Progressives and Talking Points
Okay, I'll keep this short and sweet, because I really just need to confirm I am not alone out here. But, does anybody else feel that progressives have a weakness when it comes to challenging talking points, whether they come from the left or the right. Is it an innate sense of fairness that demands we give serious consideration to every cockamamie thought that pierces our eardrum? Case in point, Roland Burriss is a respectable public servant and highly qualified to be the Jr. Senator from
No, I am not so sure about this. There have been strong arguments on this blog about Burris and whether he should be seated or not. Maybe you see something I do not.
Push some buttons next time and enlarge your print for old semi blind people like me.
Back to your issue, Orlando, check out her blog, is against seating Burris.
I was against it, then for it and now I just want to see 59 senators who are Democrats seated as soon as possible.
January 6, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
DD...if you hold down the control key on your PC and use the scroll button on your mouse, you can adjust the size of the text. Very handy feature for people with vision issues. (Like me.) :o)
January 6, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi DD -
Okay I spent two days reading a TON of articles from the Chicago Tribune archives from 1985-2002 and I can tell you that Burris has made two majorly questionable decisions in his political career.
One was using campaign donations for personal use. However, the point of that article was to say that ALL Illinois politicians do it and report it and (at the time, anyway) it wasn't illegal, but maybe the public should ask if it was a good idea. So bad, but not uncommon or illegal in Illinois.
The other was his push to execute a convicted felon, Rolando Cruz, who was possibly innocent (another person confessed after Cruz was convicted). The case was particularly horrific - a 10 year old girl was raped and murdered in her own home after school in a wealthy suburb, and the guy convicted was a minority from a less-reputable suburb. He was innocent, but Burris was running for governor and was trying to court the suburban and downstate racist vote by appearing tough on crime and unwilling to cut breaks for fellow minorities. It was a chicken-sh*t move and horrible and there's really no excusing it.
Despite those two things, Burris has demonstrated himself to be an egotistical but hardworking and honest public servant. In his time in office he championed: transparency with regard to public funds (he published a weekly accounting of the State's checkbook when he was Comptroller), environmental causes, consumer protection, worker protection, increased aid to veterans, support and protection to battered women and their children, reduction of credit card interest rates, rights for the homeless (including their right to vote), and increased school funding.
He stood up to the Chicago machine and refused to bend over to either Mayor Washington or Alderman Vrdolyak (tough to do during their turf battle) and helped bring the national party together when Jesse Jackson's presidential campaigns almost drove minorities to a third party.
Orlando doesn't like him because he's egotistical and the voters "rejected him four times" but the circumstances of all four of those elections suggest that it was a combination of bad timing, downstate racism, the Machine, and the Republican Revolution of the 90's that kept him out of the offices he sought, not his qualifications or job performance. Most of those elections were very close.
I know that Burris' tenure pre-dates internet archives and no one really wants to pay to access the old articles about him, but making judgments about his qualifications based on what his crypt looks like is irresponsible.
As for "Blago's taint" - I'm so sick of that phrase! Every time I hear / read it I picture Blago floating over Burris' head with his pants down (you know, showing off his...taint). ICK.
Anyway I got these articles through a subscription service so I can't post links, but I downloaded them as PDF files if anyone would like the folder I'd be happy to send it.
January 6, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok Burny, you convinced me. I really wish to see 59 Democrats in our Senate, as soon as possible.
I will repeat this every day until it is a done deal. Mitch is a bastard and we need some legislation done right now.
Oh and do not tell Orlando. She will get mad at me.
January 6, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I won't say anything. I tried to offer to send her my file of articles but I think she missed that post...
January 6, 2009 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know I forgot to praise you for hard work. If the Chic papers don't have anything, nobody does.
January 6, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually it was really interesting to read those old articles knowing the major players and how it all turned out. Especially the ones about Jackson running for president and Blago being a "good, honest candidate."
It's funny, but I sort of think Blago picked Burris as an f-u to Jackson and Jackson Jr...I could be wrong but there was a pretty big feud between Burris and Jackson beginning in '85.
January 6, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. That innate sense of fairness thing. Progressives like to listen to all sides before we declare it cockamamie. Or not. I know. I didn't help a bit, did I?
January 6, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure you did! At least on the scroll thing!
January 6, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto! We are shooting ourselves in the foot here for no good reason on a losing battle. And we are further delegitimizing Burris which will make him a less effective Senator while he's there. Totally illogical.
January 6, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kinda funny that we're having such a discussion at a site that calls itself "talkingpointsmemo" - isn't it?
But to answer your question, I just don't see people from the left being willing to be guided to "talk" a "line." That's what makes the left the left, I think. As opposed to the right, where, like RC's of old, they hew to the doctrine as outlined from above - however nonsensical it may be.
Sometimes we are able to convince each other to set aside our personal views and work for a higher purpose. But even then we do it via our own ability to think for ourselves.
That being said, I read some things by Orlando which lead me to question Burris. In addition to that, I simply can't understand a self-respecting person who'd accept Blago's nod. So that's where I stand. But it's not in my hands either way.
January 6, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see the division of left and right in a similar vein...voices on the left expressing many different opinions all at once- sometimes it's so varied no sense can be made of it...voices on the right-one opinion expressed loudly-sometimes so painfully loud it hurts its own ears.
That's why I'm on the left. I'd rather listen to and sort through the many wisdoms there than take that one loud opinion on the right as the only truth there is.
It takes a little longer, but it's much more satisfying in the end.
Burris...hmmmm. His eagerness to throw an innocent man's life away for votes is disturbing to me and casts him in a bad light. On the other hand, he won't be making those kinds of judgements in the Senate. He's old. He probably won't run in 2010. Let him in and let him take his seat. It's only for a little while and you just know he's gonna vote progressive.
In a perfect world, all these guys hanging on by one pinkie would have the decency to let go. But, it's not a perfect world and the tenacity these guys are showing is the same tenacity we say we admire in our elected officials. They're doing what comes natural to them.
January 6, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the left can be as dogmatic as the right depending on the subject at hand. It's what drove me to join the republican party, actually. At least the right no longer had the illusion that their dogma works. Obama is in the process of teaching the left the same lesson.
January 6, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, I swear that for eight long years, all the reps just waited by their fax machines and by their emails for their message of the day. "This is what you are going to talk about today. If you are challenged memorize the following words: "
Then a similar message was sent to talk radio and Fox.
It is a new dawn. A new dawn where issues are studied, discussed and argued. A good dawn.
January 6, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
People are people. Of course in a left of center board you will find the people thinking that they are all individuals and don't follow the herd.
Same will be true on a right of center board.
But the fact is that humans are a social animal and will tend to go with the flow. Self-preservation. Political persuasion has nothing to do with it. I have been accused of arrogance and condescension -- but am amused to see how there is a collective set of arrogance and condescension on these boards as a matter of course: most people here think that progressives are "smarter" or "better" or "more fair" than their counterparts on the right. This very blog opens up that subject explicitly.
The biggest set of "talking points" perpetrated in history is religious dogma. Most people are satisfied with the religion they were born into, few question it in any kind of serious matter. Even people that accept other religions still come home to their own for comfort in times of distress.
I see no difference between the left and the right on those sets of talking points. It takes real courage to stand against a group's collective opinion for real. History shows most people don't have that type of chutzpah. It's part of the survival instinct, and that's okay too.
January 6, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point well taken! Not sure what is says about me, that I'm so quick to challenge the conventional wisdom. Perhaps we are few in number, but us brain toting stray goats can not be herded so easily.
January 6, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those stray goats are the same ones that allow the center to appear "moderate".
Indeed, it is those stray goats from where real change comes from.
January 6, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, history shows the exact opposite. The herd splits all the time, turning away from dogma when it fails to match the reality of their daily lives.
We saw a little bit of that this year, as millions broke ranks with their apathy to elect a constitutional attorney with a community organizing background. The conversations on this site and hundreds like it are reflections of that trend as well.
Not much orthodoxy in what we saw this year.
January 6, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you define "break out of their apathy" by actually going out and voting, you might have a point.
The fact is that with overwhelming funding and a cratering economy, Obama did "okay". His real accomplishment this year was beating Hillary. He should have been able to easily trounce McCain in the general election which really didn't happen.
And it remains to be seen if there has been a true change in the electorate. It's simply too early to tell. In 1992, it looked like that there would be a huge breath of fresh air -- and that dematerialized rather quickly. Be a student of history, JEM.
January 6, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's you who need to read a history book.
Obama had to overcome hurdles you don't even acknowledge in this comment. He accomplished feats that no politician has ever accomplished. That still only led to a small 3-percent increase in general election turn-out.
The only reason Bill Clinton won in 1992 was Ross Perot. There wasn't a breath of fresh air. He was hugely polarizing from day one. The tension and fervor in this country was increased to fever pitch.
You really are condescending and arrogant with no reason to be. Be a student of humility, CT.
January 7, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
1.) Burris managed to hang on to the appointment. Let him do his duty. Next year the people of Illinois can decide his status. That's the way it works.
2.) The center is where real change happens. Read the President's inaugural address, and look at his policies in the first hundred days. He's a master of centrism. Having risen from the left, he has the good sense to govern from the center.
3.) TheraP is correct. This is a new day, where issues are discussed and argued. But that's true, and has been all along, for those who are willing to make it so.
June 10, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink