.

Comment #15: Steve LaBonne  on  08/10  at  11:52 AM

“The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.””

You’re right, Mr. Gibbs, I would be quite satisfied (as a good start on what needs to be done) if we could cut the defense budget in half and implement Canadian-style Universal Healthcare.  The country would certainly be much better off as a result. 

Let the generals and admirals decide whether they still want the Pentagon or not.  As far as I’m concerned, the highest/best use for a place like that would be as low-income housing, or as a university, or some other worthy non-war-related use. 

While we’re at it, I think the name of the Department of Defense needs to be changed back to The War Department, since that name more accurately describes its current function.  Maybe make it The War and Corporate Welfare Department just so people really understand what it does in the modern world.

Raise top marginal tax rates to what they were in the ‘60s, launch a Manhattan Project to develop the means to ween ourselves off oil, implement a free college education system across the country, stop Big Money from off-shoring our jobs, expand civil rights to all, have elections that last for more than one day and on a weekend so all can vote, implement a nation-wide high-speed rail network, stop the insane christophiles from dragging our culture back a half-millennium in the name of “god”, and we might just make this country a place worth living in again…

Comment #16: MikeEss  on  08/10  at  11:54 AM

Can I just register my general bafflement at the reaction people are having to Gibbs’s statement?  Left-leaning blogs and cable shows have been throwing pretty sharp elbows at Obama for months now.  Now that Obama has thrown one back, we’re all supposed to freak out about how the left has been “hippie punched?”  Sorry, don’t see it.

To make my position clear: there’s nothing wrong with the criticism that Obama has been taking, either as a matter of substance or politics.  It’s GOOD that the left has been holding the administration’s feet to the fire, and demanding that it do better.  People need to keep it up.

But it’s also perfectly fair game for the administration to swing back.  That’s politics—you want to go around throwing punches, you better learn to take one.  I have nothing but contempt for anyone who decides they’re not going to vote for a Democrat as a result of this.  If liberals decide they’re going to drop out of politics every time their fee-fees get hurt by some big Dem meanie, then we deserve to lose.

Comment #17: vlad  on  08/10  at  11:54 AM

Way to miss the point, V.

Comment #18: helen w. h.  on  08/10  at  11:57 AM

Canadian health care!  Egads!  Them’s fightin’ words!

Comment #19: Michelle Dean  on  08/10  at  11:57 AM

But it’s also perfectly fair game for the administration to swing back.  That’s politics—you want to go around throwing punches, you better learn to take one.

I’ll take this seriously when they start throwing serious punches at the right instead of reflexively kowtowing to its every bullshit made-up complaint (see under: Sherrod.) None of Obama’s rather tepid jabs at the Republicans have been nearly as venomous as Gibbs’s remarks.

By the way, just a reminder that all this is not just a fucking game. This country is in deep trouble in a number of respects. It needs aggressive, forward-looking leadership, not excuses for inadequate results.

Comment #20: Steve LaBonne  on  08/10  at  12:00 PM

Gibbs should not be the focus of this discussion.  Gibbs is a mouthpiece and only reflects what is going on inside the White House.  He is sending a clear message to all of us that the White House, not Gibbs but the White House, is not progressive and does not support our positions or respect us as people.  This isn’t Gibbs positioning the White House or himself in order to achieve a goal.  This is what they really think of the people who supported them.

No more votes.  No more money.  They don’t support me?  They have lost my support.

Comment #21: DBK  on  08/10  at  12:03 PM

Ha ha ha!!  Now Lucy isn’t just pulling the football away, she’s spitting on poor Charlie as he tumbles by.  Hope and the Democratic Party are for suckers and cowards.

Comment #22: Sam Holloway  on  08/10  at  12:05 PM

I find the phrase “professional left” especially precious. The qualifier, combined with his refusal to name names, gives him a weasel’s width of deniability.  Who do you mean by “professional left?” Community organizers? No, they’re not ‘professionals’ in the sense I meant. The ACLU? No, that’s not who I meant. On and on.

Comment #23: Cris  on  08/10  at  12:06 PM

The idea that Rachel Maddow has no right to criticize an administration that supports denying her civil rights is infuriating. I mean, it’s all infuriating, but that really gets to me. I love watching her show and I’m always struck by how different it is to see someone who suffers from discrimination speaking out against that descrimination. So many pundits are well-off, hetero, white guys that questions of gay marriage and abortion and welfare and social justice become abstract philosophical questions, instead of the concrete, desperately important matters that they are.

And yes, I would like Canadian healthcare. What part of better health outcomes and less expensive is so controversial?

Comment #24: rivki  on  08/10  at  12:06 PM

“Left-leaning blogs and cable shows have been throwing pretty sharp elbows at Obama for months now.  Now that Obama has thrown one back, we’re all supposed to freak out about how the left has been “hippie punched?” Sorry, don’t see it.”

It’s a good thing to lash out against someone throwing mud at you. Like, say, if there was an entire cable network dedicated to dragging my administration through the muck, or a party whose lifeblood is making up insane racist conspiracy theories about me, I’d certainly wouldn’t even compromise with them, let alone coddle them. The only thing I’d hand them would be a stepladder so they can all jump up my butt. 

So good for OB and Co., sticking it to all those slandering…supporters?

Comment #25: kaje  on  08/10  at  12:07 PM

“This administration has been very successful in its plans to rearrange the chairs, but the professional left will only be satisfied when we’ve done something about that iceberg we’re moving towards.”

Comment #26: BlackBloc  on  08/10  at  12:07 PM

Now that Obama has thrown one back, we’re all supposed to freak out about how the left has been “hippie punched?” Sorry, don’t see it.

Did you read the post or just respond to the headline?  Because perhaps you could read the whole part where Democrats routinely beg the base to hold them accountable.  Read it, and then address my actual points, plz.

Comment #27: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/10  at  12:09 PM

And furthermore, the phrase produces a vaguely defined subset of people—as Amanda says, a group for Othering.  It reminds me of the way apologists for the logging industry claim that environmentalists are all employed by high-paying DC think tanks.  Claiming that your critics are “paid professionals”—suggesting that they don’t even believe what they say, they’re just paid to say it—gives them a safe distance from their friends and neighbors who are the actual critics.

Comment #28: Cris  on  08/10  at  12:10 PM

Also, V, did you miss the part where they work for us?  Do you honestly think that the best way to get people off their asses to vote for you is to hippie punch them?

Comment #29: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/10  at  12:11 PM

Sorry helen w.h., I thought the point was that the netroots was going to take its ball and go home if Gibbs keeps saying mean things about the “professional left,” since that’s what several of the commentators (especially the early ones) basically said.

Look, I don’t even agree with what Gibbs said.  He was being a jerk, and worse, it’s bad politics in this environment.  But certain people in the left blogosphere—and I’m really thinking about people like Greenwald and Atrios here, not necessarily Amanda—have, shall we say, put too much stock in the explanatory powers of the “hippie punching” meme.  It’s a dangerous frame of mind, because it leads very naturally to the “not a dime’s bit of difference” BS that gave us Nader in 2000 and, accordingly, Bush from 2000-2008.

Comment #30: vlad  on  08/10  at  12:12 PM

“Did you read the post or just respond to the headline?  Because perhaps you could read the whole part where Democrats routinely beg the base to hold them accountable.  Read it, and then address my actual points, plz. “

That was very well put.  You should, like, write for a web log or something.  Maybe even write a book.  I’ll bet you could make a buck at it.

Comment #31: DBK  on  08/10  at  12:12 PM

Left-leaning blogs and cable shows have been throwing pretty sharp elbows at Obama for months now.

The elbows we’ve been throwing have been far gentler than what the Republicans have been throwing, frankly.

Lots of Democrats have complained about the wars in the Middle East, about the system of spying on citizens, about the unemployment situation, and about lots of other things. The Republicans, on the other hand, have been on a nonstop rage-racism-and-treason fest and have generally made it clear that they’re looking forward to impeaching Obama after the election for the crimes of being Not-a-Republican and Not-a-Honkey.

The reactions you’re seeing are there because the White House repays the GOP base’s psychosis by deferring to whatever Andrew Fucking Breitbart wants while going on yet another gleeful hippie-punching spree on their own allies.

It would be irritating any time, but it’s especially galling this close to the midterms.

Comment #32: Scott  on  08/10  at  12:16 PM

“Sorry helen w.h., I thought the point was that the netroots was going to take its ball and go home if Gibbs keeps saying mean things about the “professional left,” since that’s what several of the commentators (especially the early ones) basically said. “

Ah, so “throwing an elbow” is the way you get those people to keep voting your way.  I would never have thought of that.  Is that an example of that 32 dimensional chess I heard about?

The White House, via its mouthpiece, has made it very clear that it does not value me or my vote.  It won’t get it.

Comment #33: DBK  on  08/10  at  12:19 PM

The Obama White House sometimes reminds me of the husbands who expect to get a fucking medal because they washed the dishes once or condescended to spend a few hours with their kids. And I’m not the only one who sees this: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/338666

Comment #34: Steve LaBonne  on  08/10  at  12:22 PM

“The reactions you’re seeing are there because the White House repays the GOP base’s psychosis by deferring to whatever Andrew Fucking Breitbart wants…”

...which gets them precisely nothing…

”...while going on yet another gleeful hippie-punching spree on their own allies.”

...which also gets them precisely nothing.  There seems to be a common theme here…

Comment #35: MikeEss  on  08/10  at  12:23 PM

We’re not the ones putting stock in “hippie punching”, vlad.  If the administration doesn’t think it’s a great strategy, they need to quit doing it. 

You’re messenger-shooting.

Comment #36: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/10  at  12:24 PM

I thought the point was that the netroots was going to take its ball and go home if Gibbs keeps saying mean things about the “professional left,” since that’s what several of the commentators (especially the early ones) basically said.

No, the netroots learned that lesson with Nader in 2000. However, Gibbs forgets that the left can just as easily focus on attacking the GOP as they can supporting a a Democratic incumbent who claims to want to listen, only to pull straw-hippie BS like this.

That should be the message from the Netroots: “We’ll always go after wingnuts and the GOP politicians who pander to them—that’s what we do. And of course we’ll vote for you over Palin and her ilk. But you want the same level of active and enthusiastic support and fundraising you got from us in 2008? Then cut out this bloody nonsense.”

Comment #37: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  12:26 PM

Amanda—

Like I said, I don’t have a problem with the criticism that the administration gets from the left.  None at all.  Nor do I think Gibbs’ criticism should change how anyone—Maddow, Greenwald, Atrios, you—goes about their business.  We’ve all got good reasons for disappointment, and you provide a valuable service in giving some of them oxygen.

What I really don’t like is the idea that, if a Dem criticizes the left, it’s a huge and somehow personal insult that justifies the left abandoning the Dems (I’m not saying you said this, by the way.  I was responding much more to some of your commenters than to you).  That’s why the “hippie punching” meme sets me on edge; it reminds me too much of the attitude that some Nader supporters had in 2000.

Maybe I was scarred too much by the Bush/Nader/Gore nightmare of 2000, but I think that one of the political left’s biggest weaknesses is its vulnerability to a “take the ball and go home” mindset.  You don’t like the Dems?  Elect better ones.  You try to elect better Dems and fail?  Vote for the Dem you don’t like anyway, dammit.  You really don’t have a better choice.

And we can all agree, actually, that Gibbs is an incompetent buffoon with the political sense of Walter Mondale.

Comment #38: vlad  on  08/10  at  12:27 PM

Obama seems to have genuine difficulty distinguishing between “ideological purity” and the simple desire for good, effective policy.

The problem is that what you consider “good, effective policy” (say, a halfway decent health care system), they consider crazy-ass hippie shit that could only be imagined by hard-left ideologues in love with their own ideological purity.

I’m not a fan of blindly freaking out at everything the Obama administration does, and thinking they used us for votes and have no intention on giving us anything.

I agree that that’s probably going a bit far. It’s not that they don’t intend to give you anything -  they intend to give you the absolute minimum that will enable them to continue using you for votes. Sorry.

Comment #39: Dunc  on  08/10  at  12:28 PM

It’s about legitimacy, and the image of such. What the WH does, is it gives legitimacy to the far-right crazy people, and it tries to take it away from the moderate left.

Personally I think it’s based around class. I think that politics in general, from the media, to lobbyists (even on the progressive side), to politicians generally come from upper classes. And they court the middle-upper class vote. Those are the legendary “swing voter”. That’s what modern politics is obsessed with. And that “swing voter” wants rising property values (which is why you didn’t see cramdown as it would drop property values), low inflation, rising investments, low taxes, etc. So they see even the moderate left…let’s put it this way.

If there was a choice between those things I mentioned above, and full employment, a great health care system, full energy reform, etc, we would choose the later. Every time.

And because of that, there’s a lot of people that think that the moderate left would fuck over corporations and the upper/middle upper classes simply out of spite. Which isn’t true. I think that if you could have your cake and eat it too that would be fine. It’s just that for a lot of us we see no other choice.

Comment #40: Karmakin  on  08/10  at  12:31 PM

No one on the “professional left” is admiring the unwillingness to vote. But we’re right, and you’re shooting the messenger. Pandering to the right = creating an unwillingness to give you our full support. We’ll vote for you. But we won’t be dependable for encouraging others to get out and do so.

Comment #41: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/10  at  12:34 PM

Oh and remember. The status quo…the conventional wisdom is that you can’t have both full employment and low inflation. They are mutually exclusive. See why this conflict is basically unavoidable?

Comment #42: Karmakin  on  08/10  at  12:34 PM

“Pandering to the right = creating an unwillingness to give you our full support. We’ll vote for you. But we won’t be dependable for encouraging others to get out and do so.”

Enjoy that Republican Congress.

Comment #43: vlad  on  08/10  at  12:39 PM

If liberals decide they’re going to drop out of politics every time their fee-fees get hurt by some big Dem meanie, then we deserve to lose.

[sighs patiently] Are you trying to start a right, hombre?  Before I answer perhaps a small digression is called for.

A good rule of blog life is to comment as if the person were in front of you or in the room, the cloak of anonymity is removed and the human impulse to be aggressively mean is very much muted.  If one is a person hardwired that way, as many are in the simian and ape species tree.

I can assure you with every atom of my being, with every perceptive neuron that your brain is allegedly in possession of, were I to be in 20 feet of your person you wouldn’t dare speak to me like that.  I’m not a hippie either, although the bubble of bong is still familiar to me the lash of violence and abuse is forever vivid, just because I choose not to live in those paths doesn’t mean I haven’t fucking forgotten for a milisecond, and I’ve noticed my game face on a middle-class Navy haircut motherfucker 6-1 210 lb. 14% body-fat frame has a way of instantly producing caution in all but those most foolish.  You don’t strike me as that far gone as a functioning human.

Now then.  Gibbs and the White House aren’t my peers, for fuck’s sake, they’re our leadership.  I came into the screens when Howard Dean was the great hope to make our Party a real one, and in all that time the men and women I have worked my ass for and donated tens of thousands dollars to in the liberal and Party cause have screwed me, insulted me, forsaken their duty and crushed the love I held for them, even me, machiavellian political junkie all the way.  I can barely vote this Fall, barely.

I’m sick, I have no business being here, I’ve been ill for almost a decade now, I should be meditating and eating flax or something.  Yet for love of country and Party I soldier on, I’ve taken ridiculous shit for almost a decade with absurd public work (trying be writer for years for Democrats, ya smug sumbitch), yet here I still am, bewildered and profoundly hurt.

I think you need to learn the variety of human experience, that in relation to your perspective it could quite possibly mean you don’t know shit.  I keep that sentence firmly in front of my consciousness every day, hombre, believe it.

Comment #44: paradox  on  08/10  at  12:42 PM

#34

The Obama White House sometimes reminds me of the husbands who expect to get a fucking medal because they washed the dishes once or condescended to spend a few hours with their kids.

Steve LaBonne, are you aware that you’re linking to the same neoconservative “Commentary” magazine that publishes the gasseous emissions of Jennifer Rubin and the warmongering idiocy of Max Boot? Of course Commentary magazine doesn’t like Obama, he hasn’t invaded Iran or come out in support of torture.

Comment #45: atheist  on  08/10  at  12:43 PM

And because of that, there’s a lot of people that think that the moderate left would fuck over corporations and the upper/middle upper classes simply out of spite.

Even us far leftists don’t really want to fuck over the upper/upper middle class out of spite. I’m quite willing to accept them as full comrades after their stint through reeducation camp… (j/k)

Of course such people have lived in their bubble for so long that they consider that they’re entitled to never do any form of physical labor, so any scheme dedicated to tearing down the walls between the separation of physical and mental labor in the work place so that they might have to get their precious little hands dirty while the menial labor gets to make decisions too is seen ipso facto as ‘fucking them over’.

Comment #46: BlackBloc  on  08/10  at  12:44 PM

Pandering to the right = creating an unwillingness to give you our full support.

The GOP certainly knows this. I can’t think of one instance over 8 years when a BushCo press secretary went after his President’s base with this kind of rhetoric.

We’ll vote for you. But we won’t be dependable for encouraging others to get out and do so.

I think a co-ordinated demonstration of this fact by the netroots is in order, perhaps after the summer silly season, perhaps on a low-stakes issue that’s none-the-less important to Obama and where he expects your automatic support. Deafening silence from the DFHs of the “professional left” might send a message.

I don’t know what that issue would be, or when it would occur. But there’s at least one per political season, and if the constituents of the Netroots Nation conference co-ordinate a little they’ll be prepared when it comes down.

Comment #47: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  12:44 PM

vlad, you really don’t get it at all.  You wrote:

“Nor do I think Gibbs’ criticism…”

and

“Gibbs is an incompetent buffoon with the political sense of ...”

You think Gibbs is going off the reservation?  That this isn’t the position of the White House?  You don’t pay attention much.

Comment #48: DBK  on  08/10  at  12:45 PM

#38

Maybe I was scarred too much by the Bush/Nader/Gore nightmare of 2000

Yes. I think that’s exactly your problem, Vlad.

Comment #49: atheist  on  08/10  at  12:47 PM

One of the biggest problems with the WH’s hippie-punching is (ok, and now I feel dirty for saying it, thanks Glenn Beck) the Overton window. The more progressive’s views are publicized as radical and unpractical and crazy-communo-pinkie positions the farther the “centrist” position moves to the right. Which is how you end up with a healthcare bill that is far more conservative than the vast majority of Americans wanted. It’s one thing for Fox to hippie-punch, but having the WH engage in it legitimizes the idea that progressive ideas/values are scary and unAmerican. And that’s terrible for America’s political discourse. In a world where Repealing the 14th Amendment has become mainstream Republican crazy, and Cap-and-Trade (a Republican idea from a few years ago) becomes uber-leftist crazy what exactly has happened to the “center”?

Comment #50: rivki  on  08/10  at  12:47 PM

paradox, linking to your own site, with your resume displayed (featuring your real name, address, phone numbers, etc.), probably not the smartest move.  You’re a big boy, I’m sure you think you know what you’re doing, but there are an awful lot of flying monkeys out there just itching to mess up somebody’s life…

Comment #51: MikeEss  on  08/10  at  12:50 PM

Gibbs is expressing the WH’s position. He also happens to be in an unenviable spot as potential sacrificial lamb if the WH realizes in the coming weeks/months they actually need to pander to the people Gibbs insulted.

I don’t know about 32 dimensional chess, but the Obama WH seem to be up to date on their Machiavelli.

Comment #52: BlackBloc  on  08/10  at  12:52 PM

“I don’t know about 32 dimensional chess, but the Obama WH seem to be up to date on their Machiavelli.”

Of course, Machiavelli was only concerned with getting and maintaining power, no morality or legalities involved.  Which if you are an amoral psychopath is just great.  For anyone who claims to be a decent human being, that’s not so cool…

Comment #53: MikeEss  on  08/10  at  12:56 PM

Steve LaBonne, are you aware that you’re linking to the same neoconservative “Commentary” magazine that publishes the gasseous emissions of Jennifer Rubin and the warmongering idiocy of Max Boot? Of course Commentary magazine doesn’t like Obama, he hasn’t invaded Iran or come out in support of torture.

I believe that’s called the genetic fallacy. Also, the blog post merely links to a teaser for a forthcoming piece in Vanity Fair, which is none of the above.

Like it or not, that perception of the White House is growing and is a potentially serious political problem, and Gibbs just fed it bigtime.

Comment #54: Steve LaBonne  on  08/10  at  12:57 PM

vlad, I think you and I may have a different interpretation of the phrase “hippie punching.” To me, it’s a special case of the strawman: instead of attacking real criticisms, you ascribe caricatures of leftist positions (e.g. “eliminating the Pentagon”) to the faction of your choice, thus painting them as starry-eyed, naive Haighters. Then you easily dismiss their complaints, because they aren’t their actual complaints.

The reason that matters is that conflating actual, reasonable, progressive goals with the Utopian dreams of cartoon hippies indicates an unwillingness to give those goals serious consideration. 

Yes, we’re seriously concerned about being sold out. Yes, we remember 2000 and we know there’s a difference between parties.

But seriously, when the Party is relying on the base to act as evangelists, they need to give us something to believe in.  It’s not about petulantly sitting at home out of spite; it’s that when I walk the neighborhood to try to convince my “undecided” neighbors to vote for the Democrat, I need to approach those doors with real enthusiasm. A sense of resignation isn’t going to sway anybody.

Comment #55: Cris  on  08/10  at  01:03 PM

#54

Steve, my point is that what’s published in Commentary magazine is meaningless as a measure of how Obama is doing, because they are inherently opposed to anything progressive. In fact, if Obama were to become more successful, they would probably like him even less. If that seems too ad-homiem to you I’m sorry, but I think that’s the reality.

Comment #56: atheist  on  08/10  at  01:03 PM

Personally I think it’s based around class.

A lot of it is, and of course class is the issue we’re not supposed to talk about in politics (sorta like Rule 1 of Fight Club).

And they court the middle-upper class vote. Those are the legendary “swing voter”. That’s what modern politics is obsessed with. And that “swing voter” wants rising property values (which is why you didn’t see cramdown as it would drop property values), low inflation, rising investments, low taxes, etc

And the same government services they’ve always taken for granted of course. But, y’know, magical thinking doesn’t work here in the real world:

  The lights are going out all over America — literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno.

  Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel.

  And a nation that once prized education — that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children — is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead.

In other words, the legendary “swing voter” is the sort of indecisive and entitled dope who’ll go for whatever pseudo-centrist promise politicians make in order to deliver their low-tax, quality service fantasy. This type has been with us forever: I imagine an affluent Roman in the 5th century AD, sitting in his villa and whinging about taxes while outside the plague was spreading and libraries were being dismantled for marble and scrap metal.

And because of that, there’s a lot of people that think that the moderate left would fuck over corporations and the upper/middle upper classes simply out of spite. Which isn’t true.

Especially since people on the moderate left are often part of those upper/middle upper classes themselves, and are taking reality-based positions precisely to preserve as much as possible of their class privileges. If you want to see real spite, look to the lower middle class and working classes.

Comment #57: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  01:06 PM

atheist, apparently you again missed the fact that it’s principally Vanity Fair saying this. That shouldn’t matter to anybody who mainly cares about whether it’s true, but given your addiction to the genetic fallacy it should matter to you.

Comment #58: Steve LaBonne  on  08/10  at  01:08 PM

#58

And if you look at what information from the Todd Purdum Vanity Fair article is actually given in the Commentary piece, it is a couple of paragraphs of the usual sort of stuff about how big a douche Rahm Emanuel is, and how crazy fast-paced Washington is, unlike the days of yore when Walter Cronkite ruled the blah blah blah. And then Peter Wehner proceeds to explain how it all shows that Obama is “supremely arrogant”, though he “reserves judgement”. Take it however you like, but personally I find that fractured, tendentious blog post to be rather unconvincing on any level.

Comment #59: atheist  on  08/10  at  01:28 PM

Take for what it’s worth this recent comment on Yglesias’s blog, clearly not from a Commentary type:

oboe says:
August 10th, 2010 at 12:13 pm

I say this as an Obama fan, a liberal, but someone who knows several folks who deal with the WH on policy issues: these guys are pure amateur hour when it comes to the politics of governing. Everything they do seems calculated to alienate their supporters, and give comfort to their bitterest enemies.

Have there been legislative successes? Obviously. Have these guys shown themselves to be good election year politicians? Yep.

But, as this latest incident shows, their day-to-day political shop is fucking pathetic. Nothing but reinforcing right-wing memes, pandering to their worst enemies, and *needlessly* alienating their strongest supporters.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/robert-gibbs-and-drug-testing/

Comment #60: Steve LaBonne  on  08/10  at  01:28 PM

Gracchus:FWIW I agree with the article in a way. I actually think a big problem with the left is the real patriotism that’s present there. Things are a lot worse than even the left things, but the problem isn’t just with “corrupt politicians”, it’s a cultural poison that’s running rampant.

Also for what it’s worth, the preserving of the class privilege is exactly why more and more moderate progressive commentators and bloggers are becoming basically unreadable, like Ezra Klein and Matt Yglasias. They hold on to these conventional wisdoms like life preservers, and they look increasingly more and more foolish with dealing with the reality of massive unemployment.

Comment #61: Karmakin  on  08/10  at  01:31 PM

Here’s Gibbs’ “clarification”:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/robert-gibbs-clarifies-pr_n_676934.html

Most amusing is that he was expressing his frustration after watching a cable news show:

“Yesterday I watched as someone called legislation to prevent teacher layoffs a bailout - but I know that’s not a view held by many, nor were the views I was frustrated about.”

Um, yeah.  I’ll bet that person who called preventing teacher bailouts was a hippie in need of a punch.

The White House, via its official spokesperson, issued a statement that they don’t need me.  I am okay with that.

Comment #62: DBK  on  08/10  at  01:37 PM

Also for what it’s worth, the preserving of the class privilege is exactly why more and more moderate progressive commentators and bloggers are becoming basically unreadable, like Ezra Klein and Matt Yglasias.

I feel for them, in a sort of way. History is in the process of rudely casting them aside, along with the “sensible” politicians like Obama whom they worship. We’re in for rougher times than their genteel upbringing ever prepared them for.

Comment #63: Steve LaBonne  on  08/10  at  01:44 PM

I guess.  I grew out of it, too.

Comment #64: Punditus Maximus  on  08/10  at  01:56 PM

This isn’t the first time Gibbs has done something clueless that’s come back to bite him on the ass. In February he was caught writing a grocery list on his hand making fun on Sarah Palin during a press conference. He used his White House twitter account to tweet about his favorite bike shop. He made a semi-veiled threat to supporters by stating that Republicans could easily take back Congress in November. He’s been chewed out by Nancy Pelosi and other key Democrats. He revealed the name of a senior adviser during a press briefing that should have remained confidential. He’s about as politically astute as a golden retriever. I’m not surprised that he’s managed to offend Obama’s base with his ill-considered remarks because he’s just that bad at this job. I wish I were more surprised, but Gibbs has been pretty much a disaster from the beginning of his tenure. I can’t see him lasting much longer in the position. He’s in way too far over his head.

Comment #65: Slackajawea  on  08/10  at  01:56 PM

Vlad, why is it my fault the Obama administration chooses to shit on their base? If I was like, “Yum, that’s some tasty shit,” as you would have me say, my cred would be shot. If Democrats want sycophants, they should be right wingers. If they want praise, they should earn it.

Comment #66: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/10  at  01:56 PM

The problem is, the Obama administration is correct in the sense that no further left alternative has come into being that could also form an administration.

Comment #67: Mandos  on  08/10  at  01:58 PM

The sad thing I think Steve is by the time history casts that line of thinking aside, it’ll be far too late. Far far too late. We’re talking lost generation, not decade.

To expand on the issue, the conventional thinking is that wages are determined on a value-add basis. That is, the more productive an individual is, the more you make. If steps go to increase the productivity of the individual, they’ll automatically be paid more. If you outsource/offshore whatever lower productivity jobs..well whatever. The resulting increase in productivity will increase wages, which will increase demand, blah blah.

The problem is that if you don’t have full employment, that model falls to shit. Wages are “competitive” and are based as low as you can go and still find qualified people. Productivity increases result in lower need for employment, and as such, make the market even worse. The market is even overflooded in fields requiring education. Now, because of previous competitive markets (for labor, not for jobs), those wages are higher, and as such will take time to go down, but without full employment, they will go down.

It’s why Ezra saying that lowering the cost of health care will result in higher wages, and Matt saying that more education is the answer to outsourcing are both basically wrong wrong wrong. They use the old models, and that’s the conventional wisdom that all of DC is going on. But the conventional wisdom like I said, only works for labor markets with practical full employment, or at least approaching such.

That said, there’s a possibility that the boomer retirement will fix all this, and the current austerity is a pre-emptive strike against labor shortages in the near future. But that said, quite frankly workers at all skill levels getting some time to cash in would be a good thing.

Comment #68: Karmakin  on  08/10  at  01:58 PM

Or, basically what you’re saying, vlad, is that the Democrats can and should renege on their duty to campaign for their jobs, and if they refuse to campaign effectively, the blame falls on the electorate who failed to rise up in enthusiasm anyway.  Fascinating theory. 

I’m more pragmatic. If you want to win campaigns, you have to hustle.  If you refuse to try, then you have no one to blame but yourself. 

If the Republicans sweep, that’s on the Democrats for refusing to campaign effectively.  It’s not on the bloggers for pointing that out.  We’re trying to help. And what we get for it is basically the press secretary saying, “Fuck you, I’ll give you even fewer reasons to vote for us.”

Comment #69: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/10  at  01:59 PM

I wrote a comment on the Big Orange the other day, that the Obama administration doesn’t care if he loses both Houses in the mid-terms: he grew up in a Republican dominated Congress, he’s perfectly comfortable there making bad mess happen, or being one of the lone votes against what he can’t change.

If the Dems lose Congress Obama will be fine with signing off on terrible “compromises”—the U.S. will be in hell.

But now—it looks more and more likely he’s either consciously or unconsciously doing his damndest to drive the Dem base away, and make a Republican congress happen—what he’s comfortable working with.

Comment #70: judybrowni  on  08/10  at  02:01 PM

Amanda wrote:

Remember, Gibbs: You work for us.

I haven’t read through the comments yet, so this may have already been noted, but no, Mr Gibbs does not “work for us.”  He works for the President of the United States.  Supposedly the President works for us, but that doesn’t mean that Mr Gibbs does.  And the President you like so much seems to be pleased with Mr Gibbs’ job performance.

Comment #71: Dana  on  08/10  at  02:02 PM

And what we get for it is basically the press secretary saying, “Fuck you, I’ll give you even fewer reasons to vote for us.”

Ultimately, it’s “Fuck you, I’ll give you even fewer reasons to vote for us. Now vote for us or it’s all your fault when the Repubs take over, you disloyal hippies. See if we do shit for you from now on.”

Comment #72: Scott  on  08/10  at  02:05 PM

Dana, where does the money that pays his salary come from?

Comment #73: Ms Kate  on  08/10  at  02:05 PM

”...no, Mr Gibbs does not “work for us.” He works for the President of the United States.”

Actually, he reports to President Obama, but he, like the President, works for us, as do all people in all governments - local, state, and federal.  We’re the “shareholders” of government.

Now, (sometimes, often, usually, or exclusively) it seems like they only work for some of us (Wall Street, Big Defense, Big Oil, Big Insurance, etc.) and the rest of us be damned.  That’s one of many problems we need to fix as a nation…

Comment #74: MikeEss  on  08/10  at  02:11 PM

Decent troll, I give it 4/10

Comment #75: atheist  on  08/10  at  02:12 PM

Dana, where does the money that pays his salary come from?

If I was to hazard a guess, I’d say Goldman Sachs.
</drum roll>

Comment #76: BlackBloc  on  08/10  at  02:16 PM

Meh. That last line should be </rimshot>.

Comment #77: BlackBloc  on  08/10  at  02:16 PM

Okay, I’ve officially been punched enough.

This is an abusive relationship: Obama put up the falsefront of progressive ideals, and promising to simply do what is right (not Right) to get elected.

He seduced me (us), and then not so slowly the abuse started: seemingly small at first (he seems like such a nice guy! This isn’t what he said when trying to win us!)

But consistently punching, both verbally and through policy.

I’m done, I’m out of this relationship —have your Republican congress, Mr. President. It’s what you want, and I’m tired of being punched.

Comment #78: judybrowni  on  08/10  at  02:20 PM

Also for what it’s worth, the preserving of the class privilege is exactly why more and more moderate progressive commentators and bloggers are becoming basically unreadable, like Ezra Klein and Matt Yglasias. They hold on to these conventional wisdoms like life preservers, and they look increasingly more and more foolish with dealing with the reality of massive unemployment.

A trend I’ve noticed is that a large portion of our chattering classes seem to be obsessed with making reality fit the model, increasingly in arenas beyond economics and politics. Much of this emerges from desperation and an unwillingness to face hard realities (not all of them the makings of American conservatives over the past generation).

I understand the temptation to do this, but we do ourselves no favours by indulging it.

That said, there’s a possibility that the boomer retirement will fix all this, and the current austerity is a pre-emptive strike against labor shortages in the near future.

“Boomer retirement” is exactly the kind of straw we’re tempted to grasp at. Boomer pension funds and personal retirement portfolios (for those who even had them) were devastated in 2008—most of them are looking at 10 years more in the workforce than they anticipated, and these aren’t your grandpa’s tired old geezers, either.

Comment #79: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  02:23 PM

EAT THE RICH

You’re welcome.

Comment #80: atheist  on  08/10  at  02:25 PM

@80: Well sure. The poor are tough and stringy.

Comment #81: BlackBloc  on  08/10  at  02:32 PM

Talk about hippie-punching: Vlad needs a history lesson.  Nader and his supporters didn’t ‘give’ the election to Bush.  The U.S. Supreme Court did.  Last I checked, Gore was still the winner.  If Vlad is “scarred too much” by the memory of what happened in 2000, then perhaps he should look behind his cognitive dissonance and examine his own cowardice.  I reckon it’s easier to punch the hippie to your left than it is to accept that you stood by and watched your candidate—and your country—get shafted.  Moreover, after the Bushies saw that they could get away with stealing the highest office in the land, and there were “no tanks in the streets,” d’ya think they might have figured they could get away with anything?  That (and a lack of meaningful Dem opposition) is what gave us 8 years of hell, tough guy.

And that’s what’s darkly amusing about the Gibbs statements.  The Obama White House is daring you to take your vote elsewhere.  If your only choices are (a) to vote for the party that’s coming up short and then spitting in your face and (b) to sit at home on election day, then you deserve the contempt the White House holds for you.  If you really want to play (something other than sucker), you can take your ball and join another team.  Fighting to defend increasingly diminishing returns is not a strategy for sustainability, much less victory.  Imagine if all this passion and erudition were invested in a party that refuses to take corporate donations instead of being squandered twisting itself into pretzels trying to justify supporting a party of pro-corporate imperialists.

Comment #82: Sam Holloway  on  08/10  at  02:36 PM

Far far too late. We’re talking lost generation, not decade.

One of the benefits of being a Gen Xer is that we understood early on that the demographics would not work out in our favour, and that (aside from the happy anomaly of the dot-com boom) we would indeed be a “lost generation.” That tends to make us more alert to just how much more a bad situation can be made worse.

Comment #83: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  02:36 PM

Gracchus:Very true. But all the same, it’s reason why calls to up the SS eligibility age are yet another attempt at keeping wages down.

Comment #84: Karmakin  on  08/10  at  02:39 PM

Boomer retirement? HAH!

On what?

My Greatest Generation father retired with a pension, Social Security, a house free of a mortgage and healthy 401Ks.

Pensions have been largely eradicated over the last 20 years in the private sector: my brother’s last two jobs were 10 and 17 years long—a pension came with neither.

They had to take a mortgage to retrofit their 60 year old home for hurricane readiness: my brother was laid off, is living on Unemployment, and has the possibility of a job in the fall at half his previous salary, his 401Ks took that big dip with the recission. His next position comes with some pension (until it’s cut by corporate to pay for the inevitable bankruptcy, of course) so he’ll be working a minimum of another 10 years, his poor partner is already retirement age, but with no possible retirement in sight. (And they’ve cut his hours where he works.)

And Obama is set on slicing up Social Security.

Over the last 40 years I’ve worked where there was a pension a total of maybe 6 months, so don’t qualify. I’m renting, my investments have long been drained for living expenses, and I’m 60.

You must be kidding about retirement for the Boomers, we’ll be working in harness until we drop.

Comment #85: judybrowni  on  08/10  at  02:39 PM

“[B]elieving that the government should do more during a depression, a la FDR?”

Bingo.  I am, in fact, an anachronistic hippie (born in 1960, only a “Boomer” because the term has been stretched to the point of uselessness), but the reason I voted for President Obama* is that I am also an anachronistic New Dealer.

* Boy, I still enjoy saying that.  “President Obama”.  Almost as satisfying as saying, “our black President”, and easier to slip into a conversation.

Comment #86: Dr. Psycho  on  08/10  at  02:42 PM

Very true. But all the same, it’s reason why calls to up the SS eligibility age are yet another attempt at keeping wages down.

That’s how bad it’s gotten for corporate greedheads. Normally they’d have waited another 20 years to try this, when a conservative was in office and it was the Xers reaching traditional retirement age. As it is, we have a liberal pushing for it when the demographic group that will be outraged at the removal of an entitlement is the largest yet.

Comment #87: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  02:53 PM

Slackajawea, you don’t get it.

I guess I have to explain this in greater detail, because more than one person has missed the point.

Let’s pretend that the White House had some respect for its supporters.  Let’s pretend that people didn’t go around the White House bitching about how the supporters complained about them and, instead, matched their actual statements internally to their public rhetoric and said things like, “We asked them to hold our feet to the fire and they are.  Good.  We may not do what they want, but good for them.”

Would Gibbs have felt empowered to say what he said?

Comment #88: DBK  on  08/10  at  02:53 PM

My Greatest Generation father retired with a pension, Social Security, a house free of a mortgage and healthy 401Ks.

“Healthy” being the key word. I’d imagine his 401ks weren’t excessively packed with shares in his employers’ own companies.

The concept of a healthy 401k is quickly joining the other benefits you mention in “gold watch” territory.

Comment #89: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  03:01 PM

Judi gives and example of what all of us are facing.  We have only a limited amount of time and energy.  We can choose to focus that on people like Reed and Gibbs and attempt to push jello up hill with a straw or we can circle the wagons, protect our own and bunker down to protect our loved ones from the storm.

If we expend our time, energy and money placing a person into the position to represent us and they fail to actually represent us, and in the case of Leiberman and Lincoln, actually work against us, then we should save our time, money and energy and allow them to be swept into the dust-bin of history and build up a new person to represent us.

Most of us can and will survive a Republican majority again, we’ve already learned how to.  It will be ugly, painful and in some cases deadly, but once they’ve torn the shining beacon of civilization down from the hill we’ll be ready and willing to rebuild.

Because building is what Progressives do.

And the <strike>swing voter</strike> low information voter will follow after the fact because it’s easier than thinking.  And conservatives will freak the fuck out because they can’t stand civilization, society and mutual cooperation.

We’re not taking our ball and going home so much as refusing to hand over the baseball bat to be smacked in the back of the head on our way back to the dugout.

Comment #90: cynickal  on  08/10  at  03:17 PM

That should be the message from the Netroots: “We’ll always go after wingnuts and the GOP politicians who pander to them—that’s what we do. And of course we’ll vote for you over Palin and her ilk. But you want the same level of active and enthusiastic support and fundraising you got from us in 2008? Then cut out this bloody nonsense.”

How is this different than not voting D?  In one case they lose your vote.  In the other case they lose the votes that you would bring in.  Either way they lose votes due to your choice.

Also, if you’re going to say, “Of course we’ll vote for you no matter what,” why should the WH care if you get insulted?  You’re still going to vote for them, their base is safe.

Comment #91: Jake Squid  on  08/10  at  03:24 PM

You must be kidding about retirement for the Boomers, we’ll be working in harness until we drop.

Sadly, that’s more accurate that most Americans seem to think.

My dad (a Boomer) is retired, with a 401K and a pension.  But that’s because he belonged to a union that secured a pension for him.  Let me tell you, that helped keep him afloat when his 401K tanked during the financial meltdown.

But it still bothered me to hear him say back in 2009, “I think I can make it until February”, which is when he could begin collecting Social Security early (he turned 62 in December 2009).  I never thought I would ever hear him say that, and I’m sure he was just as surprised.

Comment #92: Linnaeus  on  08/10  at  03:28 PM

funniest comment of the day, Amanda accusing someone of being “self absorbed on the abortion issue”

2nd funniest: “last time I checked, Gore was still the winner”

Comment #93: Casp  on  08/10  at  03:37 PM

List of Obama Administration Members Who Should Be Gone:

Rahm Emmanuel
Robert Gibbs
Larry Summers
Timothy Geithner

List of Obama Administration Members Who Are Gone:

Greg Craig
Peter Orszag
Christina Romer

I think the most disappointing aspect of the Obama Administration thus far has been the fact that he has absolutely gravitated toward the 1990s Clinton Administration strategy of “triangulation”.  A huge reason why I voted for him is because I was gullible enough to believe that an Obama Presidency would get us beyond the previous 30 years in the White House, including Bill Clinton’s tenure.

On November 5, 2008, I was nervous about his first staff choice being a guy whose national political career was launched during the Clinton Administration.  And then many more Clintonistas were added after Rahm, and it was just like 1993 all over again.

I get that we were never gonna get an administration as progressive as what Dennis Kucinich thought he could deliver, and I get that there was going to have to be some settling for good but not perfect policy, but this whole business of crapping all over your strongest supporters is going to have a disasterous impact on this November’s elections, and it’s already playing out.

Missouri was the closest state in the nation in the 2008 presidential election - John McCain edged Barack Obama by less than 5,000 votes out of 3,000,000 - he won Missouri by 0.1%.  There was no state more purple in 2008 than Missouri.  Last week, 71% of Missouri voters passed Proposition C, a measure designed to prohibit the federal government from imposing fines on individual who refuse to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014, when the mandate kicks in.  While it is pretty likely that this measure will fail a constitutional test when contested in the courts (it violates the supremacy clause), the point is that wingnuts are out in force this year, and progressives are not.

The biggest danger we face this November is the possibility of the enthusiastic Obama voters of 2008 not voting in 2010, feeling disappointed about where the country currently is.  Our jobless recovery is leaving many feeling very disillusioned.  Paul Krugman’s prescience was dead on when he predicted that the biggest failure of the stimulus would be that it wouldn’t be nearly big enough, and by the time we figured that out, there would be no political capital left for a second stimulus package.

Disparaging the so-called “professional left” is roughly the equivalent of a Republican White House telling evangelical wingnuts that they are delusional.  And unfortunately, Gibbs’ insult isn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened in the Obama White House… the president’s chief of staff referred to progressive activists as “fucking retards” a little while ago.

I’m not gonna guess on what 2012 looks like, because that’s a political lifetime away from us.  But November 2010 isn’t looking great, and we’re now in the home stretch, with less than 90 days until the midterms.  I really, really, really want Robin Carnahan to become Missouri’s second female U.S. Senator, but the way things are looking right now, I’d have trouble betting against her GOP opponent, Roy Blunt.  After that embarrasingly huge wingnut victory here last week, my hope is running low.

The only good news is that Dick Morris is almost certainly going to look like a fool, as he’s currently predicting GOP gains of 75 House seats and 13 or 14 Senate seats… he’s predicting losses for Boxer, Wyden, Murray, Gillibrand, and Feingold, none of which I see happening.

We won’t lose the Senate, but we could lose 5 or 6 seats, which would still be really bad.  And while I still think the Democrats have an edge on retaining the House, I can’t say I’ll be totally shocked if we wind up losing it.  Our enthusiasm is really, really low, and even though most who participate in netroots blogging and commenting will vote, that’s only a tiny segment of the overall Democratic base.  We need to attract our less politically active but liberal leaning citizens to the polls, and right now, the most powerful voices aren’t helping that cause.  While the GOP wins probably won’t be nearly as big as a certain obnoxious toesucker thinks, losing the House would still really suck, and it’s crazy not to acknowledge the possibility of it.  Robert Gibbs’ comments about that a few weeks ago weren’t nearly as controversial as they were made out to be… the fact is, losing the House is a possibility, and denying that is simply naive.  I don’t think Gibbs was predicting that we will lose the House, he was merely acknowledging that we could lose the House.  I hope his and our fears aren’t realized, but I’m getting mentally prepared for a potentionally painful Election Night in November.

Ugh… the prospect of two or more years with an Orange-American Speaker of the House makes my skin crawl.

Comment #94: DTGslu2K  on  08/10  at  03:40 PM

401k plans and similar tools replaced traditional pensions very intentionally to get normal, non-rich Americans to believe that what’s good for Wall Street is good for them.  Worked for about 30 years, until the Wall Street banksters got too greedy and imploded the economy so badly that it wiped out those 401ks and millions of jobs.

Comment #95: libdevil  on  08/10  at  03:40 PM

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-01.htm

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1095

There, Casp: I’ve given you a few more hippies to punch.  Enjoy your ‘10 and ‘12 election cycles.

Comment #96: Sam Holloway  on  08/10  at  03:42 PM

Yes, DBK, I do get it, so you can take your condescending explanation and stick it in your ear. Gibbs suffers from the delusion that he doesn’t work for the people that put Obama in office and feels free to insult them at will. My post was expanded on that idea by detailing other instances where he’s felt free to behave like a disrespectful jerk who is beholden to no one and can’t possibly conceive of the idea that his actions might have consequences for him down the road, which is truer than any of us care to contemplate since he’s essentially speaking on behalf of an administration who has no desire to enact the agenda of its supporters. Take your sneering, arrogant, self-satisfied, you-couldn’t-possibly-understand because you’re not as intellectually adroit as my wonderful self cracks and use them on a group of middle school kids who might actually be impressed by them.

Comment #97: Slackajawea  on  08/10  at  03:43 PM

My point, lest you try to avoid it again, is that blaming Nader and his supporters for eight years of Bush is just another version of hippie punching.  At least the White House’s version is born of arrogance and complacency.  The Nader scapegoating is born of cowardice.

Comment #98: Sam Holloway  on  08/10  at  03:46 PM

#90

If we expend our time, energy and money placing a person into the position to represent us and they fail to actually represent us, and in the case of Leiberman and Lincoln, actually work against us, then we should save our time, money and energy and allow them to be swept into the dust-bin of history and build up a new person to represent us.

I really think you’re underestimating just how completely batshit the Republicans are now. The joke from Bill Maher is, “The Democrats have moved to the right and the Right moved into the nuthouse”. The punchline is that it isn’t really a joke, it’s more of an observation. I really think that as crappy as the Democrats have been over the past two years, the Republicans, if given enough power, will be ten times as ignorant, stupid and incompetent.

Comment #99: atheist  on  08/10  at  03:47 PM

Comment #93: Casp

0.62 on the troll scale.  Fumbled the approach, execution and dismount.

Comment #100: cynickal  on  08/10  at  03:47 PM

Total threadjack, but former U.S. Senator Ted “series of tubes” Stevens has been confirmed dead in a plane crash in Alaska.

Comment #101: DTGslu2K  on  08/10  at  03:50 PM

#98

The Nader scapegoating is born of cowardice.

Besides which, it was ten years ago for crissakes. A lot has happened since then.

Comment #102: atheist  on  08/10  at  03:50 PM

Gibbs was also an architect of the 2004 ad that morphed Dean into Osama.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/17/elec04.prez.dean.osama/

That is what he thinks of progressives.

Comment #103: bay of arizona  on  08/10  at  03:57 PM

Interesting bay, thanks for the link. So he’s not just a moron, he’s also an out-and-out asshole.

Comment #104: atheist  on  08/10  at  04:02 PM

If I can delurk for a second and add to the “Nader scapegoating” discussion, I’d like to point out how much people (particularly those invested in deflecting blame onto Nader voters) rely on 20/20 hindsight.  It’s easy to look back now—after 8 horrific years of the Bush presidency, as well as An Inconvenient Truth and so forth—and dismiss Nader’s “two sides of the same coin” rhetoric as foolish.  At the time, though, Bush and Gore were both running as moderates.  They stood up in debates and talked about how many issues they agreed on.  Bush (although he did come off like a dumb frat boy) wasn’t broadcasting just what a mindblowingly terrible President he was going to be, and Gore was a afraid to show even the slightest hint of liberalism. 

I voted for Nader in Tennessee, by the way, and can rest easy knowing that if every Nader voter in Tennessee had voted for Gore, Bush still would have carried the state.  And keep in mind, Tennessee may be pretty red in general, but it’s also Gore’s home state.  The Gore campaign was horribly run.

And, as was mentioned above, despite the awfulness of the Gore campaign, Bush was such an unappealing candidate that GORE STILL WON.  Then the Supreme Court gave the White House to Bush, and the Democrats proceeded to blame us Nader voters.  Which, as Sam said at #98, is just another example of hippie-punching, like the current nonsense from Gibbs.

Comment #105: Dustin L  on  08/10  at  04:06 PM

The way I know I’m not going to see revolution in my lifetime is that the American Left was already shown what the Democrats thought of them in ‘68 and we’ve still not accepted that truth 42 years after the facts.

It’s fucking depressing. I wish I wasn’t straight edge so I could drink.

Comment #106: BlackBloc  on  08/10  at  04:09 PM

Obama doesn’t want my vote?  Obama doesn’t get my vote.  I’m going green in 2012.

Comment #107: James  on  08/10  at  04:29 PM

How is this different than not voting D? In one case they lose your vote.  In the other case they lose the votes that you would bring in.  Either way they lose votes due to your choice.

I have complete control over my vote. I have complete control over whom I give money and time and attention to. That’s it. My influence, or even Amanda’s or Kos’s, is just that: influence. My vote doesn’t carry a pricetag in any way shape or form, but my influence does.

“Of course we’ll vote for you no matter what,” why should the WH care if you get insulted?

I didn’t say “no matter what,” I said “over Palin and her ilk”. The Dems’ base is safe only so long as they’re seen as a true alternative, and if both parties continue meet in the middle (i.e shift to the right-centre) more liberals and progressives will indeed stay home on election day.

Political parties care about money and PR and volunteers and votes. Low-info/“swing” voters deliver only votes, and a lot of them. But that alone won’t win an election.

This isn’t an exclusively a Dem problem, either. The GOP establishment is struggling to figure out how to reconcile their extreme neoliberal programme with the demands of Teabaggers, but one thing their spokepeople are not doing is actively alienating these real nutbags.

Comment #108: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  04:29 PM

At the time, though, Bush and Gore were both running as moderates.  They stood up in debates and talked about how many issues they agreed on.  Bush (although he did come off like a dumb frat boy) wasn’t broadcasting just what a mindblowingly terrible President he was going to be, and Gore was a afraid to show even the slightest hint of liberalism.

I’ll agree on Gore’s failure in that regard, but you’re not going to convince me that Bush came off as any kind of moderate in 2000, nor that it wasn’t clear at the time what kind of disaster this spoiled dumb frat boy would do with any power he was handed. Forget liberals and progressives, there were died-in-the-wool rapacious capitalist moneyCons and PaleoCons who knew what a train wreck Prince Bush would be.

Comment #109: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  04:38 PM

My feeling is the Left often “has no bench”—there’s not a DEPTH that would corral people like Gibbs into keeping their traps shut in fear of a comprehensive head to toe pounding.

Comment #110: Eric_RoM  on  08/10  at  04:40 PM

Bush (although he did come off like a dumb frat boy) wasn’t broadcasting just what a mindblowingly terrible President he was going to be.

Yes he was.

See if you can get your hands on a copy of “Is Our Children Learning?: The Case Against George W. Bush” by Paul Begala published before the election in 2000. It was eerily accurate at predicting how Bush would act and what his policies would be. Amazon has the table of contents available online.

People just weren’t paying attention. On issues like the environment and social security - the difference was crystal clear.

I remember my doubling over with laughter watching Phil Donahue on Hannity and Colmes that fall. Donahue was spouting off issues “They’re the same on corporate welfare! They’re the same on campaign finance reform!” Colmes looked at Donahue and deadpanned “Are they they same on abortion? Donahue froze. “...no.”

If he could figure it out…

Comment #111: MissCherryPi  on  08/10  at  04:41 PM

“So, like, Gibbs really wants the Republicans to sweep in November as a bunch of disenchanted liberals stay home, then?”

Yeah, right.  The Repubs are going to be fielding a teabagger friendly candidate in 2012 - are you really going to ignore the cries of “vote for us or pseudo-Palin gets into the White House”?

Face it, the Democrats are Lucy and you all are Charlie Brown, rushing at that ball because there’s no real alternative.  The system is set up so that whether the President has an (R) or a (D) after his/her name, the (Money) always wins.

Comment #112: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/10  at  04:47 PM

@ 109 and 111
Perhaps you’re right.  I was a busy young college student at the time, so I can’t claim to have had the same amount of knowledge or political savvy as Paul Begala or other people whose job it was to pay attention to such things.  However, I began that election cycle ready to vote for Gore, but he had so little interest in courting young liberal voters that my disinterest became dislike, and I was ripe for Nader’s pitch.

Larger question though, are you both just nitpicking my one (admittedly probably ill-considered) remark about Bush, or are you actually taking part in the effort to lay blame for that disaster at the feet of Nader voters?

Comment #113: Dustin L  on  08/10  at  04:56 PM

So, the Democratic administration DOESN’T consider ITSELF to be part of the “professional left?”

Comment #114: ttintagel  on  08/10  at  04:57 PM

Larger question though, are you both just nitpicking my one (admittedly probably ill-considered) remark about Bush, or are you actually taking part in the effort to lay blame for that disaster at the feet of Nader voters?

I blame Nader voters for a lot of things—naivete and hubris being at the top of the list, and I’m willing to forgive those things in college students. But, no, their contribution to the disaster was insignificant in comparison to the active malfeasance from the Bush camp and their allies, the lily-liveredness of the Gore campaign, and the enabling chorus of the MSM.

And that’s more than nitpicking—you’re re-writing history regarding Prince Bush, so of course we’re going to call you on it.

Comment #115: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  05:03 PM

The only thing I can think about is brinkmansship here.

Imagine a movement organised around three simple policy points, preferrably couched as yes/no questions.  Pledge a large number of progressives to the movement, and have them push for those questions to be asked at every candidates debate or whistlestop.

Imagine that you flood a meeting in each State with movement people all wearing the same t-shirt so they can be recognised, and that these three questions get asked.  Each time a question is answered wrongly, a third of those people all get up and leave - and bloody keep their promise of voting for a third party - Ralph Nadar, the friggin’ Communists, I don’t know. You could use cell-phones or Twitter to organise it.

You are going to have to vote with irrational tactics to be regarded as a strategic force.  Make a commitment, and follow through by conspiciously wasting your vote if simple demands are not met.

Comment #116: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/10  at  05:11 PM

But seriously, when the Party is relying on the base to act as evangelists, they need to give us something to believe in.  It’s not about petulantly sitting at home out of spite; it’s that when I walk the neighborhood to try to convince my “undecided” neighbors to vote for the Democrat, I need to approach those doors with real enthusiasm. A sense of resignation isn’t going to sway anybody.

This, a thousand times this.

Being a marginally less shitty candidate (or being widely perceived as such) than your opponent is no way to run a campaign.  Ask John Kerry how well the “Anybody But Bush” strategy worked out.

People don’t vote when they believe that their vote is nothing more than an effort to keep the crappier of two crappy candidates out of office.  The Democrats cannot count on winning if their underlying message is, “OK, so we’ve pretty much proven how spineless and ineffectual we are when we have the White House and the biggest Congressional majorities in a generation, but you have to vote for us anyway, because those wingnuts on the other side are much, much worse than we are.”

It doesn’t work like that.  The huge wins in 2008 weren’t just a repudiation of the Bush years, they were also built upon a tremendous sense of hope for what the election of the first African-American president could mean for this country, and the inspiration that candidate evoked with his words on that campaign.  I cried in Grant Park on Election Night, as did a huge number of people in that crowd, and I don’t cry in elections.  Ever.  Obama voters mostly voted FOR Obama, rather than AGAINST McCain.  In 2004, I voted against George W. Bush, and almost every progressive friend of mine also voted against George W. Bush.  If asked to give a strong affirmation and endorsement for John Kerry, I would have given a blank stare, followed by, “Well, he couldn’t possibly be as shitty as Bush”.

It’s going to be very tough for Democrats to win if their base remains depressed while the opposition base is fired up.  And today, that is the reality on the ground.  My sincere hope is that Sharon Angle is just plain batshit crazy enough to allow Harry Reid to win, but I’m still not feeling too optimistic if he plans to run a “I’m a weasally spineless Senate Majority Leader, but do you really want to give my job to my psychopathic opponent?” platform alone.

For the Democrats, relying on the electorate’s fear of the Republican Party won’t get the job done.  It didn’t work in 2004, either.  They need to give us a reason why we should vote FOR them, and not just AGAINST their opponents.  I know that I will be a reliable Democratic voter in November simply because I consider them the only realistic option.  But I’m afraid that many of my less politically involved peers will probably opt out, as many will consider voting a waste of time.  My vote this year won’t be backed up with much if any campaign volunteering.  And I’m in no spot to make any campaign contributions either, which sort of works out, since I’m not really motivated to contribute any money even if I could afford to do so.

Comment #117: DTGslu2K  on  08/10  at  05:21 PM

The only thing I can think about is brinkmansship here.

Congressional candidate Sean Tevis is floating something like that. It’s appealingly geeky, but I don’t know if most people will get it, even in XKCD-tribute comic form.

Comment #118: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  05:25 PM

#116

Dude, the problem is, you don’t have to actually live here. You don’t have to feel the effects of completely batshit government.

Comment #119: atheist  on  08/10  at  05:26 PM

I’ll agree on Gore’s failure in that regard, but you’re not going to convince me that Bush came off as any kind of moderate in 2000, nor that it wasn’t clear at the time what kind of disaster this spoiled dumb frat boy would do with any power he was handed.

Bush ran on “Compassionate Conservatism(tm)” and supposedly “hands-off government”.  Darth Cheney was largely out of sight, and it was widely expected that his father - overall not too bad a neo-liberal/paleo-con president - would be pulling the strings and GWB Jr would be along for the ride enjoying the free food and travel just as he had done for decades.  The country couldn’t get effed up too bad before GHWB would fix things (like the sale of the Texas Rangers and the buyout of Arbusto a.k.a. Bush Exploration).  Bush was at worst another Coolidge, but not another Reagan.

Gore OTOH ran as an outright neo-liberal who would follow in the footsteps of Clinton, so much so that I heard people refer to his campaign slogan as “4 More Years”.  By November 2000 it was pretty obvious that the dot-com was going to come crumbling down (the market was being run on Greenspan’s daily bowel movements), NAFTA was starting to make its effects felt, health care reform was still off the table, DOMA was federal law (way to stick it to gays WJC!), welfare was “dead as we know it”, and today’s surveillance state was well underway (remember the Clipper chip anyone?).

I think plenty of reasonable people might have concluded that electing Al Gore was going to bring with it massive growth in the surveillance state, a market crash, soaring medical costs, mass offshoring of manufacturing jobs, and zero progress on gay rights.  (Oh look, that’s the same stuff we got with Bush!)  Voting for Gore didn’t look much different from voting for any other Republican.

Of course, 9/11 changed everything and gave our national media the excuse to stop even pretending to be journalists and Bush was able to get PATRIOT and FISA, start decimating the SEC, EPA, FCC, etc., and put two absolutely horrible judges on the SC.  But no one knew that was coming in November 2000.

Comment #120: boring old dude  on  08/10  at  05:28 PM

Dude, the problem is, you don’t have to actually live here. You don’t have to feel the effects of completely batshit government.

We’re not immune to your batshit government, nut true enough.

I thank God for us having the dumb stubbornness to get MMP passed a while back.  I wouldn’t want the Greens in power, but I sure as hell like them in Parliament.

Comment #121: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/10  at  05:30 PM

#121

Granted, stupidity in the USA affects the rest of the world to an unusually large degree. Still, you’re across an ocean. It’s not the same.

Comment #122: atheist  on  08/10  at  05:33 PM

I blame Nader voters for a lot of things—naivete and hubris being at the top of the list…

Ha ha ha ha!!  That’s priceless.  Try to recall NAFTA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, DADT, DOMA, and a host of other horrible things that the Clinton/Gore administration either pushed or meekly and cynically went along with.  Maybe some Nader voters—like me—looked at that track record and said “No more shit sandwiches for me, please.”  Want naivete?  I’ve got your naivete.  Voting for ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’ with a heavily corporate-backed candidate who stocked his campaign staff with the same old New Democrat, neoliberal, and imperialist faces, now that’s—okay, maybe I’m giving that too much credit by calling it naivete.

Guilty as charged on the hubris thingie, though.  It was cosmically arrogant of us to think that a small number of people being willing to challenge the status quo could ever make a difference.  Who knew it would just get us scapegoated by a horde of unimaginative cowards?

Comment #123: Sam Holloway  on  08/10  at  05:34 PM

I’ve come to regard Gore 2000 voters and Nader 2000 voters as the Hatfields and McCoys of the left blogosphere.

Comment #124: atheist  on  08/10  at  05:41 PM

Bush ran on “Compassionate Conservatism(tm)” and supposedly “hands-off government”.

Bush, like DuffMan, says a lot of things—doesn’t mean he meant them (in fact, you could count on it).

In 2000, Bush’s track record as a student, as a businessman, as a governor, as a person was one of consistent failure and evident to anyone putting in a small amount of effort. His rivalry with and resentment of Bush the Elder was also well known, and it was clear that their political difference was one of neoLiberal vs. neoCon.

Cheney was more of a mystery man at that point, but when his name came up back then it carried with it the reputation of a scaly character connected to big oil and the military-industrial complex, with his own interest in the surveillance state. The moment the head of the VP search committee chose himself, it was clear what kind of scumbag he was.

You’re correct about Gore to a point, but the only voters who believed he was more likely than Bush to bring about “massive growth in the surveillance state, a market crash, soaring medical costs, mass offshoring of manufacturing jobs, and zero progress on gay rights” were the low-info variety who couldn’t even define the word “neoLiberal.”

I can’t really blame the Nader voters for thinking that Bush and Gore were two identical sides of the same coin, either. What can you expect from people who thought St. Ralph the Pure lived in a back room of his D.C. office, and paid all the well-treated employees of his non-profit (unsullied by corrupting alliances from other interest groups) out of the pockets of his own ragged trousers.

Of course, 9/11 changed everything and gave our national media the excuse to stop even pretending to be journalists and Bush was able to get PATRIOT and FISA, start decimating the SEC, EPA, FCC, etc., and put two absolutely horrible judges on the SC.  But no one knew that was coming in November 2000.

Very true. At that point, most reasonable people were more focused on the damage Bush would do to the economy as a whole. Even wealthy moneyCons were wondering if the anticipated tax cuts would be worth the larger damage this boob was going to do to their portfolios.

Comment #125: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  05:46 PM

Part 1…
I just had an “aha! Moment” as I was reading this material. The President’s words “Make me do it” triggered this for me. I remember President Obama’s inaugural address saying he couldn’t do (all that was before him) alone, without our help and support. It occurs to me what our founding fathers had in mind as they envisioned “We The People”: that the American people were given the power to tell their government what they want done. It also occurs to me that lately the Right seems to have more clout because they are more insistent and scream crazy things louder and have more reported protests and demonstrations. To any intelligent person, these irate masses carrying signs with the President as Joker look like a pack of fools. But the media gives them all the attention, and since 90% of the news talk on radio and TV is conservative-dominated, it gives the false impression that these idiots are representative of what the American people really want. So, wanting to please the people, the administration has turned pretty far to the Right, and it has pissed off the Left. Very understandable! I’m angry too!

I have heard it asked: “Where’s the Left?” “Why is The Left so silent?”. The media plays a powerful role, and they promote the views of the right more than the left, even on the mainstream channels. For example, I heard on one of the channels, (I believe it was either ABC or CBS), the reporter say these words in effect regarding the Republican filibuster of an important bill: “The government failed to pass the ___Bill today, and…” There was NO mention of any Republican filibuster at all! That fact too often seems to get forgotten, and a typical dumbed-down viewer is left to assume that the Democrats were the ones to blame just because they are in the majority, and since Obama is President, it’s all HIS fault too. Only one TV channel tells it like it is: NBC and MSNBC, where the viewer learns that indeed, the Republicans have used the filibuster on nearly every bill that would actually help struggling American people or the environment. But since Fox is #1 and the other channels are surface-skimming, many more people are not getting the facts. To my knowledge, MSNBC is the only TV voice out there for the Left. NPR is neutral. Radio news talk is 90% conservative, dominated by His Majesty King Rush Limbaugh.

Am I saying the Left should go out and get crazy and start screaming and act like fools just to get some media attention? Hardly! Even though that might actually work, it would only end up making the Left look like a bunch of screaming idiots too. And the Left has far more intelligence than that, I continue to believe.

But here’s the point I’m trying to get at: We The People, who supported Obama in 2008 and voted for him, have abandoned him! That’s how I am seeing it. We have left him in the dust because he didn’t make the changes he promised (all by himself) within the first 9 months of his presidency! Hell! You can’t even give birth to a healthy full term baby before nine months! People, for God’s sake, give this man (whom we elected fairly with no funny business) some frackin’ TIME to get stuff done! He was given FOUR years! He said in his inaugural address it may even take EIGHT or even more! We lefties need to have more patience in the face of what he was left with, for Pete’s sake! A disaster! We must ask ourselves: “What would I have done were I in his shoes?” If your answer happens to be “drop an H bomb on the Republican Party”, you would not be fit to be commander-in-chief! President Obama wants us to “make (him) do it”, but we are nowhere to be found when he needs our support.  We the People, as a Mass, are being encouraged to speak out and LEAD WITH HIM. That’s what he said he wanted. That is what America was designed to be about. Democracy in action! Use it or lose it! And what are WE The People doing? We are dressing in sackcloth and shampooing with ashes, wringing our hands like a sorry bunch of victims! We are sitting around bellyaching about his policies while doing nothing and letting the far right do all the leading! A No wonder we are in deep doo! We are better than that!

Comment #126: Mahuleia  on  08/10  at  05:53 PM

Part 2: (rant continued…)
It’s time for The Left to get organized as a cohesive unit and LEAD as ONE MASS. We are so divided amongst ourselves that it’s no wonder the Right can have it’s way with the country. Just like rape.  Some of us are saying “Vote Green!” or “Vote Socialist” or vote this or vote that. NO! We tried that before in 2000, and things were not as messed up then as they are now. Clinton didn’t leave Bush the kind of mess that Bush left Obama. The left and the independents got Obama elected. The independents are now pretty solid Republican, and they are fired up, and ready to go! They definitely will be voting Republican this fall. The Left? Where will they be? A few straggling die-hards will go to the polls with shreds of that “hopey-changey thing” still lingering in their hearts, and vote solid Democratic. The rest of the Left? Left OUT!

With no voice, I might add, and no power.

People of the Left, if we want to be heard, we have to speak up, speak truth, come from the heart, and don’t lose our cool. But we have to be even more persistent than the right, we have to push twice as hard, because we are not going to get much air time. The conservative media will continue to ignore us and make us out to be a bunch of commie, pot-smoking drop outs.

Is that who we are? Then let’s get a grip, take off our sackcloth and stop beating our chests. Get out there and get fired up! You still want that hope and change? Then we gotta BE that hope and BE that change! As ONE powerful, invincible force of voters.  Americans are suffering! Does the Right have any compassion at all? NO! Does the Left? YES!!! America needs…US! People are losing their basic necessities like food, their homes, their education, libraries, police, firefighters, even their paved roads! Republicans and the conservative “majority” are powerfully determined to see this presidency fail, and they don’t care one iota about the suffering Americans! They would rather continue supporting the top 2% and to Hell with the rest of The People. We are nothing but pond scum to them! And they will win in November without our Democratic votes, and they will be heroes, return to the destructive Bush policies, and rule with their heartless totalitarian iron fists! They will see to the destruction of the America we have known to loved. American Democracy will be only a memory, an unfulfilled dream of the idealistic Founding Fathers, who must be rolling in their graves about now.

Organize and unite!

We did it in the sixties.

We can do it again.

This window of opportunity may not come this way again for a long, long time.

Comment #127: Mahuleia  on  08/10  at  05:54 PM

Try to recall NAFTA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, DADT, DOMA, and a host of other horrible things that the Clinton/Gore administration either pushed or meekly and cynically went along with.

You’re acting as if these are or were revelations. For anyone who put in effort, these things were as evident in 2000 as Obama’s pedigree as a Chicago School neoLiberal centrist were in 2008. But the Nader supporters are still all about blowin’ yer mind with the Truth, ma-a-an.

Being cynical about one non-GOP politician doesn’t turn the most high-profile alternative into some sort of saint. And knowledge of the two parties does not change the nature of America’s two-party system, nor that one party is significantly crazier/worse. In fact, it’s naive to imagine that a protest vote would be noticed by either the Dems or the GOP (ok, maybe the GOP—they funneled some donations to the Nader campaign).

Guilty as charged on the hubris thingie, though.  It was cosmically arrogant of us to think that a small number of people being willing to challenge the status quo could ever make a difference.  Who knew it would just get us scapegoated by a horde of unimaginative cowards?

Yes, now that I recall it, the Nader campaign was the height of sophistication, raising its own organic version of Obama’s “hope we can believe in” meme, winning over all those swing voters hungry for change. But somehow The Man™ slapped it down.

Pick a more inspiring candidate than Al Gore ca. 2000 (I know, tough to fathom), and run a more sophisticated campaign than Obama in 2008, and we’ll talk.

Comment #128: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  05:58 PM

Granted, stupidity in the USA affects the rest of the world to an unusually large degree. Still, you’re across an ocean. It’s not the same.

Fine.  Then get used to always being Charlie Brown.

Comment #129: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/10  at  06:01 PM

I’m a proud Nader voter in 2000.  Chastise me all you want, but if that campaign were repeated, I’d vote the same way…

Two basic factors cost Al Gore my vote:  He continually ran to the right in his campaign, and he selected the senate scold as his VP candidate.  I remembered that Lieberman was the Democratic senator that gave the Clinton impeachment credibility, and felt that selecting him to be the VP candidate showed appalling decision making.

Now, I live in California, so it was as much a protest vote as anything…  If California had been in play, I might have voted differently.  But it wasn’t, so I am fine with how I voted.

Comment #130: James  on  08/10  at  06:02 PM

Now, I live in California, so it was as much a protest vote as anything… If California had been in play, I might have voted differently.  But it wasn’t, so I am fine with how I voted.

So am I—nothing wrong with a protest vote. Unless a Nader voter was in Ohio or Florida, there was no reason to even look at them sideways afterward. And even in those states, the dirty looks would have been unwarranted given what else was going on.

Comment #131: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  06:11 PM

This isn’t the first time Gibbs has done something clueless that’s come back to bite him on the ass. In February he was caught writing a grocery list on his hand making fun on Sarah Palin during a press conference.

Actually, that is one thing he did that I thought was cool and it demonstrated “cajones” (as the Wasilla Whacko herself would say) to fight back against Sarah Palin’s ridiculous nonsensical ravings.  Gibbs made fun of her, and she very much deserved to be made fun of.  She’s a clown.

He used his White House twitter account to tweet about his favorite bike shop.

That was dumb, but not really particularly offensive or even noteworthy… I wasn’t even aware of that happening until just now, and I don’t recall any chatter over it.

He made a semi-veiled threat to supporters by stating that Republicans could easily take back Congress in November.

I don’t think that was a threat so much as an acknowledgement of political reality.  He didn’t say they could “easily” lose the House, here is what he actually said:

“I think there’s no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control. There’s no doubt about that.”

I know that his comment caused some ruckus and probably gave some Democratic campaign managers heartburn, but I don’t think his observation was false.  The truth is that the Democratic Majority in the House is not a certainty beyond January 2011, and I think all that Gibbs did was point out the pink elephant in the room that people don’t want to talk about, the fact that a huge number of Americans are disappointed by the current officeholders in D.C.  It was a little cringeworthy to hear him actually say it, but it’s only cringeworthy because it’s reality.  While the public isn’t exactly in love with the GOP as much as they want to believe, the bulk of voter frustration is going to impact the party that currently holds nearly 2/3 of all the seats in Congress.  And that isn’t the Republicans.

The trending “throw the bums out” voter mentality will cost Republicans some seats, but it will almost certainly cost the Democrats even more seats.  The best hope is that Republicans drum up their expectations and predictions to such ridiculous levels that they come off looking like fools should they not gain nearly as many seats as they think they will gain.  The sniveling turd Dick Morris is going all in by declaring not only a Republican takeover of both chambers, but an overall GOP victory that he thinks will dwarf the 1994 midterms.  He basically said that the Democratic Party was going to be crippled for a generation, much like they were after Reagan’s 1980 victory over Carter.

That ain’t gonna happen, Dick.

And just the same, those on our side who boldly predicted on November 5, 2008 that the GOP would go the way of the Whigs following the 2010 election cycle were also way off the mark.

The sad thing is that the current GOP probably could be driven to extinction pretty easily, but only if elected Democrats are willing to demonstrate enough political courage to actually stand up to these fucknozzles.  We need a lot more people like Alan Grayson and Anthony Weiner who are willing to stand up to the Reichwing scum and call them out when they’re fucking with real people’s lives.  Tenacious fighters with solid principles may say things which occasionally evoke gasps from the Villagers, but they earn a level of admiration and respect from their supporters that is not typically given to more milquetoast politicians.

Politics is the art of the possible, and pragmatism is a necessary evil in getting a lot of things done.  But there’s a line that exists between pragmatic compromise and full-blown capitulation, and I feel that our current Democratic leaders have often deferred to the opposition way more than they actually needed to.

But who knows?  Citizens United may well have permanently tainted our electoral system, and we may be entering an era in which unapologetically progressive policy doesn’t really have a prayer, since billionaire wingnut CEOs can now basically buy themselves a Senator whenever they want one or need one.

Comment #132: DTGslu2K  on  08/10  at  06:19 PM

Okay, Mahuleia. What’s your program?

Comment #133: Aaron  on  08/10  at  06:35 PM

Because I am all about a united front, especially one broad enough to have a place for a political shit-for-brains like me. But so far, all I’ve ever heard from anyone on the left as far as “and here’s how we go about making that happen” has been crickets.

Except for Tevis, that is. I don’t think he has a chance in hell of pulling it off, but I dropped a buck in the kitty all the same. Trouble is, he’s doing that whole social-networking, social-capital thing? I’m one of those people who annoys everybody sooner or later, so it sounds to me like a great way to end up losing my health coverage because I’ve just been kicked out of whatever “nation” I paid to join, rather than because I just lost my job.

Comment #134: Aaron  on  08/10  at  06:38 PM

Pick a more inspiring candidate than Al Gore ca. 2000 (I know, tough to fathom), and run a more sophisticated campaign than Obama in 2008, and we’ll talk.

So policies and substance are just boring old trivialities to you.  You’d rather be ‘inspired’ to the polls than support someone who’d actually fight for single-payer health care or to have the troops brought home from Iraq and Afghanistan?  I take back my earlier characterization; it was unfair and hasty.  Nader and his supporters (and those of us who now vote Green) continue to be scapegoated by unimaginative and infantile cowards.

And for the record, my 2000 vote for Nader was not a ‘protest’ vote.  He was the best of the three candidates, so I voted for him.  Silly me, I saw it as a presidential election and not a fucking horse race.  My vote for the quick-capitulating Kerry/Edwards in 2004?  Now that was a protest vote.  I came to my senses in time for 2008, though.  Too bad 66 million-plus still had their heads up their asses.  Who knows?  Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe our continuing downward bipartisan spiral will build our nation’s character.  Now would be as good a time as any to start that process.

Comment #135: Sam Holloway  on  08/10  at  06:45 PM

Also, if you’re going to say, “Of course we’ll vote for you no matter what,” why should the WH care if you get insulted?  You’re still going to vote for them, their base is safe.

Unenthusiastic votes absent any other support isn’t as valuable as enthusiastic votes coupled with volunteering and financial contributions.  A big part of why John Kerry couldn’t close the deal.  Not many of his voters were really vested in him becoming president, they just knew that they didn’t want a second helping of Dubya.  That may have been the most uninspiring presidential campaign I’ve ever seen.  Actually that probably goes to Walter Mondale, but I wasn’t even ten years old in 1984.

I’ll be voting this year for Russ Carnahan (my Congressman) and his sister Robin Carnahan (hopefully Missouri’s next U.S. Senator), but the deluge of Organizing for America email I get mostly winds up in the spam folder now.  My desire to do anything for a political candidate above and beyond giving them my vote in November is pretty much nil at this point.

My vote in 2008 came with a whole bunch of add-on features.  My vote in 2010 will probably be the stripped down base model, no bells and whistles.  There is a difference, and candidates get more from voters like my 2008 self than they do from voters like my 2010 self.

Comment #136: DTGslu2K  on  08/10  at  06:49 PM

Maddow and Olbermann helped Obama get elected? Pssh. Ha!

The left or right do not help elect presidents since those on their respective side of the political spectrum will always vote for the Democrat or Republican. Independents elect presidents. So you can take that bullshit idea out back and bury it, just like Obama’s reelection chances.

Comment #137: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  08/10  at  06:50 PM

Lieberman was a bad enough VP choice that not voting for Gore on that basis is defensible.

Comment #138: Punditus Maximus  on  08/10  at  06:56 PM

Yeah, in 2008 I volunteered for the Obama campaign.  If he doesn’t do something I actually like, in 2012, I won’t.

Comment #139: syfr  on  08/10  at  06:57 PM

So policies and substance are just boring old trivialities to you.

Not at all. I just recognise the requirements in America’s two-party system that are needed to get them in place.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that ideas and substance are all it would take. Perhaps even candidates aren’t needed in your universe. Must be nice.

Comment #140: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  06:59 PM

I really think that as crappy as the Democrats have been over the past two years, the Republicans, if given enough power, will be ten times as ignorant, stupid and incompetent.

I fully agree.

But that still won’t be a good enough reason for low information voters to enthusiastically vote for Democrats, nor will it pave the way to Democratic victory in three months.  If the biggest compliment one can give to a particular candidate is that they suck less than their opponent, that candidate isn’t in a good position to win their election.

Americans have short-term memories.  Campaigning on how shitty George W. Bush was as president isn’t gonna do diddly squat for the Democrats this year, and if that’s the best argument Democrats have right now, they’re in deep shit.

Comment #141: DTGslu2K  on  08/10  at  07:09 PM

<quote>Campaigning on how shitty George W. Bush was as president isn’t gonna do diddly squat for the Democrats this year</quote>

Especially when some of GWB’s most unpopular policies - wiretapping, Gitmo, the two wars, TARP, the Unitary Executive - are being pursued as aggressively as possible rather than scaled back.

Comment #142: boring old dude  on  08/10  at  07:21 PM

#137

+5 for a decent strawman, but -2 for no followthrough, and -2 for sentence contstruction. +1 for predicting the future, but your insult was unimaginative. 2/10.

Comment #143: atheist  on  08/10  at  07:21 PM

Americans have short-term memories.  Campaigning on how shitty George W. Bush was as president isn’t gonna do diddly squat for the Democrats this year, and if that’s the best argument Democrats have right now, they’re in deep shit.

And would it be too much to expect at least a few of the hippie-bashers to understand that it’s really the feckless mainstream Democratic pols, not the hippies, who are most responsible for putting us in danger of renewed Republican misrule?

Why yes, of course it would be too much to expect. And so the beatings will continue until morale improves.

Comment #144: Steve LaBonne  on  08/10  at  07:26 PM

#141

But that still won’t be a good enough reason for low information voters to enthusiastically vote for Democrats, nor will it pave the way to Democratic victory in three months.  If the biggest compliment one can give to a particular candidate is that they suck less than their opponent, that candidate isn’t in a good position to win their election.

Granted, Murrow Fan. I was mostly responding to the idea, espoused by Piator & others, that left wingers should create a bloc whose purpose would be to hobble the Democrats until such time as they stopped dissing us. I personally don’t consider that a viable strategy, and one reason is that the alternative is significantly worse.

I do hate the re-fighting of the 2000 election, though, whenever it breaks out. I’m glad that that is less and less often. I hate things that are too theoretical, and too stuck in the past.

Comment #145: atheist  on  08/10  at  07:27 PM

Mr Ess wrote:

“...no, Mr Gibbs does not “work for us.” He works for the President of the United States.”

Actually, he reports to President Obama, but he, like the President, works for us, as do all people in all governments - local, state, and federal.  We’re the “shareholders” of government.

We, the voters, hired Barack Obama to be President of the United States, and come November of 2012, we can either re-hire or fire him.  Robert Gibbs?  Is there anyone in here who had a hand in hiring him?  Anyone in this room who can fire him?

Regardless of semantics on for whom Mr Gibbs works, he serves at the pleasure of the President.  Thus far, it would seem, the President is pleased with his job performance.

Comment #146: Dana  on  08/10  at  07:28 PM

My vote in 2008 came with a whole bunch of add-on features.  My vote in 2010 will probably be the stripped down base model, no bells and whistles.

Whoop-de-shit - you’re still voting for them.  “Because the alternative is worse”.

As Bill Hicks said:

I’ll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. “I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.” “I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.” “Hey, wait a minute, there’s one guy holding out both puppets!” “Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control. Here’s Love Connection. Watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer, you fucking morons.”

Obama is a vaguely middle-of-the-road, band-aid up the bleeding wounds, corporatist (as opposed to the right-wing, ignore the bleeding wound, corporatists).  Given that putting corporatists in power appears to be the actual friggin’ problem, the system seems pretty much screwed, doesn’t it?

As was pointed out above, I don’t have to live with the results of your political decisions, except at a distance removed (*).  But there’s no way you can hold the “left-wing” candidates feet to the fire as long as you’re too afraid of the right-wing.  The teabagger loons have some power precisely because they’re loons - as long as the progressives are just seen as whining wimps, they’ll be ignored.

(*) Global warming doesn’t seem to be respecting that distance.  Glub glub glub.

Comment #147: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/10  at  07:30 PM

I guess we are re-fighting the battles because we are honestly angered, wearied by this scumbag Robert Gibbs, and worried about the future. It is like a case of shingles, which lurks near the nerves, and breaks out to the surface when one is under stress. It hurts until our flesh finds the virus again and devours it.

Comment #148: atheist  on  08/10  at  07:33 PM

Dana, take a long walk off a short pier

Comment #149: atheist  on  08/10  at  07:35 PM

”(*) Global warming doesn’t seem to be respecting that distance.  Glub glub glub.”

...swimming is great exercise…

Comment #150: MikeEss  on  08/10  at  07:37 PM

#147

As was pointed out above, I don’t have to live with the results of your political decisions, except at a distance removed (*).  But there’s no way you can hold the “left-wing” candidates feet to the fire as long as you’re too afraid of the right-wing.  The teabagger loons have some power precisely because they’re loons - as long as the progressives are just seen as whining wimps, they’ll be ignored.

(*) Global warming doesn’t seem to be respecting that distance.  Glub glub glub.

PIATOR, granted the madness of the right gives them some advantages. What I’m less convinced of is that the same type of behavior would work for us. I’m not a violent man.

Nader’s attempt to build a bloc didn’t empower the left wing, any more than the far-right opposition to Bush, or to Eisenhower before him, really hurt either of them.

Comment #151: atheist  on  08/10  at  07:41 PM

And, as was mentioned above, despite the awfulness of the Gore campaign, Bush was such an unappealing candidate that GORE STILL WON.

The truth is that Gore should have won even more decisively, given where the country was at at the end of Clinton’s presidency in 2000 compared to where it was at in 1992 before he took office.  When overwhelming public perception is that the country as a whole is better off at the end of a presidential term than it was in the beginning, the incumbent or the candidate from the incumbent’s party almost always wins.

I have little use for much of what Ronald Reagan said or did, but his question “Are you better off today than you were before?” is an incredibly powerful political tool, one that Gore failed to effectively deploy in 2000.  Probably because one of his campaign strategists stupidly believed that the Big Dog’s presidential blowjobs mattered more to the American public than they actually did.  Al Gore acted as if he was literally allergic to Bill Clinton in 2000, which I think helped him screw up a completely winnable election.

I’m somewhere in the middle on my feelings about Nader’s impact.  The fact is, Ralph Nader won more than 80,000 votes in the state of Florida, and Al Gore “officially” lost the state by fewer than 600 votes.  I am absolutely convinced that if Ralph Nader hadn’t been on the Florida ballot that Al Gore would have picked up more than enough votes to put him over the top and win the presidency decisively on Election Night.

That said, the race should never have been as close as it was, and the fact that Gore seemed to be relying on the same “50%+1” strategy that worked for his boss in 1992 and 1996 demonstrated severe political incompetence.  Terry McAuliffe’s “50%+1” strategy was only tested twice, and in both elections, a third party spoiler candidate (Perot) won enough votes to allow Clinton to win even though he received less than 50% of the popular vote in both elections.  And that strategy was an absolute disaster for downticket Democrats.  It guaranteed that staunchly progressive legislation would not be enacted under President Clinton, as Congress was ceded to the opposition for the last 75% of Clinton’s tenure in the White House.

Anyway, it’s a dead issue, and continuing to fight about it doesn’t really accomplish much of anything other than fueling infighting among left-leaning people.  Right or wrong, good or bad, what happened happened, and there’s nothing we can do to change the clusterfuck outcome of the 2000 election.

The biggest thing I wonder about in all of this is why in the hell was the architect of the Democratic Resurgence of 2006 and 2008 kicked so quickly to the curb after Obama was elected?  I don’t have to wonder too much - I believe that one person is chiefly responsible for the ousting of Howard Dean, and his name is Rahm Emmanuel.  I think Rahm made it immediately clear to Obama that he and Dr. Dean were not friends or allies, and that if the newly elected president wanted Rahm in his White House, then Obama had to promise to leave Dean out of it.

And here we are today.

Comment #152: DTGslu2K  on  08/10  at  07:45 PM

In an utterly shocking development, I agree with Amanda:

Or, basically what you’re saying, vlad, is that the Democrats can and should renege on their duty to campaign for their jobs, and if they refuse to campaign effectively, the blame falls on the electorate who failed to rise up in enthusiasm anyway.  Fascinating theory.

I’m more pragmatic. If you want to win campaigns, you have to hustle.  If you refuse to try, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

If the Republicans sweep, that’s on the Democrats for refusing to campaign effectively.

From The Los Angeles Times:

By Janet Hook, Tribune Washington Bureau

Washington — As Democrats fan out across the country to campaign for reelection this month, many are surprisingly quiet about their hard-won accomplishments — the major bills they have passed under President Obama.

In an effort coordinated with the White House, congressional leaders are urging Democrats to focus less on bragging about what they have done — a landmark healthcare law, a sweeping overhaul of Wall Street regulation and other far-reaching policy changes — and more on efforts to fix the economy and on the perils of Republican control of Congress.

One year after many town hall meetings were upended by raucous anti-government protesters, congressional Democrats are trying to ensure that this summer’s debate sheds a more flattering light on their party as they navigate a bruising midterm election campaign.

Last time I checked, George W Bush had been out of office for over a year and a half. Last time I checked, the Democrats had controlled both Houses of Congress for over 3½ years. Yet it seems that the Democrats, who have built a record — see the second paragraph in the story — aren’t particularly proud of that record, and certainly don’t seem to want to remind the voters of their record.

Instead, they are running against a President already retired, and the party out of power.

Now, I have to ask why. The Democrats had a big advantage in Congress, and despite the best efforts of the GOP, the Democrats got their health care bill passed, got their stimulus bill passed, got their financial systems bill passed, got their automobile company bailout passed, and, realistically, got just about everything they wanted passed with the notable exception of cap-and-trade; had they played hardball, they could have gotten that passed, as well.

So, why aren’t the Democrats running on their record? Why are they running on the platform that failed the Republicans in 2006, “If you think we’re bad, the other guys are even worse?”

Are the Democrats ashamed of their record, or do they think that the voters won’t like what they’ve done?

It might be that the Democrats don’t believe that they can campaign effectively on their record, and that’s why they seem to be letting it die.

Comment #153: Dana  on  08/10  at  07:47 PM

Rahm Emanuel used to be my congressman. What a motherfucking douchebag, I hope he runs for Mayor of Chicago. That would be good for some laughs at least. He could threaten to kick someone’s ass and get beat senseless instead. That would make me smile coldly.

Comment #154: atheist  on  08/10  at  07:50 PM

Dana, fuck off. Seriously.

Comment #155: atheist  on  08/10  at  07:58 PM

atheist wrote:

Dana, take a long walk off a short pier

Fortunately, I am an excellent swimmer!  smile

Comment #156: Dana  on  08/10  at  08:02 PM

You’re right, Dana.

Comment #157: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  08/10  at  08:17 PM

@118, re : When did anarcho-capitalists start infiltrating the Democratic party? I thought they were Libertarians Till Death Though Maybe We’ll Vote For a Republican Just So Dems Don’t Get In.

Comment #158: BlackBloc  on  08/10  at  08:26 PM

In 2000, Bush’s track record as a student, as a businessman, as a governor, as a person was one of consistent failure and evident to anyone putting in a small amount of effort.

Or someone from the wonkish media class such as yourself.  I genuinely mean that as a compliment, but I think you give the average member of the American electorate too much credit for the amount of information they’re willing to seek out about political candidates.  Campaigns aren’t spending millions on highly technical policy white papers, they are spending millions on Hollywood directors creating the perfect 30 second spot and fireworks and elaborate props in the middle of an 80,000 seat NFL stadium.  The sad truth is that a huge amount of people vote based principally on the superficial image projected by a campaign.  Most people aren’t as wonkish or concerned with the fine details as those who regularly visit and contribute to politically-oriented blogs.

Bush 43 was able to pull off the seemingly impossible because he embodied the “guy you wanted to have a beer with” identity that his handlers very successfully built for him, all the way down to the pseudo-cowboy image projected onto a son of New England affluence.  I trust that the accent is probably fairly genuine at this point, considering most of his life he’s lived in Texas.  The fact remains that he’s really just a Yale-legacy trustfund baby from Connecticut who desperately needed the electorate to see him as a rugged, pulled-himself-up-by-the-bootstraps, manly Texan.  Even his silly Crawford Ranch was just a political prop, as was evidenced the moment he left the White House and put it up for sale.  The carefully constructed image of “Dubya” was effective with enough low information voters that the race would be close enough for him to get a nudge over the top from the nine black robes.  In 2000, a large segment of the population saw him as the relatively harmless and adorable imbecile good ‘ol boy portrayed by Will Ferrell on Saturday Night Live.  I don’t think many non-political people (which is most people) really imagined him being anywhere near as dangerous to the Republic as he wound up being once he used 9/11 as his excuse to take a huge shit on the Constitution.

Keep in mind, the same George W. Bush who left the White House with two million people on the National Mall serenading him with “Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye” on January 20, 2009 had enjoyed stratospheric approval ratings for about six months following that horrible Tuesday morning in September 2001.  Being a staunch Bush critic immediately after that tragedy was pretty lonely, and had Dubya faced re-election in November 2001, it’s conceivable that he could have possibly won all 538 electoral votes.  That he took the enormous goodwill of the entire country and for that matter, the entire globe, for granted and shit all over it is largely why he was so despised when he left office.

Comment #159: DTGslu2K  on  08/10  at  08:33 PM

@ 113 Dustin

Perhaps you’re right.  I was a busy young college student at the time, so I can’t claim to have had the same amount of knowledge or political savvy as Paul Begala or other people whose job it was to pay attention to such things. However, I began that election cycle ready to vote for Gore, but he had so little interest in courting young liberal voters that my disinterest became dislike, and I was ripe for Nader’s pitch.

I was a old college freshman that fall, and Al Gore was my hero since I saw him explain Global Warming on Nickelodeon. So maybe I was too star struck to notice how tone deaf he was.

Larger question though, are you both just nitpicking my one (admittedly probably ill-considered) remark about Bush, or are you actually taking part in the effort to lay blame for that disaster at the feet of Nader voters?

Both? I pretty much echo what Gracchus said at #125 and #128. With the caveat that I voted green party for mayor of NYC last year. So if Bloomberg destroys the city with his third term (which I strongly doubt, and that’s why I voted green) I promise I won’t get too defensive if the Democrats blame me for it.

Comment #160: MissCherryPi  on  08/10  at  08:33 PM

* should say a 17 year old

Comment #161: MissCherryPi  on  08/10  at  08:34 PM

Amanda,

You are characterizing hippies and you know nothing about us/them because you are too young and not curious.  It was never about anything but freedom and questioning authority, and trying to make a better world (end the war, save the environment), moderating capitalism’s bad effects.  Your focusing on cleanliness, van residing, and pot smoking is bogus.  If you don’t have any fucking money you might not get to shower too often and might sleep in a van.  I believe the same was true of Civil Rights workers.

What a great way to trivialize what we tried to do.  Grow the fuck up. I wish we had prevailed.  What a better world we would live in.

Comment #162: lymie  on  08/10  at  09:15 PM

  Dana, take a long walk off a short pier

Fortunately, I am an excellent swimmer!

Don’t forget to take the chattels from your concrete business with you to prevent us socialists from stealing them.

If you like, we’ll chain them around your neck before you go swimming…

Comment #163: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/10  at  09:16 PM

@156

You can’t be that great a swimmer if you think walking will accomplish the job of staying afloat.  While I understand that understanding is not in your repertoire (which at this point involves what? swimming and messing up kitchens?), that is the point of the fucking idiom.

If you take a long walk off a short pier, then you are walking when you hit the water.  Then, you keep walking.

Dumbass.

Comment #164: Atheist, A Feminist  on  08/10  at  09:17 PM

When did anarcho-capitalists start infiltrating the Democratic party? I thought they were Libertarians Till Death Though Maybe We’ll Vote For a Republican Just So Dems Don’t Get In.

Apparently since some of them began reading Neal Stephenson.

Seriously, I don’t think he’s infiltrating the Dems ... it’s just that he’s smart enough to understand that we have a two-party system, and he’s geeky enough to understand that his science-lovin’ ways won’t wash in one of them.

Or someone from the wonkish media class such as yourself.  I genuinely mean that as a compliment, but I think you give the average member of the American electorate too much credit for the amount of information they’re willing to seek out about political candidates.

Oh, I don’t give much credit to them, which is why I agree that the best term for them is “low-information voters.” And they’re that way by design—the plutocracy well understood the contemporary implications of Jefferson’s statement that “whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” So they made sure to buy up the MSM and to hobble the public K-12 education system specifically so that myths wouldn’t be questioned and critical thoughts wouldn’t be ... thunk.

In any case, I was responding to Dustin L, who was politically engaged enough to vote for a third-party candidate, and yet was re-writing history as partial justification for that vote.

The sad truth is that a huge amount of people vote based principally on the superficial image projected by a campaign.

Don’t tell Sam Holloway that. He might cry.

Comment #165: Gracchus.  on  08/10  at  09:19 PM

Nader’s attempt to build a bloc didn’t empower the left wing,

Having Nader meant Gore paid attention to the left.  Obama didn’t have a credible Nader character keeping him honest.

Comment #166: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/10  at  09:24 PM

A different Atheist wrote:

You can’t be that great a swimmer if you think walking will accomplish the job of staying afloat.  While I understand that understanding is not in your repertoire (which at this point involves what? swimming and messing up kitchens?), that is the point of the fucking idiom.

If you take a long walk off a short pier, then you are walking when you hit the water.  Then, you keep walking.

Dumbass.

Well, while it’s good to know that you think I can walk on water, alas! such isn’t the case.  That’s why, once I hit the water, I’d change over from walking to swimming.

Comment #167: Dana  on  08/10  at  09:28 PM

@167

I know you are being willfully obtuse, but still…

I know you can’t walk on water.  You are about as far from being fucking Jesus as anyone can be.

That’s why, once I hit the water, I’d change over from walking to swimming.

So then, your answer to “Take a long walk off a short pier” is “No, I’d rather take a short walk to the end of the pier and go swimming.”  It is certainly a more sensible approach, I suppose, but it isn’t anywhere near as clever as you thought you were being.

Typical.  Still, I cannot understand how someone gets to be your age with no understanding of a relatively common idiom.  Would your response to DIAF be “Luckily, I learned Stop, Drop, and Roll”?

Comment #168: Atheist, A Feminist  on  08/10  at  09:36 PM

Yeah, and let’s not forget Seattle, the ludicrous puppetista arrests in Philadelphia, (million-dollar bail requested for possession of a palm pilot), bad-faith negotiations over the Kyoto protocol, privatization of world seed bank stocks, flirting with a trade war with the EU over GMO food product safety standards, and a perpetual war in the airspace over Iraq.

I’m not Obama’s biggest fan but he’s nowhere near Clinton yet.

Comment #169: CBrachyrhynchos  on  08/10  at  09:45 PM

Although in my opinion Gibbs should have been sacked months ago. Press secretary is a position that tends to attract finks so he could say that Obama was planning on roasting babies basted in the fat of kittens and my opinion of him wouldn’t drop a notch.

Comment #170: CBrachyrhynchos  on  08/10  at  09:50 PM

Aaron, thank you for asking about a program. It looks like you just might have an open mind.

Here is the program: It’s simple.
The Constitution gives every American citizen the right to vote. It gives us the right to assemble and the right to free speech, the right to petition. Everyone should obtain a copy. Amazon.com has them, and the ACLU gives it out to it’s members for free.

Vote, Vote, Vote!

For those in each state with their arms crossed over their chests in defiance, determined not to vote “to get back at Obama and the Democrats for betraying us”, I can only ask this. To the people of Nevada: Who would you rather have as your Senator? A wuss who can’t stand up against the opinions of the right, or someone who is determined to force your raped daughters to carry their babies to full term, with no means of support? Or who thinks you jobless people shouldn’t have unemployment benefits extended because she thinks you are just a bunch of “spoiled”, lazy bums who don’t want to work? A woman who wants to use the press to fish for donations, and who wants to privatize Social Security? To the people of Minnesota’s 6th district, for another example: Who do you want your representative to be? One who founds a Tea Party caucus and wants Minnesotans “armed and dangerous”? or a Democrat who will unseat the crazy Republican?

The choice is simple. We all have our right to vote, so in November we can make the commitment to do that, even if we happen to be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.  If we can’t get to the polls on our own, we can ask a neighbor for a ride there. There’s such a thing as absentee ballot, for those who may be travelling. Encourage your friends and family, (if you are not arguing). Petition your senators and your representatives and nag them about issues you feel passionate about until you’re tired. Rest, then do it some more on the morrow.

Never forget that the Right has a unified plan: that is to take down Progressives and annihilate all they stand for. They hate and fear us. It is not so much racism, sexism, or any other kind of “ism”. They want to annihilate all of us. Strike us all from the face of the Earth and dumb down our children so they can control us easier (like they already do).

By all means, vote Republican (to get back at those f’**in’ betrayers”), vote third party, or don’t vote at all if you want the Republicans to win control of BOTH houses of Congress in November, which they will. Don’t expect others to vote in your stead, because then you get default. And the current default setting on the government and in the media is set stubbornly to conservative. If enough of us demand that be changed, it will change, but persistence and patience are virtues we could put to good use. This is how the Right is getting so far ahead. They plug on and on and on! They are fired up and ready to bulldoze their way into power. Third parties may have chances locally, so those of you in Florida, you have your choices, probably none of them progressive enough. You may have to compromise, like spouses do in a working marriage. Vote in the primaries, and start paying attention to the local contests, and educate yourselves on which candidates seem best for the job they’re after. If we are to be the bosses, we have to start ACTING like them.

And last but not least, those of you with the time, the energy, and the courage to do so, run for public office yourselves! Heck! If Alvin Green can get voted in, anyone can!

Comment #171: Mahuleia  on  08/10  at  11:35 PM

@171

Now, I may not speak for everyone, but…

Your plan is for me to keep doing what I have been doing ever since I was old enough to vote.  That hasn’t exactly worked out great so far.

Comment #172: Atheist, A Feminist  on  08/10  at  11:52 PM

I’m somewhere in the middle on my feelings about Nader’s impact.  The fact is, Ralph Nader won more than 80,000 votes in the state of Florida, and Al Gore “officially” lost the state by fewer than 600 votes.  I am absolutely convinced that if Ralph Nader hadn’t been on the Florida ballot that Al Gore would have picked up more than enough votes to put him over the top and win the presidency decisively on Election Night.

Neo-Nazi Pat Buchanon picked up over 1000 votes in West Palm Beach due to a poorly designed ballot… 

Simple fact is:  If Gore had pushed to have every county recounted in Florida, he would have won the state:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts—one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court—had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.

But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.

Continue to blame Nader, and the people who voted for Nader, if it makes you feel better.

Comment #173: James  on  08/10  at  11:54 PM

By all means, vote Republican (to get back at those f’**in’ betrayers”), vote third party, or don’t vote at all if you want the Republicans to win control of BOTH houses of Congress in November, which they will.

Perhaps they will.

But, since the Democratic House, Senate, and President are likely to pass the core of the 2004 Republican Platform (Social Security and Medicare benefit cuts) I am not so sure I see much virtue in voting for someone who is fundamentally opposed to my interests.

Comment #174: James  on  08/10  at  11:57 PM

@ Mahuleia:

Regarding your assessment of MSNBC, I’m gonna disagree a little bit.  Compared to its two main competitors, Fox News and CNN, MSNBC is clearly furthest to the left of the three, but I’m gonna repeat what Keith Olbermann stated earlier tonight… no matter how many times people try to make this claim, MSNBC is simply not the left-wing equivalent of Fox News.

Arguably, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell, and Cenk Uygar (he’s been filling in over the past few weeks) lean to the progressive side, but they aren’t the only people given facetime on MSNBC.  I don’t believe Dylan Ratigan is a wingnut, but I think he’s more of a populist than he is a progressive - he’s been hammering the Wall Street assholes everyday since he was given a timeslot, but that seems to be his singular issue.  I have no idea what exactly Chris Matthews is, because while his background prior to becoming a talking head was working for powerful Democrats (he was a staff aide to former House Speaker Tip O’Neill and a speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter), he tends to worship the idea of bipartisanship way too much.  Every once in a while he can be good, like when he basically told Michele Bachmann that she was a dangerous nutcase in her first high-profile national media interview in October 2008, but more often than not he suffers from foot-in-mouth disease.  He’s not really a rightwinger, but he’s not exactly a very good advocate for Democrats, even if he is one himself.  He’s kind of the creepy uncle who is generally harmless, but whose presence makes everyone else in the room uncomfortable.

And the first three hours of MSNBC programming each day?  Joe Doucheborough, nothing more needs to be said, and the fact that he’s ridiculed by Limbaugh in the same way that progressives have ridiculed liberal masochist Alan Colmes does nothing to make Morning Joke less obnoxious.

No, MSNBC is not the leftwing equivalent of Fox News.  A few progressive hosts who are still willing to challenge politicians who lean to their side does not equate them with the pure unadulterated GOP bullshit propaganda factory that Fox News is.  MSNBC puts at least some effort into presenting the unvarnished truth, even if that truth hurts Democratic officials; there is no such reciprocal behavior from Murdoch’s machine towards GOP officials.  Compare Fox News’ coverage of the sex scandals involving David Vitter, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, John Ensign, and Mark Sanford with their coverage of the sex scandals of Eliot Spitzer and John Edwards.  You could cut the insane level of blatantly pro-GOP partisanship with a knife.

Comment #175: DTGslu2K  on  08/11  at  01:03 AM

@ Murrow Fan:

By saying “MSNBC is the only TV voice out there for the Left”, I did not intend to insinuate that it was the Left wing equivalent of Fox news. If they were, I would not be watching them! What I am saying is that between CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX, and NPR, MSNBC seems to have voices that reflect more of the views on the left, and dig harder for the truth than any of the other ones to my knowledge. I do not listen to Morning Joe. I watched it once and I didn’t like it, so I won’t even record it. I mainly tune into Ed Schultz, Rachael Maddow, and Keith Olbermann, and sometimes Hardball, because I like to see Chris Mathews press conservatives into uncomfortable places where they have to admit the truth.

So I agree with you, Murrow Fan. MSNBC is not the Left’s equivalent to Fox Noose.
Nor should it ever be.
Further, I would encourage my own family, friends, and neighbors a few of who are mostly Fox News watchers, to switch channels and quit gobbling up all that garbage on Fox. Its gotta be bad for the health, mustn’t it? I would encourage them all to switch channels, buy and thoroughly read Bill Press’ book Toxic Talk. That book was an eye-opener for me, a fast read, and I highly recommend it if one wants to learn about how the media has gotten to be so saturated with conservative BS (Belief System).

Comment #176: Mahuleia  on  08/11  at  01:47 AM

So you can take that bullshit idea out back and bury it, just like Obama’s reelection chances.

Predicting whether or not a president will get re-elected before the first midterm elections of his or her presidency is wild and pointless guessing game.  Obama’s re-election chances can’t really be accurately gauged in a meaningful way until January 2012 when the primary season kicks off.

Going back to Dwight Eisenhower, the most consistent factor in determining whether or not a first-term president would be re-elected has been determined by the start of the primaries, and has been based on whether or not the sitting POTUS has had to face a serious primary challenger.  Every sitting president since Eisenhower that didn’t have to compete for his own party’s nomination has won a second term.  Every president that has been challenged by a party rival has lost the presidency, and the opposition party ends up winning the White House back.

If Obama is not primaried, he’ll be the favorite to win in 2012, even if his approval ratings aren’t very good in January 2012.  If Obama is challenged by a serious contender (ie Hillary Clinton), he will likely wind up being a one-term president, and the Republican Party will most likely take back the White House after only four years out of it.

That is why I can’t imagine supporting a primary challenge against Obama in 2012, no matter how disappointed I am with him… all that it would do is hand the White House back to the Republicans.  220 years of presidential elections with only one primary challenge ever succeeding supports my position.  Unless you actually want the Republicans to win back the White House in 2012, there is no rational reason for supporting a primary challenge of our current president two years from now.  It’s a self-destructive act of cutting off one’s own nose just to spite their face.  And while we could sit around all day fighting back and forth about whose fault it was that Obama lost his re-election, the bottom line is that we’ll all be stuck with a Republican president, which it is hard to fathom as being better than what we have right now.

Barack Obama has let me down in many ways, and trying to defend him gets more and more challenging when his own press secretary says inexcusable shit like he did today.  I get the feeling of being letdown by the fact that the Obama Presidency hasn’t lived up to the expectations of many of his biggest supporters.

But I will never give credence to the ridiculous suggestion that President McCain would have been no worse than President Obama.  As opposed to America being in a painful long-term deep recession like we are in now, I believe we would be in a full-blown 20% unemployment depression had the other guy gotten elected (35% for those about to mention the current U6 unemployment stat).  The Big Three automakers would be finished, and Detroit as it currently is would seem like paradise compared to what it would have become under a McCain Administration.

Comment #177: DTGslu2K  on  08/11  at  02:01 AM

@174:
“But, since the Democratic House, Senate, and President are likely to pass the core of the 2004 Republican Platform (Social Security and Medicare benefit cuts) I am not so sure I see much virtue in voting for someone who is fundamentally opposed to my interests.”

If I find out my two Democratic Senators favor cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits they are going to hear directly from me in a polite but clear letter stating exactly why I oppose them. I will call their offices and email them and sign every petition I can get my hands on! If any Senator steps out of the People’s line, they will get bombarded by petitions, phone calls, tweets, facebook comments, and emails. 

We must start seeing the nation as a whole. And we must begin as a whole acting like the bosses who elected these public servants. They work for us.

Comment #178: Mahuleia  on  08/11  at  02:03 AM

In any case, I was responding to Dustin L, who was politically engaged enough to vote for a third-party candidate, and yet was re-writing history as partial justification for that vote.

The sad truth is that a huge amount of people vote based principally on the superficial image projected by a campaign.

If Dustin voted for a third-party candidate based on the superficial images created by the two corporate-party candidates, then didn’t that make him a ‘low-information voter’?  Politically engaged or not, if his perceptions were incomplete, then more information would have naturally led him to vote for Al Gore, yes?  So is he “re-writing history” to suggest that he may have voted based on what you, Gracchus, insist is an integral element of the presidential electoral process that all grown-ups know we can’t ignore, and that is more important to outcomes than policy or substance?  Can all of these ideas coexist within a coherent narrative, or are you just full of shit?

I am not a low-information voter.  In 2000 I looked at the candidates and their track records, and Nader was the best selection.  Full stop.  If you’re pissed that your corporate boy didn’t make it, then bitch at him for not fighting, and at the Dems in the House and the Senate who refused to fight, and at the Supreme Court.  And you can flog your own cowardly ass for not taking to the streets to protest the theft of our nation’s highest office.  This last time out I chose not to vote for the pro-corporate imperialist who promised to double down in Afghanistan and who was dragging more bankster-friendly neoliberals into the White House than the previous administration had ever bothered to.  As your diminishing returns trickle in, who are you going to blame this time?  You’ve got Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, and you’ve got Hope and Change in the White House.  If you want to ‘punch a hippie,’ start with yourself.

Comment #179: Sam Holloway  on  08/11  at  07:44 AM

Continue to blame Nader, and the people who voted for Nader, if it makes you feel better.

Way to completely disregard my scathing criticism of the Gore campaign in the following paragraph.

I’m not “blaming Nader”, I’m pointing out the fact that Nader won 97,421 votes in Florida and Al Gore officially lost by 537 votes in the final certified results.  Pointing out the fact that had Nader not been on the Florida ballot that Al Gore most likely would have been able to pick up oh, maybe 1% of those Nader votes to put him over the top isn’t an unreasonable assumption.  I have difficulty believing that all 97,421 Floridians who voted for Nader would have just stayed home had he not been on the ballot, and I have even more difficulty believing that Bush would have benefitted more by Nader’s absence on the ballot than Gore.

Would Gore have won all 97,000 of those Nader votes if Nader wasn’t on the ballot?  Almost certainly he wouldn’t have.  He may not have even been able to win more than 1/3 of those Nader votes.  But it isn’t far-fetched to guess that Gore probably would have been able to win 5-10% of those votes, which would have put him ahead of Bush by several thousand votes, a significantly bigger margin than the one that gave Bush the victory in the official certified results.

Al Gore deserves the most blame for his loss in 2000.  He simply ran a totally inept campaign, he chose an asshole as his running mate, and he failed to excite the base.  All of these failures fall exclusively on Al Gore, and regardless of whatever impact Nader had in Florida, the race should have never been close enough for Gore to lose in the first place, given that he had the coattails of Clinton’s decade of peace and prosperity (granted, that was more of a perception than a reality) to run on.

Observing that Nader’s absence on the Florida ballot very likely would have resulted in a Gore victory is not the same thing as blaming Nader for Gore’s loss.  Gore lost because he didn’t run a good enough campaign to win decisively, period.  And even acknowledging that Gore was literally robbed by SCOTUS, it still falls on him for allowing the Bush Campaign to even get within 5 points of him.

A better effort by Al Gore running as a more progressive candidate with a decent running mate could have made him the 43rd President decisively on that November night in 2000.  But he fucked it up.  It’s done, and I’m done fighting about it here, because it gets us nowhere.

Comment #180: DTGslu2K  on  08/11  at  07:59 AM

If Dustin voted for a third-party candidate based on the superficial images created by the two corporate-party candidates, then didn’t that make him a ‘low-information voter’?

He’s a different type of low-info voter, by his own admission—politically engaged but naive, because he mistakenly thought (due to being a busy college student) there was little to no difference between Bush and Gore. This is how it often is for young people (which he was at the time), so as I noted I’m not gonna be too hard on him for that.

Politically engaged or not, if his perceptions were incomplete, then more information would have naturally led him to vote for Al Gore, yes?

Correct, if that new information overcomes zeal and idealism and injects a dose of pragmatism. That info would be less about either Gore or Bush, and more about how elections have worked in this country over the past century+, and the nature of a two-party republic. Once he’d had that knowledge in hand, a politcally engaged voter would have more likely voted for Gore to offset Prince Bush or just stayed home.

So is he “re-writing history” to suggest that he may have voted based on what you, Gracchus, insist is an integral element of the presidential electoral process that all grown-ups know we can’t ignore, and that is more important to outcomes than policy or substance?

Elizabeth and I noted that he was re-writing history in the idea that politically engaged people (or, as Murrow Fan put it, media culture wonks), himself included, couldn’t tell that Bush was a disaster in the making. Once we pointed that out, he agreed—without including himself in the ranks of people who vote based on who they’d have a beer with.

Can all of these ideas coexist within a coherent narrative, or are you just full of shit?

Yes they can coexist. If they can’t, then anyone who didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 is a low-info voter, and that’s obviously not the case.

I am not a low-information voter.  In 2000 I looked at the candidates and their track records, and Nader was the best selection.

On willingness to reform the current electoral system and certain specific policy issues, I’d tend to agree. And obviously Nader had some major accomplishments in the 1970s. Otherwise, not so much.

I would have preferred to see Nader bending his efforts and constituency first to fixing the broken Electoral College system, and then pushing for choice voting, or (alternatively) trying to implement something like what Tevis proposes. Or at least push to make the legislative branch a little Greener before he went for the Executive. But no, Nader wanted to be a Green President in the Oval Office, and he wanted it ASAP.

If you’re pissed that your corporate boy didn’t make it, then bitch at him for not fighting, and at the Dems in the House and the Senate who refused to fight, and at the Supreme Court.

Already did: see #109 and #115 (the comment that triggered you). I also noted that, in 2000, Gore was an exceptionally wooden candidate and his campaign wasn’t as well run as Obama’s in 2008.

And you can flog your own cowardly ass for not taking to the streets to protest the theft of our nation’s highest office.

Yes, because left-wing street protests are so effective these days. There seems to be a strong correlation between those who still believe that and those who voted for Nader.

As your diminishing returns trickle in, who are you going to blame this time?

I’m interested in effective solutions, not blame. Part of that view is acknowledging that an effective solution isn’t usually the ideal and immediate one, because an ideal and immediate solution generally isn’t available. But keep reaching for the stars, sunshine—your rage and papier-mache puppets will surely win the day!

Comment #181: Gracchus.  on  08/11  at  09:33 AM

I have even more difficulty believing that Bush would have benefitted more by Nader’s absence on the ballot than Gore.

The ratf*ckers at the Bush campaign agreed at the time, and put money behind it.

Comment #182: Gracchus.  on  08/11  at  09:41 AM

I’m not “blaming Nader”, I’m pointing out the fact that Nader won 97,421 votes in Florida and Al Gore officially lost by 537 votes in the final certified results.

Yes, you’re very rationally always chooing the lesser of two evils.

Which is why you always get to choose between two evils.

Comment #183: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/11  at  09:59 AM

“Yes, you’re very rationally always chooing the lesser of two evils.
Which is why you always get to choose between two evils.”

...and we can change this how?  Since we do not have a Parliamentary System, a third party has essentially no chance of becoming viable.  This is built into the DNA of the US.

It’s really difficult to imagine a scenario (short of revolution) that would change this…

Comment #184: MikeEss  on  08/11  at  11:39 AM

Yes, because left-wing street protests are so effective these days.

I think a hippie just got punched again.  Dear God, does it ever end?!

Part of that view is acknowledging that an effective solution isn’t usually the ideal and immediate one, because an ideal and immediate solution generally isn’t available.

Who said anything about immediate solutions?  Oh, that was your goalpost, not mine.
Yes, moving backward a little more slowly will eventually move us forward.

...your rage and papier-mache puppets will surely win the day!

Not as effectively as fucking yourself with your own vote.  How will it feel when your pusillanimous Sensible Liberalism loses ground to the knuckle-dragging teabaggers in November?  I can’t wait for the post mortem.  I’ll start working on the sad-face puppets right now.

Comment #185: Sam Holloway  on  08/11  at  12:01 PM

It’s really difficult to imagine a scenario (short of revolution)

Somebody called?
</Pavlovian response>

Comment #186: BlackBloc  on  08/11  at  12:09 PM

I think a hippie just got punched again.  Dear God, does it ever end?!

It’s an observation of fact. I’ve only seen one major street protest in the past decade that effected change on a national scale, and it wasn’t exclusively left-wing.

Who said anything about immediate solutions?

Ralph Nader, who was running for the highest office in the land back in 2000. I don’t imagine that he was planning on twiddling his thumbs for the next 4 years if he’d won.

Not as effectively as fucking yourself with your own vote.

On what basis are you assuming I was voting against my own interests by voting for Gore? Or Obama for that matter? Unlike you, I understand I can’t expect a pure saint of the left will supplant one of the two major parties in a single election season.

How will it feel when your pusillanimous Sensible Liberalism loses ground to the knuckle-dragging teabaggers in November?  I can’t wait for the post mortem.

I’ll give you a preview: when that happens (because I agree that it will happen to an extent), the post-mortem will be concerned with crappy campaigning by complacent Dems (see the Mass. by-election), followed by looking at practical ways to contain the damage. Rest assured, it won’t involve marching in a demonstration organised by the good Stalinists of International ANSWER.

Comment #187: Gracchus.  on  08/11  at  12:15 PM

Somebody called?

Hehe. Just don’t show up at a street protest, BlackBloc—no matter how many times it happens, it always shocks and surprises peaceful protestors like Sam Holloway when you guys show up to do your thing.

Comment #188: Gracchus.  on  08/11  at  12:20 PM

...looking at practical ways to contain the damage.

Which will first and foremost involve punching hippies.  Case in point:

...the good Stalinists of International ANSWER.

No wonder you lose even when you win.  Like Obama, Gibbs, and Co., you never waste an opportunity to smear and piss on potential allies (like those uppity, ni—er-lovin’ commies at ACORN).

Gracchus, are you accusing BlackBloc of being a police agent provocateur?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbLU9tdDwxo
Or was that just a lame joke?

Comment #189: Sam Holloway  on  08/11  at  12:51 PM

Which will first and foremost involve punching hippies.

No, I’m just pointing out that street demonstrations != practical ways to contain the damage.

Gracchus, are you accusing BlackBloc of being a police agent provocateur?

Although I disagree with him on many issues, I’ve been following BlackBloc’s posts here long enough to assume that he’s not a police agent. If I were him, I’d be insulted that someone even implied it was a possibility—as you just did by suggesting (via that video) that anyone using the “Black Block” tactic is by default a police agent.

What is real, however, is the clucking and hand-wringing and disavowal that goes on by peaceful protesters when non-police agents use the “Black BlocK” tactic to introduce a measure of real revolutionary activity (and the destruction, vandalism and looting and violent police reaction that travels with it) into a Bread-and-Puppets style street demo.

Comment #190: Gracchus.  on  08/11  at  01:08 PM

People who use direct action at demos need to take some time and revise their tactics because it has been too easy for actual provocateurs to subvert them, but the idea that all black bloc actions are the work of provocateurs is ludicrous.

I’m not usually insulted at being accused of being a provocateur. I’m disappointed, in that the idea that anything but the worse amateur could be easily found is a problem in radical circles. There’s more damage done by the lack of trust and backbiting that occurs when people point fingers at each other in a witch hunt for provocateurs than by the provocateurs themselves. A UK secret agent was second in command of the UK Communist Party for years until something similar to the freedom of information act ended up revealing that fact to the public. Nobody ever had any clue. The state can infiltrate criminal gangs that are a lot better equipped than we are at finding moles. Most of the time, hunts for provocateurs ends up being politically motivated purges (nobody ever is a ‘perfect’ activist, and you’ll always be able to find some personal failing that you can paint up as ‘clearly’ the sort of thing a provocateur would do but not a REAL anarchist).

Comment #191: BlackBloc  on  08/11  at  01:29 PM

There’s more damage done by the lack of trust and backbiting that occurs when people point fingers at each other in a witch hunt for provocateurs than by the provocateurs themselves.

That seems to be the usual reaction by the peaceful protestors, though. “Oh, they’re not real activists like us. In fact, they’re mostly agents provocateurs, and here are videos to prove it.” It’s an evolution from the old “I’m shocked ... shocked! ... that they’d show up at our peaceful love-in of a protest. Don’t judge us by their actions, ma-a-an!”

Although I’m obviously not a fan of your lot’s “direct action” or (present company excluded) the ideological ignorance of most of its practitioners, your first graf is dead on. If you’re gonna do something, do it effectively and put some bloody thought behind it.

Comment #192: Gracchus.  on  08/11  at  01:47 PM

Barack Obama has let me down in many ways, and trying to defend him gets more and more challenging when his own press secretary says inexcusable shit like he did today.  I get the feeling of being letdown by the fact that the Obama Presidency hasn’t lived up to the expectations of many of his biggest supporters.

You see, that’s the idiocy of lefties. No matter how much the Democratic president has fucked up, whether it be on the economy or social issues that shouldn’t be at the forefront of political discourse, you guys will still stick to the Democrats. DADT. The war in Iraq more than a year after he took office. Or is it that lefties assumed he would do something on an issue like gay marriage, even though he’s stated explicitly that he’s against gay marriage?

Comment #193: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  08/11  at  03:46 PM

...and we can change this how?

I already offered the only change I can see, short of BlackBloc’s - brinkmansship.

Pick a few very clear issues.  Make damn sure people will know that you will act irrationally on these.  And follow through by acting irrationally on these.

If Congressmen knew that saying “no” to each of three questions would lose them 10,000 votes each time, they’d likely fold.  If, on the other hand, those 10,000 liberals get into the booth and um and ah and say “Well, I know what I said, but I really do not want the Republican to win”, then you better get used to RepublicanLite winning.

Comment #194: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/11  at  05:09 PM

“Pick a few very clear issues.  Make damn sure people will know that you will act irrationally on these.  And follow through by acting irrationally on these.”

...so, what you’re saying is the only rational thing we can do is to act irrationally? 

Wasn’t there an episode of Star Trek TOS (The Galileo Seven) that had Spock do something irrational for rational reasons?  I’m not sure it made sense then, and that was a fictional situation…

Comment #195: MikeEss  on  08/11  at  07:37 PM

Yes, you’re very rationally always chooing the lesser of two evils.

Which is why you always get to choose between two evils.

Yes, I am.

My only other option is irrationally wasting my vote on a third party presidential candidate who has absolutely no realistic chance of winning.  I live in one of the most purple states in the country, and unlike Massachusetts or Idaho, we don’t always know who will win here.  Prior to 2008, Missouri voted for the winning candidate in every presidential election since 1908 with the lone exception of 1956, when we voted for Illinois Democrat Adlai Stevenson over the incumbent Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower.  2008 was the second time in a century where Missouri voted for the losing candidate, and Missouri was the absolute closest race in the nation - the outcome wasn’t known for several day after the election.  McCain beat Obama by less than 4,000 votes out of nearly 2.9 million votes cast here.  It’s a big reason why St. Louis has been selected as a finalist in the bid to host the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

If you want to tell me that our unwielding two party system really sucks, I’m in complete agreement.  But it’s all we have to work with right now, and screaming outside the G20 Conference isn’t going to increase the chances of a third party candidate winning the presidency anytime in the foreseeable future.

It would be great if progressives could operate within a system we wish we had, but the reality is that we have no choice but to work within the system that we actually have, flawed as it is.  Skipping every necessary step to try to bring about real electoral reform and jumping straight to utterly futile third party presidential campaigns isn’t going to change the system, and in fact it is likely detrimental to the pursuit of electoral reform that would take away the two major parties deathgrip of control.  Everytime a third party candidate runs a doomed presidential campaign, it marginalizes the concept of third party politics even more.  Ralph Nader’s efforts haven’t seen increasing returns, they’ve been steadily dropping every cycle.  In 2012, he’ll probably run again, and he’ll probably finish with an even worse showing than he did in 2008.  And he’ll become an even bigger object of ridicule, and third party politics will become even less influential.

You don’t change the system by wasting resource on an impossible presidential bid, you change it by getting your party’s candidates on ballots in actual winnable races, even if it means settling for County Commissioner and rural state representative positions in the beginning.

A third party candidate will never win the presidency until that third party has first won a decent number of lower offices.  You’ll see a Green Party President when you see a U.S. Congress (both chambers) with 100 Green Party officeholders.  And not a moment before that.

Comment #196: DTGslu2K  on  08/11  at  07:56 PM

Thinking about this more, I have no illusions that Gibbs, Obama, or Pelosi works for me. Perhaps I’m just a cynic at age 40, but American politics at the national level primarily exists to keep the wonks employed. (I’ll grant that there are a handful of honestly civic-minded politicians at the local level, even if half are on the right-wing fringe.) This attitude gives me two important liberties, I’m not betrayed when the Dem’s act in their electoral interests rather than mine, and I’m not obligated to refrain from publicly calling them on their shit.

I’ve long maintained that it’s a conflict of interest to identify as Democrats rather than just vote Democratic as a strategic move. Democrats are just a bit too prone to argue that gay rights battles should be procrastinated to a more convenient season for my tastes.

Comment #197: CBrachyrhynchos  on  08/11  at  08:17 PM

@196: Um, just as a point of fact, Nader wasn’t a green in 2004 and 2008. (For that matter, he wasn’t really a Green in 2000 either, just selected for the ticket.)

But it’s a Catch-22 because you can’t get those lower offices even on the ballot consistently in many states until you get a threshold number of votes in the national race. (And don’t get me started on the fact that in two elections running in Indiana, third parties were the only organizations that fully complied with the ballot-registration laws.)

But I have no regrets in casting Green votes in a state that was conceded as a loss months before the general election and got only a token campaign stop on the way to Chicago or Iowa. For that matter, I don’t regret throwing Libertarian votes when Democrats didn’t even bother to contest the race.

Comment #198: CBrachyrhynchos  on  08/11  at  08:33 PM

Fibbs has air in his head, like Whats-her-name, Snow Job, and Snottie before him, his ancestors at spin for bushie.

Like them, he does not realize that the lefties are the only ones who knew that “the wars” were actually blood for oil.

Now that Iraq will soon be the number one oil producer in the world, he will diss the lefties for being the only ones to point it out for him.

Comment #199: Dredd  on  08/11  at  08:52 PM

@199: The idea that this was a war for oil is too narrow a focus and misses the forest for the trees. The real purpose was to privatize the entire country as an experiment in applying Chicago school style libertarian economic plundering at all levels of the country (including the American military itself, which has become a privatized army mostly composed of contractors). As much money as that oil is making them, it’s nothing in comparison to the juicy food, transportation, security, etc… contracts that this gave to firms that were tied to the administration.

In other words, “No blood for oil” not only was NOT a completly crazed ultra-lefty slogan devoid of reality, its real fault was in not going far enough in denouncing the warmongerers.

Comment #200: BlackBloc  on  08/11  at  09:15 PM

(And by ‘the country’, I hope it’s clear I mean ‘Iraq’, though the occupation itself was privatized.)

Comment #201: BlackBloc  on  08/11  at  09:16 PM

Statements like this one from Gibbs and Obama’s pandering to the right are exactly why I’ve been voting for Green party candidates. Looks like I’m being given no reason to change that. Color me unsurprised.

Comment #202: snobographer  on  08/11  at  10:14 PM

...so, what you’re saying is the only rational thing we can do is to act irrationally? 

Yes.  It’s the distinction between the long-term beneifit to be gained by short-term irrationality against short-term rationality.

You always vote for the rational candidate at each election.  That’s why you always get a choice between the mediocre and the bad - both of which are corporate-friendly.  If you were playing the longer game - looking at influencing who got chosen for each election and how they voted when they got in there - being irrational - petulant punishing pricks -  would help.

Comment #203: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/12  at  03:51 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.