Of Prevailing Winds and Childish Things
The nastiness of the comments on this post about the Gillibrand designation have spurred me to write my first post of the Obama Administration.
I realize everyone is anxious to get on with the civil war and cannibalism that Democrats traditionally associate with being in power. However, in keeping with "Christ, grow the fuck up, already" message of the inaugural address, I'd like to ask a different question. Did anyone happen to notice what happened on the Ledbetter Bill vote in the Senate yesterday?
61 - 36.
This bill is one of the leading bugaboos of the revaunchist Republicans. Opposition to this bill is woven into the DNA of the fossilized dogma "last-bullet, last-man, last-ditch save your Confederate money, boys" ideologues who are keep the Republican Party on the straight and narrow path to extinction. McConnell smugly insisted on 60 votes to let this one out.
100% of the Democrats (including Bernie and Lieberman) present voted for it and yet, between Teddy's illness and the open seats, that only got us 56 of the votes we needed. Those 56, however, included 100% of the Senate equivilant sof the House Blue Dogs, all the Democrats and quasi-Dems we love to hate: Lieberman, Landreiu, Rockefeller, the Nelson Twins, the whole lot. Where did we get the other five?
Collins (R-ME), Hutchinson (R-TX), Murkowski (R-AK, Snowe (R-ME), and Specter (R-PA).
Stop and think about that for a minute. On what a month ago would have been a divisive litmus test vote, we got 100% of the ones we used to expect to sell us out, the ones most joined to the hip of the kleptocrats, and McConnell couldn't hold on even to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, much less the four senators who constitute what passes for the moderate of his caucus.
My point here is that, as someone, can't quite recall who it was just now, but someone said recently, the ground has shifted beneath the feet of the Repub . . ., er, I mean the cynics.
The Blue Dogs have realized that not only do they not need to act like red dogs to keep their seats, and that, in fact, they had damn well better start acting more Blue and less dog-like. What passes for "moderates" in the Republican Party understand that they have all the room they want to vote their consciences or their self-interest. Rove, Armey, DeLay, the Club for Growth, the K Street Project and the whole stinking apparatus of reward and retaliation that used to keep potentially reasonable Republicans in line with the crazies are cold ashes. Obama has a sixty something percent approval rating in Texas, for God's sake.
And, for once, for perfectly understandable reasons, our politicians are ahead of us.
There's a lot of recrimination here about how the Kossite Better Democrats faction torpedoed Schlossberg and opened the door to a Blue Dog. Frankly, I agree that its a lesson in unintended consequences that the Kossites would do well to take to heart, but probably won't.
But both sides of the fight are missing the point. They are still fighting the last war. Indeed, they're still refighting the war before last, the Clinton War.
On one hand, the "Better Democrats" crowd deplores the lack of integrity that keeps the "Bad" Democrats from voting in a politically pure and orthadox fashion, but on the other they fail to acknowledge that that supposed lack of integrity works both ways. If the problem is that we have politicians who turn with the prevailing winds, changing the prevailing winds accomplishes the mission just as well as replacing the politicians. Indeed, in some ways, it works better because it lets us concentrate on the real enemy rather than dissipating our energy on ugly little civil wars that leave behind the kind of bitterness and division that could truly turn those winds back against all of us, orthadox and apostate alike.
Likewise, however, those berating the "Better Democrats" faction for opening the door to a Blue Dog are also missing the point: the Blue Dogs are well aware that the prevailing winds are such that staying in office requires more Blue and less dog. However obsolete and misguided the urge to purge of the Kossites, they were and are crucial to changing the direction of the winds and keeping it changed. (Yes, I'm aware my metaphor is becoming increasingly problematic, but work with me dammit, I'm almost done.)
The paradigm has shifted. We're seeing it in real-time. If we're going to fight, can we at least fight the current war rather than the last one, or the one before that? And can we at also maybe consider the possibility that the paradigm has, in fact, shifted when we analyze current events? Can we, for example, stop always assuming that this or that action was taken because our leaders are still gripped by terror of the Dark Powers of the Omnipotent and Infinitely Wily Republicans and are consumed with a need to placate them? Can we consider the possibility that that's our own trauma talking, rather than any particular concern of the people who are actually counting the votes and doing the governing?
A voice of reason. I knew there was a reason I liked North Carolina besides the fact that II got married there.
Great blog, Steve. Totally agree with all points, but especially the idea that we can change the prevailing winds quicker and cheaper than getting new politicians. That takes at least two years, sometimes six, and a movement toward primary voting that is still decades out I fear.
Raise the bar, change expectations, and these sorry excuses for leaders will start doing our bidding as a matter of self preservation.
January 23, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. But FWIW, I ain't from around here, originally.
Choose a handle in haste, repent at leisure.
January 23, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, native or transplant, your blogs and comments usually give me additional reasons to like the state.
January 23, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm from the other Carolina, the one that has been DeMented and Sanforized. I can find at least a few good reasons to like your state as well.
January 23, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I missed this Steve. Good for you. Good post. Lifts my spirits.
This is one bill Pelosi had passed last week. I saw the vote. This is terrific news.
I FEEL THE EARTH MOVE UNDER MY FEET
I have noticed that McConnel is shaking more at his conferences, looks weak.
Oh, and I will work with you anytime you wish!!!!
January 23, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the reasons I prefer TPM over Kos is that by and large the site is not driven by an activist mentality. Not to say that we don't have our own personal activist bents, but I do find from Josh on down more of a news focus and analytic/investigation focus among the people who tend to come here (with some exceptions of course).
So thanks for your post, Steve. I'm particularly fascinated with the 5 who voted with the Dems. The two ladies of Maine; hat I hoped for. Specter, not surprising (at the moment). Given the 60% pro Obama folks in Tx - makes sense, but still a surprise. (and makes me wonder how the bushies are reacting to that). But Alaska... hmmm, very interesting.
Anyone willing to speculate about Alaska? Neg impact of SP? Or a more energized electorate there?
January 23, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, do tell. Snowe, Collins and even the Spectre I can believe. But Hutchinson and Murkowski may indeed be a sign the ground is shifting.
January 23, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who wudda thunk it?
January 23, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
And on Ledbetter no less! Well at least my dynamic duo, Graham cracker and DeMented, were reliable nays. Two much ground shifting can cause vertigo.
January 23, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is how its going to be unless/until Obama's numbers tank. The identity of the defectors will change from vote to vote, but I'm predicting that a) McConnell's not going to be able to scrape together enough votes to block any of the important votes, b) eventually, he'll realize that and become more "cooperative" rather than have his weakness shoved into the public's face over and over again, c) once the filbuster is off the table, most of his defectors will come home to Mitch, for all the good it'll do him, and d) eventually, at some halcyon, magical day in the future, even the news networks will notice that the Republicans are powerless and start inviting mostly more Democrats than Republicans to the Sunday shows.
Well, okay, maybe I don't really believe that last one either.
January 23, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Three out of four ain't bad. The sausage don't get made on the Sunday talkies anyway.
Good analysis, by the way. Makes sense ... too much sense, almost.
January 23, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy, am I getting scolded again? He started it!!!
Seriously, Gillibrand would not have been my first choice but she is a much better option for keeping the seat in Democratic hands in 2010 given Kennedy's declining support in NYS. The folks tearing apart Gillibrand are trashing her because she's not Caroline despite the fact Caroline has not demonstrated that she has skills and temperament to be a Senator right now. She damaged her own reputation in this whole debacle more than any Clinton folks ever could have done.
If it was all about primary wars, I would supported Cuomo who was a fierce (and occassionally asshattish) Hillary supporter. If it was all about primary wars, I would have been anti-Caroline Kennedy from when she endorsed Obama (and I seriously wasn't). It gets really annoying having any position rejected as Clintonista bitterness. And it is even more annoying when out of state folks are trying to force an appointment of a Senator that the majority of NYers don't think is qualified.
January 23, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me about it djamo, I'm from Illinois.
January 23, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jano, if you want the rest of us to stop poking our nose into your business, you should get some less interesting, more boring, garden variety crooks and shysters like we have in Albany.
January 23, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor djamo, I looked at that thread. NCSteve implies childish ways, but that's too kind, some of those people are just plain crazy as loons, need serious detox or something, they are still set on interpreting everyone an Obamamaniac or a Clintonista, as if that means anything at all as to political issues now, just can't let go. Barring changing your user name, I'd say all you can do is address the main post and ignore replies that seek to return to primary games.
BTW, I am interested in what you have to say about it, because you clearly know a lot more about the NY politic than I do.
January 23, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
When people start doing that, does it make you wonder if it's repubs just trying to stir up trouble? I didn't go to that thread... so I have no idea whether the posters are regulars, but it doesn't sound like it.
January 23, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Btw, the new avatar rocks.
January 23, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And not really sure I'm scolding you. Given that I don't think the term "Blue Dog" is going to mean what it used to mean, going forward I'm happy to give her a chance. (Though I fully expect them to make empty gestures when they know they're meaningless, like that childish vote against the bailout in the House).
That said, is anyone now doubting that Obama and Reid's willingness to publically forgive Lieberman's unforgivable conduct came with some strict not-for-public-consumption conditions? Anyone noticed he hasn't been on the Sunday shows or been publically quoted since the vote to slap him on the wrist? I don't know that how long his self-interest can keep his self-absorption in check, but if Lieberman keeps his mouth shut, his profile low and his votes along the party line for the next four years, it will be almost as sweet as if he'd been publically humiliated.
January 23, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect the Sunday morning gabfests have no use for Joe since the election. He may have been muzzled but I think the proof will be in the pudding if Obama pushes for a real resolution of the Palestinian problem and Lieberman's Likudnik allies balk. Will he be able to resist making an ass of himself then? Only time will tell.
January 23, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time was, I thought Lieberman operated at least partly on principle. He just backed the wrong horse this time. What he does now depends partly on what kind of box he's in and partly how bad he wants to avoid making himself into an even worse loser. I'd be shocked if he jumped the fence on Israel, though.
January 23, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please Dija, hold forth on your new senator. Please.
=D
January 23, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back in April 2008 McConnell, for obvious political reasons, released six Republican senators, four of whom were up for reelection, to vote in favor of the Ledbetter Act.
From a politician's perspective -- especially, female politicians struggling to maintain their standing among female independents -- gender issues are so special that drawing any conclusions about how politicians might vote on other issues from how they voted on Ledbetter must be fraught with peril.
January 23, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but Collins and Snowe are moderates who will be with us on other issues as well. Specter's a wild card. Hutchinson will go back to the compound. I can't believe Murkowski ever left. Maybe he didn't know what he was voting for.
In the end, all it will take is two plus keeping the caucus and Joe the Dirty Rat in line.
January 23, 2009 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
*finds nit, picks it*
This particular Murkowski is a "she". :-)
January 24, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lisa, Lisa, Lisa. Thanks for picking. I was thinking Frankly.
January 24, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on the two ladies from Maine. God bless Maine for its long history of principled women Senators!
January 24, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Going all the way back to Margaret Chase Smith, even.
Off-topic, but good for a chuckle, is one of her favorite stories, from when she was running her first Senate campaign in '48.
Smith stopped in this little store, and launched into an impromptu stump speech. The grocer listened to her politely for a while and then asked a few questions.
Grocer: "Which office are you running for, Madam?"
Smith: "The United States Senate."
Grocer: "From which state are you running?"
Smith (exasperated): "Maine, of course."
Grocer: "Well, lady, you are in the wrong state. This is New Hampshire. Maine is over that way."
{Customers tittering in background}
January 24, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is exactly the lady I was thinking of. Because of her words, McCarthyism died. And because of her influence, I believe the two ladies from Maine will do her proud.
Thanks for that great story!
January 24, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
People always say things have changed, but they almost never do. It's post-Cold War, post-9/11, post-partisan, post-racial, same old thing. I realize that Obama is very different from Bush. But we have the exact same political system, the exact same economic system, the exact same federal government structure, the exact same situation internationally, and almost the exact same Republicans. We even have mostly the same Democrats! Obama's presence does not suddenly make the impossible possible. He is operating within the same constraints that Clinton and Bush were.
This has been an exciting week, but so far what Obama has done seems impressive only compared to the Miserable Failure. Ordering that the government obey the law and not torture prisoners is great, but it's also about the minimum one would expect from one's government. Science-based science! Great idea! But also obvious to the non-insane.
I think that all this optimism is dangerous. All the divisions -- racial, political, economic, religious, regional, gender, and generational -- that existed on 11/4 exist today. Sixty million people voted for McCain/Palin. No change of tone or rhetoric, or executive, can make that not true. We are in the same battle we have always been in. We are in a better position than we were in a year ago, or three years ago, but the battlefield is the same.
January 23, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. It's a bit early to start hyperventilating. Three days does not a presidency make. But it took Clinton three days to find the White House washroom, and he turned out ok.
January 23, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
To a man with a hammer, everything is a nail. Continuing to put this in an Us and Them mentality will ensure that our optimism is never rewarded.
If you honestly think that 60 million people are crazy right wing nut jobs for having voted for McCain, then I really suggest you talk to more republicans. The same divisions do not exist as before the election unless you choose to maintain that stance.
A change in tone can have miraculous affects. Reagan created a governing majority and radically altered this country's path by changing the tone and gathering southern Democrats to his cause. The very same democrats who should have supported Carter. Reagan got the evangelicals as well. The very same evangelicals who would have flocked to Carter given half a chance.
But the left refused to change their tone because that would somehow equal compromising their principles. Then Barack Obama comes along with a change in tone and he captures over fifty percent of the vote for the first time since Jimmy Carter did it in 1976.
Compromise doesn't have to equal capitulation.
January 24, 2009 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a public service message brought to you by the Nitpicker-In-Chief.
Jason, I humbly suggest an edit to your penultimate sentence:
I do believe Reagan managed just a smidge over 50% in 1980, and perhaps just a hair more than that in '84. :-)
We now return you to your regularly scheduled flamethrowing.
January 24, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan was a republican. I was speaking about democratic presidents.
January 24, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And my point was that your wording left that quite unclear.
January 24, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The quote you cited says he "...becomes the first Democrat to capture over fifty percent of the vote..." since Jimmy Carter did it in 1976. I still don't see what is unclear, but I will try to be more clear in the future.
January 24, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
My "cite" was actually my suggested revision, not your original quote.
My proposed change:
It looks like the bold tags got hosed on my original suggestion. The bold was supposed to be the changed text.
I am done with my nitpicking now. I've been in a mood for it today, for some reason. Perhaps it's because I have to be in the office for a while on a Saturday. *grumble*
January 24, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, didn't look so closely, but you must have figured it out or it wouldn't have been such an obvious correction. Again, sorry for not paying closer attention, though I figured my context was clear given the entire post. Alas, there is no way to edit comments.
January 24, 2009 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, compromise does equal capitulation if the person you're compromising with is so beyond the pale that meeting them halfway takes you off your position entirely. Obama cannot make a true compromise with the Republicans without throwing away his whole agenda. The compromising he already did on the stimulus bill has threatened to make the whole thing fail.
The idea that divisions that existed before the election have now miraculously disappeared is ridiculous. Those divisions have been with us for a long time and will remain with us for the foreseeable future. I talk to Republicans every day. They're crazy right-wing nutjobs, opposed to every good thing that Obama wants to do. You really can't vote for McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden unless there is something wrong with your brain.
"The very same democrats who should have supported Carter. Reagan got the evangelicals as well. The very same evangelicals who would have flocked to Carter given half a chance." What? "Should" have supported Carter? Why should they have done that? Elections aren't about shoulds, they're about votes. Those groups went for Reagan because Reagan represented a particular view of gender, race, and class, expressed coherently as policy, that appealed to them more than what Carter was offering.
All Reagan really did was ride a backlash against the Civil Rights Movement and other social movements that went back at least to 1968,a trend which was derailed by Watergate. Reagan's election and re-election was merely the continuation of what far more clever Republicans had begun.
It's a mistake to think that Obama's tone is what won him the election. What won him the election was his platform, the economy, and the incompetence of both the outgoing administration and the Republican campaign -- along with Obama's obvious talent for hiring people who understand how the nomination process works and how to GOTV. It was the underlying tactics of his campaign, the historical circumstances, and his policies that led to his victory. His tone? Not so much. That doesn't win you an election. It just makes your supporters feel good after you've won.
January 24, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said, those divisions are in a place where they can be healed. The country isn't the same country. If it was, Obama wouldn't be president.
You insist that change can never happen unless an agenda is crammed down the oppositions throat. I say that real compromise begins when the winners are as magnanimous in victory as their president has been.
Compromise, despite the most recent incarnation under Bill Clinton and the democratic Congress, doesn't have to equal capitulation. Obama is in a position to convince even more moderates to get on board with the transformation than at any time in the last generation.
He needs every citizen he can get pushing from the grassroots to get his very progressive agenda through Congress. I think you might be surprised what you find if you talk to real republicans in real life rather than relying on the caricatures you see on television or online to form an opinion.
We have some very real and reasonable republicans and former republicans right here at TPM. They hardly fit into this picture you are painting. The reality of America right now is a little more complex than the division we have faced these last four decades.
January 24, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Dear God - I know better than to think I can get a cogent response, but here goes anyway...)
What is a "real republican?" As one of two major political parties, it seems to me that a look at the party platform is a pretty good place to start in defining what it is to be a "republican." In this case, it includes things such as tax cuts being preferred to any kind of gov't spending (except defense); conservative on social issues, such as abortion and guns and religion and flags, etc.; and generally all issues that would be identified as "conservative." This ain't a "caricature." This is what it means to sign up as a Republican: You are signing up as a person interested in promoting "republican" issues in the political arena.
Now, the democrats, on the other hand, have in their platform a list of issues that would be identified as liberal (or "progressive," if you must). (I know! Please bear with this pretty elementary poli-sci 101 discussion here. It needs to be explained in terms easily understood, even though crayolas don't work on the laptop here which robs me of the proper visual effect.)
I am a democrat because my personal ideologic issues are most closely aligned with the democrats platform. Pretty simple logic, really. Why would I align myself as a member of the conservatives political party if my interest is in seeing liberal issues advanced? Wouldn't that be kinda' like a good muslim signing up for the Knights of Columbus? Or joining the Jehovah Witnesses? Or going on mission as a Mormon? What point is there in any of that? Might these choices be a bit counter-productive if I retain any hope of promoting my muslim faith?
Yet, it's astounding to find some self-declared "liberals" (even self-declared to be "more liberal than just about any liberal") who argue that their liberal political issues will be best served by signing up as a republican and therefore promote the GOP conservative agenda.
It's enough to give you a headache if you try to make any sense of it. Fortunately, however, it's of no real consequence for reason that I have in fact encountered only one such asshat who promotes such a political program, and his arguments are usually about as substantive as if they were presented by someone "speaking" through a paper asshole.
But that's just my humble opinion.
January 24, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's your opinion that parties don't change over time as their expectations of their rank and file members change?
I am not disputing your description of the GOP up until this year, but the idea that grassroots republicans won't change is nonsense. We've seen major shifts in the parties throughout the history of our country. A Wilson ran against Teddy Roosevelt by accusing him of being a socialist. Ike warned us of the MIC and was responsible for finishing what a democrat started by truly desegregating the military.
Things change. This whole election was about change. Yet, you refuse to act on that promise. I jsut don't get it.
January 24, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on, jason!
And it is your considered opinion that the GOP is on the verge of overtaking the Dems in pursuit of peace and justice and all other liberal political objectives? And the republicans are about to forsake the Christian right in favor of Gay Rights, Women's Rights, compassionately inclusive politics and all the rest of the liberal political playbook? The Repubs are about to forsake the corporate chambers of commerce in favor of environmental regulation and workers' rights?
Has anyone informed McConnell and Boehner and the rest of the GOP leadership about this? I think they might get angry at the suggestion, but then again, that's just me.
And who will be he standard bearers for this new GOP liberal/progressive party? Palin? Giuliani? Mitt?
Methinks maybe you'd do well blogging for the Onion. They appreciate political non-sequiters such as this as the basis for a little humor. Or are you seriously trying to promote this as reasoned thought?
No, it is I, jason, who simply does not get it. But then I prefer rational reasoning to contorted logic. It's my weakness, I know.
January 24, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason blogging for the Onion.
That's a great idea, SJ! I'll bet we could get a lot of us to recommend that!
January 24, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am saying that with a little gentle coaxing, a sea change could happen over the coming decades in the republican party. That it has happened before.
Of course, I never said they were in danger of over-taking the democratic party, but that is more of your poetic license derailing the conversation into fantasy land, where you dispute points I never made.
It is quite clear that you understand nothing of what I write. That you are so bound up in identity politics that you don't see a core of evangelical Christians and moderate republicans who would in fact support all kinds of human rights issues if presented in the right fashion. You would much rather break heads, apparently, as a way of winning new support for our causes.
Thanks God Barack Obama doesn't see fit to follow your lead.
January 24, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
A very logical point to be made given the basis for your fundamental argument, jason, and this overwrought political experiment of yours is: Can we expect Barack Obama to join the GOP anytime soon? Do you really think he would determine that his membership in the GOP would help him advance his agenda? Or can we expect that he will remain a Democrat because this party more closely promotes his agenda (today AND tomorrow)?
The answers are self-evident if you understand anything about political reality and the two-party system of gov't that exists in the U.S. Your continued insistence that you somehow have the inside track on Barack Obama's political genius that so closely hues to your nonsense is therefore extremely insulting - to me, to other liberals, to common sense, to Barack Obama himself, and even to the GOP (I would imagine) who properly justify their existence by taking their place in today's political reality as the "loyal opposition" to the ascendant Democrats.
I think you have pretty well played out your string. This philosophical house of cards you have constructed has most assuredly collapsed as expected, and no amount of retrenchment or obfuscation will give it rise and make it habitable. I have no doubt you will continue the scoundrel's argument of failing to address specific points by crying as a "victim" or thrashing about in defiance like an injured animal. But the time has come where you would be far better served to dress your wounds and move on to more productive and wholesome endeavors.
January 24, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
January 24, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with much of what you write here, Skybolt. However, I am not convinced that this approach can really work - either on a political or a practical level. The ideology that does not allow for discussion with those firmly opposed to it is not destined for a long life in DC.
A couple of things I was considering as I read this opening graf of yours.
(1) Compromise, in practice, rarely involves equitable sacrifice. Both sides may give up something, but I would definitely think the Republicans will be the loss leaders there.
(2) The terms of the compromise - especially in politics - are generally dictated by the side holding the better cards. And Democrats haven't had cards this good in a long, long time.
Both of these concepts were explicitly expressed by Obama, Pelosi and Clyburn in different ways yesterday. Their collective message to the GOP: "It's our party. You're invited, but we pick the set list."
By the way, I don't think the stimulus is in any serious danger at all. I believe the Republicans actually like the stimulus plan, and are playing politics right now in the hope of improving their horrendous position relative to Congressional Democrats. I think their strategy is to reach out to Obama, while simultaneously putting themselves at odds with Congressional Democrats.
Yeah, it's pretty transparent, but what else can they do? They can't just aim at Obama directly, thanks to his massive popularity numbers. So they engage in legislative maneuvering and obstructionist tactics in Congress, all the while positively citing Obama's bipartisan approach.
My belief in this theory was buoyed by hearing Pete DeFazio say basically the same thing on Maddow last night.
Republicans are right now kind of taking Obama bipartisanship out for a test drive. They're trying to see what the limits of it would be, and just how much of their stuff they can get into Dem legislation. That's not unpredictable. The danger, as you note, is letting it go too far. But, in avoiding excessive bipartisanship, one should avoid nonexistent bipartisanship as well.
January 24, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree JEM about the opposition. They have their own "news" sources and political leadership that lies to them and thus they aren't advocating policies based in reality. They will do everything they can to convince the American public that their false arguments are factual which is very dangerous. The latest PEW poll for instance shows we have much work to do convincing the American public about the looming global warming disaster. Right now they are touting and the media is echoing a non existent CBO study on the stim package they claim shows tax cuts are more effective than infrastructure spending.
Here's another case of wingnut foolishness: I spent Thursday evening at a township meeting in a drab suburban government building built with the last of the federal revenue sharing funds before Reagan put a stop to them in '83 that was worthy of Chrissy Hinds "My City Was Gone". At least a couple thousand watts of bright bleak florescents in the drop ceiling and decor worthy of a Pep Boy's waiting room sans the old car mags.
Afterward I had the displeasure of listening to a flabulously huge Republican with a wheeze that sounded like Darth Vader, I swear the guy has to be this far from congestive heart failure, complain about the WhiteHouse.gov website having something on it about restoring transparency and decency to government. His feelings were hurt, he took this as a swipe at Bush and a broken promise of bipartisanship by Obama. I told him let's not forget Bush's constant refrain from 2000 about restoring dignity and honor to the WH. When I informed him that he's likely to be hurt a lot more if and when several high ranking Bushies wind up in prison he winced. If Obama's transparency order unlocks the Bush/Cheney files that very well may happen.
Not wanting to talk about torture or any other crimes of the last administration he decided to change the subject to the economy. The Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis according to him. When I explained that even Federal Reserve bankers say that's not true his comeback was he "has sources too". Now I have a cold, or the flu or whatever the hell it is that's been going around. I'm on the verge of laryngitis. While I'm usually more than willing to engage in political argument or even polite discourse (if I have to) til the cows come home Thursday night I knew I only had so many words in me before my voice gave out. So my response was "I have federal reserve bankers as my sources, you have Sean Hannity". I offered to send him articles citing them if he gave me his email address.
That pretty much shut him up. But as for Obama's attempts to get all of us to love and respect each other's opinions? I only respect the opinions of people who use real data to back up their assertions. Those who tell me that UAW workers make $70 an hour, global warming is a fraud, we can drill, baby, drill our way to energy independence, infrastructure spending doesn't work as stimulus, the financial crisis was caused by the CRA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac in an unholy alliance with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and nonsense like those examples on a whole host of other issues will be quickly corrected by me in the same tone as they make their arguments. But I'm never gonna preface what I say with "yes but" or "from my point of view" it's always going to be "I'm right, you're wrong and here's why".
January 24, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you start with "I'm right and you're wrong and here's why..." then no conversation can ever take place. That is a false choice because showing why you are right has nothing to do with the other person being wrong. One Wilson has a great blog on this very subject today.
I am not debating that the republican faithful have been lied to and led astray for a generation. I am not dismissing that the current republican leadership is a disaster and should STFU and let the adults fix things. But I speak with real, everyday republicans who don't match your characterization or the caricature it implies and our president doesn't appear to agree with your methodology.
I think Barack proved that a moderate center in this country wants to fix things, but won't be offering up a mea culpa as the price of participation.
There is always going to be the most fringe of beliefs held up as somehow being sacrosanct to large groups of people. The ones that say so are usually the loudest and most convinced of their infallibility. But change in the republican party has started with a small trickle to vote for Obama. It's in the growing chorus of moderates who approve of his actions thus far.
Aggressive tactics right now won't help accomplish your stated goals.
January 24, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon jason, if I'm telling them they're wrong it's because they've already spoken. Letting falsehoods stand as if they are a legitimate part of the debate doesn't cut it. It requires not only a factual correction but a clear understanding by all that their preposition is wrong. Otherwise you're just exchanging opinions. This isn't for the benefit of just winning arguments it's to inform bystanders of the true causes.
We have multiple serious messes to clean up. As Obama says the economy is going to get worse before it gets better. The trillions we will spend on the stimulus/recovery package will only ameliorate the crisis. If we create 3 million jobs that's great, but we're probably going to lose millions more than that in the meantime regardless and we'll be hard pressed explaining how more tasty "free money" tax giveaways wouldn't have worked better.
Republicans will spend the next 2/4 years telling everybody what a failure these measures have been. It's in everybody's interest to understand they aren't and haven't been honest about the causes of our problems and the effects of their policies for decades. Theirs is always the false choice of the easy way out, "it's your money, we're just giving it back to you", "we're at war, do your patriotic duty and go shopping", and "use your home equity to buy a new car". And that all still sounds very palatable to the uninformed. People want those days back but they're not coming back. It's our job to explain why. We haven't won that argument yet by a longshot.
January 24, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If arguments can't stand on their own merit, pointing out the other person is wrong does nothing to make them more palatable.
Obama has never once said, "The republicans did x, y and z. They were wrong. This is what we are going to do to fix it." He simply presents new solutions as if they are self-evident and then gives the other side a chance to claim credit if they so choose.
If Congressional republican simply obstruct Barack for the next four years and he is wildly successful, they will pay at the polls. Despite the rhetoric coming from McConnell and Boener, I find most rank and file republicans I know are willing to give Obama a chance and are happy with the moves he has made so far.
I guess we will see which paradigm succeeds in the new political environment we find ourselves in - partisan battles or principled pragmatism. I suggest that Barack's success points to the latter as being a more effective strategy for the democratic party.
January 24, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason when belief in global warming only has a 43-41 lead in the latest PEW poll I'd say regardless of whose argument holds water we're in deep shit. The catastrophe that awaits us if we do nothing or even take half measures might just end civilization not to mention kill billions. The remedies are drastic and won't be palatable. It's gonna require a drop in living standards. The much easier sale as it's always been is the "free lunch" childish Republican position.
The same goes for rebuilding the economy, healthcare and other issues. People will resist the necessary sacrifices. I'm not going to leave it up Obama alone, when some Limbaugh spewing twit spouts nonsense I'm gonna call him on it. He's wrong, dangerously wrong, we tried it their way since 1980 and it didn't work. If that hurts his feelings too goddam bad. They need to wise up.
January 25, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you go into every conversation assuming the other person is a Limbaugh spewing twit instead of a misinformed fellow citizen then you lose the opportunity to tell them a different tale. Your tone and stance will make real communication impossible.
Which is why Obama won the election and has earned the respect of many conservatives, some of whom may even fit the description you paint. What maintaining a martial stance assumes is that none of these people are willing to change their mind and then sets out to prove it by making sure it can never happen.
Kind of like when the neocons broke government to prove it doesn't work.
January 26, 2009 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason once again I don't "go into every conversation assuming the other person is a Limbaugh spewing twit". But if I come across one who is spewing nonsense it is my duty to make sure everyone in the vicinity understands that he is indeed spewing nonsense whether he knows it or not.
It's for the benefit of all those people who tell pollsters they like Obama, who wish him well, who hope he succeeds. The ones who voted for a Democratic president for the first time in years.
Times are tough and going to get tougher. The stimulus will help but it's not a cure all. Obama's gonna need all the help he can get. It's our job to remind all those first time Dem voters
that there isn't a free lunch solution to our problems and it was dumbass Republican policies like tax cuts and gutting government oversight that got us into this mess in the first place.
January 26, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I say whether the person is a moron or not is immaterial to the way one presents their arguments if the goals is to facilitate understanding.
That if a thoughtful republican (or democratic moderate) who remains silent hears you unleashing on an idiot for their benefit that the consequence of that style may not be what you have stated as your purpose for employing it. They may think you, and not the idiot who they may identify with on whatever level, are the one who is being unreasonable or abrasive. The reason Obama got those votes is that he uses tactics that in direct contrast to those you advocate.
The righteousness of your argument should not be dependent on the fallacy in mine.
January 26, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you know anything about my style Jason. I don't do this to score points, I'm not abrasive, I don't "unleash", so please leave your preconceptions out of it.
January 26, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I can go on is your responses to my comments here, which show a decided lack of knowledge about everyday republicans vice the tools you hear on talk radio or on the blogs.
Of course I have no idea how you actually act in person, but based on this short exchange, you seem to have a lot of prejudice with regards to "conservatives" that you don't seem all that willing to change.
Read back over your responses and perhaps you'll see how I could come to the conclusion that you might be apt to fire first and ask questions later.
January 26, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um Jason, I was brought up by a couple of everyday Republicans in a county Republicans once bragged was the reddest in the country. I used to argue with my father about Nixon and Reagan but in the fall of 2007 he insisted I am help him donate some money to Obama using my computer. I've been doing this my whole life.
For my volunteer work phonebanking and canvassing - making our case to voters of all stripes - I was elected the 2008 Democratic precinct committeeman of the year in my township. From late March on I spent on average 3 hours a night, 4 evenings a week phonebanking at my local congressional candidate's office. Almost every Saturday from late May on I spent canvassing. That's after spending February & March driving an hour west to go trudging off in the snow to help Bill Foster get elected to Denny Hastert's old seat in IL-14. His staff appreciated my work so much they had him call me two weeks after the election to personally thank me for my efforts.
So Jason, I really don't think I need your advice no matter how well intentioned about how to speak to voters. I have lots of practice.
January 26, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think if you were as confident as you proclaim, you wouldn't feel the need to convince me by giving your resume. Confident people don't cite their resume as evidence of their being correct.
You would agree to disagree and move on.
Too, your comment. Did all that arguing change your father's mind or did he finally come to the light all on his own? Would he approve of blanket castigation of a group, no matter how unintentional? Would all those good people you contacted during the campaign who were republican and decided to vote for Barack approve of some of the words you use here?
I could make a list for you if you don't recall or don't have sufficient objectivity and honesty to judge your own rhetoric.
I think you protest too much.
January 26, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheap psychoanalysis won't win your argument jason. You can either join the majority or spend a long, long time in the political wilderness.
January 26, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spoken just like the new boss.
January 26, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you'll ever have to worry about that. You're the kind of guy I'd fire first.
January 26, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
January 26, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
From jem:
Then again, markg8, you can be forgiven for mistaking as real Republicans such people as McConnell, Boehner, Gingrich, Giuliani, Romney, Palin, and the others in leadership of the GOP. These examples do not fit within the parameters of the "new, moderate - even liberal! - republicans" that jason indicates are in ascendancy in the GOP. They therefore cannot be included as "real Republicans."
I just thought you should know the rules before engaging in this contest. God knows, I've tried but to no good effect. Good luck!
January 26, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, that isn't exactly what I said, but thanks for stopping by again to mangle my opinion for our viewing audience.
What I said was that DESPITE the current republican leadership and talking heads, common sense would dictate that most rank and file republicans will be changing both their perceptions as well as their expectations as Barack succeeds at his many progressive agenda items over the coming years.
I didn't think I would ever have to convince a "liberal" that most people are good. I guess you missed that lesson.
Must of been asleep.
January 26, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point of order:
In registering my critique, I noted in the comment to which I replied that you in fact did NOT mention current Republican leadership. My point was that you consistently do so intentionally for sake of promoting your flimsy argument. After all, a look at the legitimate "real Republicans" leaves you stranded down a rhetorical cul de sac.
Put another way, jason: Just who among the Republicans is leading this mass movement toward the middle from within the Republican Party? (Other than you?) Who are its advocates or vocal/visible participants?
Two very legitimate questions to which I would appreciate a relevant response.
January 26, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
These things take time to turn into a movement for wholesale change, but it is hardly in the democrats best interests to dismiss such movement or call it illusory or immaterial. As the grassroots cries out for new leadership, those leaders will emerge. As it has ever been.
January 27, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Things have changed. Change is the only constant, if I may engage in a little paradoxical phrase turning. If you fail to perceive change, it is becuase your timeframe is too limited. Assuming that all of history consists of the political dysfunction of 1995 - 2008 is at least as dangerous as all the cock-eyed optimism in the world.
And, in the meantime, you seem to percieve optimism of the cockeyed variety. From where I've been sitting, however, it looks distinctly "guarded" rather than cockeyed.
January 24, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're giving this more significance than should be attributed to this vote. The four female Republican Senators, and Specter voted for it.
The previous attempt to get this bill passed in the Senate failed cloture on April 23, 2008 in Senate Roll Call Vote 110. If you look at the breakdown on this vote, all Democrats voted to invoke cloture (Reid's Nay was procedural). There were six Republicans who voted in favor of it: Coleman, Collins, Smith, Snowe, Specter, and Sununu. Only Hutchison and Murkowski changed their votes. The Yeas by Sununu and Smith were exchanged with Yeas from Shaheen and Merkley. The other new Democratic Senators made up the difference: Begich, Udall (CO), Udall (NM), Hagan, and Warner.
In the House version that passed last year, 6 Democrats voted against it. In the House version that passed a few days ago, 5 Democrats voted against it. Boren and Boyd are the only two Democratic Nays common in both votes. There were no Democrats who switched their votes.
This was never a Blue Dog issue. What tipped the Senate vote was last November's election, along with changed votes by Hutchison and Murkowski. Don't make false assumptions from this.
January 24, 2009 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean when you say that Reid's vote was "procedural?" I can't for the life of me figure out what you mean by that.
January 24, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It means that under Senate rules, being on the "winning" side of the vote gave Reid the right to bring it back up again for a revote later. Which, he didn't, of course.
January 24, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, that is really interesting! I never heard of that before. Thanks for the information!
January 24, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
these votes are easy ti spot, because they are cast by each respective Party's leader in the Senate. Expect to see many votes by McConnell that don't make any sense during the 111th Congress.
January 25, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, then, how about this (from Greg's new blog) for some windchanging:
January 24, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can see the airwaves deluged. Going after the average citizen. This should make for some interesting political theater. But it could be the undoing of the republican party, methinks, if they push too hard against your average voter.
My sense is that people are tired of negative propaganda, tired of fear-mongering. Ready to face the future by rolling their shirt-sleeves and working together, not by cowering in fear.
People are ready to get things done. Ready for the Rule of Law. For health care. For jobs.
Americans United for Change.
January 24, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the Chicago market we've been seeing 2 tv ads for weeks now.
One supported by the SEIU and AMA among many others touts universal healthcare with factory scenes that transform from dark, cobweb covered, empty shop floors to bustling hives of well lit production due to the competitive advantage American business will enjoy with their plan.
The other features a 60ish AA car mechanic talking about the benefits of 21st century energy tech and ending coal and oil cos. domination of our policy as he moves around a prosperous garage and finishes by inserting a large electrical plug into the grill of a car. Don't know who is funding that one.
I don't why they're running them in our market, Obama could call for whale oil powered cars in Chicagoland if he wanted to and he'd get 60% approval. My guess is maybe it's aimed at Lugar in IN.
January 24, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
We know that the pusillanimous of both parties blow with the political winds. It's good to be reminded of this but it is hardly news. The thing that I think most on the left complain about is those who claim to be Democrats but really are devoid of any real convictions at all. At bottom, these people are the worst sorts of politicians and they are unreliable and that's the problem. Their number one interest is themselves and no one else and the thing they respond most readily and eagerly to is not their constituents or what is good for the nation but who can fill their campaign coffers and otherwise help to feather their own nests by employing spouses, children, getting kids into the right schools, junketerring, tips on investments and so on.
I think also the left complains of being held hostage by these political hypocrites because when it really counts, when it is most important, you can't count on them. The Ledbetter vote is fine and hats off to getting it passed, but it isn't by any means a test of anyone's political values.
Most votes, regardless of who is in power or what the margins are for one party or another in our national legislature or any of the states go up or down with massive bipartisan majorities. And by most I mean in excess of 90% of all the floor votes in either house have overwhelming support from both parties. It is the last 10% that counts, where there is real and substantive conflict and that is where the problem occurs.
As far as the new Senator from New York is concerned, I think her first day demonstrates why Blue Dogs are so contemptible and unworthy of the support of Democrats most of the time. I think she was right to do a complete reversal of her stand on gay marriage because she was wrong on that issue. Nonetheless, it could not be clearer that she did that either because she lied about that to get elected to Congress or she is lying now in order to have a better chance of reelection to the Senate. That is fundamental dishonesty. Just because she's a politician does not make that okay. When you know someone is a flat out liar it's important to take note of that. Those who would put their faith and trust in a person like that are just flat out dumb. They get what they deserve, but the rest of us don't deserve it. I would not be upset or surprised is she did a complete reversal on her loathsome pro-gun stand either. But again, that is simply more proof that this is a person who is in it entirely for themselves, who cannot be trusted and who doesn't really care about what is good for the country. Her decisions are based only upon what is good for her. That's a valid point of concern and has nothing to do with past battles or fighting the last war. It is, however, a real good reason that Demcorats have lost battles that were important to win for the sake of the nation and our people.
So yes, good points Steve, but what you're talking about is mainly victories on the margins and not necessarily the critical votes necessary to, for example, provide quality health care to all Americans, have an adequate public housing program for once, implement the radical steps necessary to have an impact on climate change before it is too late, hack the obscene defense budget that is rotting the nation from the inside out and so on. It will be interesting to see if Obama can keep the pusillanimous of both parties in line and do so to pass genuinely progressive legislation instead of watered down policies that won't get the job done but will placate the faint of heart in the Senate and the enemies of progress in America.
January 24, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find encouraging is that the context of the national political conversation is finally moving to the left. The conversations [prevailing winds] from the left have finally gained traction and the center is moving.
We will have unintended consequences as we move to other end of the pendulum's arc. Those unintended consequences are what typically gives the right the ammo to shift the conversation back to the right. Then we get our ammo from their unintended consequences and start the pendulum swinging our way again. What I love is that every time the pendulum swings toward liberalism, it swings just a little bit further than before.
As Stephen Colbert says, "Reality has a liberal bias"
As an old 60's liberal, I know that my views will probably be viewed at some time in the future as quaintly conservative. "Can you believe old Uncle Bill had considerations about human cloning and brain transplants. He never even had an identity chip installed "
January 24, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink