Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Memo to Democratic Party Members of Congress
TO: Democratic Party members in Congress that are interested in keeping their jobs
FROM: Someone stating the obvious
For
those of you that were too dense to figure it out earlier, the past
three or four days should have made it too clear for even the densest
among you to miss. That is, the Clintons are toxic for the Democratic
Party; and not just a garden variety of toxicity mind you--but rather a
nuclear winter form of 'there's nothing left but Keith Richards and
cockroaches' toxic.
Hillary's been singing an oldie but a goody
[at least for the Republican Party] for the past few days. I can name
that tune in five syllables: triangulation.
It's the old "third way" back with a bang. In its most recent iteration, I believe Hillary has referred to it as her "Goldilocks" idea with regards to the gas-tax holiday. She referred to her hare-brained scheme thusly:
"You know, Sen. Obama says we shouldn't do it and it'sEvery
a gimmick. And Sen. McCain says we should do it, but we shouldn't pay
for it," Clinton said. "I sometimes feel like the Goldilocks of this
campaign: Not too much. Not too little. Just right."
democrat by now should be very familiar with this scam. It's the same
scam that cost the democrats about sixty congressional seats and nine
governorships during the Clinton presidency.
It goes something
like this: you artificially split the difference between the republican
and democratic positions. You offer an "alternative" while
simultaneously knee-capping the others within your party. Your fellow
party members are now left with their deals, notwithstanding the gender
inequity of the statement, swinging in the wind.
Despite the
obvious drawback of leaving the people in your party hanging out in the
wind, there's a less obvious and more damning consequence. That is, it
artificially moves the line on the political continuum rightward. This
is especially damaging when liberal/progressive policy views are
ascendant.
That's how policy such as DOMA, AUMF, the
Telecommunications Act, the Welfare Reform Act and the Anti-terrorism
& Effective Death Penalty Act come to be seen as "centrist"
legislation.
That's how what constitutes mainstream Republican
Party ideas now are those that would have only been considered by John
Birch Society wingnuts a generation ago. Because the so-called "fighters"
allowed the political center to be dragged way to the right while they
simultaneously double-crossed those in their own party that went out a
limb for them.
It's time for this hideous race to the bottom to end. It's time for democrats to start being democrats again.
Just
walk away democrats. Don't look back. Get as much crap as you can stuff
into the car, grab the kids and beat it out of Dodge. You don't have to
take the abuse any longer. Everything will be alright.
Comments (27)
Obama didn't have a position about the "gas tax holiday" before Hillary had stated hers (as I've touched upon in my most recent post), so if you're going to accuse anyone of triangulating, it'd have to be him.
And of course, I realize that "triangulating" is one of the current "evil" words, but I have to assume that finding the nexis of where we agree is one of the ways, Obama is planning to pass "the things which unite us".
May 6, 2008 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Er... "nexus". So now I've revealed myself to be an idiot who can't even spell, a fact that really cuts into the "wisdom" of my position.
May 6, 2008 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spelling or not, I think you make a pretty dood point. One of the bothersome elements of the Obama campaign (as I see it) is that while he TALKS a lot about "uniting", he attracts the allegiance of a lot of angry people who don't seem to me to have the temperament for that gentle approach.
This is just about the mirror opposite of the dynamics of Sen. Clinton's campaign: She talks rather aggressively, but tends to draw genuine moderates to her side.
I think this demonstrates one of the mysteries of campaigns: In spite of all efforts to muddy things up, the public generally thinks it KNOWS what it is getting. We often discount rhetoric and tactics as just what they in fact are: rhetoric and tactics.
From the viewpoint of a Clinton supporter, I "know" that Sen. Clinton is not going to use nuclear weapons against Iran. I "know" she will not in fact GET the gas tax bill she proposes. I have a pretty good idea that she will in fact run the kind of moderate, sensible, mildly progessive, fiscally disciplined Administration that her husband ran.
I'm less sure about Sen. Obama, but I think I "know" this much: The CORE of his support is not going to stand for anything as sensible and as cautious as that. They have scores to settle, and pipe-dreams to pursue. They are easily disillusioned. They don't want to compromise, and won't be easily made to understand why they should. In my opinion, he is going to find it very hard to hold them together while maintaining a grip on the broad center of public opinion.
May 6, 2008 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
That might actually be a good point if the "broad center of public opinion" of which you write wasn't artificially skewed rightward due to your candidate's perceived ability to "compromise".
Therefore, the "political center" has ostensibly remained on Republican Party turf even though that is not where the majority of Americans are.
To the extent that I'm one of those "angry" people, my reply would be thank god that I am. If you're an individual that follows the political process, and you're not currently "angry" by how politics are being conducted, than you simply have your head in the sand. The problem is not that I'm "angry"; it's that you're not. You should even be more "angry" than me. Your candidate is basically showing complete and utter disdain for the intelligence of her supporters. She basically considers you a rube or a mark.
In fact, I believe the word "angry" places too nice a a veneer on my current response to the Clinton campaign. I think "disgusted" would probably be more apt. If I were being truly reflective of what I think of Sen. Clinton and her campaign, I would have title this blog: "Keith Richards, Cockroaches & Clintons".
May 6, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you make my point.
May 6, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Three words.
President Barrack Obama.
May 6, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's about it.
I really don't see the point of arguing the primary anymore, people. It's time to argue general election.
Anyway, turn out the lights when you leave.
May 6, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Magister Dude. What's up with you? You are usually such a calm voice. You know, with all this bogus Wright stuff, people have a right to be angry.
I realize that you are angry by the events tonight. But politics ain't bean ball.
May 6, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't call for the stupid thing, so why should he have a position? As soon as McCain and Clinton came out with the idiotic ploy, he threw the bullshit flag.
He is supposed to be against something before it's a campaign issue?
The whole point is that triangulating is shifting one's positions according to political necessity rather than actual beliefs.
Barack is much more consistent in what he says and what he does. His position as a candidate is a direct match to the legislation he pursued in Congress and Illinois as well as the career he had before going into government.
The DLC (which Hillary and her husband have been intimately involved with since 1992) has pushed any notion of progressive out of the democratic party.
Taking your opponent's positions isn't compromise, it's capitulation. Rather than argue about a Gas Tax Holiday, Barack would rather focus on common sense solutions to long-term energy policy that the silent majority of Americans can rally behind.
McCain and Clinton float ideas that will never work, will never get passed, but sound good to their core supporters.
May 6, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt he has a stated position on eating boogers either.
Perhaps he never dreamed how silly the season would get.
May 6, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Obama did have a position on the gas tax long before hillary brought it up. After seeing how it did little to help the people of IL and cost the state government millions, he say it to be a bad idea.
May 6, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recommend any post with a mention of Keith Richards and his immortality.
May 6, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now this is what Im talking about jthomascronin.....Finally!
May 6, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo.
May 6, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is more "toxic" than anything is that so many Democrats have convinced themselves that the 'other' candidate--and those that support him or her--represent some sort of evil incarnate that is going to destroy the party. Even worse, many have taken to throwing a former President and party leader under the bus in the process.
I support Barack Obama, but I'm fully aware that a good deal of Democrats--including many friends and people I respect--prefer Clinton. It's too bad that so many have lost any sense of proportionality in regards to this primary race.
May 6, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
My post doesn't address Sen. Clinton's supporters, who have every right to support whichever candidate they choose, but rather THE CLINTONS' THEMSELVES.
And it is a critique based on actions taken by THE CLINTONS' THEMSELVES; and the effect of those actions on the Democratic Party.
If you think that it is "toxic" or "lacking proportionality" to hold THE CLINTONS responsible for their tactics and actions, then that is your choice; blame the messenger. However, regardless of which candidate you support/prefer, I choose to not allow the Clintons to piss down my back and tell me it's raining. And I don't think it's acceptable for them to do it simply because they have a "D" next to their name. That's my choice; to no longer accept their abusive behavior.
May 6, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
May 6, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dont like Clinton for what she has done, that is not Democratic rather Republican. Im and anyone else should be able to hold her accountable for that, and harbor angry feelings! Most of us defended them in the past because they at least acted like they cared about the people over their own ambitions. If someone were to say that we were foolish for having that admiration for them then, I would say thats all the more reason to be upset with them. Some of us cant close our eyes and excuse they're behavior. Respect our feelings as well!
May 6, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
R E S P E C T
that is what it means to me !
You've got my respect.
May 6, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are expressing what many of us feel. Keep talking.
May 6, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sean,
The Bronx is with you!
May 6, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks guys, with you as well....
Today I wake up and see that Paul has started the division talk again. Im going to fall apart if they dont end this soon. I really cannot forgive the HRC campaign for this crap! Someone better step in and put an end to this, its going to destroy the Dem Party if they dont!
May 7, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point about conservative values starting to take on the illusion of being centrist. It makes many traditional Democratic values (ANTI-death penalty, using prisons for REFORM, silly things like that) look extremist in constrast. We have GOT to fight the Republican ability to redefine the playing field!
May 6, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton policy platform:
1) Neocon foreign policy (turn the sands of the Middle East in to glass).
2) Corporatist economic policy (NAFTA, CAFTA, lobbyists).
3) Liberal social policy (except when its politically expedient to be divisive, or to pander to the O'Reillys, Scaifes, and Murdochs on the right).
May 6, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post that gets to the anger that many feel about the Clintons.
Hillary and Bill have to pay the price for dumping on people and saying they are not.
That is the point of this post.
May 6, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an American woman who left the US in 1998, and is now married to a Japanese man who is sometimes verbally abusive, I found the last line particularly moving.
"Just walk away (democrats). Don't look back. Get as much crap as you can stuff into the (car), grab the kid(s) and beat it out of (Dodge.) You don't have to take the abuse any longer. Everything will be alright."
And apt, as well, at this time in our history. In other words, this post works on many different levels. Which I like.
Just walk away.
From the old politics of personal destruction. Before you start to sound like your abuser.
May 6, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post! It helps me to gain perspective on how people like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are given such a loud voice in the media and are able to appeal to a large audience.
May 7, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment