Now what? (4.00 / 1)

I thought we had this thing and we lost yet another battle.

You know, when we lost these battles last year, it always stung but not nearly as much as it does now when we control both chambers of congress AND the White House.

Guess it's time to focus on health care as well as HR 1207.

---

by: Jon Niola @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 17:37:00 PM CDT

We didn't lose at all.. (4.00 / 1)

This was a warning shot... play bell with us on health care, or we'll torpedo that, too!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 17:55:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hope you are right dude (0.00 / 0)

I really do. Guess we will see.

---

by: Jon Niola @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 22:01:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I didn't want the bill to fail, personally.... (0.00 / 0)

That would have created a whole new can of worms that we don't need right now...

But, the progressives flexed their muscle...  This is definitely a warning shot on health care... If they managed to stay so unified under relentless white house pressure, it's good...

And I bet there's a deal on the table we don't even know about....  and I bet it's on health care...

We'll know soon enough...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 23:02:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lost again! (4.00 / 2)

if we have low standards in the democrats we elect, this is a predictable result.   I don't think the dems are reformable and I am looking for a nondem political org to take the lead. I simply will not vote for a dlc dem ever.  Too much work.  I shouldn't have to push so hard.  If I do have to push this hard, than lets just dispense with direct democracy altogether.   Obama is the best example I can think of, of our low standards. There was two years of evidence of his close ties to the Hamilton project and Robert Rubin before people jumped on his bandwagon.

---

by: Dameocrat @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 18:15:55 PM CDT

If you don't like pushing hard, then give up (0.00 / 0)

politics isn't for you.  There will always be corrupting pressures pressing inward.  There will always be behind the scenes maneuvering.  And the tendency toward such things increases with the size of the country in question.

No matter what party system you have, there is always going to be the need to push.  Multiparty coalition systems have backroom deals, too.  Often much more crooked-looking ones.  

---

by: Valatan @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 18:31:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

we haven't an important success in 30 years (4.00 / 1)

that tells you that the quality of candidates is too low.  I will only vote nondlc dems, and third party if that doesn't work.  

If you don't like it tough.

---

by: Dameocrat @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 18:49:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but the point of electing Democrats over Republicans was that they already were on our side (4.00 / 3)

--that they wouldn't need to be fought against all the time and pushed to do the right thing.

there's no reason to vote D instead of R if you still get someone who won't do right and is automatically on the wrong side of things.

we shouldn't have to push those who already SAY they are against and for specific things.

we shouldn't have to push them to do what they said they'd do.

we shouldn't have to treat them like the GOP.

pushing is one thing -- that they all are on the Republican side is another thing entirely.

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 18:51:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The only people who voted for the war supplemental (4.00 / 1)

are the democrats.  The greens of 2000 are completely vindicated of all responsibility for the war and George Bush!

---

by: Dameocrat @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 18:56:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I"m not going to argue that there don't need to be primary challenges (0.00 / 0)

But this is going to be a problem as long as there are institutional interests around.  There is no 100 yard line.  Politics will always be a horrific slog.  All that will change is how hopeless it is.

---

by: Valatan @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 18:57:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think it will stay hopeless until (4.00 / 2)

we get rid of the two party system and private financing of campaigns.  I think we need constitutional reforms.

---

by: Dameocrat @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 19:05:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The two party system isn't immaterial (0.00 / 0)

but removing it will not be the panacea that people think that it will be.  A many party, coalition system will make byzantine negotiations between party bosses more important, not less important, a phenomenon which seems to be your primary complaint.  This really does need to be balanced against the benefit of the voters being able to more clearly express preferences in the ballot box.  

---

by: Valatan @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 19:49:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

reining in big money interests will make things (0.00 / 0)

99% easier for ordinary citizens like me, and I'll bet they start accomplishing things again!

---

by: Dameocrat @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 21:07:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

But that has little to do with third party politics.

---

by: Valatan @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 21:19:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

third party maybe the only way to get such a reform (4.00 / 1)

I think the dems are too corrupted.  Atleast the people in the third party will not be corrupted yet.  It isn't either or. We need both constitutional reform and more parties.  I don't think Obama's donors have interests compatible with mine.  They just don't.

---

by: Dameocrat @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 02:20:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Depends on how its done (0.00 / 0)

if you just add a party in the center, it will never achieve a brand, as it gets crushed by the parties on either side of it, depending on which philosophy is popular at the time. That's what always happens to the LibDems in the UK.

And then if we built a party to the Left of the Dems, with the actual goal of being a contender, that would suck up a lot of oxygen, and serve only to hand the key over to Republicans.

So I think fusion is the way to go, as it establishes a multiparty system that clearly opens the way for new ideas, but does so in a manner that can be quite collaborative. Read Sirota's chapter on this in Uprising, if you haven't already.

I think we're at a rare point, where both sides of the spectrum are looking to create third and fourth parties. If the GOP keeps flopping around like a dead fish, and IF Obama can continue to hold the economy together with band aids, then there might be movement on the right. And that opens up space for us.

We'll never get anywhere, if we don't have a place to go.

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 22:07:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fusion (0.00 / 0)

---

by: glacierpeaks @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 19:09:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

just a different view (4.00 / 2)

At the end of the day, most Democrats in Congress believe Obama is withdrawing from Iraq (let's hope so) and the IMF money is foreign aid loans that will be paid back.  That doesn't make it better, but it's not a clash of good and evil.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 18:27:46 PM CDT

Anyone else tired of losing? Wanna talk? (4.00 / 1)

I think we need to move beyond denial and admit to ourselves that this was a loss for our side, since only then can we talk about what we need to do to win.

I don't have any answers. I'd be interested in what others think about what would have been required to pull this one out and what we're going to do differently the next time.

Front pagers? You're supposed to know about these things, right?

Enlighten us.

---

by: John Halle @ Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 21:20:38 PM CDT

Better concentrate now on the overhaul of US financial regulation (0.00 / 0)

Unlike IMF, whose reform is difficult because it's a multinational agency, the regulation agencies of the US financial sector are a purely American affair, where Congress has the full legal authority. And certainly nobody here will deny that the system isn't really working right now - after all, the agencies couldn't prevent any major bank or financial institution from getting into deep problems because of speculations that got totally out of control. And you only have to look at the long list of acronyms of agencies supervising the sector to see the core of the problem: SEC, CFTC, Fed, FDIC, OCC, NCUA, OTS.

Obama seems to be determined to streamline this multiheaded monster now, to consolidate the hodgepodge of regulators and to give them new powers. And this fight is just beginning, now it's the right time to jump in and to push the lawmakers into passing the reform bill, against the angry opposition of the bank lobby. Forget the IMF, this is much more important, and it's a fight that all Democrats should support!  

---

by: Gray @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 04:04:31 AM CDT