Who's To Blame?
I am mostly living far from Massachusetts these days, but I've marinated in its politics for 25 years, and seen my share of reactionaries voted into office. The idea that the state's undecideds are breaking for Brown because of some generalized economic anger that Obama failed to tap is ridiculous.Think Sean Hannity, not Sacco and Vanzetti.
The "undecideds" in South Boston and working class suburbs like Lynn don't like Cambridge and Back Bay, but they respect its winners, when they act like winners. They watch hockey for the fights. Like most of us, they have a certain humility and expect famous people and experts to tell them what to think. But they haven't heard of Uwe Reinhardt; and they smell insincerity a mile away. I wish I had a bluefish dinner for every time Coakley referred to the health package as "not perfect." It all came out so forced and fake.
The real question Democrats have to ask themselves is: how come the greatest piece of social legislation since Medicare is something a progressive Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy's seat has to speak so defensively about?
And we can look no further than Howard Dean, and MSNBC, and Arianna Huffington, and, yes, some columnists at the Times and bloggers here at TPM--you know, real progressives--who have lambasted Obama again and again since last March over arguable need-to-haves like the "public option," as if nobody else was listening. They've been thinking: "Oh, if only we ran things, how much more subtle would the legislation be," as if 41 senators add up to subtle. Meanwhile the undecideds are thinking: "Hell, if his own people think he's a sell-out and jerk, why should we support this?"
I'm with ya! You can see my blog at the top of the box for about another hour.
But be prepared to be *flamed!!* =D
January 18, 2010 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you two could at least concede at this point that Obama has NOT be playing chess?
When the liberals have been yelling, warning, screaming and begging the party to notice that we have a problem and at the very least a message failure, the response from the 'bots has essentially been "we don't need no stinkin' libruls."
While I agree that in a purely rational world the liberals in Mass and elsewhere would have been working their fannies off for Coakley I'm enough of a political realist to know that when people are disgusted by the attitude of their leaders they do not campaign. It is irrational not to recognize that human nature is irrational in this
way and to take it into account.
You have to feed your base or this happens.
January 18, 2010 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no doubt that we have a message failure, yes. That liberals are totally blameless in this is a leap I won't make.
EVERYBODY: GET WITH THE GODDAM PROGRAM!!
January 18, 2010 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody is the operative word.
I think Bernard is wrong to point fingers at one group, the progressives. I concede that.
However, that doesn't absolve the progressives of the need to get their asses in gear.
Everybody has to. Period. If the wood in the boat is rotten, you bail and you row. You don't sit around and remind everyone how you were right back at port.
January 18, 2010 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here, here! Bravo!
January 18, 2010 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a suggestion.
Obama should review all the campaign promises he made and hasn't followed through with.
He should also review the idea that he was elected in large part because the voters wanted change from the Bush policies. He has not supplied that change, or even begun the processes which would result in those changes.
The Constitution is still trashed, the government is still operating under excessive secrecy, the bailouts of the financial institutions were continued and even expanded, the DOJ is still staffed with fourth tier law school graduates and US Attorneys who were appointed by Bush, the federal deficit is still growing at a record pace, those "signing statements" which could have been overturned by new "signing statements" are still in effect, the economy is still being run by those same people who were responsible for the current recession, and there have been no war crimes prosecutions.
If the Democrats do not get with their program, or even a program, they will face additional losses in both houses of Congress in the 2010 election.
.
January 20, 2010 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
No no, they *will* face additional losses because when the Dems got themselves into trouble, so many sat back as couch potatoes and let this happen.
The Republican strategy has worked marvelously, Obama is neutered, Democrats played a part in that effective strategy through slothfulness and loutishness.
Time for lectures is long past. Time for action unfortunately also past. Thanks for whatever you did in this election.
January 20, 2010 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "undecideds" in South Boston and working class suburbs like Lynn don't like Cambridge and Back Bay, but they respect its winners, when they act like winners. They watch hockey for the fights. Like most of us, they have a certain humility and expect famous people and experts to tell them what to think. But they haven't heard of Uwe Reinhardt; and they smell insincerity a mile away. I wish I had a bluefish dinner for every time Coakley referred to the health package as "not perfect." It all came out so forced and fake.
With love, Andrew, CEO of mp3 and youtube downloader
December 13, 2010 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, an issue that I am passionate about. I have looked for information of this caliber for the last several hours. Your site is greatly appreciated.children health
January 10, 2011 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do agree with all the ideas you have presented in your post. They’re very convincing and will definitely work. Still, the posts are very short for starters. Could you please extend them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.by healthy families and child health plus
February 12, 2011 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's funny is you're yelling at us progressives who are actually going to vote for Coakley. If you really want to help, go talk to the people who are leaning toward Brown but who still haven't made up their mind. What would you tell them to convince them to move back to the Democrats? What are their concerns and how are you addressing them? Do you even know?
January 18, 2010 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno...what are you going to tell them?
All about how flawed the bill is?
You live in MA, no?
January 18, 2010 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why vote for the hapless party nominee who seems to have no clue how to connect with the voters and who wants to join the other 57 ( +2 ) Senators who have sat around since August playing idiotic games to see who can hand the most goodies to Snowe, Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln and Landrieu?
The Democratic party better get its act together, decide what it is going to pass and get the discipline in the party to pass it or they are gone. I am really tired of watching everyone cater to the over-rich aristocratic ass-holes in the Senate who think the world and Washington owe them both a living and all the TV they can mug for.
The time to craft the legislation is in the party caucus not in the Senate. The government is broken and only a disciplined and well-organized Democratic Party can make it work.
Nine months of catering to the media on health care, blocking a lot of other legislation that is desperately needed, and we end up with the current abortion of a bill - or maybe nothing of Brown wins Kennedy's old seat because Coakley has no clue how to run her campaign?
I've been one of the Obama defenders. No more. The incompetence since August has cured me. Out with ALL the bums!
January 18, 2010 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I dunno Richard, for all his flaws, he's gotten closer than anyone else in 100 years.
If you've seen anyone do it better, please show what you've got.
Again, it's not a question of defending Obama--it's a question of getting at least some of what the country desperately needs.
If that's not motivation enough, then I don't know what is.
January 18, 2010 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get me wrong. I'll gladly get behind the poor piece of disorganized crap bill that the 100 America Barons and wanna-be Presidents in the Senate have allowed to get this far. Of course it is more a bill to pay off supporters and increase the power of selected Senators than it is to improve America's health care system, but beneath the garbage, bribes and payoffs there are some reforms still worth having.
The process was still allowed to drag out way too long. The 40 otherwise idiotic Republicans have been fully aware that the Democrats would let them misuse the filibuster rules to their own detriment. All they needed to do was drag the process out long enough and something would cause the loss of a single Democratic vote. The Democratic Senators have let them play that game because to do otherwise would reduce the power of each individual Senator (American Baron) and now the game comes down to the election of an incompetent campaigner in Massachusetts. That's not working for what America needs. It's working for what individual powerful Senators need.
What happens if Coakley isn't elected Tuesday? If hcr goes down without passage this time it won't be back until the next Democratic President is elected. At what cost?
I'm tired of having another Democratic President who promises getting closer to passage of hcr than anyone previously and then fails again. How many more times do we put up with this kind of crap? The American political system as a democracy working for the American people is broken, and if Obama can't make it work or fix it he should go. Quickly.
A President has only two forms of power. He has 1) the bully pulpit and he has 2) his reputation for getting things done. Obama hasn't used the first in 2009 effectively and the lengthy stalemate on health care reform has caused him to lose the appearance of capability for getting stuff done. If Coakley loses tomorrow and hcr either goes down or is further watered down Obama has shown that he doesn't have what it takes to be President and the Democrats have shown they won't or can't back him up.
Either way, after tomorrow there is no slack left to cut for Obama and the Democrats. The situation should never have been allowed to get this bad.
January 18, 2010 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can get with some of this.
One reason I think it's reasonably important to pass a bill.
January 18, 2010 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama had the largest senate majorities since 1977, and he waits for Ben Nelson, and does his best to accommodate the right wing.
He bails out the banks, and ignores the Gay community.
The problem here is not that he failed, the problem is that he didn't even try, because, you know, he and his staff has as goal one not to do anything that Bill Clinton did...Which, come to think of it, is what George W. Bush's strategy was too.
January 18, 2010 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your argument is; there is no difference between Obama and Bush and therefore we should vote the Republicans back in?
My friend, the shill is strong in you.
January 19, 2010 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
No my claim is that by systematically adopting Republican policies and memes, they demoralize the base, resulting in the electorate voting the Republicans back in.
I am not claiming that people should vote Republican because Barack Obama is essentially a corporatist socially conservative Democrat, I am claiming that people will vote Republican because Barack Obama is essentially a corporatist socially conservative Democrat.
He has taken the Democratic Party back to John Kerry's 2004 campaign slogan, "Don't vote for Republicans, they are icky."
You need to give the electorate more than that, you need to give them a reason to vote for Democrats.
Read Froomkin's article, "Voters Who Lost Faith In Dodd Wouldn't Trust Obama's Economics Team Either."
Froomkin, Taibbi, Salmon, etc. have made the point that this administration has been captured by the FIRE (Finance Insurance Real Estate) sector, and the American public feels revulsion as a result.
January 19, 2010 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your argument, unfortunately I think your premise is flawed. The majority of Americans, like it or not, are not liberal. Thus, if Obama adopts a more ideologically pure (from a liberal's perspective) agenda, he runs a substantial risk of getting nothing done.
Ironically, if nothing gets done--because he's unable to ram through a ideological agenda that satisfies the left, we'll simply end up with another Bush and Republican Congress. Which ends up costing the left a lot more than simply compromising with the conservatives. Thus, you (and others who feel the same as you) need to make a decision. Which is better? A "corporatist socially conservative Democrat" who gets something done--albeit not everything you would have liked--or a more left leaning leader who gets nothing done.
It's going to take a long time to politically shift this country from the right, there are too many entrenched special interests for quick changes. Adopting "all or nothing" viewpoints, in my view, only ends up benefiting the other side.
The Republicans have the same problem, of course, with their tea baggers and evangelicals hijacking the moderate Republican voices.
Whoever does the best job of moving to the center will win this fight.
January 19, 2010 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well put. I'll take mine with ketchup.
January 19, 2010 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's precious.
Now, Obama is to blame for the bank bailout signed by his predecessor, too.
With friends like these....
January 19, 2010 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a matter of fact, Obama is responsible.
Most of the TARP money was distributed after he became President, and it was Obama's Administration which began the bailouts of the auto industry. Obama could have issued a "signing statement" prohibiting these bailouts, but instead, he kept the Republican economists and ex-bank executives running the US economy - those same people who were responsible for the destruction of that economy in the first place.
.
January 20, 2010 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard some figures that he's more effective than any president going all the way back to LBJ, which he topped by +5% in getting the legislation he wanted passed.
And there's the answer.
January 20, 2010 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can get involved pretty easily either on marthacoakley.com or obamaforamerica.com
You *don't* need to convince the birthers and buttholes, just get the base-plus out. Ask ifthey need a right and what the script says.
January 18, 2010 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, well you've got an odd sense of humor.
You've got to empower the man, or the man can't empower you. It's about loyality, organization, and hard work.
Thank you for whatever work you put into this campaign, contributing money, making phone calls, writing to voters, knocking on doors, campaign work.
January 20, 2010 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was no lack of phone calls. Coakley called me twice a day for two weeks. I was getting afraid to pick up the phone. The problem wasn't the GOTV effort or calls or lack of activists going door to door. It was the candidate and the message (or more accurately, the lack there of). Ignore that truth at your own peril.
January 20, 2010 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ignore truth at peril?? What the hell does that mean?
What can I have done to undo the Coakley nomination? Nothing, that's what. So the point was to win with the bad candidate. Which should have been *easily* doable but we did not do it.
January 20, 2010 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, "winning with a bad candidate" is not "easily doable." I think last night proved that.
Turnout was extraordinarily high for this election. The vote got out. It just voted for someone other than Coakley. Why is that?
If you got out more voters, most of them would have voted for Brown.
January 20, 2010 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I really want to thank you for everything you personally did in this campaign. Talking to voters, contributing money, knocking on doors, campaign work like stuffing envelopes, working the phone banks, that's really great.
If only more had been like you.
January 20, 2010 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Liberals, Get Your Asses In Gear and vote for Coakley ... so Rahm and Obama can get back to telling you to get lost.
January 18, 2010 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you've shown 'em now. Congratulations on the Brown victory.
January 20, 2010 5:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apart from insurance, home loans are one of the biggest expenses you can have. While acquiring free insurance quotes can save you a large amount of money, the same can be said for researching mortgage related options.
A Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) is a sort of loan , most usually a Second Mortgage, that allows a flexible facility to the mortgage loan holder by allowing them access to the accumulated equity they have in the property in the form of cash. A Home Equity Line of Credit functions similarly to a bank overdraft – you can draw down on it (up to an agreed) simply and only incurrs charges on the total used if you don't make use of it you don't pay a cent. This is a great way to withdraw the accumulated equity you have in your dwelling and use it for anything you need right now. Because you only pay interest on the amount you use, it means you can rapidly pay off whatever you use if you have the means to do so. The facility is not intended to be a long term solution however and at an agreed period of time it must be repaid in full. Typically home equity line of credit rates are higher than regular home mortgage but not massively so.
April 4, 2011 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the program should get with everybody.
January 18, 2010 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
'rec'd comment! That's really good, Destor.
January 18, 2010 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
January 18, 2010 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then, libruls are pretty fucking stupid.
Because the "leaders" (everywhere) get good coverage. It's only the little guy who suffers.
If libruls don't want to fight for a bill that will help them and help even less fortunate people--at least somewhat--then they will experience the consequences of their stupidity.
I guess they can eat cake.
January 18, 2010 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"When the liberals have been yelling, warning, screaming and begging the party to notice that we have a problem and at the very least a message failure, the response from the 'bots has essentially been "we don't need no stinkin' libruls.""
No, what you've been "yelling, warning, screaming and begging" is that this bill is nothing but a sop to the the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and that this was what Obama secretly wanted to achieve with the bill anyway, since he's really just another tool of the establishment. Whenever someone points out all of the good that the bill will do, that person is ganged up on, and shouted down with accusations of being either a paid shill or so enthralled to Obama that they blindly support regardless of his policies.
"True Progressives"TM have been second only the the Teabaggers in the volume of their criticism of the health bill and of Obama. And, like the Teabaggers, only a small fraction of that criticism is based directly on the provisions in the bill itself. If Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald told you all that the bill would kill Grandma in her bed, you'd all be running around accusing Obama of making matricide a legislative imperative.
And, by attempting to rewrite history before the ink on the first draft is even dry, you're proving that opposition to the health care bill isn't the only thing you have in common with the Teabaggers.
January 18, 2010 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
+1
This situation in MA is disturbingly reminiscent of the nomination battle between Carter and Kennedy back in 1980,.. when the "true progressives" (or whatever they called themselves) who supported Kennedy said there was no difference between Reagan and Carter, thereby voting against Carter--out of spite--and absolving themselves of any responsibility for the consequences of bringing Reagan into office.
Nowadays we call them Reagan Democrats.
January 18, 2010 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. And they are the one's who, before they take their ball and go home, drill a hole in the bottom of the boat so they take everyone else down with them.
They preferred Reagan to Carter wsimply because they weren't getting perfection and every last iota they demanded from Carter.
January 18, 2010 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. Another analogy is '68, and I don't mean Chicago. Disaffected, angry left; compromised candidate. Yes, grief over RFK very impt. But even w/refusal to work for HHH, he almost won, when Dems seem to wake up at the last moment to the stakes involved. Too late, then. Is it too late for 2010? Can Dems function like a governing coalition with some discipline?
January 19, 2010 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cry me a fucking river. Anybody with three functional brain cells to rub together knows that's not what's happening.
Put another way: Whenever someone points out all the ways this bill sucks, will empower the insurance industry for the next round, and so on, (not to mention the rest of the ways this Adminstration and Congress have put the foxes, once again, in charge of the henhouse), that person is ganged up on and shouted down with accusations of being either a Stupid, Petulant, Irrelevant, Childish Purity Troll or so enthralled to the Loony Left that they'll blindly stab the benevolent, hard-working Democratic Party and White House in the back and then go out and vote for Nader again, after they're done singlehandledly (albeit, somehow, irrelevantly) destroying the Democratic Party, which is the Only Hope for Incremental Progressive Politics in the United States.
January 19, 2010 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. Anyone with three functioning brain cells sees it your way. People with four or more functioning brain cells often see it differently.
January 19, 2010 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
and people with two braincells engage in ad hominem attacks.
The reaction of the anti-progressive dems to any failure on their part is to blame progressives. I find that singularly creepy, given the lessons of history, but scapegoating goes way past the 20th century, all the way back to the bible. It's a predictable result of certain situations given the limitations of human semi-simian intelligence.
Since saving America from the economic forces acting on it within and without should always be our priority, how then do we make the best of this situation, and the various misguided energies it unleashes? Can we make the non-progressives with their blameful anger into a force for good, somehow? They feel falsely accused by the progressives, and of course there is no greater occasion for delusional self-righteous pride, but that is energy, that can be turned towards good. Go ahead, do something great, prove all the detractors wrong!
Please don't use that energy to turn those who gave you your power into pariahs.
January 19, 2010 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are you talking about? Who's blaming anyone for anything? Can you even read english?
Another holier-than-thou "progressive" with an outsized sense of victimization.
Guilty conscience, perhaps?
January 19, 2010 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Bernard was engaging in blame--too one-sided, I'd say.
January 19, 2010 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another holier-than-thou "pragmatist centrist" with an outsized sense of victimization, an inflated opinion of their own infallibility, and an insatiable need to find Someone Else to Blame. You just proved wial's point. Heckuva job, brewmie!
January 20, 2010 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another rageaholic with reading comprehension problems. You'll get more out of screaming at random passersby on the street where you live (presumably alone). But until then, how about you take a big drink of fuck the hell off, loser.
January 20, 2010 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, thank you for your lucid post, your persuasive, incisive logic, and your obvious command of the facts. Everyone knows you are right. Although I notice you haven't said Word One in response to Dan K downthread, who systematically dismantles both Avishai's bullshit and your own. Guilty conscience, perhaps?
Whatever. You're down to the buckshot-insult approach. Throw enough verbal turds and F-bombs, and maybe some will stick. Which proves you are fresh out of rational arguments, which leaves you with Propaganda Rule #47: When you've got no rational arguments, pathologize the opposition.
Heckuva job, brewmie, keep up the good work.
January 20, 2010 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. Anyone with three functioning brain cells sees it your way. People with four or more functioning brain cells often see it differently.
Why, thank you for this lucid comment! Your sharp wit, incisive logic, and obvious command of the facts have made me completely rethink my original position. I especially liked the part about the four brain cells. You're right, just like you always are, and anyone with four or more functioning brain cells must of course see it that way.
January 20, 2010 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see anything irrational about it. The will of the people is expressed in many different functional ways. We progressives have not had the promises that Obama-the-Campaigner promised, met.
That might not be fair, but that's how the PEOPLE dicipline their party. They don't show up for Coakley because they see no reason to get excited by the Democratic party. That the bottom line.
There is and should be an interface between the party functionaries and the rank and file members. You fuck us over we fuck you over. Simple as that.
January 18, 2010 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
They don't show up for Coakley because she's a turkey. Pure and simple. If they'd run someone who had some voter appeal, there'd be no problem. Look at how things are shaping up in Connecticut. Get real.
January 19, 2010 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
For all I know you might be right. I was going by what Howard Dean said about it. He had some exit polls to back it up too. In any case I can't see myself voting for Brown under any circumstance, even if he was running against a Democrat who was a potted plant, but that's just me
January 23, 2010 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
AJM nailed it, above.
The problem is Rahm Emanuel and thinkers like him in the inner-circle (including Obama himself, at times). They treat the base as if it's a switch they can turn on and off whenever they want, no matter what they do. I don't know about Chicago, but most politics ain't like that. They inadequately add up the importance of volunteer hours.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2010/01/mt-preview-c02e9eb0fc82e77d04b47141452822337239b471.php
January 18, 2010 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right there with you, Bernard.
If I weren't so pissed, I'd actually be amused that hack snuff film auteurs like Jane Hamsher somehow morphed into policy experts.
The right sprang out to a big lead in the HCR disinformation campaign, but the purity trolls on the left staged perhaps the greatest comeback I've ever seen. Bravo. I was especially impressed at how nonsense talking points on FDL and DK were made so readily re-usable by the RNC. Making Michael Steele and his troupe look good isn't something easily accomplished.
But hey - congrats - the bill is killed, the Democrats will be punished, and this fall, we're likely to be back in 2006, if not 2004, all over again.
January 19, 2010 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
HEADLINE: Sacco and Vanzetti Absolved in Kidnapping of Health Reform ! Secret Cabal of Arriana Huffington and TPM Bloggers Under Investigation !
January 18, 2010 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah baby! Didja hear that, Doomer? South Boston is reading MY blogs! In which case, SCREW YOU BRUINS! CHARA IS A GIRLY-MAN!
Some advice, Avishai. If the general public every discovers that talking vegetables like you have invaded the Earth, you're gonna be in the pot, man. Keep it on the down low.
January 18, 2010 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about not knowing your working class sports fans who vote.
I'd say GO BRUINS but since I have so much power on the national scene, I don't want to hurt your feelings. If Hockey Mom runs she might have more support than we think. Scary.
January 18, 2010 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm here in Massachusetts and I think the main reason Coakley is doing so poorly is that she lacks personality. Yes, there's concern about the cost of the Democrats' health plan, but a lot of what's happening here is simply Coakley's not being a particularly appealing candidate on a personal level. She lacks vigor and energy and she comes over as some kind of schoolmarm. Plus her ads focus so much on Brown that they actually seem like ads for him, at least if you're not paying close attention. I think by focusing so intently on Brown she's probably actually helped increase his name recognition and made him seem like a more serious candidate than he should be. Her campaign has been a disaster.
Sadly, there were better Democratic candidates in the primary, but no one was paying much attention. Alan Khazei in particular would have been a fabulous successor to Kennedy, I think. But there's a certain complacency to the Democratic party here that made everyone accept Coakley as a done deal once she was presented as the frontrunner.
January 18, 2010 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's a sad story, no question. Now people need to get moving, irrespective of her plain Jane non-appeal.
January 18, 2010 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'll vote for her tomorrow as will everyone in my family. But I'm not excited enough about her (or about the Democrats' recent policy initiatives) to do much more than that. Is that my fault? Am I obligated to get excited about things I'm not excited about just because others think I should be excited?
January 18, 2010 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you'll be happier with the result, remain apathetic. Then you can repeat the above every time someone asks you why Coakley lost and health care went down. You'll have lots more to say, but the bottom is...lots of folks less fortunate than you (probably) will be without health care.
January 18, 2010 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one is asking to be excited, just to vote which you are doing. That anyone with a little bit of lean to the left could stomach the idea of Brown representing them for six years in the Senate is beyond me.
And part of the problem in this country is that personality is somehow deemed important. That is how we got Bush over Gore. So sad. And we wonder why so many qualified candidates don't get into politics.
January 18, 2010 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, actually, we are asking Purple to be "excited." He needs to get his butt in gear and do everything he can to make sure the health care bill isn't deep-sixed for the next 15 years at the rate of 45,000 lives lost per year. That may not be important to Libertine and Purple as they contemplate "real" reform, but most ordinary people, especially those among the 45,000, probably do think that saving 45,000 lives--not to mention the other benefits of this bill, whether immediate or not--is important.
Look at Libertine: He's complaining about all those benefits that won't kick for another 3-4 years, but he's willing to risk health care reform disappearing for the next 15 years. Hey, THAT's smart thinking! He's the kind of guy who would've deep-sixed Social Security because it involved making a deal with Dixiecrats and didn't cover everyone.
January 18, 2010 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brown'll only be there for three years, if he wins - the seat is up in 2012, and there ain't no way he's winning against an actual decent Democratic candidate then. But it really sickens me that this could derail health care.
January 19, 2010 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
If she lacks personality, how did she win the primary? She did win a primary, didn't she?
January 18, 2010 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid she won because no one cared that much. Turnout was pathetic, less than 15%. Coakley got in the race early, had decent name recognition compared with the other candidates, and was the frontrunner from the beginning. With no one caring much about the race (unfortunately) she pretty much sleepwalked through to victory. She kept sleepwalking afterwards until a week or two ago when all of a sudden Brown jumped out of obscurity to take a lead in the polls. Since then, she's been scrambling to reach out to the voters, but I'm afraid it's too little, too late.
January 18, 2010 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turnout in the primary on 12/08/09 was 19.8%. The November 2008 presidential election had a turnout of 73.5%.
I suspect our pollsters are assuming a 20% turnout to match the primary and are tossing from their polls any voters who say anything less than will absolutely be at the polls except if an emergency comes up. Anything less than that is tossed out. Result? Brown is projected to win.
I simply don't believe these polls.
January 18, 2010 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also have a really hard time believing that Mass will turn Ted Kennedy's seat to this Bush-style repub. I didn't have any objective reasons, so thank you for providing some.
Tomorrow we'll know! After all, Diebold is in charge of the voting machines, right?
January 18, 2010 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'Ville: I love the quote from Tom Stoppard about voting:
"It's not the voting that's democracy; it's the counting of those votes."
January 19, 2010 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go...they don't care. They don't care about Coakley. They don't care about the candidate they would have preferred. They know what a 60 vote margin means...and they still don't care. Well, we're about to see the results of not caring. Same thing with Gore. What's the difference between Gore and Bush--same, same. Except for Iraq and a million other things.
January 19, 2010 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The depressing facts are what they are. Turnout was horrendous. No one was paying attention. No one cared. Why is that? Why did all the excitement about Obama dissipate so quickly? Why is Brown suddenly so popular in a state like Massachusetts? That's the question the Democrats need to be asking. If you think the Obama-Ried-Pelosi-Lieberman team is doing everything right and it's just the progressives who are causing problems you are way, way out of touch with the electorate.
January 19, 2010 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
With the polling with Brown in the lead such as Suffolk University and PPP, noone has asked these polling firms if they called up any people that only use cell phones because polling firms have a bad reputation of only calling dial up phone users, who tend to be older and vote Republican.
January 18, 2010 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I wouldn't blame the angry liberals. The real culprit are the Republicans (aided by the all-too-hesitant blue dog Democrats) who have been tremendously successful at painting the health plan as an expensive government takeover of the health care system that will reduce middle class benefits while raising middle class tax costs.
January 18, 2010 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is blame all over, but for now, let's win. Then we can fuck around the blaming and self-examination.
As victors.
January 18, 2010 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sure hope she wins, but do you honestly think that what we write here has any impact on Mass. voters? Come on. I'm in for a good joke, but blaming TPM bloggers as part of a potential Coakley loss is surreal. I like your yellow blast flying bat thing, btw.
January 18, 2010 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am making overseas phone calls right now to Massachusetts voters. Get a phone card and get connected,dude -- www.marthacoakley.com
January 18, 2010 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhhh...the obligatory finger pointed has already started.
So it is our fault for turning on him? It isn't because that the American people are hurting with unemployment over 10%, forseclosures still at a high rate, people under a crushing amount of debt because their homes are not worth nearly as much as they were and their bills continually rising with nothing being done? And then when there finally is reform and the American people look at it being put into place years from now with dubious amounts of help for them when it does kick in, never mind help now, and don't see it as help it is our fault?
The economy is a mess. First and foremeost on the administrations plate should hve been getting help to an America under siege, but instead we got the presidents health care reform. If it would have provided immediate help that would have been a great place to start, but it doesn't and the administration hasn't provided that help. But it is somehow our fault that we couldn't look our friends and neighbors in the eyes, with a straight face, and make the case how this helps them with the tough times they're seeing right now? You people are delusional if you think the base is the problem...no need for you to look any farhter than the mirror when looking for culprits. Bad strategy and bad policy are the culprits not us...
January 18, 2010 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's amazing, isn't it, how the centrist Democrats who control the party like to blame the party's liberal base for the party's failure? Complain about the liberals all you want, but it is people like Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Baucus, Nelson, and Obama--all pragmatic moderates--who are setting the agenda for the party. If the party fails, that leadership team deserves the blame and no one else. There are no excuses, here. You either attract voters or you don't. And if you don't attract the voters, you can't blame them for that. They're under no obligation to vote for you--you have to win them to you. If you don't do that, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Contrast all this with the Republicans. They never blame their base for anything. Far from it--they pander and promote that base incessantly. And they keep winning.
January 18, 2010 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep...big difference between the D's and R's is while the R's support their base the D's attack theirs. I am starting to think the real base of the Democratic Party are investment bankers, hedge fund managers and CEO's. Who by the way, if they are the base, are the ones selling the D's out and not us 'liberals'.
All hail the vaunted Third Way where rising tides always lift all boats...or at least all big expensive yachts inhabited by millionaires.
January 18, 2010 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The R's support their base? Really? How did the Tea Party take off like it did if the R's had been supporting their base? The R's are USING its base, coddling them to win elections and then toss them to the side.
January 18, 2010 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you can't see that the tea bagger phenomenon is a creation of, and funded by, the conservatives to aid the conservative movement, by attacking so-called "big government socialism" I don't know what to tell you other than I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Interested?
January 18, 2010 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Manipulating the base is not the same as supporting the base.
January 18, 2010 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, actually, we should be blaming Geithner and Summers, who neither manipulate nor are manipulated by the base: They simply ignore it, as unworthy of their attention.
Unfortunately, there is more wisdom in the base than these savants can concede.
January 18, 2010 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I have a nice bridge for Viva in Nebraska, right next to some lovely beachfront property right by Ben Nelson's house. Hey, Viva, bidding starts soon, get in on the ground floor!
January 19, 2010 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well you wouldn't want them to blame someone like Lieberman. He might have a little fit and support a Republican.
January 18, 2010 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
And who has been holding up the bill for months? Bernie? Hello?! Didn't we obsess about Joe for a month before we obsessed about Ben?
Who gets on the Sunday media every week? Jane and Rachel or Joe and Ben?
Put the blame where it belongs: on the Blue Dogs who delayed the bill and tried to screw the unions and the middle class.
January 18, 2010 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. A comment from you that I unequivocally agree with. Awesome.
January 18, 2010 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, but you forget that it is Pelosi and Reid who have gotten us this far with health care. What has the progressive wing done? Which big elections have they won? How has their POV helped win VA for the first time since LBJ? Progressives like to talk big, but when have they ever brought home the bacon?
They decided, in their typical fairy tale way, that Obama was actually a progressive in hiding while ignoring all the signs that he was a centrist and really wanted bipartisanship. You didn't even listen to his speech in 2004.
And now that he's disappointed and has only managed to get us within a whisker of a goal that's been sought since around 1900, you're the ultimate a la carte diners. No sense of history. If the bill just the way you like it, well, fuck it, maybe we'll have Sarah next time and can get back to what we do best--complain.
With this much on the line, you put aside your differences and you go for the big goal and fight and revise later. Overreach This has it exactly right. You're so busy being angry at the DLC, you're willing to forgo ANY health care bill. Please, do the rest of us a favor and join the Republicans if you're going to be like this. No sense of proportion.
BTW, the reason the Republicans pander to their base is...that's all that's left of the Republican party. They are such a tiny tent, they only have room for the base and any other disgruntled so-called "independent" who wants to register an anger or protest vote.
January 18, 2010 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is you'll support anything that Obama calls HCR. No matter how bad it is just to pass something ... anything.
The assumption that the Dems will get the hats handed to them if they don't pass HCR may be right.
The assumption that passing a piece of crap and calling it HCR will save them ... good luck with that.
January 18, 2010 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Health Insurance Reform was never meant to be passed.
Congress saw that the Health Insurance industry had a good thing going and decided to get into the act by running the old tried and true mafia protection racket.
"You all have a good thing going here, pay us off by way of campaign contributions or we will reform your profits right out of existance."
The payoffs have been made and now, with Coakley's defeat, the Democratic Congress has the perfect excuse for "failing" to pass Health Insurance reform.
.
January 20, 2010 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
but, but, but, where are all those commentators who bemoaned the circular firing squad whenever anyone who actually believed in progressive policy criticized the crap the Obama administration was pushing? They seem to be kneeling, aiming and shooting right now. tsk, tsk. But I guess it's what you do when your politics go flaming down. Look for a scapegoat. And Avishai is well-schooled.
January 18, 2010 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Liberals have, in their "disappointment" and hyperbolic criticism of Obama and Reid, been the ice on the wings of this effort, and have contributed to the public perception that it has produced a flawed product.
But are the Republicans really right in thinking the politics of killing this on the 1-yard line are so safe for them? Killing it at this stage just looks like nihilistic vandalism, and I don't think too much criticism of Obama and Reid for tactical mistakes would stick.
January 18, 2010 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, should be "Who's to blame".
Second, people are in a rebellious mood. The economy sucks, and Wall Street is humming. Amongst other things.
I'm not flaming Obama necessarily for all this, he inherited the biggest clusterfuck legacy in history, but it's still the case a lot of people voted for hope and change a year ago and don't feel they are getting much of either.
January 18, 2010 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you're right, you know.
And it's so goddam stupid and illogical. They are blaming Obama for Bush's crisis. And they should be called on it, instead of saying, "You know, you know you really can understand their position."
My ass, you can.
January 18, 2010 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't the claim that they are blaming him for Bush's mess is accurate. They are blaming him for not effectively dealing with it. There is only so long a period of time you can say "We didn't create this mess" as a response to why nothing is being done to fix/mitigate the effects of it.
January 18, 2010 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing is being done, huh?
Didn't know.
January 18, 2010 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just point me in the direction of one tangible thing that has been done to help the American people since he took office. What would you point to when saying 'We know you're hurtung and we've provided immediate help to in the form of ________."
January 18, 2010 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the first time, I recently got a statement from my Bank One credit card (only holding on to it because it's my oldest card) that improved my terms. Year after year, they have made the card's terms worse, but suddenly they've improved my terms! Now why could that be?
Ok, this is the first thing that came to mind--since I just got the statement.
January 18, 2010 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
They arbitrarily reduced your rates? Is that what you mean by 'terms'? If so that is something small to point to at least.
January 18, 2010 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. Sorry if I wasn't clear. This wasn't insignificant to the average American who's been jerked around by credit card companies for years.
January 18, 2010 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have a credit card ? Here's my advice. Don't use it unless you have to. Pay off every month. Or you're being ripped off by the worst of the worst.
January 18, 2010 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
i know i know. That one's paid off. I just keep my internet bill and cell bill on there to keep it active (and avoid idiotic non-use fees). Since it's my oldest card, I feel like I should keep it going to keep my credit score high.
I do have a balance on another one that will be paid off very soon. Every cent that goes to interest to these big banks just kills me. (Twice. One because it's lost money. And Two because it's one of the 'too big to fail' banks. I don't want a dime going to those guys)
January 18, 2010 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about extending unemployment benefits twice to the unemployed out of the stimulus? What about the cash for clunkers?
January 18, 2010 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The stimulus bill was nothing? Or are you one of the "government can't create real jobs" libertines?
January 19, 2010 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The stimulus package was too small, and too watered down with handouts to the GOP such as useless tax cuts, for it to work. Economists such as Krugman & Roubini accurately predicted that the stimulus would not work, and it didn't, thanks to Obama's pandering to the GOP who voted no on the package anyway. Krugman went onto predict that once it was clear that the stimulus didn't work Obama would not have enough political capital left to get a 2ns stimulus passed. Guess what happened? BINGO. Unemployment went past the 8% that the administration said would be the ceiling all the way past 10%. Heck of a job.
January 19, 2010 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the one thing you can say with certainty, that, unlike Bush, Obama didn't spend most of the first year to play golf.
January 18, 2010 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch, your write. (I've changed it.)
January 18, 2010 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"you're"
January 18, 2010 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
right
January 18, 2010 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
January 18, 2010 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
To quote Mr. Brown - this is not "Ted Kennedy's" seat, this is the peoples' seat. And it's up for grabs.
January 18, 2010 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've got a valid point.
January 18, 2010 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
maybe its because the people see that "the greatest piece of social legislation since Medicare" is a piece of crap.
and you dont even consider the wall street bailouts.
or the deals with big business ,or the wars ,or the lack of jobs etc,etc.
the truth is the people are waking up because the democrats have nothing to hide behind and they are being exposed.
and its really arrogant of you to believe you can tell people how wrong they are not to see the greatness of obama and the democrats.
so since you asked whos to blame, its people like YOU who demand voters goose step behind anything that has a D behind it.
this is only the beginning and instead of blaming dean where was your post regarding lieberman and how obama aided him in destroying the health care bill?
the truth is you cant see anything! except the next glass of kool-aid.
but the people are seeing the truth of what is happening and this coming vote will prove it.
January 18, 2010 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bailouts, big business "deals," jobs problem, wars are all created by your magnificent hero, Bush.
Since he's your boy, this is your responsibility.
January 18, 2010 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
And who were the ones who passed NAFTA and which president signed it into law? And why isn't repealing Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy front and center of the Obama agenda? Hmmmmmm...
January 18, 2010 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe because those tax cuts will expire next year and it will require far less political capital to just allow them to expire than trying to pass legislation front and center to have them repealed?
January 18, 2010 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll see about that. Obama the gutless has alredy publicly stated he's considering not allowing the tax cuts for the rich to expire. Wonder why? Maybe because he's in their pocket and wants to be one of them when he gets out of office? Yep!
January 18, 2010 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Credit card act of 2009. Sorry if I wasn't clear. This wasn't insignificant to the average American who's been jerked around by credit card companies for years.
January 18, 2010 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so what changed? I have 3 cards I haven't seen one letter informing me of changes to my accounts recently. They all had reasonable terms to begin with but I am curious about the nature of the changes.
January 18, 2010 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is just more spin. They passed a credit card bill that goes into effect this year but for the last few months the industry has been raising rates like crazy to beat the bill's implementation date. Sheesh, I've never carried a balance at JCP, that icon of the middle class mom, and they raised my rate to 24% a couple of months ago. Can you imagine that? Expecting people to pay 24% interest on sheets and towels? Hooray for the Democratic Party!
January 18, 2010 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, what do you have on offer, Bluebell?
I mean REALLY...what do you REALLY have on offer?
And I'm not talking about a keyboard and a big mouth.
Show me the elections YOU have won.
Show me the bills YOU have passed.
Show me anything YOU have done.
Then we can talk about which approach is better, will do more, etc., etc.
January 18, 2010 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
What have I done? Well, when I was driving across MN-5 last fall, I counted lawn signs till I got to 100. 98-2 for Barrack Obama. Mine is one of the very most liberal congressional districts in the country. You don't win Minnesota without me and mine.
That's what I've done.
You folks told liberals to go to hell and maybe we won't be back in time for the next election.
January 18, 2010 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't get it.
It's not about "the Democrats."
Fuck the Democrats.
It's what the Democrats are on the brink of doing for a lot of people who need insurance and don't have it.
If that's not important to you, fine. If you want to walk away and, effectively, support the other game in town, say it proudly.
If you think you're going to walk away and form some third party that won't compromise its principles and will gain the widespread appeal it needs to WIN, then I want to see the plan.
You elected a CENTRIST who is on the brink of doing something that no one has done in over 100 years. Something that will help a lot of people--and perhaps even yourself.
But if you spend your days grumbling about "the Democrats" and how they betrayed you, then not a whole lot is going to happen. Your choice.
But if you think "the Democrats" feel it when you stick it to them and sit home and grumble, think again. "They" don't care about you now; "they" will care even less then.
Question is, where will YOU be?
January 18, 2010 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where was the president at when drug reimportation bill was killed? Ahhhhhh yes trying to keep the deal he had with Pharma, who might be pulling their support for HCR anyways. And I ask again this is what the American people wanted and voted for?
January 18, 2010 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you know, politics is a series of judgement calls.
No way to know which way is right ahead of time.
But results do say something.
Thus far, a centrist approach got us the first black president in the history of the country.
Thus far, a centrist approach has gotten us pretty darn close to health care reform.
Thus far, the progressive approach has gotten us neither.
Dean, Lamont, Kucinich...where is their bill...you know, the one with all that public support?
January 18, 2010 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As series of compromises, huh? I guess a lot of it has to do with who and what is being compromised away. Carry on...the so-called adults, aka the masters of the art of the possible, are in charge.
January 18, 2010 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, please show us where not comprising has gotten us RESULTS. I'm all ears and eyes. Would love to hear about it.
Bernie Sanders for President. I'm for it. Now what?
Kucinich? Kool.
Dean? Divine.
Lamont? Love it.
I promise to follow if you promise to convince five other people to join your march...to the polls.
January 18, 2010 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And how should we spin this little piece of good news? How about "We're sorry America but the banks wouldn't let the president do anything about it"?
January 18, 2010 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is I do not believe you. I do not believe this bill is going to help many people. I do not believe that you can cover 30 million people without raising the deficit, raising taxes or diminishing the quantity and quality of care.
The bill is not credible. It punts regulation to the states and puts the full power of the IRS on the backs of the middle class who will be forced to buy crap policies that are unenforceable. Without tight regulation the insurance attorneys will have us for lunch. And you know what? Those 60 Senators don't give a damn if they do. Because this bill is not about US. It is about THEM.
This bill was not designed to help 300 million people. It was designed to help 60 people and it looks like it won't even do that.
January 18, 2010 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares whether you believe me?
I don't think anyone knows for sure how the bill will work out or how it could be adjusted in the future to correct its faults. Until it comes to pass.
I'm pretty certain, however, that a bill is better than no bill. Krugman seems to think its an "okay" bill and worth supporting. Fred M., who has read all the bills and much else, seems to think there are worthwhile things in the bill that will help people. Pelosi seems ready to move forward.
However, if we get no bill--a position that you, by default, seem to support--how long do you think it will be before progressives get another bite at this apple?
What's your guess? Or do you care?
Maybe you'll prefer PalinCare or DeMintCare or PawlentyCare.
Maybe you're one of those people who thought there was no difference between Gore and Bush.
Again, at this point, you don't have a Chinese menu to choose from. You get two choices: This bill or no bill. Take your pick.
Of course, I guess I could be wrong. Maybe the whole thing will come crashing down. The Democratic Party will come to its senses and start reading Libertine and BlueBell and see that an expansion of Medicare is what "the people" really wanted all along, the Republicans will be swept aside on a tide of popular sentiment and, in Libertine's immortal choice of verbs, the Senate will "give" it to us.
I guess it all comes down to...how lucky do you feel?
January 18, 2010 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic leadership (Reid and Pelosi) should have spent less time talking to Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snowe and more time talking to the voters. While the Democrats were behind closed doors trying to win Joe's vote, the Republicans were out talking to the public and trying to win the voters' votes. All the voters by now have heard the Republicans' side of the story--that the bill will raise taxes and result in everything from death panels to care-rationing to communism. The Democrats meanwhile have told us almost nothing about the bill. Why is it good? What does it do for us? Even Tintin can't really tell us for sure. He suggests we read Krugman or Moolten.
I think that's a problem.
January 18, 2010 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic leadership (Reid and Pelosi) should have spent less time talking to Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snowe and more time talking to the voters. While the Democrats were behind closed doors trying to win Joe's vote, the Republicans were out talking to the public and trying to win the voters' votes.
TT: That was a mistake, I agree.
All the voters by now have heard the Republicans' side of the story--that the bill will raise taxes and result in everything from death panels to care-rationing to communism. The Democrats meanwhile have told us almost nothing about the bill. Why is it good? What does it do for us?
TT: Yes, it's easy if all you have to do is lie.
Even Tintin can't really tell us for sure. He suggests we read Krugman or Moolten.
TT: Why is it that, at this late date, you don't know? Is it that you care so little?
I think that's a problem.
TT: Yes, that is a problem.
January 19, 2010 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do know. I've read much of the bill and much that has been written about it. But the only reason I know about the bill is because I'm highly motivated to learn. Most voters are not like you, me, and Fred. The Democrats fail to recognize that at their peril. And blaming the progressives for their own failure to make the case to the voters is arrogant--and a recipe for continued failure in the polls.
As far as the bill is concerned, I like parts of it--especially the expansion of coverage for the poor. But I too am concerned about it's cost over the long term and its effect on employer-sponsored coverage. It's hard for me to get excited about this bill when I'm not 100% convinced its good parts outweigh its negatives. I would have rather seen something more ambitious and well thought out. At this point, I think it's very similar to George Bush's prescription drug bill. And my excitement and support of it is about equal to my excitement and support of that Republican bill. Both bills help people. Both bills are flawed.
January 19, 2010 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
And how exactly do you know that this bill is better than no bill? I haven't seen any study that discusses at what point health insurance costs will become so high that people will actually stop buying policies. And make no mistake - this point not only exists but is also not so distant in the future. The main reason why employers like the mandate to provide health insurance to their employees is that the employer has a great leverage to keep his/hers employees. But surely there will come the point where the cost of keeping the employees (i.e., the cost of employer-provided health insurance benefits) outweighs the benefit of keeping the employees. And when this happens, the employers (big and small alike) will realize that the health insurance industry (that produces no product) must go in order to keep the employers afloat. And the employers will pull the rug from under the health insurance industry, and we'll get what provides the employers with the biggest competative advantage - a single payer (or something very close to it). True, a lot of little people will suffer until we get to this point, but as someone pointed out above no one knows how many people will be able to afford health care insurance under the pending HC bill.
January 18, 2010 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because a bill can be fixed.
With no bill, you're starting from scratch and the window of opportunity doesn't open that often.
January 19, 2010 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. This isn't reform, they are just passing a law requiring that everyone be insured, and subsidising the insurance industry's outrageous rates for poorer Americans by spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars all in the name of preserving the insurance industry's profit margin. Meanwhile the middle class, who are already drowning from the high cost of insurance, are going to HAVE TO PAY MORE FOR THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE. Reform my ass. This is a give away to the insurance industry.
January 19, 2010 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
By that metric, Bush is a genius and we should all just shut up and listen to him. Is that really what you want to say?
January 18, 2010 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, this comment went awry. Was in response to Libertine above and is repeated there.
January 18, 2010 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Simple question: Couldn't Mass. have found a candidate who wasn't enmeshed in the disgraceful Amirault prosecution (in her case ex post facto)?
January 18, 2010 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the unemployment rate in Mass was 5-6% know one would know who Scott Brown is.
He's a conduit for an angry impatient electorate.
Which could be better described as a political lynch mob.
The sad part about it all is Brown has become the answer to every problem, and thats not reality.
January 18, 2010 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you replaced "Scott Brown" with "Barack Obama" in your post above, it would be very appropriate description of the 2008 presidential election.
January 18, 2010 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting observation.
January 18, 2010 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some relevant data, for what it's worth.
Most recent polls as of yesterday show:
Brown leading Coakley by 5 to 10 points
Obama job approval is 53 percent
Obama personal approval is 58 percent
Healthcare reform package approval around 40 percent
Some misstatements have been made above about the healthcare reform package. Contrary to those statements, the benefits would start immediately, with the creation of risk pools that will provide health insurance coverage for the previously uninsurable (e.g., those with pre-existing conditions), at rates that are somewhat higher than average but affordable for most. Total premium costs and out of pocket expenses will be capped, and low income earners will receive subsidies. In 2014 (if the Senate bill passes), the Exchange will start, with additional reforms, including a prohibition against any rate discrimination for pre-existing conditions.
Based on recent data, it is likely that once the Exchange begins, with the accompanying mandate, thousands of lives will be saved annually, with even more individuals benefitted in terms of health - and medical bankruptcies will be almost entirely eliminated. Between now and 2014, the lifesaving effects will be smaller but still substantial.
The reason I call attention to these misstatements is that they exemplify, in my view, the divergence between impressions of the reform package and what it actually contains. I suspect these misimpressions have contributed to much of the negative opinion held against it. Other examples can be cited, but these are illustrative. Some individuals may wish to oppose the proposed reforms for their own reasons, but any opposition should be based on an accurate understanding of the legislation itself.
January 18, 2010 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Fred. Unfortunately, Libertine's credit card terms haven't changed and Obama hasn't found him a job, so he's going to sit this one out and point to all that Obama hasn't done yet.
Then, when health care doesn't pass, he'll blame the DLC and the crappy bill for that--and all those resultant deaths--along with the fact that Coakley made up shit about baseball.
Pretty soon, we'll have someone like Sarah in the saddle and Lib and Purp can go back to doing what they do best--complaining and marching for folks who will never get elected and never get anything passed.
At least, when the Republican base is pissed off, they stay home and shut up. They may end up not liking Bush, but they don't go out and sabotage him.
January 18, 2010 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...like I have repeatedly said this weekend it isn't people like me, or Purple, you have to worry about. In fact we might be some of the last friends the D's ended up having when the dust settles. And if you can't see that it goes a long way in explaining why it is all slipping away from the D's. So either start putting the American people front and center, instead of the third way's corporate pals, or prepare for epicfail...
January 18, 2010 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at you, Libertine, you are really one of the dumbest guys around--and you don't even see it.
You've got your shorts in a knot cause Coakley made up stuff about baseball.
You've got your shorts in a knot cause some benefits won't kick for a few years.
And yet you're willing to deep six health care for the next 15 years and abandon the people--the uninsured--whom you claim to care so much about.
And who's blaming whom here? Bernard blames you. You blame Bernard and the rest of the DLC and, of course, Obama. But at least Bernard (apparently) thinks it's worth putting in some effort to save health care.
Not you. You're content to sit there like a jack ass pointing fingers and doing nothing because you're--whaaa!--disappointed.
Last friends? You've got to be kidding. You aren't a friend NOW.
Maybe you can point to all those battles progressives have won for the country. Let's start with Ned Lamont. Or Howard Dean. Or name it yourself. SHOW me where your brand of progressivism has won big elections and moved the large numbers of the electorate that need moving in order to get anything done. Ya think Obama won over independents by promising single payer or the public option? Hahaha!
January 18, 2010 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. Go ahead hide your heads in the sand and keep telling yourself that Americans don't want to fundamentally change the course America is on. 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, more giveaways to insurers and Pharma, more big bonuses to Wall Street bankers and shitty health care reform when Americans want real relief NOW not possible relief at some unknown point in the future. But keep telling/lying to yourself that a majority of Americans don't want either single payer or a public option. I don't care...it is your political funeral genius. I am tired of trying of saving you morons from yourselves, this ain't the 1990's anymore dipshit. Crash and burn as far as I am concerned...idiots.
January 18, 2010 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bullshit. Go ahead hide your heads in the sand and keep telling yourself that Americans don't want to fundamentally change the course America is on.
TT: Bring it, Lib. Show your plan. More importantly, show where you've actually put some points on the board.
30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, more giveaways to insurers and Pharma, more big bonuses to Wall Street bankers and shitty health care reform when Americans want real relief NOW not possible relief at some unknown point in the future.
TT: I ask you again...show me you and your kind have been SUCCESSFUL. Since so many Americans agree with you, you ought to have an election...a bill...a treaty...something to show for it. Where's Ned Lamont when we need him?
But keep telling/lying to yourself that a majority of Americans don't want either single payer or a public option. I don't care...it is your political funeral genius.
TT: I'm not saying anything, friend. I'm looking at the RESULTS. All you have is woulda, shoulda, coulda. And you don't even have the honesty to admit that you elected a CENTRIST.
I am tired of trying of saving you morons from yourselves, this ain't the 1990's anymore dipshit. Crash and burn as far as I am concerned...idiots.
TT: Who cares about "us"? That's the mistake you keep making. You think this is all about progressives and DLCers and who's to blame and who's going to save whom from whom. Bernard makes this mistake with his title as well. The point isn't blame.
The point is...what's your next best move and are you going to take it. Or, are you going to sit back and list all the ways you were right. That's pathetic. You're the guy who wouldn't cut a deal with the Dixiecrats to get Social Security because a) the Dixiecrats were racists and b) Social Security had big flaws.
Look, Purple is sitting around talking about how much better his candidate would've been. It's laughable. His candidate LOST. At this particular moment in time, losing means you're a BAD candidate. Period. Losing means the other guy wins. If you're happy with the other guy winning...now and in 2012...then keep on keepin' on.
A weak effort on your part isn't a dig at the Democrats...it's a helping hand for the Republicans. That's the way it works when you have a binary choice. And there's no point in complaining about how you're sick and tired of hearing about the lesser of two evils, etc. It's not me...it's simple math.
If you don't work for Coakley...you're helping Brown. Period. You may not wish to admit that, but that's the way the math works.
January 18, 2010 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us have the wheel and we'll see. Right now the deck is stacked. Most all of the money, and not surprisingly the corporately owned media spotlight, goes to the ones friendliest with big business. You can of course say that this, the Obama Administration, is what the American people want. But then again it isn't like Obama campaigned on the public option. And again you really have to ask why Coakley is having trouble in Mass? It is some how the fault of liberals? Gimme a break...
January 18, 2010 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Let us have the wheel and we'll see. Right now the deck is stacked."
The progressive excuse is always a version of this. "We can't because..." "Give us and we will..." "Whaaa, the deck is stacked against us, so..." "The media don't give us air time..."
Well, if someone were going to "give" you anything, then they would simply have "given" it to Obama. Or Dean. Or Kucinich. Or Sanders. Progressives are like hot house flowers; they only flourish in artificial conditions in which everyone sees the light and no nefarious forces are at work.
January 18, 2010 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine...so you guys got power. Loaded the administration with blue dogs and repugs, no liberals need apply, then you come whining to, and blaming, us to bail your asses out when it all goes south? Up yours baby...deal with the fact that America is not down with your center-right pro-corporate agenda. We ain't gonna sell it for ya...
January 18, 2010 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine...so you guys got power. Loaded the administration with blue dogs and repugs, no liberals need apply, then you come whining to, and blaming, us to bail your asses out when it all goes south? Up yours baby...deal with the fact that America is not down with your center-right pro-corporate agenda. We ain't gonna sell it for ya...
Okay, well, I've made my point.
Having power is a sine qua non of doing something. You act like that's a small point. That's why your guys...never win.
No one is asking you to bail out anyone. That would be like Tiger Woods asking me for golf advice. You're the one in need.
Every time you try to stick it up mine, all you're doing is sticking it up your own...and taking it out on 45,000 insurance-less Americans. But you refuse to see it.
January 18, 2010 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what are you guys doing to help the 10%+ of the work force that is unemployed? What are you guys doing about the record number of foreclosures in 2009? What are you guys doing to rein in Wall Stret? What are you guys doing to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the upper 10%? In short, what the hell are you guys doing? You can point to us and ask disengenuously ask the question while never inluding us in the process. We ask seriously to the ones who have the power...what is being acomplished? So far more money for corporate interests with a HCR that mandates that people buy insurance in the marketplace. And many of us are dead set against being part of the bi-partisan fleecing of America by/for the 10% of the people who already have far more than they should. Heckuva job Brownie!!!
January 18, 2010 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well...
As to unemployment, an insufficient amount is being done. That's clear. They didn't do enough.
But as I recall, at the start of 2009, we were losing something like 700K jobs and now it's down to 10K. That's an improvement of 70x. That's hardly nothing.
And it's 100% better than the progressive who remain, congenitally, out of power.
January 19, 2010 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, Purple is sitting around talking about how much better his candidate would've been. It's laughable. His candidate LOST. At this particular moment in time, losing means you're a BAD candidate. Period. Losing means the other guy wins. If you're happy with the other guy winning...now and in 2012...then keep on keepin' on.
So if Coakley loses tomorrow, you're going to admit she was a BAD candidate and re-evaluate the approach that led the Democrats to another loss, right? Or are you going to keep on blaming me and Libertine for the Democrats' woes?
January 18, 2010 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no question that she's not a "good candidate."
Who cares? Apparently, you do.
Purple: "Well, I'll vote for her tomorrow as will everyone in my family. But I'm not excited enough about her (or about the Democrats' recent policy initiatives) to do much more than that. Is that my fault? Am I obligated to get excited about things I'm not excited about just because others think I should be excited?"
Yes, it IS your fault. Yes, you ARE obligated. IF you want to see this health care bill pass. If you don't care whether it passes...if you're fine with risking another 15-year wait...then carry on.
I'm NOT blaming the progressives or the DLCers or anyone in particular. I'm blaming folks who are in a position to and don't put their shoulder to the wheel and who use, as an excuse, their disappointment in the bill and Obama. They THINK they're sticking it to someone, but they're only sticking it to themselves and a lot of other people who could use insurance.
Bernard made the mistake of pointing fingers at progressives. I think the progressive critique of the bill is right, in part. But that is beside the point right now. Coakley sucks as a candidate. Fine. Work to get her elected. Brown sucks a lot more.
January 18, 2010 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no question that she's not a "good candidate."
Who cares? Apparently, you do.
Apparently a lot of voters do. And why shouldn't they?
This is the problem with the Democrats now. They really don't care what they're offering the voters. Bad bill, bad candidate, what does it matter? We're the Democrats. You're OBLIGATED to vote for us.
Well, I'm afraid that doesn't really work. You need to make your case to the voters. The Democrats haven't done that with the health care bill. And Coakley hasn't done that with the voters of Massachusetts.
January 18, 2010 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats?!
Are you kidding?
YOU were the ones who voted in a shitty candidate.
Because, well, you just didn't care enough.
January 19, 2010 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for someone else. I was paying attention. And I will vote for Coakley today because I'm still paying attention.
Still, blame me . . . it's all my fault. All those people voting for Brown have nothing to do with it, I imagine . . . if had just shown more excitement about the bill's expansion of Medicaid I'm sure all the people worried about their tax money being spent on other people would have seen the light and voted for the bill.
You just don't get it. Progressives aren't the problem here.
January 19, 2010 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
And just another point. The good parts of this bill actually are traditional progressive (i.e., welfare) solutions. I think Libertine and I are arguing not so much for a more progressive bill but for a more innovative bill that helps the middle class as much as it helps the poor. We've been saying all along that the Democrats' opportunity was to create a new vision of common cause among all Americans. Instead, because of all the concessions to Joe Lieberman, we ended up with a bill that protects industry and provides welfare to the poor while (over time, thanks to the excise tax) erroding middle-class, employer-sponsored benefits. This is a bill the middle class hates--and the Republicans are out there re-winning the middle class because of it.
January 19, 2010 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple, you're refusing to read. I AGREE progressives aren't THE problem. I DISAGREE with Bernard (I think) on this point. But they are part of the problem if, as you said, they aren't going to do more than "just vote," especially on a difficult issue like this that has now been demagogued to death.
A more "innovative bill"? Sure. But innovation generally means more complexity, and that's the problem we're having right now, it appears. No one understands the bill. Apparently, you don't understand the bill or are unwilling to explain its genuine benefits to the unconvinced in your state going door to door.
If you don't think that Obama and Reid and Pelosi have been struggling to help the middle class--everyone, really--you're nuts. You've bought the right wing meme; this is all a giveaway, a big transfer of wealth, to the undeserving poor.
You've also bought into the idea that the bill should be allowed to die--through a weak effort at GOTV--because it has some bad things in it that can never be fixed ONCE WE HAVE POINTS ON THE BOARD. See, if this fails, the story will be that the left's view of health reform has been rejected by "the people." No one's going to dig down into the weeds to parse the differences between progressives and centrists and discover that Purple and the progressives liked some parts but weren't crazy about other parts and so they spent their time trashing the bill and not working hard to GOTV.
No. DeMint is going to pop some champagne. You and Libertine are going to say, "See, I told you so." And the future will be this great unknown with the status quo lasting for who knows how long. And Obama will have a MUCH harder time getting anything else done. All that matters now is that we put points on the board--in the end, that is what will resonate and give us momentum in the coming elections. Everything else can be fixed, just as Social Security was "fixed."
This is why Republicans prevail long after they "should" be voted out. They don't get hung up on every problem. The guy cheated on his wife with a raccoon? Let's see how we can blame it on big government. They FIGHT. We fight a little bit and then take a long snooze, and we get real disappointed when we don't get our way.
As to the problems of filibusters and the Senate, I concede the point. Things are out of whack. And Obama hasn't used his oratory and organizing skills the way he could have.
January 19, 2010 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, if I went door-to-door in my neighborhood what would I tell people this bill does for them? Almost everyone in my neighborhood has coverage via Medicare or their employer. What's the message for those folks? That the bill expands coverage for the poor through Medicaid? Yes, that appeals to me. But most of my neighbors vote Republican because they are afraid of taxes. Medicaid expansion will scare them to death.
January 19, 2010 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And lest you misconceive the kind of neighborhood I live in, a good number of my neighbors drive trucks for a living. This isn't Newton. It's a real working class neighborhood where the folks think a salary of $30,000 per year is pretty good.
January 19, 2010 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, gee, if they already have Medicare, what would you tell them about single payer? Everyone's going to get what you waited 62 years for and the deficit is headed to the stratosphere? And maybe your taxes to cover the deficit?
Your argument seems to be that we need to appeal to their self-interest. Well, health care-wise, they are set, no? Since, I gather they don't care about anyone else getting health care, there isn't much more to say.
Of course, somewhere in this bill, they've closed the doughnut hole, so that should appeal, yes? You could also reassure them that their Medicare benefits WON'T be cut as has been falsely claimed. You could tell them that there are no death panels. You could tell them that their grandchildren will never have to worry about getting covered, even if they don't work for an employer that offers coverage. Or they change jobs. Or their employer drops coverage. You could tell them that their grandkids can stay on their parents' plan until age 28. You could tell them that if anyone in their family gets seriously ill, it will be against the law to turn them down for pre-existing conditions. You could say that their kids and grandkids will never "run out" of insurance because they've reached the lifetime cap. You could say that their kids and grandkids will never have their coverage rescinded, even if they make a stupid mistake on their application forms. Just list it all out and go down the list.
If they're worried about their taxes going up, tell them that their money is going to help insure people who wouldn't otherwise be insured. If they're worried about "government-run" health care, tell them that this is not government-run health care. The free enterprise system is doing it all. If they're worried about government messin' with Medicare, tell them the government isn't messin' with their Medicare.
You accentuate the positive. But if you go around with a long face that says, "Yeah, I know, the bill sucks," then they will agree with you.
January 19, 2010 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Column getting too thin, see below.
January 19, 2010 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent question, Blue State. But it might take a while to get an answer, because it might have to be fair and balanced, in the true rather than the faux news sense...
January 18, 2010 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, it's not the progressives you are losing, it's the moderate independents, the swing voters, who are turning back toward the Republicans. Instead of yelling at me (who will be voting for Coakley), why not ask yourself why you and the other Democratic pragmatists haven't won over those voters? It's those you've been wooing with your compromises after all. Why are they turning away from you?
January 18, 2010 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay...
So, are you saying that a more progressive bill would've won over all those middle class folks who are worried about the bill's cost?
You think a bill that had a bigger role for the government would have been immune from the "socialist" charge?
You think single payer--which Obama NEVER had on the table-- would have had a better shot at passing given where we are?
You think all those Blue Dogs would've stopped barking and played nice?
Think the teabaggers would've stayed home and brewed a cup?
I suppose anything's possible...
My point is, now that your candidate has LOST...and now that the public option has LOST...at least for now...and now that single payer is not a possibility...are you going to go door to door to GOTV? Or are you going to vote and hope for the best? Seems to me, Obama would never have won had we done that.
And this is at least as important as that.
That's my judgement.
January 18, 2010 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and the party hacks who have created this fiasco are clueless.
I've been in the workforce for over 35 years and I can you that any time the boss starts talking about cutting costs it's usually your job he's talking about.
In a time of enormous economic uncertainty selling this bill as a cost cutting initiative was totally stupid. I don't care if you can come up with some poll that says otherwise. People are feeling terribly insecure. They want reassurance. They want protection. They want security.
We'll never know if we could have sold a phased in expansion of Medicare since we never tried but if you wanted to get votes from boomers - there are lots of us and we vote -- reassuring us that you are serious about the safety net, you are serious about protecting Medicare and Social Security would have sure gotten me in your corner.
Instead you sold some incomprehensible cost cutting initative to somehow get money from Medicare and tax my health benefits or put the IRS on my back so that the people of my state which already regulates insurance can now get the red state special in some "exchange" that makes no sense to me. Somehow that is supposed to help me out. How I don't know, but since you told me its about cutting costs, I figure that means you are going cut the healthcare I'm going to get now and maybe cut Medicare in the future because, well, all I hear is cuts, cuts, cuts.
January 18, 2010 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, see how you like the Republican version of the bill.
January 18, 2010 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This bill has so many concessions to right-wing dogma, that if the Republicans regain the majority they'll rebrand it, market it and pass it. After all, we all know that Democrats can't have a bill unless John McCain's pal Lieberman approves.
January 18, 2010 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that's why they've been trying so hard to defeat it. Hmmm. Well, tomorrow you may get your wish and we'll get to see how it goes.
January 18, 2010 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
They've been trying to defeat Democrats. They've reinvented triangulation. They intimidate Democrats into taking pro-corporate, anti-middle class positions, and then they hit them with populist opposition. It seems to be working for them.
January 18, 2010 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are getting played, pwned and punk'd by the Repugs and their supposed allies, Wall Street, yet again...suckers. Then they have the nerve to accuse us of disloyalty because we refuse to be party to it to save their skins by helping them try to sell this load of crap masquerading as change to the American people.
January 18, 2010 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's be clear Lib...
The progressives couldn't give away bread to a starving man.
How do I know?
Because they can NEVER, EVER sell their views to the voters.
How do I know?
Because they NEVER, EVER win except in the safest of safe districts here and there.
So the notion that "we" are asking "you" to sell anything is laughable.
January 19, 2010 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think of the Republican prescription drug bill? Based on your arguments here, you must have been pretty excited about it, right?
January 19, 2010 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
2006 and 2008 were because of what Howard Dean did as Chairman of the Party and the corrupt, venal Rahm Emmanuel fought everything Dean did every step of the way. Obama wouldn't have been President if it weren't for Howard Dean and the progressives/liberals.
January 18, 2010 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
WOW! Another thread showing Libs like to dish it, but they can't take it. I thought you all respected dissent, going against the establishment and all that? Why do you always brush off people who make valid points that don't paint you as the victim?
Maybe its just my personality, but when I'm on a team and the team fails, I take some of that responsibility. I also do my part to make sure we do better next time.
January 18, 2010 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah baby! South Boston is reading MY blogs! In that case, SCREW YOU BRUINS!
Some advice, Avishai. If the general public every discovers that talking vegetables have invaded the Earth, you're gonna be in the pot, man.
January 18, 2010 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Robert Kuttner writes: "Cutting a deal with the insurers and drug companies, who are not exactly candidates to win popularity contests, associated Obama with profoundly resented interest groups. This was exactly the wrong framing. This battle should have been the president and the people versus the interests. Instead more and more voters concluded that it was the president and the interests versus the people."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/a-wake-up-call_b_426467.html
January 18, 2010 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, if you don't figure out a way to pacify the enemy, he figures out a way to enrage "the people" so that "the people" (who always seem to be the dumbest guys in the room) think the government is trying to rule their lives. 'Member when Harry met Sally? Kuttner has a good point theoretically, but it's not clear he knows what he's doing politically--and it's on the political plane that things get done, or not.
January 18, 2010 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"more and more voters concluded that it was the president and the interests versus the people."
Kuttner's an idiot. The opposition to HCR comes from a vocal minority of voters and from members of Congress bought and paid for by the health care industries (see, e.g., "Healthcare Bill Support Ticks Up; Public Still Divided (Forty-nine percent favor passage of bill; 46% oppose)" http://www.gallup.com/poll/125030/Healthcare-Bill-Support-Ticks-Up-Public-Divided.aspx
If Obama had insisted on a single-payer bill, or even a "robust public option," the senate wouldn't have passed it out of committee, let alone getting it passed on the floor, even if the better bill had overwhelming public support. The struggles of this bill has everything to do with the fact that big business runs Washington and next to nothing to do with "framing."
January 18, 2010 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point and very, very true!
But don't look for self satisfied elitists like Avishai to get it. They think it is that the left pointed out the mistakes along the way. Had the left just kept their mouths shut, nobody would have noticed Obama was in bed with the bad guys. LMAO! Do they get dumber than this guy and his fellow travelers?
January 18, 2010 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
January 18, 2010 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
test deneme
porno izle
February 12, 2011 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no way in the world that progressives with legitimate complaints about the health care bill as it stands are responsible for Coakley blowing a slam dunk election (if indeed that's what happens).
If Avishai is truly concerned about Democratic party unity he'll take a more polite tone towards us well wishers with objections.
January 18, 2010 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
But to answer your question:
"how come the greatest piece of social legislation since Medicare is something a progressive Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy's seat has to speak so defensively about?"
Because it's good but still deeply flawed is why.
January 18, 2010 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And because the middle class is terrified of the bill's cost and unconvinced of its benefits. And believe me, it's not progressives that are making them afraid of the bill. It's the Republicans and their blue dog enablers.
January 18, 2010 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your solution is to...slag the bill?
January 18, 2010 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you can't get behind something that's "good but deeply flawed"?
That's laughable.
You'd, like, rather wait another 15 years or so? You'd rather have the Republican version pass?
Look...you complained about the bill and you lost.
So what's your next move?
What's your plan? Watch Brown win?
January 18, 2010 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said anything about slagging the bill? Who said anything about "watching" Brown win?
Folks want to know why Brown is making what should have been an easy race competitive. Well, it seems to be that the bill the Senate passed isn't actually popular with, you know... VOTERS!
Why are you blaming me for that?
January 18, 2010 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said anything about slagging the bill? Who said anything about "watching" Brown win?
TT: At this point, if you don't brag on the bill--emphasize all the good things in the bill and why it's important to pass it--you are joining the Republican chorus. It's a binary choice...at this point.
Folks want to know why Brown is making what should have been an easy race competitive. Well, it seems to be that the bill the Senate passed isn't actually popular with, you know... VOTERS!
TT: Well, if even those who SHOULD be for this bill aren't really for the bill, then it's that much harder to convince independents isn't it? Stands to reason. Polls show that a lot of people don't like the bill...but for completely different reasons. Problem is, in a binary situation, it all boils down to the same result. No bill.
Right now, if you're not bragging, you're slagging. This is the sort of party discipline that Richardxx (I think) says we should have, though he might not agree with my Rx. You close ranks and push forward. Then you critique, fix, and push forward again. Until you get to where you want to get to.
January 18, 2010 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Concur on the party discipline. That's the alternative to totally restructuring the federal government.
The thing is, Democrats are not used to running on a party platform. They have 200 years of experience running local races and then going to Washington where the voters can't see what they are doing. That's over.
Right now Ben Nelson is finding himself with the party platform hung around his neck - not totally because his state hasn't adapted to the modern world that much, but more so. Congresspersons and to a lesser extend Senators will be running on the national party brand. But they can't avoid that when they get to Washington. It's going to follow them and get reported back to their constituents whether they like it or not. Ask Lincoln and Landrieu.
But party discipline means that the details of the bills are fought out in caucus, not on the floor or in the committees of the House or Senate. (The media will scream bloody murder.) Then they'll be introduced and voted on by the majority party. Whips are going to matter more.
And if this happens in the Senate, then the small states will have even more influence on the overall legislation because transparency will be a thing of the past.
As I say, the alternative is to restructure the Congress. I suggest doing away with the Senate entirely. I'd also put terms on federal judges at all levels, say 12 or 15 years with only one term.
January 18, 2010 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's to blame?
Hot damn! The mighty bloggers (hey, that's me!) who influence public opinion in Massachusetts! Woo-hoo!
This is the running theme at Talking Points Memo, so it must be true.
January 18, 2010 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, it's funny. I'm like... does anyone really care to see a fight between me and Bernard Avishai? Or any of us and Bernard Avishai? Why are we being lectured by Bernard Avishai? How did he even get on the guest list?
January 18, 2010 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet they loved him in the bars of South Boston.
January 18, 2010 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every alleged "Democratic" politician should be required to answer that question to the public. Repeatedly.
America has seen in the Bush administration the worst failure of government since the collapse of the American and World economy in 1929. In 2008 the voters recognized this and elected the Democrats to replace the failed Republicans.
For the last six months we have watched the Democrats fail as badly as the Republicans did before them. Yes, Health care reform is critically needed. And what do we get? Sixty Democratic Senators deciding among themselves how to divide up the government pie so that they each get what their exalted status as Senator deserves.
The media has focused on the teabaggers as they have attacked the government that has obviously failed, but the media sees the teabaggers as a "right-wing" phenomenon. It's not. There is as much unrest among the progressives as among the teabaggers, but the media does not report on progressives except to label them "extremists."
What we have is the classic Republican Party which is autocratic and can organize itself effectively but which caters to right-wing crazies who reject the kind of government a modern nation has to have. We also have the classic Democratic Party which cannot agree on and pass legislation that the nation desperately needs. The government is broken and that is because of the combination of the idiocy of the Republicans and the refusal of the Democrats to act as a disciplined political party.
Something has to change, and that change is going to have to be reflected in the actions of Barack Obama and in the Senate Democrats first before it is reflected at the ballot box beginning with the Democratic primaries.
The Democrats better answer that question - soon - or they are toast. And so are the rest of us.
January 18, 2010 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nailed it.
January 18, 2010 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The real question Democrats have to ask themselves is: how come the greatest piece of social legislation since Medicare is something a progressive Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy's seat has to speak so defensively about?"
I think the answer is relatively simple: because the bill sucks big time! It's nothing but a collection of favors and boondoggles for the parastic drug and insurance industries in exchange for all of us paying a great deal more to not cover the whole population. Yeah, I think that about covers it.
January 18, 2010 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! Since when did corporate welfare for the insurance industry count as "social legislation". And lest anyone question my frame of the issue, who has been selling this bill as "bending the cost curve"? Anyone ever associate social legislation with "bending the cost curve"?
The administration wouldn't sell the bill as social legislation so the folks out there don't have a clue what the bill is going to do except bend some stupid curve.
January 18, 2010 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the hcr bill sucks big time. That's because it has been reduced to whatever 60 wealthy aristocratic Senators trading favors and acting unanimously decided to permit.
The U.S. federal government is broken. Why do we even have a Senate that can block legislation anyway? It used to be so that the rural wealthy plantation owners could protect their property (including slaves) from the mobs in big cities. Now it's just to make Senators wealthy and give them a platform to run for President from.
The American people haven't needed the Senate for a long time, and it looks to me like we can no longer afford the luxury of keeping it.
January 18, 2010 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand how you feel about it. But, I do believe that the primary purpose of the Senate was to slow down any particular majority from moving too hastily without a consensus and thus to protect the rights of the minority. I think that is a valid and important role for the Senate to play. Imagine what the Republicans would have done if there had been no way to cool their jets in the Senate between 2000 and 2008.
We are now experiencing an open and deliberate abuse of that mechanism for the first time since the slave powers gummed up all the works to protect their anachronistic, criminal economic setup. I think the Senate is here to stay and that's okay. What needs to happen is that the huge Democratic majority needs to be brought to heel by a real set of leaders (something sorely lacking) so that there will be enough party discipline to forward the Democratic agenda when need be instead of holding it hostage to whoever is the most corrupt, conservative Senator in the body.
January 18, 2010 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your solution might work. But the Senate was based on the same theory as the House of Lords in Great Britain - the aristocrats are better suited to govern and should be used to brake the actions of the mob.
In Great Britian they have reduced the power of the House of Lords to where they can delay but not prevent the passage of legislation the House of Commons has passed. The Church hierarchy has been removed from the Lords. The judicial functions have been transferred to a new Supreme Court. There is serious talk of making membership in the Lords elective, and changing its name to Senate.
Great Britain seems quite well governed without some aristocratic idiots stopping needed legislation on their whim. The U.S. deserves at least equal treatment.
The propaganda that the mob needs parental leadership is a lie.
January 18, 2010 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think you ignore the importance during time of framing of the big state-small state conflict. The function of the senate design was to give small states disproportionate power so the big states wouldn't get everything they wanted. Today, it still gives the rural voter a much bigger voice than numbers. These factors are missing from the Lords as an over-seer of the Commons.
January 19, 2010 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct that I ignore the big state - small state conflict of two centuries ago in a small, rural mostly agricultural nation. Today we have a nation based on an industrial economy in which the majority of the population lives in big cities. The legislation that is being held up is largely big city needs, of which universal health care is the clearest example.
Put that together with the recognition that there is no need for a second legislative body to act as a check on the House. Today we have a second political party (somethinig not considered by the Founding Fathers) and we have big Pharma and the Health Insurers with their K-street Lobbiests able to manipulate the fragmented "leadership" of the two houses split between two parties.
The Constitution was also adopted before there was much of a mass media that quickly reached the public. That began to develop during the Civil War.
Now having the Senate does nothing more than give 100 wealthy prima donnas individual and unaccountable veto power over the functions of the federal government. The result is that we now have unaccountable governing power out of places like Wall Street Banks instead of from visible and accountable politicians in government. Ben Nelson and his state insurance companies together with Joe Lieberman and his insurance companies have more power over American's lives than the government does.
It's a libertarian's dream. And remember, Libertarians dream that each of them will have unaccountable power over as many others as they can steal. See Norquist and Dick Armey for examples.
January 19, 2010 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purplestate writes:
And here lies the root to the problem. Coming out now and protesting, is pointless. The key is to maintain vigilance during the primary season.
By the way, for the 2010 election -- it's primary season.
January 18, 2010 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blaming unhappy progressives for Democratic electoral woes is shortsighted, it's easy, and it's counter-productive. It allows the blamers to offload responsibility for their own failures to others, and it keeps them from looking at their own missteps and then course-correcting.
Avishai should be asking himself: why hasn't the endless apologizing for Obama and the Dems succeeded in convincing unhappy people that all is as well as it could be? Simply saying "you're wrong, stupid, naive etc. for being unhappy" ain't a useful response. It's the standard response and it has never worked and it will never work.
The reality with our party is that it hasn't come to grips with all the implications of the internet age. The fundraising part they get. The "transparancy" part, they don't. I don't mean transparency with respect to Obama's promises about how he'd run a transparent administration. I mean transparency in terms of the public being able to see, with devastating clarity, how many of our "leaders" have no clothes; how corrupt our government is, how horrible our media is, and how thoroughly key industries call the shots.
Politicians babble about "special interests" practically in every campaign. What's become starkly clear is that, while they talk a good game during campaigns, once elected they serve those special interests and not the public.
Democratic party leaders have yet to grasp that they can no longer soothe the masses by making promises they have no intention of keeping. The public may not have long memories, but the web does. And the Progressive Left uses that marvelous database to remind people about promises that haven't been kept.
The party is going to have to decide who they represent. They can't send clear messages now because they're constantly trying to have it both ways.
Meanwhile, as the "head" of the party, Obama has his own issues, one of which is that he is a "pragmatist". He believes in fighting the fights you can win and accepting half a loaf. Okay, fine. If your idea of governing is to water your proposals down out of the gate in order to get senate votes, well then people's reactions are likely to be equally watered down. But Obama and his apologists want it both ways too. They want us to accept tepid results with fiery enthusiasm. People don't work that way.
January 18, 2010 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problems isn't Democratic progressives. It's blind Democratic politicians who watched the tea baggers tear the Republicans up to a great extent because they weren't getting what they wanted from their politicians (solutions to the real problems they and their friends and relatives all face) and the Democrats (plus the ignorant media) simply dismissed the rumblings from dissatisfied liberals.
The thing is that neither party is dealing with the massive problems America is currently facing. The conservative and liberals solutions to those problems, along with the tactics to achieve those solutions, are different. Creating mobs and letting crooks rip them off has been something the conservatives and libertarians were satisfied with. Liberals have taken to the blogs. The politicians are ignoring the complaints, and the Brown/Coakley race is an example of out of touch Democrats finding that they cannot skate through another election and remain out of touch.
I still have some (limited) hope for the White House. I think that they have lost contact with the voters after Obama took office largely because they have been facing more challenges than they every imagined possible. The Massachusetts election may be the wake-up call they need. But they better recognize that it's the political equivalent of the Wall Street Banks all collapsing at once in late 2008. They've blown it big time since August.
January 18, 2010 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It allows the blamers to offload responsibility for their own failures to others, and it keeps them from looking at their own missteps and then course-correcting.
Thank you Viola. This post by Bernard, and several like it recently, is deeply incoherent.
While progressives are very disappointed and grouchy, and smarting from their political defeats, they are almost certainly going to suck it up in large numbers and vote for Coakley, as they have done time and again. And yet if Coakley loses, it will be because massive numbers of unaffiliated voters who voted for Obama have defected to Brown. Some of that is no doubt due to Coakley herself, who is a poor candidate and campaigner. But a good part of the opposition is apparently due to rejection of the health care legislation.
And why? Bernard gives his own answer: months and months and months of right-wing bashing of the health care effort. And why have these right-wing attacks had a political bite? Bernard crazily suggests that all those center right voters who listen to Hannity and Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Beck and Dobbs and others have been moved by the dissatisfaction of the Democratic parties left wing, and that if the lefties had just kept their mouths shut, the attacks wouldn't have achieved traction.
This makes no sense at all. Just to consider one real world counter-consideration, the left also opposed the escalation in Afghanistan. Did this make the right wing say, "Gee, if even the lefties don't like the Afghanistan escalation, there must be something wrong with it?" Hell no. Obama actually improved his standing with the center-right and right by escalating in Afganistan Generally, when the left opposes something Obama does, the righties think better of the Obama policy, not worse of it.
So why didn't that happen with health care? Why didn't Obama's stiffing of the left help him sell health care reform, and thoroughly beat down the attacks from the right? I'll tell you why: Because the chief centrist architects of this reform package - all the Liberdems and Baucusdems and Bayhdems and Clintondems didn't have good answers.
Centrist Dems don't have the balls or incentive to take on the real sources of power and wealth in this country, and the drivers of the exorbitant costs and titanic inefficiencies plaguing the health care system. But, nobly no doubt, they wanted to help the poor and the uninsured. So they did what they have done so many times in the past: they stuck it to the middle class! And now a big part middle class is rebelling. Surprise!!!
Instead of frankly and unashamedly clawing back wealth from the moneybags and profiteers of the health industrial complex, and using that wealth to fund an expansion of coverage, an imposition of efficiency and a lowering of costs, they have created new obligations that are bound to raise taxes on middle class voters, and have left all the cost-cutting hopes to speculative market-based solutions. And they did this right after - get this - the spectacular and very public failure of market based solutions. Recently, the bill's architects went after the hard-won "Cadillac plans" of union workers. (My guess is that some of those hockey fight-loving toughs in Southie whom Bernard doesn't appear to like still belong to unions.) They have gone in for mandates on people who don't want to be forced to buy health insurance - but they have not taken one red cent out of the pocket of the HMO CEO who makes $10 million a year, the pharmaceutical profiteer or the prima donna medical specialist!
The priorities here are totally out of whack. We're in the middle of a huge lingering recession. People are out of work, or scared of being out of work, and struggling with debt. And if they have work they have seen a mountain of personal wealth and retirement funds evaporate, while their wages and salaries go nowhere. If someone decides to pass a major piece of costly social legislation during these trying times, hadn't they better make damn sure that the average, struggling, recession-era voter is 100% certain that he will be a net winner in the deal? And yet the Centerdems can't issue this assurance! And that's because they chickened out, kowtowed to power and wealth, and left all the real money on the table, giving them no margin for error and forcing them to scrounge under the frayed and worn middle class sofas for more loose change.
Then, instead of leading the charge on "the greatest piece of social legislation since Medicare", Obama sat back and let two houses of Congress drag out negotiations for months, with lobbyists of every stripe and their paid Congressional lackeys publicly haggling over the the big fat golden health goose. Do you think the country didn't notice? Do you think that if progressives had just kept their lips buttoned, the unaffiliated voters could have been snowed? Everybody can fucking see what happened! And now, hardly anyone in America can even express in a few short words what's in this lumpy, smelly, technocrat-designed and industry-approved sausage.
Obama did another version of the same damn thing Clinton did. Instead of building a movement for health care reform from the ground up, which was supposed to be the idea, based on listening, consensus, grass roots ideas and building substantial agreement on fundamental priorities among a broad swath of ordinary Americans, he decided to turn the whole thing over to Congress, the lobbyists, the industry and elite institution academics - some of whom were apparently on the take - and all of whom then mounted another top-down effort to hang onto their swag and keep the rabble from cutting into their action, while pushing health care reform on their terms.
Since the Clinton days (at least) Democrats have been saddled with rule by a clueless bunch of professional class snobs who have more class loyalty to the folks they went to school with - and who now run the country and manage its wealth -than to working men and women, and the 9-to-5ers in place Southie. These guys are a huge albatross around our necks. They are killing us! They represent a narrow, narrow segment of America. They constantly piss people off and alienate them with their elitist habits. They hoard power and political decision-making like it was their birthright. They are completely out of touch with the way 90% of the country thinks. And when their stupid, weasly and cowardly ivory tower plans fail, they blame everyone else for being too dumb to grasp their genius. Finally, when push comes to shove, they would rather tax a fireman in Southie than permit some good honest class warfare over the wealth the medical specialist or the health industry CEO who lives down the street.
I don't know what it will take for these losers to get a clue - pitchforks and guillotines! I implore them: Please go away! Enough is enough with this crap. Bernard, buy an island with Cass Sunstein, Larry Summers and the rest of the crew of precious "knowledge entrepreneurs" - and retire!
January 18, 2010 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent work, Dan. You hit it exactly.
January 18, 2010 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks PS.
January 18, 2010 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks PS.
January 18, 2010 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This.
January 18, 2010 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great job!
I would only add that they set the table for the HCR debacle - and the general disatisfaction - by passing a watered down, ineffective stimulus package after they gave away the store to the TBTF banks with no accountability.
January 18, 2010 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post about sums it all, brilliant, Dan K!
January 19, 2010 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan writes: "Just to consider one real world counter-consideration, the left also opposed the escalation in Afghanistan. Did this make the right wing say, "Gee, if even the lefties don't like the Afghanistan escalation, there must be something wrong with it?" Hell no. Obama actually improved his standing with the center-right and right by escalating in Afganistan Generally, when the left opposes something Obama does, the righties think better of the Obama policy, not worse of it."
No. The reason Obama improved his standing with the center- right is that they already approved of his Afghanistan plan. This is certainly not the case with health care. They aren't simply reactive to what the lefties do. They're already hatin' on anything the left does with respect to health care. They want it to remain the same (largely).
The point here, though, is the middle. The independents. The general buzz in the press. The impression the average person gets when he isn't willing to read or think for himself.
If the press reports that "even the left" don't like the bill, then that becomes the story--"no one likes the bill cause the bill sucks"--and the middle caves because there must be "something" terribly wrong with the bill that can never be fixed. That's the meme progressives are pushing, and it's contagious.
Bernard is wrong to blame progressives solely for this mess, but they are certainly doing damage. As to "massive numbers of them sucking it up"...ah...where were massive numbers of them when they had a chance to elect what many progressives here say were much better candidates?
January 19, 2010 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, you seem to think that all those unaffiliated voters are just dumb as shit, and form their judgments purely on the basis of "buzz". I think most of them don't like the plan because they know enough about it to entertain rational doubts as to whether it will turn out to be in their interests.
And it didn't at all have to be that way.
January 19, 2010 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yes, I do to a large degree. Why do you think the average guy thought Saddam had masterminded 9/11...or Al Quaeda was in Iraq before we invaded...long after even a cursory glance at the information would have proven otherwise? Understanding THAT was FAR easier than understanding what is a genuinely complicated (and boring) subject.
Even Viguerie admitted that one reason the right is so successful in this country is that they're able to fit their positions onto bumper stickers. The left, except what passes for far left, isn't. And certainly Obama was never a bumper sticker guy.
The bill is complicated and its goals are somewhat complex as are the trade-offs. (The only easy to understand plan is single payer, and frankly that's been off the table since the campaign.)
As a result, it's easily demagogued. And if NO ONE appears to like the bill and is standing up for it, then the conclusion is drawn that "the bill is no good"--even when there is good in it.
Of course, we DO have that filibuster problem in the Senate. And it may not even be a 60 vote problem. When you have a genuinely big tent party, you get a very diverse constituency. A lot of those pesky Blue Dogs report to very conservative voters. Just the way it is. Unless progressives can marshall a TIDAL WAVE of public support for something like single payer-- which they can't because they give up after a year--it's not enough to overwhelm the congressional filter through which we express our democracy. "The people"--whoever they are--don't make the decisions. The people they elect do.
Stepping back, I DO think Obama's been surprised, caught off balance, by the vociferousness and immediacy with which he and his efforts have been demagogued by the right. He wasn't elected primarily by progressives, and certainly not solely, but by a much broader coalition of people who invested their various hopes in him. He was bound to disappoint, and he was smart enough to know that. I think, though, he's been a bit surprised. Course, with all the problems he's got on his plate, he should've been able to expect that the folks on "his side" would stick with him for a year, especially as he tries to do something that hasn't been done by ANYBODY in 100 years.
But hey, if the folks on this thread are willing to bail (or, as Purple implied, not try too hard) cause they didn't get the bill they wanted, well, soon they can enjoy PalinCare, or some version thereof.
But the point about the bully pulpit and his organizing prowess being under-utilized is sound.
January 19, 2010 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, if you think the progressives are the ones pulling the independents away from this bill (and away from Coakley) you are completely out of touch. They aren't listening to us. They are listening to the right wingers who are telling them this bill will create a massive, expensive government bureaucracy. Progressives aren't causing this failure. If you really want success, you need to look seriously at the needs and desires of people who are actually voting for Brown.
January 19, 2010 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple writes: "Tintin, if you think the progressives are the ones pulling the independents away from this bill (and away from Coakley) you are completely out of touch. They aren't listening to us. They are listening to the right wingers who are telling them this bill will create a massive, expensive government bureaucracy. Progressives aren't causing this failure. If you really want success, you need to look seriously at the needs and desires of people who are actually voting for Brown."
I've explained this before, but here goes again. We ALL need to pull TOGETHER. I think Bernard goes too far in blaming progressives as the sole culprits, but his critique, as far as it goes, is correct. Progressives ARE contributing to this failure.
There's a willful refusal to see and applaud the good things in this bill. There's a strange notion that "the bill" has to be born all at once, rather than be the product of an ongoing effort, when history suggests otherwise. It's sort of like a tantrum: "I want my bill and I want it now and I want it just the way I want it and nothing else." Good grief!
The other point is this...as you say, the right has been demagoguing this issue and this bill for a long time. DeMint signaled this intention at the start. Do you honestly think that this effort is working because the demagogues are speaking to the genuine needs of "the people"? Of course not. They apply their hot buttons--death panels, government-run, taxes--until they find one that works. And lo and behold, they found one--taxes!--that resonates with the left too! They've got a two-fer.
My god! They're going to raise my taxes! Kill the fucking bill! Forget all the good it does. Kill the fucking bill!
Meanwhile, what makes you think that all our progressive ideas wouldn't have been demagogued to death and that, miraculously, the average guy was going to wake up one day loving the idea of government-run health care? Or the public option? Or is it just that, were that the bill, the progressives would now be on the barricades fighting for government-run health care that sinks the deficit to Hades--and therefore the average Joe would be just loving it?
Here's where you and I probably agree: single payer would have had the big advantage of being easy to understand. Call it Medicare For All. In hindsight, I think, Obama should have gone for that, because anything else is just too complicated for the average person to understand.
January 19, 2010 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
the progressives would now be on the barricades fighting for government-run health care that sinks the deficit to Hades
And there we have it, folks. Tintin, supposedly decrying right-wing demagoguery of the health care bill, proceeds with right-wing demagoguery against a single-payer health system.
The reason, of course, is that Tintin simply must find a way to demonize progressives and the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. And in that effort, actual facts, reason, and logic don't matter. So Tintin takes lessons from Frank Luntz.
1) "Government-run health care" is the same right-wing meme that Mitch McConnell and the rest have been using to demagogue the public option. Neither the public option nor single-payer health care are "government-run health care." Government-run health care exists in Great Britain, where the government runs most of the hospitals and clinics, and pays the salaries of health care providers. It's actually pretty damn good health care, as Stephen Hawking pointed out when the right tried to demagogue his health care system over the summer, e.g. in the infamous Investors Business Daily editorial that infamously and ridiculously claimed that "“People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." It didn't matter to IBD, of course, that Dr. Hawking was born and lived in the UK and himself states that not only is he very much alive, thank you, but that the British National Health Service saved his life. (Dr. Hawking turned 68 a couple of weeks ago and spent some time in hospital -- a British, government-run hospital -- in August 2008.)
Similarly, it doesn't matter to Tintin that nobody, including the left Tintin so loves to demonize, is talking about a "government run health care" system (well, except for the VA of course, which by most accounts also works pretty damn well.) (Is Tintin going to tell us next that the French have no word for entrepreneur?)
The most charitable interpretation of Tintin's comment would appear to be be that Tintin is trying to say something like "the Evil Left is never, ever satisfied with anything, so if Obama had proposed and championed a single payer plan, the never-satisfied, childish, evil left would be complaining he isn't championing a government-run health service like Britain's NHS." I leave it to the reader to draw her own conclusions as to the plausibility of that statement.
2) "...sinks the deficit to Hades" I will assume that Tintin, in using language like "government-run health care that sinks the deficit to Hades" is not trying to say that government-run health care would actually reduce the deficit to nothing or to negative, although that would be a plain reading of that convoluted phrase. More likely, Tintin is simply repeating the other right-wing meme that "government-run" (or single-payer) health care -- or even a public insurance option -- would somehow create massive deficits that would bankrupt the country. Given that CBO scores and other estimates consistently predict that single-payer plans or public insurance options reduce health care costs and the overall deficit, I can again only conclude that Tintin is repeating discredited right-wing memes in order to further the pet project of demonizing progressives and the left.
January 25, 2010 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was nicely put
January 19, 2010 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, I am .... speechless. Magnificent.
The sad thing is.... those who need to hear it will never listen to you.
January 20, 2010 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, every word rings true!
January 19, 2010 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
About halfway up the page, I reiterated reasons why I judge this bill, with all its flaws, to represent a transformative advance in American social policy - an opportunity we may not see again for more than a decade, and a chance to save tens of thousands of lives. I won't repeat that here.
Martha Coakley may still win, but if she loses, we can still win. By "we", I don't mean the Democrats, the liberals, the progressives, the TPMers. I mean the millions of Americans who will suffer if the bill fails. If the Senate is reduced to 59 pro-reform votes, it will be possible for the House to pass the Senate version so that the Senate need not vote again, and the bill can go directly to the President for his signature. The pressure, therefore, will be on crucial Democratic represntatives. We can begin, now, to plan how to let them hear our voice, because they will surely be exposed to pressure from reform opponents. Any of us who resides in a relevant district should be prepared to contact his or her repressentative directly. The rest of us can continue to blog, donate money, write emails, and harangue our friends and colleagues. If any of them ask, tell them I sent you.
January 18, 2010 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad to see someone write that. Agree completely, Fred.
January 18, 2010 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey here is a novel idea. If you expect us liberals, progressives, far-left, whatever you want to call us, to help you why not try listening to us for once? If not why would we want to be involved in trying to advance an agenda that has nothing in common with what we believe in? When the administration puts more emphasis on appeasing their political opponents than they are in working with a key component of their own movement the shark has been jumped. Our charity and good will has run out. We have nothing left to give without something being given back to us...
January 18, 2010 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine is right.
The reality is, when Democrats act scared, and try to mimic Republicans, they lose. If they had guts, they'd fight. Since they have no guts, they've lost the respect of the public. All we ever see is Obama caving on important issues - or worse - leaving it up to Congress to fix things.
I love Obama, but the best that can be said about him in 2009 is that 1) he used his political capital to shield Wall Street from public anger just long enough to pull us back from the brink of Financial devastation, and 2) he gave the rest of his political capital to Congress to bandy about during the Health Care debate, and we still don't have a final bill passed.
I understand that big change takes time, but there should be some B-Stories or C-Stories coming from the White House once a month to keep the base happy.
Ending DADT is a no-brainer, but it's just sitting on the sidelines right now.
January 18, 2010 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
with control of government, Democrats could have passed 1,000 pieces of legislation this year.
They were not able to.
It would be bad to blame people of MA because the US congress has devolved into a dysfunctional institution.
January 18, 2010 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I strongly agree with you. Perhaps we need the Brown victory to bring a wake up call to the delusional left wing of our party.
I'm a strong Democrat, but this fantasy proliferating on the left that the Democrats troubles are due to being insufficiently progressive -- i.e. weak support for Democratic initiatives is because of weakening support from grassroots progressives -- is an incredible delusion, and I suspect some kind kind of psychological preparation for 1994-like politics.
Obama allowed himself to be seen as a progressive messiah, but in reality for those who were listening he was always very honest about his pragmatist philosophy. It didn't bother me, but I could see this wake-up call coming to everyone on the left who weren't looking and thinking as clearly.
This country is for-the-most-part center-right in the modest sense that even the middle are much more receptive to a Burkean-conservative 'evolution not revolution' approach to any reform. This is very, very, very frustrating to us on the left, but there is not much we can do about it except become more savvy about which fights to pick (broadly appealing reforms like fairer, enforced rules on health care and wall street) and which to avoid (increasing the size of government and taxes on the middle class).
January 18, 2010 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if I'm going to be delusional at least I should find a party where I can have some fun with my delusional friends. Serving as the whipping boy for the fact the Nelson and Lieberman held up the insurance bill and Coakley can't tell a Yankee from a Red Sox is even crazier.
January 18, 2010 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
For most of the independent/undecided voters out there, all they know is that there is serious bullshit afoot, and they want to see somebody get hell for it. If the liberals won't give hell to the people who actually cause our problems (insurance and finance companies), then voters will turn to conservatives who give hell to some scapegoat.
It's not about being too liberal or too conservative. It's about being too nice.
January 18, 2010 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Consumatopia: Precisely! People pick the winning horse. The fighter. Marsha* Coakley is no fighter.
January 18, 2010 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me tell you, Mack.
You've got it wrong. "Delusional left wing?" "America is for-the-most-part-center-right?"
The first is wrong because there are a lot of us who can understand the policy changes needed to solve America's (massive) current problems. The problem is that the party did not want to acknowledge the left wing because their enemies would scream, hollar and yell about it. So they simply ignored the left wing on the assumption (pretty good) that we had no place else to go vote. The game is take our support and sell us out at the first hint of trouble.
In the mean time the right-wing idiots have been screaming their idiocy at the top of their lungs continuously for decades. The result is that the noise and rhetoric from the right has been massive and the responses from the left have been nothing.
The media listens to this and reports what they hear. Right wing idiocies. No one counters that, especially not the Democratic leadership who takes the left-wing for granted, knowing that they can't vote right-wing.
Guess what the public reports to the pollsters? Stuff they've heard publicly or stuff that no one seems to be talking about and which the politicians actively avoid speaking about.
America is a strong center-left nation. It is the only set of political positions that are reasonable. But the public reports to the pollsters only the rhetoric they actually hear in public.
The delusional ones are the politicians who think they can accept support from Wall Street, the libertarians and the radical evangelical dominionists trying to force a religious takeover of the government while actually governing America.
Obama was speaking to us when he ran and the right-wing propagandists got their captured media (FOX and the Wurlitzer) to misconstrue that as pretending to be a progressive messiah. He's a pragmatist, but since he has lived in the Black community he is aware that the right-wingers are idiots. He was elected in spite of the media, not because of them or even with any help from them. But the learning curve of the Presidency with more crap rolling down the pike than any President has faced since Lincoln seems to have misdirected him somewhat.
I am hoping that Coakley wins, but the scare will wake up the Democrats and make them realize that they are going to have to stand for something realistic and enforce party discipline - especially in the Senate.
I still think the Obama team in the White House will get the message the Massachusetts election is sending. They can go progressive or they can go out as failures. That is their choice. It's not a binary choice. They can also both go progressive AND fail. But going progressive is the only likely chance of success.
Success is going to require making the right choices (progressive), doing one hell of a lot of work, and activating the progressive base to get out to vote.
January 18, 2010 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We" do understand. The question is, really, how many of us are there, really. And are we really willing to fight and stay the course. Or are we going to whine that we weren't "given" the bill we wanted. It took Reagan 40+ years to get to the WH. Think about it.
January 19, 2010 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK. So what do we do to expand our numbers and get more people to fight for what we know has to be done?
I don't think we disagree on goals, and only slightly on tactics.
January 19, 2010 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want this commenter to continue to support Democrats, the Democrats need to straighten out at least some of the problems begun by the Bush Administration.
So far, little has been done and little seems to be on the Democratic agenda.
A good start would be for Obama to start keeping some of his campaign promises and showing that there is a difference between the way Democrats and Republicans govern.
Until that happens, there is no reason to go to the polls and vote in November.
.
January 20, 2010 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, you know, you're right, I never should have voted for him in the first place, but it seems that I just wasn't smart enough to read between the lines. He sure fooled me!
I guess I won't be making that mistake again. Feel better now?
January 18, 2010 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama allowed himself to be seen as a progressive but was very honest about being a pragmatist ... ?
Either he was honest about being a pragmatist or he allowed an inaccurate image to take root because he thought it would work tohis advantage.
You can't have it both ways. Oh, I forgot, you're an Obama supporter. You think you deserve to have it both ways.
January 18, 2010 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, the Obama campaign was selective in who was allowed to receive the decoder rings. It seems that most of use just weren't close enough to the inner circle.
O.K., in real life most of us knew that Obama wasn't a screaming pinko, really we did. But I don't think it was all that apparent just how far to the right he would govern, especially as regards National Security and the surveillance state. And as regards to the stimulus, it was a half-measure, it's certainly helped keep the economy from sliding off the charts, but it's not done as much as was needed.
I think that the Democratic Party is being seen by the average voter in light of that lack of success. And I don't think it's so much that they'll be voting for Brown as that they won't be showing up for Coakley.
January 18, 2010 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! I'll take it both ways as long as it gets me what I want! Who wouldn't?
Unfortunately I am quite aware that trying to take it both ways is not likely to be successful over the long term. I'm simply not enough of a conservative to make that work.
January 19, 2010 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're talking sense, boy. With all due respect to Richardxx.
January 19, 2010 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bass-Ackwards, Bernie
If blame becomes necessary, place it where deserved: at the feet of Baucus, Nelson, Landrieu, Stupak and those Dem's who openly defied President Obama and the overwhelming majority of their own party.
Their actions and public statements --far more than commentary by the likes of Huffington and Dean-- sent the message, "his own people think he's a jerk wasting money on more government, why should we support this?"
Few indies supporting Brown can tell you Huffington's opinion; every one of them knows about Ben Nelson's sweetheart deal.
January 18, 2010 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't get made at liberals for screaming when Lieberman was pretty clear that he wasn't going to vote for it unless we hated it. Happy to oblige.
Plus this whole argument is the same as the conservative argument that we should shut up about Abu Gharib because terrorists use it to recruit. If I'm not going to censor myself to help our men and women in uniform, I sure as fuck am not gonna censor myself to help the Democratic Party.
Look, if Obama had done some obvious as fuck things like threaten reconciliation, encourage primary opponents to holdouts, and actually speak out in favor of a public option, then maybe we'd have an easier to defend bill.
If we had shut up about how much this bill sucks because this bill is better than nothing, then Obama would be giving us even less than he is. He wouldn't even be asking for the TARP money back. Obama has made clear that this is a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" administration. (He never understood that the only way to have "no drama" is to beat the crap out of troublemakers).
So did we start squeaking? Are we gonna keep squeaking? You're god damned right we did and will.
I hope Coakley wins. I even sent money I didn't have. But if we had pretended we had gotten a perfect bill, we would have gotten a much worse bill than we did.
January 18, 2010 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for great analysis of the status quo. You are absolutely correct about the influence of the local preacher, AM radio and social pressure that remains the endemic force of red state Republicanism.
But the problem is not the people. The problem is the Senate itself. The Senate is the most anti-democratic institution we have. It is also malign and corrupt beyond polite speech. Whereas the much-smaller districts cost campaigns far less, state-wide appeals are much more costly and thus acquire much more lobbyist money.
Publicly-funded Senate campaigns might help get the educational job that you speak of done. But the problem I perceive among Democrats is fear - a raw and palpable fear of violence and assassination - that truly populist policies will drive the wingers and militias absolutely crazy.
What Dems fail to acknowledge is that the wingers will go and have gone absolutely crazy anyway. May as well drive them nuts. Let them pack heat to town halls.
I'd also call for an expansion of hate crimes legislation and expansion of Secret Service protection to include all politicians seeking public office.
You still can't get a fair trial in red states, and that's a real crime. Federal laws and Federal prosecutions are needed. And if, for a time, we start to look like an armed camp, let Europe be an example. Democratic politicians need to get tough.
January 18, 2010 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is poor analysis. It is illogical to blame the liberals in the party, since the criticism of HCR is mostly coming from a completely opposite direction.
A better hypothesis, in my view, is middle class buyer remorse on Obama. Everybody hated Bush, so they rushed to the "maximum change" candidate. Once the Republican smear machine has finally clicked into gear (it was in kine of sputtering or neutral under McCain), they were finally able to convince large chunks of the population that Obama really is a terrorist-loving, communist-supporting, black radical, hell-bent on clearing their wallets in order to give it to you know who.
In other words, the rare moment of American racialist enlightenment has passed and the country is quickly descending into our "normal" state of racialism and paranoia of "left-wing" takeover of our revered free market institutions, such as Medicare.
Republicans know, that they can't allow the new administration any actual accomplishments that would be felt by the middle class, which would release the deep seated apprehensions that they have worked hard to build up in the last year. Obama must fail in order for the Republican to keep scaring the country with the old "communist" nonsense.
So, sadly, this Senatorial campaign is key to their success. If they can deny the HCR legislation (flawed as it is), they can reinforce the faux populist narrative they have build up for themselves and continue to paint Obama and democrats as the "tax and spend" party, but this time tainted by terrorist-loving, commie meme.
They never have to use the race card - in America it is the elephant behind the curtain - everyone knows it is there, subtle code words is all that is required to scare the middle class whites shitless every time.
And, most of the country appears to be in advanced form of political amnesia/senility. Popular political history (what actually matters in elections) has a maximum duration of about a year, probably less.
Most Americans really can't remember anything that happened politically more than a year ago. Heck most people would have a really hard time naming just a few people in any President's cabinet, or explain what is in health care reform, find any country, including US of A on the map or tell you where the water in the toilet comes from.
Very uneducated and politically amnesiac population living in a highly complex society facing a long list of critical problems equals schizoid political bouncing at the whim of every clever populist movement available. Madison must be rolling in his grave!
January 18, 2010 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guys?
Much as everyone probably expects me to get on board with this blog, I have a really neat alternative idea.
How about, just for the sake of good form, we put off the recriminatory intramural bloodletting until after the goddamned returns are actually counted?
Just a thought.
January 18, 2010 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been saying the same thing. They have been trying to blame Obama for the publics distaste for the bill. After they have completely cut the legs out from under the bill.
Fucking crazy and fucking stupid
January 18, 2010 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are "they" you talk of, paleface?
January 18, 2010 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll answer for the above...
Jane Hamsher, Markos Moulitsas, and the rest of the policy neophytes who let their not-unsubstantial political power go to their heads, and figured policy fights should be run just like political campaigns.
The amount of disinformation, selective citing, sins of omission, and outright lies one could get regularly at Dailykos, FDL, and the rest was on par that you could get from Limbaugh, Hannity, et al (just from the other direction).
For better or worse, the blogosphere is the left's answer to the right's AM talk radio dominance.
As a policy-based progressive, I have to say, it's a real pity that the organ grinders on the right are so much better at post-campaign advocacy than the parallels on the left.
January 19, 2010 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eight years ago, apparently the best way to ruin all of that GOP legislation would have been for the Democrats to support it.
January 18, 2010 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Progressives cannot govern
They always fight each other, bitch, moan and eventually splinter
I've witnessed this several times over the years in SF and indeed, it is pretty much of a modern historical truth...the far left splits, the far right kicks ass
January 18, 2010 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Mr. Avisahai
I've been saying the very same thing SINCE JULY. UR preaching to the choir here
A daily viewer for yearsI can hardly stand to listen to Mr. Ed, Olbermann, or Maddow any more....and Arianna Huffington - makes me ill
January 18, 2010 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I prefer having the dead body in the morgue before beginning the autopsy--God knows I wouldn't want to cut and have blood flowing......
Suggest we all take a deep breath and do the same damned thing.
January 18, 2010 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"how come the greatest piece of social legislation since Medicare is something a progressive Democratic candidate for Ted Kennedy's seat has to speak so defensively about?"
Umm, maybe because its NOT the greatest piece of social legislation since medicare. Its the greatest piece of something, though.
January 18, 2010 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is everyone acting like the election is over and Brown won? The evidence indicates this is a toss up and will come down to GOTV. Whatever the polls indicate, add about 3-5 points to Coakly since this is such a reliably Democratic state. If this were a bellweather state or a state the leans Republicans, I'd say Brown had this in the bag. But we're talking about Massachussetts here.
January 18, 2010 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
A round of conservative celebrations and boliviating is just what the doctor ordered for 2010.
January 18, 2010 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still think Coakley will pull this out in the end, but I drove from Leominster to Springfield this afternoon and saw Scott Brown signs everywhere and Coakley signs pretty much nowhere. Most interesting to me were the number of handmade signs for Brown. There were plenty of printed Brown signs too, but the fact that so many people are taking the time to make signs by hand makes me think there's some real passion for this guy among many voters. There are so many more Democrats than Republicans in Massachusetts that I find it hard to believe Brown will win, but the handmade signs suggest to me that Brown's supporters are motivated and will turn out in numbers tomorrow.
January 18, 2010 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Howard Dean, and MSNBC, and Arianna Huffington, and, yes, some columnists at the Times and bloggers here at TPM--you know, real progressives--who have lambasted Obama again"
Who's to BLAME?
You seem to have THE ANSWER, don't you?
This is another naked attempt to blame it all on "Liberals" when you people f*ck up BIG TIME. Do you honestly think that those "undecideds" working class in South Boston and Lynn you mentioned in the same post were reading Huffington and TPM, seriously???
If you guys had LISTENED to the critics of this HCR Bill, you would have some faint inkling of how it sounds to the rest of the world outside your ivory towers instead of being caught completely off-guard in double-digit magnitude by a Republican candidate in a solidly Blue State - this Bill reads like a MANDATE forced upon the middle class WITHOUT providing the NECESSARY CHOICES and OPEN COMPETITION in the HC Industry to make it viable.
Of course instead of taking a long hard look at why and how voters have turned against you and your policies and a ratings PLUNGE of 14%, you blame it all on your critics, the messengers reflecting the popular perception and views. As if your voters are too stupid to arrive at the same conclusion themselves.
This cluelessness, arrogance, denial, condescension, and stupidity, more than anything else, has convinced me that you thoroughly deserve the drubbing coming your way.
January 18, 2010 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I'm really angry as it took years of being out in the wilderness and grassroot efforts to get a Dem majority in, but they squandered that considerable lead and voters' demand for CHANGE, certainly *not* by being too "liberal" wrt the biggest issues, but by pandering to the powerful, wealthy elite during a period of crisis, with nothing much for ordinary Americans. This is a screw up of epic proportion, and the buck stops exactly where the heart of the Dem Party lies in the nexus of power and money brokering on the Potomac.
January 18, 2010 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
BINGO!
January 19, 2010 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. The centrists spent all their time trying to craft a bill that would make Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson happy. They didn't bother to ask what would make the voters happy. They have no one to blame for that other than themselves.
January 19, 2010 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
And another point that centrist Democrats would do well to hear. When Reagan and the Republicans first came to power, they didn't have the votes to do everything they wanted either. But Reagan talked directly to the people and got the people on his side. At that point, the politicians had to follow. The Democrats, however, spend all their time making deals with other politicians, as if Washington is all that matters. They ignore the people. And because of this, they lose the people. Good politicians are also good leaders--they make a case to the public. They try to change opinion and win it to their side. The Democrats have forgotten that and because of it, all they can do is follow the public wherever the real leaders are taking them.
January 19, 2010 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this.
Obama hasn't used his bully pulpit in the way I expected.
But as to Reagan, you simplify. Many factors came together there that aren't present here. Reagan has (literally) been ploughing the ideological field since the 1940s! So had other movement conservatives. His success was the fruition of all that work coupled with the confluence of other social factors, e.g., the recession of the 1970s, Vietnam, etc., and some unfortunate circumstances for Carter, e.g., the hostages and 20% rates.
Obama has none of that. And with progressive's inability to stay the course for even a year, we may never. But I digress...
Reagan also had much easier ground to defend: He was clearly on one side. Obama's campaign and presidency has FROM THE BEGINNING been about an attempt at crossing the divide. That was what his 2004 speech, which everyone thought was great, was about. That was what his campaign was about. And that is how he's tried to govern. It's simply willful blindness on the part of progressives that prevents them from seeing this, no matter how many times it's pointed out in black and white.
This was based on his analysis of what he felt was/is wrong with American politics, agree with him or not. It's also a much tougher position to hold. Theoretically, it should give everyone "something," but, in practice, it tends to piss everyone off. That's why you've seen (recently) an invasion of righties saying that Obama immediately veered "far left" and abandoned the center AND you see lefties, who, presumably, are looking at the same policies, saying he's sold out to corporate interests.
Anyway, I agree with your point in essence: He should use his bully pulpit more and more effectively. Course, he's unlikely to ACTUALLY veer far to the left, so you're unlikely to be happy.
January 19, 2010 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin, "Obama's campaign and presidency has FROM THE BEGINNING been about an attempt at crossing the divide."
Actually, it was the VOTERS who were CROSSING the divide to vote for him, and what he stood for at THAT time.
Can you see the difference?
January 19, 2010 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was it really the progressives who didn't stay the course or was it Reid and Pelosi who veered off the main path to make sure Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus and Ben Nelson were happy?
January 19, 2010 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on! I wish I could magnify this comment 100x on TPM....."It's the PEOPLE, stupid"
January 19, 2010 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It gets a bit lost in the format, i.e. this comment by Purple State "The Democrats, however, spend all their time making deals with other politicians, as if Washington is all that matters. They ignore the people. And because of this, they lose the people. Good politicians are also good leaders--they make a case to the public. They try to change opinion and win it to their side. The Democrats have forgotten that and because of it, all they can do is follow the public wherever the real leaders are taking them."
January 19, 2010 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah...
Reagan got the people to support the biggest tax haven elimination in history in 1986, he got the old school nativists to fall in love with the biggest immigration amnesty program this century, then also got the entitlement opponents to fall in love with a social security tax hike.
What nonsense.
Perhaps Reagan was so able to 'talk to the people' because he didn't have his own peanut gallery screeching nonsense every step of the way.
January 19, 2010 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is something about women and federal and statewide office in Massachusetts. I can't remember the last woman congressman and the only Governor was a backdoor Lt Governor upgrade when the ONLY Mass Republican I EVER respected (Cellucci) resigned.
I think Coakley was trying to be states(wom)an like and it backfired. I have absolutely no idea why anyone would vote for Brown except as a protest vote. I am going to vote for Coakley and I will encourage other family members to vote for her. The sign thing is interesting, as a Dem I never thought about putting out a sign for Kennedy or Markey (My Rep) because I just assumed a Dem would win. I did NOT put one out for Coakley which I say shame on me.
I have two things to hold on to; 1) If Chuckles wins, it's only for 2 years and his party-line votes will hang around his neck; 2) If Coakley wins narrowly, it will have taken a lot of Republican resources and dashed a lot of nutcase hopes.
I am just stunned and have no idea how we came to this. We have had Republican governors but they were a backlash against local Dem corruption. There is not a hint of that in our current federal delegation.
Here is my take on Corruption. When Dems are corrupt, they are caught and shamed, sometimes even jailed and all of this for small time infractions or pay-offs. When Republicans are corrupt they take your job, the value of your currency, and your pension and walk away scott free.
January 18, 2010 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good observation. Women don't do well in statewide elections here. They seem to win primaries easily, but they get crushed in the general election. I think part of the problem is too many women win without serious challenge in the primaries and therefore many of the women that advance to the general election are untested--and many of them, once tested, turn out to be weak candidates.
January 19, 2010 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's called...apathy.
We put a lot of effort and money into Obama and thought he'd take it from here.
January 19, 2010 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, the DFHs have been saying that the health care bill is not libruhl enough, so that convinces working stiffs to vote in a far-right Rethuglican. What an incredible waste of white space.
January 18, 2010 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The vast majority of voting age Americans either (i) don't vote, or (ii) consider themselves "independents". Cynicism and distrust of the political process is endemic, and the failure of the Democratic party to deliver on its major promises -- blatantly betraying its ideals on healthcare on behest of giant insurance companies, shoveling money at giant banks while the middle class loses its collective shirt -- merely reinforces the feeling that their votes have been bought, and sold. Again.
This is not simply a question of "feeding the base" (which has been, simply, ignored). Dissatisfaction runs rampant across the political spectrum, not because people fail to understand what healthcare reform is about, but because they can see very well what is has become. Speeches about cracking down on those mean old banks lead to policies that --in your face-- demonstrate who is really in control.
To win elections, you have to stand for something. To stay in office, fight like hell for the things you stand for...
January 19, 2010 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats did listen to the left wing of the party and tomorrow the people of MA will speak for all of the country. EPIC FAIL in one of the most liberal states in the USA.
Obama ran in the center and once elected, veered far left with his agenda. He lied to the American people.
PBO and the Dems will be forced to govern where Obama promised he would in the campaign - in the 'area' of the center. If he does this I suspect he'll win a second term.
If they cram this piece of crap called HCR down the throats of the American people he might as well start packing his bags and anyone with D behind their name that voted for this crap will be having a terrible time in 2010.
PBO has scared the sh*t out of the politcal 'middle' of the American people and the corrupt way this 'saugage' was made has opened everyone's eyes. The Tea Party movement was born out of those in the political center - conservatives, left and right.
The Rebublicans are not safe either. There's going to be a whole new way of doing business in Washington over the next decade and it's going to come from "We the people". The far right and the far left are not going to be the place to be. The Republicans and Democrats have corrupted the whole process and now it will be the center that cleans the mess up.
I find it disturbing that you all are so willing to turn your freedom over to the corruptocrats in DC. You are dooming yourselves, your children and grandchildren to a life of high taxation, reduced opportunities and a tremendous debt that threatens us all.
Healthcare does need fixed but not this way and not with this corrupt legislation.
January 19, 2010 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Veered to the left!! This is exactly the problem. Unless the Omaha Vet is a Republican sleeper cell, he is saying the exact opposite of what so-called progressives have been saying. Obama tried for months to get the GOP involved in a healthcare reform. No dice. And sorry, "We the People" is meaningless.
January 19, 2010 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Omaha vet is expressing the kind of sentiments that are really responsible for Coakley's failure. Progressives aren't swaying people from Obama (nobody even listens to progressives). It's the Rush Limbaugh crowd that's winning the debate. And for a very simple reason: they've relabeled the Democrats as the anti-middle-class tax and spend party. Why is that? The Democrats quite simply forgot to craft a bill that clearly helps the middle class--and they didn't bother to make any case for their bill to the middle class. In America, you ignore the middle class at your peril. The centrist Democrats like to imagine they are more in touch with the middle class than progressives but if so, why did they create a bill that is primarily an expansion of a welfare program (Medicaid) and that taxes those employer-sponsored health plans that provide the best benefits?
January 19, 2010 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, not quite...
The hue and cry about insurance and health care has been: a) pre- existing conditions, b) recision, c) caps, d) rising premium costs, and e) most importantly, insuring the 45,000 uninsured who die each year.
This bill attempts to address all these points. How hard is that to understand? People are freaked out about the mandate, but I don't know that anyone has ESTABLISHED the FACT that a mandate isn't required to achieve the aims of the bill. Maybe so, maybe not.
The only plan that would have been EASY to understand would have been single-payer, but as you know, that hasn't been on the table (really) since the campaign. The Dems you deride, however, did make a pass at it.
It's remarkable--stunning, really--that you think that a political feat that hasn't been achieved in over 100 years of off and on trying should succumb to a simplistic "progressive" demand that "the people want it" so it should be no big deal to give it to them. Which "the people" are you talking about, Purple?
Why do you think that "the people" are rebelling against a bill that provides "the people" many of the things "the people" claim, or you claim, they want?
January 19, 2010 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. Centrist democrats whining about liberals not falling in line and doing whatever they say. Fuck that.
January 19, 2010 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on, Bernard, you hit the nail on the head! The problem with progressives is that, unlike conservatives who will defend their guy even if he's caught buggering a child while shooting his wife, progressives will turn on their own at the drop of a hat.
I was shocked when Howard Dean said we should scrap the bill and start over, after over a year of drama and rancorous debate. I turn off the TV when Arianna (who I used to admire and look forward to watching) comes on, because I know all she's going to do is bash the administration so she can establish her bonafides as an equal-opportunity critic.
If I was like the majority of the American people and didn't pay too much attention to the political process, I too would wonder why I should support the Democrats or Obama, when both the right and the left think they're wrong all the time.
With friends like Howard Dean, Arianna, Dylan Ratigan or Ed Shulz, who needs enemies?
January 19, 2010 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Centrists get everything they ever wanted out of the health care bill, and when it blows up in their face because DEM VOTERS AREN'T CENTRISTS, obviously the most rational course of action is to blame Howard Dean. Perfect.
Meanwhile, Harpers reports 3 murders whistleblown at gitmo. Keep eating your own, TPM.
January 19, 2010 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
No sleeper cell here bud. I told you I was in the middle.
"We the people" will be voting in MA tomorrow.
The middle is who elected PBO and it will be the middle who takes it (the power) away from him and the Dems.
Ignore the middle at your own peril.
I don't know what world you're living in but the R's have been shut out of the whole process from day one. "We won" right? PBO let Nancy and Harry control the content and the process.
YOU DO NOT NEED (WELL UNTIL TOMORROW) REBUBLICANS TO PASS ANYTHING. YOU CONTROL THE WHOLE PROCESS. YOUR PROBLEM IS YOURSELVES...NOT THE REPUBLICANS.
January 19, 2010 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The President cuts a deal with the insurance and drug companies before legislation is created.
Americans are forced by the legislation to buy insurance from the very companies that created the crisis.
Americans with good insurance are taxed for having it.
The President supports elements in the bill that he campaigned directly against.
This drawn out embarrassing humiliating piece of legislation is savage defeat for decent health care in America.
That Brown might be elected in Massachusetts is not the fault of the Huffington Post or any other progressive. It's the fault of the President, his strategists and a party that after two landslide elections can not fight for its principles or pass decent legislation.
January 19, 2010 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am astounded by some progressive's disregard for reality, reducing "the unforgivable complexity of reality' to the absurdly simple like wingers in wingerdom.
Small victories are still victories; the war is won one battle at a time. This is something conservatives understand quite well. It took conservatives thirty years to reach this pinnacle of control, and now progressive think thirty years of government sabotage should magically be erased by one man's fairy dust or something.
Why doesn't AH use her platform to organize a protest in Washington or something. Change has to come from we the people. President Obama cannot do this alone. He needs our support to succeed.
Get a grip progressives – we are about to lose it all before we even get out of the damn gate.
I am heartbroken.
January 19, 2010 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Problem is, we don't want him to succeed at what he seems to want to succeed at: pandering to the powerful and corrupt, capitulating to the right, defending state secrets and unconstitutional surviellance of US citizens.
When he takes positions that are worth supporting, we'll be solidly behind him. Until then, don't ask us to fight for things that are theantithesis of what we believe in.
Funny how you tell liberals to get lost when you don't think you need us but then complain and whine that we need to "get on board" when you need our votes.
January 19, 2010 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps everyone needs to be reminded that the U.S. government is systemically corrupt. This president is dealing with entrenched corruption, regulatory capture and powerful enemies. The previous administration built an entire privatized police state and intelligence apparatus. The political media system serves as a lobby arm for corporate power. This is the reality.
Change comes from hard work and commitment not a Pollyanna notion of how it should be.
January 19, 2010 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup.
January 19, 2010 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyhow, I'm quite SURE that Coakley will win this election, though by a dangerously small margin that will hopefully send a clear message to the DLC in Washington. The latter is what I'm UNSURE of.
January 19, 2010 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Sure"? Despite all the polls?
If she doesn't, it will be, IN PART, because of the attitudes we see so clearly and self-righteously displayed on this thread.
January 19, 2010 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are morose, they are silently seething but they are Blue and will come out for her, even though they know they mean *nothing* to the Party after casting their votes.
January 19, 2010 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alternative title for this post: "The Emperor's Clothes Are Just Fine, Shut Up!"
January 19, 2010 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
What horseshit.
January 19, 2010 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's be clear. The health bill would cover almost everybody and force insurers to compete on service, not on cherry picking. It would give the country what Mass. already has. It would do so by subsidizing the poor to the tune of almost $200 billion, and pay for this in progressive taxation of one kind or another. This would have been enough. More than enough. And Obama knew it when he was counting Senate votes back in March, and therefore signaling that he was open to the idea of delivering the "public (sector) option" through coops.
That's when the left attacked hard, and why? To control costs, they said. But the fee-for-service medicine that balloons costs was never going to be controlled by the public option (read Bud Relman, or Atul Gawande) unless you believed the obsolete idea that costs depended mainly on the "buying power" of a big government agency. I have dealt with this misinformed view in depth on my blog: http://bernardavishai.blogspot.com/2009/09/cooperatives-best-public-option.html.
The bottom line is that the left worked very conspicuously to discredit Obama all summer when it could have had the Baucus bill almost right away, probably with a Republican or two. And it helped fuel the trumped up "populist backlash" by saying, again and again, that the health bill was going to be too expensive and a give away to insurers and drug companies--as if giving people interest free university loans is nothing but a give away to private universities. This, after they said that Obama was hanging out with Wall Street types, and that's why he refused (correctly, as things turned out) to nationalize the banks.
What America needs is universal coverage, progressive taxation, and proliferating HMOs that profit from outcomes, not services. It needs digital medical records and legally mandated standards for claims processing. It needs hospitals that specialize on particular problems and surgeries. It needs to get with a medical industry fit for a knowledge economy.
It also needs a president as smart and decent as Obama. The revolt against the White House is not the fault of his "framing": his failure to blame Bush, or fan the anger now turned against him. He is the president. He commands people under arms, for God's sake, with all kinds of political views. He is trying to help young benighted kids in lousy schools learn civility. The people who should have been reminding America incessantly where the mess came were us. But we, brilliant as we are, attacked him incessantly for not going far enough, and as if he isn't just one-third of the government. Do we have his back now?
January 19, 2010 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Bernard. Unfortunately, no, we don't. But we should.
January 19, 2010 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You two can keep believing what you want to believe, including (as Tintin said) that the voters are generally stupid and (as both Tintin and Bernard have said) that the left is responsible for the bill's unpopularity.
The real reason the bill is unpopular, though, is because it does very little for the majority of Americans who are covered by employer-sponsored health care programs or Medicare. Yes, it's great that the bill provides insurance to most of the 15% of Americans who are now uninsured. But the desire for health care reform really came from people who already have insurance, but who feel nervous about the long-term security and affordability of the insurance programs they are now in. What does the bill do for them? Tintin tells us it takes away pre-existing condition limitations. Well guess what?--for people who get health care via their employers pre-existing condition limitations are generally irrelevant thanks to reforms that were already implemented via HIPPA. What scares the employed is their loss of health insurance if they lose their job. So how does the bill address that fear? It doesn't (unless you are clueless enough to think that being eligible for Medicaid reassures middle class voters). Tintin also mentions rising premium costs. Yes, this is a concern. But how does the bill force employers to lower premium costs (and deductibles, copayments, etc.). Guess what?--it doesn't. In fact the excise tax is likely to eventually force employers to raise deductibles and reduce benefits. In fact, the benefit consultants are already talking to employers about ways to avoid the excise tax by cutting benefits. That's the real world.
And as far as Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan goes, I think it has been a success--at least in helping people get insured. But I know a lot of people in Massachusetts who are alarmed by its larger-than-predicted costs. And there's a lot of concern about that plan and what it will do for taxes at a time when the middle class already feels squeezed because of the economic downturn.
I know Tintin thinks all these voters are stupid. Well they may not be sophisticated thinkers like Tintin or Bernard, but they do know something about their own household budgets. And right now, those budgets are making them uncomfortable. If Tintin and Bernard really want this bill to pass, they should spend less time chastising progressives and focus instead on telling the middle class how this bill will help them. But first they need to show some respect for middle class concerns. Scott Brown is doing just that. That's why he's winning and health care reform is on life support.
January 19, 2010 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple, you'd be more convincing here if you responded to the things people were actually saying and didn't omit the stuff that was inconvenient for your argument. But I will try to come back to this nonetheless. Again, the idea that I'm putting the blame SOLELY at the door of progressives is not true. If I implied that at some point, it's not what I intended. However, it's unquestionably true that progressive deserve SOME of the blame.
January 19, 2010 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You New England Boomer establisment types are so sanctimonious. Obama wouldn't even stand up for drug "reimportation"--a definite and immediate cost reducer. So, why should we believe him on anything else? I'm an average middle class Democrat. I only give a damn about the poor to the extent that the legislation helps me or provides a safety net I can rely on. LBJ new that, which is why Medicare exists. Liberals like you just don't like it when the rest of us plebes don't take you at your word.
January 19, 2010 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are completely and utterly clueless if you think this current clusterf-ck is the fault of the progressives.
You guys have done nothing, I repeat NOTHING, tangible to provide help to middle class Americans. And when the American people start to take out their frustration on the people who rightly deserve it, the Dems who are currently in control, it is some how the fault of progressives who actually want to do something tangible to help all Americans and are being ignored, including and most importantly the middle class. Know what? I am through talking. From now on I let let this say what needs to be said. Watch it and weep Avishai...it ain't our fault, physician heal thyself. It is up in the air still, Coakley can still win. But let's say she loses, as Jon Stewart points out, you guys are losers if you can't get stuff passed with a 59-41 majority in the Senate...Bush got everything he wanted with much less of a majority. The DLC = The Not Ready For Prime Time Political Players.
Other than that up yours for trying to blame us for your total ineptness in governing...you govern with super majorities like you are in the minority. Losers, pussies, capitulators and ball-less wonders who refuse to stand for anything...
January 19, 2010 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bottom line is that Scott Brown is just another empty-suit shill for big business interests. After 8 years of Bush @ Co, it's absolutely mind-boggling that people fall for his crap. I guess the lesson here is: never underestimate the stupidity of the American electorate. And while you're at it: Boycott Massachusetts!
January 19, 2010 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is what Milli-Vanilli DLC types do:
Blame the Progressives.
Never mind that HCR was another DLC pre-cooked meal.
The DLC is loyal to the DLC only. The Democratic Party be damned.
January 19, 2010 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't blame that piece of shyte on the DLC. Obama is not DLC. Remember this is Teddies legacy piece. Well thanks. Largest shift of business in the history of the country to the Insurance companies.....No price controls, no cheaper drugs, no choice...Thanks but no thanks
January 19, 2010 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's ridiculous.
No price controls?
Exactly what bill is on the line in whatever alternative universe you're reporting from?
Because here in reality, even the Senate bill has massive price controls.
Yeah...
It's definitely Reid, Obama, and Pelosi's fault that the lefty minions of the screeching Hamshers of the world have learned to obfuscate, lie by omission, and just lie outright as well as the right has... just from a 180 degree different direction.
January 19, 2010 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor marketing of the stimulus package is to blame. It was not presented as a coherent approach for the current economic situation, so it was an easy target for critics and undermined confidence in the Dems' fiscal responsibility.
Karl Rove would have made the spending sound like investments in the economic infrastructure of the nation. Or at least spending on the much needed repairs for our aging transportation and sewer infrastructure (which require as much as $2 trillion, but only got some number that isn't even clear because no one bothered to explain the spending).
And few people even know any of it was tax cuts (37% was tax cuts, even though 40% would have been a more memorable talking point).
January 19, 2010 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"..the greatest piece of social legislation since Medicare..." Ha ha! It's not even the greatest piece of social legislation since NAFTA! Thanks for the lecture, Mr. Avishai. You made my day.
January 19, 2010 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm here a day late and the race still has yet to be decided. Pre-election recrimination is only feeding the Republicans more delicious snacks of internal dissension and fueling the timeless "Democrats divided" narrative. If Coakley wins, this post looks dumb, if she loses ditto.
January 19, 2010 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
you seem to miss your own point about sincerity, bernard.
January 19, 2010 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of my posts was mysteriously 'lost' in space so I must've run afoul of the 'speech police' here.
Anyway, you all make this so complex when a simple, logical thought process is used called COMMON SENSE. No amount of 'book learning' can make up for this basic human quality. Most have it, some don't.
"If it looks like a turd, and smells like a turd that's good enough for me. If you want to taste it to be sure, be my guest!"
Nothing that government has ever run (except our outstanding military) works. Post Office = fail and a money pit. Social Security = broke. Medicare = broke. Why would you trust any of them to run your health care?
To end my 'lost' post I asked the question: "Why are you so anxious to turn over your freedom to a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats and politicians on both sides of the isle? Why would you burden yourselves, your children and grandchildren with complex regulations, laws and especially the crushing debt (and taxes to pay for it) because of all of this spending?!
January 19, 2010 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama made it clear that he was prepared to sacrifice progressive concerns the instant it was expedient. Maybe some of you have forgotten that the House Progressive Caucus was DENIED meetings at the White House while conservadems and republicans were being courted. He didn't even show them the courtesy of a meeting.
Rahm issued threats to the progressives. Obama only reached out when things got dire and it appeared like he had no choice.
Obama extends his hand "across the aisle" while they spit on him, and turns around and spits on us. I just don't think that's particularly smart politics.
But, we're continually expected, not just to "take one for the team", but to accept a lack of respect as well. Except when election time rolls around, when we're supposed to ante up with all of our enthusiasm, effort, and donations.
The reality is that Obama and most of the Democratic Leadership are indeed not progressive - they are corporatist. Progressives see corporatism as a serious problem. We don't think that the solutions to problems that ail us reside in increasing unchecked corporate power.
We are out front on this, as we always are. What you apologists keep failing to grasp is that you should be listening to our concerns because we are the canaries in the coal mines. It was the progressive left that raised voice against the Bush Administration crimes, while the mainstream media and most of our Democratic "leaders" were going right along with the agenda. Eventually the public caught up with us, as they will again.
And you know why? Because we actually believe in specific things, and we continually focus on specific things. Things like open government. Accountability FOR ALL. Full disclosure. Simple honesty. Actual representative government. The Geneva Convention. Respect for all peoples. Separation of Church and State. And that we should provide help that is needed, and that we are capable of providing.
Smart strategists would be listening to us and coming up with effective responses on a number of fronts. Habit-ridden people who live in a land of stereotypes and conventional wisdom shortcuts will continue to deride us, rather than responding honestly to our concerns. And the results will be another round of finger-pointing that solves nothing, advances nothing, improves nothing.
January 19, 2010 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
viola said: "And you know why? Because we actually believe in specific things, and we continually focus on specific things. Things like open government. Accountability FOR ALL. Full disclosure. Simple honesty. Actual representative government. The Geneva Convention. Respect for all peoples. Separation of Church and State. And that we should provide help that is needed, and that we are capable of providing."
Are you kidding me? How can you say such things with a straight face?! Open Government? Where was C-Span and the most transparent administration evah?
Accountability for all? Murtha, Dodd, Frank, Pelosi and a few Repubs too. Why are they still there?
Actual representative government requires open hearings and the free flow of information so that "We the People" can keep our eye on them and understand the proposed laws. Not backroom deals, outright bribery and voting in the middle of the night. What are they hiding? They need to read each and every bill. Would you sign a contract without reading it first?
The Geneva Convention? It does not apply to enemy combatants/terrorists who want to kill you and your family. Torture is against the law. Terror is an act of war, not a crinminal act. (Some of that common sense would apply here)
Separation of Church and State? There is no government sponsored/promoted religion. It's your right to believe in God or not and to practice the religion of your choice if you do. What's the rub?
January 19, 2010 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Eventually the public caught up with us, as they will again."
Viola, if the public is with you, or you are with the public, how come progressives NEVER seem able to convince the public to VOTE for them in major elections or accept their policies--except insofar as they are "refined" by centrists?
January 19, 2010 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Massachusetts progressive here. 100+ calls, sing holding, ride giving. Even worked a Haiti fund raiser to talk up Coakley and the necessity of getting out to vote for her. Every body there agreed. Surprise! Everybody there gave a damn. We are the party of folks who give a damn.
My take on the Browns, and I live here now, not 25 years ago, is they are upset about residing in the state where gay marriage is approved, and abortion. They aren't union members anymore and they are committed Roman Catholics. They live in the same state as the Harvards, the MITs, and the science think tanks, the big hospitals. They don't live in overpriced Newton or Concord and they feel like those types(and we have more of them than anyplace except New York and maybe San Francisco) look down on them. Tip Oneill is gone these 20 years and Ted Kennedy. Those old pols were part of their parents' world. Teddy was our Ted to them, not the great liberal senator. He was the guy who loved to share a brew and talk the Red Sox. (Go Sox!)
but he wasn't where they are any more. In some sense his death freed them up to be more like the redder parts of the country. And look every body loves a pretty person and you've got to give it to him, Brown is that.
Martha had to dicker with the health reform bill
her base is the women of this state and they, hell, we, were beside ourselves about it. But she wasn't any kind of campaigner and she seems to be lazy and shy. (!?) but the truth is nobody knew that the primary win wasnt' tantamount to a victory in the general until PPP pointed it out. Ted would never have let a single vote slip by. But this lady didn't think she had to do anything and then all of a sudden she did.
Further, Most of the progressives I know in the primary were for Capuano. He is a true progressive but again he was no campaigner because he was too used to it being easy in Somerville. Also there was a split, I think among the women. All of us are feminists but some of us are progressive for other issues, even primarily. It was hard to face the women who wanted a woman senator so much and say not really. So even after the primary there was a tension in the party even among the women about Coakley.
I think you are wrong about the way progressives are criticizing the pres. I think the real problem for us, as opposed to the problem for the Brown voter, is that Obama has ignored his base. We got out to vote for him. Maybe you didn't see us traveling all over the country on our own dime to get him elected, didn't see the passion that took us into the farm hills of New Hampshire to stumble around talking to folks about Obama and Obama. We thought we were getting a progressive president. He's not been one. I have to go and bring a lady to the polls so I've got to go.
January 19, 2010 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Bernard, ONE good thing has come out of this thread: You're making your numbers with this thread. MJ, I'm sure, is jealous. Hey, and you didn't even have to say "Israel" to do it!
January 19, 2010 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The pictures from the Haiti earthquake and the attendant red voter visions of blacks fleeing in boats headed for Florida cannot have helped. Remember, since Reagan the Republicans have based their electoral strategy on the backlash against the civil rights movement.
January 19, 2010 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
the american public blames big banks for the great recession. obama is perceived as aligning himself and rescuing the big banks, instead of the people. now the people are taking it out on the democratic party and obama as they are the party in power. people were expecting change from obama, change being looking out for the interest of the people. what they got instead was pretty much more of the same - sweet-heart deals with the banks, pharma, and insurance companies. people want to be in front of the line for a change and not in back.
January 19, 2010 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
TINTIN: Well, gee, if they already have Medicare, what would you tell them about single payer? Everyone's going to get what you waited 62 years for and the deficit is headed to the stratosphere? And maybe your taxes to cover the deficit?
MY RESPONSE: Telling people that the bill expanded Medicare to everyone may have worked though. Really. People like Medicare. It helps everyone.
TINTIN: Your argument seems to be that we need to appeal to their self-interest. Well, health care-wise, they are set, no? Since, I gather they don't care about anyone else getting health care, there isn't much more to say.
MY RESPONSE: Yes, we need to appeal to their self-interest. And health-care wise they are not set, even though they have care. You need to listen to them carefully. They do have health care. They like their health care. But they're afraid of losing it or not being able to afford it. The bill needed to address this fear. It didn't.
Also, the Democrats needed to act fast when they had momentum. But they spent too much time winning Joe Lieberman's vote. While they were winning that, they lost the voters.
January 19, 2010 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
MY RESPONSE: Telling people that the bill expanded Medicare to everyone may have worked though. Really. People like Medicare. It helps everyone.
TT: Not if, as you say, they are consumed with their own fears about their own security and not terribly concerned with others.
MY RESPONSE: Yes, we need to appeal to their self-interest. And health-care wise they are not set, even though they have care. You need to listen to them carefully. They do have health care. They like their health care. But they're afraid of losing it or not being able to afford it. The bill needed to address this fear. It didn't.
TT: Why would Medicare recipients be afraid of losing it under the status quo or of not being able to afford it? And if they are so afraid, how would giving Medicare to all alleviate those concerns? Unless you said, we're going to expand Medicare AND we're going to put it on a solid financial footing by...what?...raising taxes to increase revenues? But I thought these folks were scared that we were going to raise their taxes?
But then, ALL the arguments about socialism...all the arguments about raising taxes...all the arguments about deficits as far as the eye can see...all the arguments about rationing care...come rushing forward.
Also, the Democrats needed to act fast when they had momentum. But they spent too much time winning Joe Lieberman's vote. While they were winning that, they lost the voters.
TT: No argument there. Lieberman is fucking toast now (I hope). He's played his last card and better start looking for a consulting gig.
January 20, 2010 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was able to reach information which it looked for spending long time at last. Thank you for good information.
Kansas Foreclosure Process
August 28, 2010 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
“There never were in the world two opinions alike, no more than two hairs or two grains; the most universal quality is diversity”
auto insurance quotes
August 31, 2010 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This article is a great project,thanks
abercrombie and fitch cargo shorts
abercrombie & fitch shorts
September 14, 2010 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
buy cheap propecia
buy propecia
I think the days of paid medical care in the UK are not too far away given the state of the country's finances.
January 4, 2011 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This article is a great project,thanks
abercrombie and fitch cargo shorts
abercrombie & fitch shorts
September 14, 2010 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the days of paid medical care in the UK are not too far away given the state of the country's finances.
September 14, 2010 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
{*Temp:[I,J,K,L]*}
September 15, 2010 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey I just found a great website that has tons of internet marketing tools Its the best internet marketing tools site I have found on the internet.
Sweet site about antivirus firewall software
November 9, 2010 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Bernard, ONE good thing has come out of this thread: You're making your numbers with this thread. MJ, I'm sure, is jealous. Hey, and you didn't even have to say "Israel" to do it! regards Cash on Demand Review
November 30, 2010 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the discourse still renders us on interpreting whose fault this situation is. And inline with all your descriptions, I'm with you. Indonesian teak furniture
December 10, 2010 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "undecideds" in South Boston and working class suburbs like Lynn don't like Cambridge and Back Bay, but they respect its winners, when they act like winners. They watch hockey for the fights. Like most of us, they have a certain humility and expect famous people and experts to tell them what to think. But they haven't heard of Uwe Reinhardt; and they smell insincerity a mile away. I wish I had a bluefish dinner for every time Coakley referred to the health package as "not perfect." It all came out so forced and fake.
With love, Andrew, CEO of mp3 and youtube downloader
December 13, 2010 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The economy is a mess. First and foremeost on the administrations plate should hve been getting help to an America under siege, but instead we got the presidents health care reform. If it would have provided immediate help that would have been a great place to start, but it doesn't and the administration hasn't provided that help.
Vadim, an employee of High Availability Server Software
December 20, 2010 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
buy viagra uk I think the days of paid medical care in the UK are not too far away given the state of the country's finances.
December 24, 2010 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chicago Mercedes-Benz Transportation
This is a very intriguing post, I was looking for this knowledge. Just so you know I found your web site when I was searching for blogs like mine, so please check out my site sometime and leave me a comment to let me know what you think.
December 26, 2010 5:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
online trading
This is a great inspiring article.I am pretty much pleased with your good work.You put really very helpful information. Keep it up. Keep blogging. Looking to reading your next post.
December 27, 2010 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dog Treats
Thank you for sharing your story and educating readers on the dangers posed by our antiquated toxic laws. The chemical companies count on the public's ignorance. We must continue to educate and fight for toxic reform. Thank you for your work and your contributions to this effort.
December 29, 2010 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
seo services
An invaluable resource and great addition to my favorites. The new features are well received on this end and will surely help the community share and progress more rapidly.
January 5, 2011 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Partner links : motrin and levaquin
January 6, 2011 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
They feel falsely accused by the progressives, and of course there is no greater occasion for delusional self-righteous pride, but that is energy, that can be turned towards good. custom cowboy boots
January 7, 2011 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
always prescribes cheap kamagra you eat
January 16, 2011 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its very awesome article,all the content is so beneficial and valuable for us.presentation of article is very good,so I will bookmark it for sharing it with my friends.Thanks for sharing nice and pretty post.
Cheap Mens Shoes
January 17, 2011 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt we should blame the Haitians, but you can't help but think the Feds had a hand in all this. Doesn't anybody remember our "President" flanked by Dubya and Slick Willie encouraging Americans to donate, and promising our money would reach those who needed it? What a crock! Where's our money Feds?!
Web Design
January 18, 2011 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo
Another very solid tutorial. Thank you. Not something I can use right now but I bookmarked for the future.
January 19, 2011 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I come down on the side of those who blame the Haitian Government.President Clinton himself could not get the government of Haiti to agree to allow him or others to oversee the funds that the U.S. intended to donate.Without that oversight those funds would disappear as they always have.I believe more powerful people behind the scene control what happens in Haiti and the government is just a front for them.Blaming NGO's is ridiculous.
alternative non 12 step rehab
January 19, 2011 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scratch Cards
This was really helpful. Thank you for posting this! I am wondering why they made the program so hard to use if it requires that much work?
January 19, 2011 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deal or no Deal
Your work is very good and I appreciate you and hopping for some more informative posts. thank you for sharing great information to us.
January 19, 2011 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo Sites
This post creates great impression into my mind, the explanation, content quality, purpose are very good and very much helpful.
January 19, 2011 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another great set, I appreciate all the work you put into this site, helping out others with your fun and creative works.
Lottery Results
January 20, 2011 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Factoring
We will help you choose from our free articles attendant for a major airline. Earning my articles after my first plane free articles adventure and helping stroll free articles down Madison Avenue articles display. If you're like me, yourself wondering if people--men, women, free articles anyone--are really buying this stuff. free articles Apparently they are. free articles and lot of money to spend. But still there is something articles missing from your life. Guess what? free articles should ignore.
January 20, 2011 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Online Bingo
This is a great inspiring article.I am pretty much pleased with your good work.You put really very helpful information. Keep it up. Keep blogging. Looking to reading your next post.
January 20, 2011 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Play Bingo
These facts are amazing .I was searching before last 5 weeks and i dint get the perfect answer.But after all i found from your site.thanks for posting such a interesting topic.
January 20, 2011 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was getting afraid to pick up the phone. The problem wasn't the GOTV effort or calls or lack of activists going door to door. ผลบอล
January 25, 2011 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
President Clinton himself could not get the government of Haiti to agree to allow him or others to oversee the funds that the U.S. intended to donate. ผลบอล
January 25, 2011 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
welfare for the insurance industry count as "social legislation". And lest anyone question my frame of the issue, who has been selling this bill as "bending the cost curve"? Anyone ever associate social legislation with "bending the cost curve"?
fire protection engineering
February 11, 2011 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
ount as "social legislation". And lest anyone question my frame of the issue, who has been selling this bill as "bending the cost curve"? Anyone ever associate social legislation with "bending the cost curve"buy car insurance
March 18, 2011 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"social legislation". And lest anyone question my frame of the issue, who has been selling this bill as "bending the cost curve"? Anyone ever associate social legislation with "bending the cost curve"cheap broadband
March 19, 2011 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm the same way, I do my best to remain neutral. It's hard, if you communicate with the person the other person dislikes, then you fall out of favor with them! I simple can't dislike a person, just because someone else does, I just can't.
Custom Dissertation Custom Essay
March 30, 2011 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will forward this article to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!
Custom Research Paper Custom Term Paper
March 30, 2011 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am looking forward for your next post, I will try to get the hang of it!
Custom Thesis
March 30, 2011 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I choose my friends for their good looks, my acquaintances for their good characters, and my enemies for their intellects. A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies. auto insurance quotes online
April 4, 2011 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
A principle is the expression of perfection, and as imperfect beings like us cannot practice perfection, we devise every moment limits of its compromise in practice. buy insurance| submit articles
April 4, 2011 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten. online games to play for free | imobiliare
April 4, 2011 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a fantastic website and I can not recommend you guys enough. Full of useful resource and great layout very easy on the eyes. Please do keep up this great work. fat burning furnace
April 7, 2011 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: German Shepherd Puppies
April 11, 2011 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting article. Content has been written in very nice manner. I enjoy reading this kind of stuff. Thanks for sharing good knowledge.
Sexy Halloween Costumes
April 11, 2011 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting article. Content has been written in very nice manner. I enjoy reading this kind of stuff. Thanks for sharing good knowledge.
The Krup Law Group
April 15, 2011 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting article. Content has been written in very nice manner. I enjoy reading this kind of stuff. Thanks for sharing good knowledge.
Angry Messages
April 16, 2011 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a fantastic website and I can not recommend you guys enough. Full of useful resource and great layout very easy on the eyes. Please do keep up this great work. Epson ink cartridges
April 18, 2011 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a lover of reading news online Thanks for writing a complete .
Houston web developer
April 19, 2011 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's very awesome article,all the content is so beneficial and valuable for us.presentation of article is very good,so I will bookmark it for sharing it with my friends.Thanks for sharing nice and pretty post. ran แรน
April 22, 2011 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Puppies for Sale in Florida
April 23, 2011 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really liked the post and great tips..even I also think that hard work is the most important aspect of getting success keep it up :)
Seattle Construction
April 27, 2011 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is an article that gives great insight to foundational elements when it comes to being able to successfully make money on the internet. Samual Zastawny
April 30, 2011 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink