You Only Get Kicked To the Curb If You Can Be Kicked to the Curb

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 14:59


In a diary at Daily Kos, icerbergslim has a pretty good discussion going asking whether or not President Obama is kicking "us" to the curb.  It is based on the same anonymous White House source in the Politico that has been widely quoted today:

On health care, Obama's willingness to forgo the public option is sure to anger his party's liberal base. But some administration officials welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers if they argue they would rather have no health care law than an incremental one. The confrontation would allow Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done.

My response to this quote is more value neutral than most other bloggers.  The progressive netroots and other supporters of the public option will only be "kicked to the curb" if kicking us to the curb is the most politically expedient option available for the White House.  By contrast, if the White House does not feel it is possible to kick us to the curb on health care and still maintain what it considers an acceptable level of political viability, then we won't be kicked to the curb.  To put it another way, we will only be kicked to the curb if we can be kicked to the curb.

There is no reason to expect that people who have managed to rise all the way to the White House will stick by their ostensible policy allies just out of principle.  It would be nice if that were the case, but it isn't.  Don't expect people who have risen to perches of extreme power to give up that extreme power just to be nice to you.  That might be the sort of thing you expect from family members, or your best friend.  To think that an elected official will do the same is to mistake that elected official for a family member or best friend.

I wish it wasn't all about too many politicians being more concerned with maintaining acquired power than with following through on principles, but oftentimes it certainly seems to be.  For decades, throwing progressive under the bus has consistently proven be the most expedient option for Democratic elected officials.  This is why it keeps happening.  If all we can do is sit around and worry about whether or not Democratic leaders will throw us under the bus, then it is guaranteed we will keep being thrown under the bus.  However, if doing this to progressives consistently causes an unacceptable level of political damage to elected Democrats, then it will stop happening almost immediately.

I don't like talking about politics this way, but progressives often get walked over because they can get walked over.  By contrast, Moneyed interests and large corporations don't get walked over because most politicians don't think they can walk over them.  That is a power dynamic we need to reverse.

Chris Bowers :: You Only Get Kicked To the Curb If You Can Be Kicked to the Curb

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Gotta Diasgree On This One, Chris (4.00 / 5)
(A)

The progressive netroots and other supporters of the public option will only be "kicked to the curb" if kicking us to the curb is the most politically expedient option available for the White House.

Their political judgment has already proven itself to be abysmal.  They will try to kick us to the curb simply because (a) they think they can, (b) it would make them feel good, and (c) the rest of Versailles would cheer them for it.

(B) More and more, I'm thinking Obama is starting to look like a one-term president.

Except... who are the Reps going to run against him?

Not-Joe, the Not-Plumber?

Glenn Beck?

Can Beck even prove he was born in this galaxy?

Reports from Romulan Security indicate negative.

(C) I'm starting to believe that the best thing that can happen is if Obama tries kicking us to the curb, suffers a humiliating defeat, and realizes that he has to change course big time.

Otherwise, he's starting to remind me of Woodrow Wilson, who utterly destroyed the progressive forces that helped him get re-elected in 1916, so that progressives held no effective power nationally for more than a decade after he left office.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Yes, maybe and yes (4.00 / 3)
A) I agree with you on that one. They think they can kick us to the curb. I also agree that this might be a sign of bad political judgment, which is a wrinkle I did not add.

B) Maybe they want to kick us to the curb. Maybe they don't. I don't know them, so I can't say. Not sure if anyone can tell us that for certain except the people in the White House.

C) I agree that the Village / Versailles would cheer them for it. I guess they must think that is a better political move as a result. Whether that is bad judgment, accurate, or simply because they like the Village more, again I have no idea.


[ Parent ]
I Think It's Because They're Embedded (4.00 / 5)
I don't know if it's a matter of who they "like" more.  It's more a matter of who they're surrounded by, day-in, day-out.

That's why, for example, I was not one of those who believed it didn't matter who Obama appointed.

So far, he seems to have done a very thorough job of digging himself in deeper and deeper with folks who've been part of the problem for a very, very long time.  If not the very core of the problem, then at least part of accomodationist crowd that promises to not actually do anything about it, beyond the ritual "tut-tut."

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Seems you can include Axelrod there too. (4.00 / 1)
ABC - Political Punch

Until now, the White House seemed to resist calls from supporters and critics alike demanding that the President put down on the table his own specific version of health care reform.  Now, Axelrod indicates the president is ready, adding  "It's time to wrap them up and move this thing forward. And the President is going to be central to that."

As to the fate of a government option plan to compete with private insurance, Axelrod suggested the controversial concept is gone but not forgotten: "The spirit that led him to support a public option is still very much at play here and so you know he wants competition. He wants choice. "

Gone but not forgotten! :)


[ Parent ]
re: Gone but not forgotten! (0.00 / 0)
nice slogan

I can use too for my vote and support!


[ Parent ]
Me, I Prefer Jonny Rotten (0.00 / 0)
If Obama & his team were a 70s group, who would they be?

Bay City Rollers, maybe?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
One motivation you've left out (4.00 / 1)
(d) they think they must.  They have concluded, rightly or wrongly, that the public option can't be passed at any cost they want to pay and that they need something.

(a) "they think they can" will be proven right or wrong depending how much grief we can bring to bear on them.  It's a political judgment, which gets back to Chris's main point.

(b) it will make them feel good - too personal IMHO.  Probably true of Rahm Emanuel, but doubtful this is the prime motivation for everyone in the administration.  Occam's razor applies here - (d) is a much simpler explanation.

(c) true, but hardly defining.

(B) - who knows at this point?  You're right - the question of who runs against him becomes critical.  I think you've pretty much punted on this one as soon as you said it.

(C) - do the House Progressive Block fold or not?  White House is betting they do.  Are they right or wrong?  We'll see.  But does it have to be all black or all white?  I wouldn't be so sure.  Maybe the best thing is not to fight an all-out war with Obama (a war we'd lose) at this time but to fight a skirmish in other words, guerilla tactics.  You're not strong enough to beat them head on, but if you keep your troops together you can win something and live to fight another day.  

You walk up to the brink and extract the maximum you can from them (more than they're offering now, details TBA), and then stand down for awhile.  Your bridges are not completely burnt, you're not totally without effective power, as in post-1916, you've established to some extent your bona fides as a force not to be f$cked with lightly, and you live to fight another day.  

I know you don't like my union analogies, Paul, but this terrain is familiar to every militant union leader who knows his union isn't strong enough to take a strike.  

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.


[ Parent ]
So You Surrender And Call It Victory? (4.00 / 2)
You walk up to the brink and extract the maximum you can from them (more than they're offering now, details TBA), and then stand down for awhile.

Yeah, that'll work!

Sorry, dude, but the Progressive Block has got to block.  "Wink-wink, nod-nod" just reveals them as the total chumps they're now taken to be.

What's so damn scary about beating Obama that you're afraid to even think about it?

If they defeat Obama's sell-out, he can always come back and do it right.  The GOP does not have the votes to stop him.

It's. Just. That. Simple.

No one can destroy Obama except Obama.

The question is--are they going to enable his self-destruction?  Or stand up and challenge him to stop?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Who the fuck is talking about surrender? (0.00 / 0)
Jesus H. Christ

Unions have always had to face the choice of settling for something AFTER a fight that they weren't willing to accept BEFORE the fight.  Eh?  But maybe through the fight they gained some of what they were after.  And maybe they feel good about what they achieved.  Is that a surrender?

Ask the men and women who struck the Detroit News for ten years and got nothing.  Think some of them might not wish they'd played it differently?

The question of what is a victory and what is a defeat is a subjective one.  Did you keep your solidarity intact or are you smashed to smithereens, destroyed by infighting, or are you ready to take em on later?  It makes a difference if the Left is rolled over and impotent after a defeat on Health Care or ready to take on the next battle.

Think of what you are setting up!  If the Obamas and the Emanuels see that all they have to do is pass Health Care without a Public Option and the whole left goes to hell, never to rear its head again, it's almost like putting a kick-me sign on your back.  On the other hand if we are saying we intend to be around no matter what the outcome on this, then it's not so clear.

I'd like to suggest that it makes some difference if the House passes a public option while the Senate doesn't and real negotiation takes place and the Administration is forced to deal with and to some extent accommodate the House vs. a pre-cave by the House.  

With that in mind, our tactics do not need to depend on any estimation of what is ultimately "going to happen" and we don't need to waste time gazing into crystal balls.  We can fight like hell for the Public Option without worrying about whether or not we're ultimately going to win.

The moment for that decision has not yet come.  But it likely may come.  You don't discuss your bottom line, you never discuss your bottom line, but know that eventually it may move.  The important thing is you didn't give up until you had no other choice.



sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.


[ Parent ]
If Progressives Fold Now, What Good Are They??? (4.00 / 1)
(A) Without the public option, the Dem plan is to make the state an enforcement arm of the insurance industry.

We don't need the Democratic Party to do that.  The Republican Party will do that just fine.

May as well just fold up the tent and go home.

(B) If the Progressive Block actually blocks that piece of shit, then maybe Obama will wise up and pass a half-decent bill instead.

He doesn't need the GOP to do this.  All he needs is to lean on the conservadems, instead of the progressives.  And the conservadems are the ones who are more likely to lose their seats.  Ergo, they're more persuadable.

(C) If Obamo doesn't wise up and pass a half-decent bill instead, at least we'll know well ahead of time that he's not two-term material, and folks can start strategizing accordingly.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
If progressives fold now what are WE going to do???? (0.00 / 0)
Fold up the tent and go home, says Paul.

I don't really think you mean that.

It's one thing to stand your ground.  It's another thing to talk about "folding up the tent".

If the progressives don't fold and actually block that piece of shit, then what?  Then there will be negotiations.  The Progressive Block will have earned the right to be in them.  Who knows what will come out of THAT process, but it will be better than if they didn't,

Either way there will be plenty to fight for tomorrow.

Why am I arguing with you?  I dunno.  Less drama, more steely-eyed determination, my friend.  This always was going to be a long-haul fight.  It was never going be a great and quick catharsis.



sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.


[ Parent ]
No, No Negotiations (4.00 / 1)
National single-payer now has already been negotiated away.  That was the negotiations.  Time now for a strong public option.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
So, specifics? (4.00 / 1)
One of my general criticisms of the liberal blogosphere (I include myself in this critique, by the way), is that we are rarely very specific, either in our demands our our tactics. Interest groups tend to have a very discrete list of demands of elected officials in exchange for support, in part because they have narrow interests but in part because electeds need to know what we want to make us happy. But because we're general ideological liberals, we tend to make a big stink about EVERYTHING, and I can tell you that this characteristic greatly frustrates elected officials. Why make us happy on policy A if we're just going to get cranky about policy B?

So what we (as a group) have to decide is that there is a set of policies - a list of 3 or 4 - that are non-negotiable. Now it seems like the public option has become one of those. Which brings us to the second problem - tactics. What happens if Obama really does "throw us under the Bush." The only credible threat I can think of is to target specific members of our own party for defeat, whether in the primary (in the form of a challenge), but - since that hasn't worked out yet - we strategically "sit out" a race. We boycott all support or even actively campaign against them. Right now we don't have a credible threat, so even if we do take a stand on the public option, or torture, or net neutrality, it's without consequences. Piss off the insurance industry and the result will be negative ads and a well-funded opponent. Make us angry and what happens? Thus far nothing, and that's what we have to change.  


The credible tactic (4.00 / 7)
Is to block all health care reform if they try to throw us under the bus. At least that is the plan.

They want health care reform. If they won't give us our demand, we have said we won't give them what they want.

The credible tactic is always to find something they want, and which you can deny them. Then tell them that in exchange for giving them what they want, you have a demand on which they can actually deliver.

At least that is my plan.


[ Parent ]
And then what? (0.00 / 0)
I think your strategy is a perfectly viable one, but I'm concerned that it greatly depends on House Progressives sticking with us, of depending on them keeping their word. But doesn't this just regress the question back to the next level, from the White House to another set of elected officials? What do we do if the House Progressives "kick us to the curb?." Do we imitate the club for growth and primary them? I've been somewhat uncomfortable with that tactic because the CFG has access to a lot more money than we do.  

[ Parent ]
Hey Chris, I couldn't agree more. (4.00 / 2)
This is the road. Here comes the rubber. We are defeating the most important Bill of Obama's term as president, the most important Bill of the Democratic Party's trifecta, the most important thing for progressives to do since the 60's, because we want real reform. Or

Or, we win real reform. And the Bill passes with robust public option, and it has not trigger, and prevention has funding and states are allowed to set up Single payer.

The progressive caucus is being pressured, the heat is spilling on us, but its aimed at them. Getting their back, pushing them forward, funding them, explaining the position, getting more onside. This is the battle.

Time for some trench songs and whatever replaces cigarettes in the foxholes. I'd suggest some uplifting speeches from Obama during the primary, but the irony might give some people brain lock.

Lets remember MLK


I must confess, my friends, the road ahead will not always be smooth. There will still be rocky places of frustration and meandering points of bewilderment. There will be inevitable setbacks here and there. There will be those moments when the buoyancy of hope will be transformed into the fatigue of despair. Our dreams will sometimes be shattered and our ethereal hopes blasted.

But also remember:

 Out from the gloomy past,
 Till now we stand at last

 Where the bright gleam
 Of our bright star is cast.

Let this affirmation be our ringing cry. It will give us the courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom. When our days become dreary with low hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows.



--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Credible strategy (4.00 / 3)
The credible strategy all along was to push single payer hard and compromise on a very strong public option if we had to.

The NY Times had a piece on the Blue Dogs and health care the other day.  If you believe them a "majority" want some sort of deal but want a lot of change.  A sizeable minority are flat out opposed to anything.  The two super negatives quoted were Walt Minnick and Jim Marshall.  That's at the bottom 2% of the Democratic caucus.  

NY Blue Dogs like Arcuri and Bishop were not mentioned.  The one "reasonable" Dog seems to be David Scott who was moved leftward over the recess.  IIRC, Scott, a black Congressman from the Atlanta area, had a swastika painted on the sign for his office. Way to go, Teabaggers.  Look bad and lose votes, too.

The Blue Dogs here are being fiscally reckless; not fiscally conservative.  They are in favor of wars.  Also not fiscally conservative.  I bet they take a hard line on jails and federal sentencing.  Also not fiscally conservative.  Blue Dogs may be conservative but they are not fiscally conservative.

Btw, my new motto: Blue Dogs- Spay and Neuter (let em live but don't support any increase in the ranks).  Of course if they lose, tough.  Don't fund em cause you can't trust em.


[ Parent ]
agree 100% (4.00 / 3)
although I also agree with most of what Paul wrote.  i don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

I think the real issue here is the anger of "getting kicked to the curb."  Look, the problem is that tens of millions of Americans will continue to suffer if decent reform doesn't pass.  Who gives a crap if I'm angry that I voted for Obama and now he's not doing what he said.  The issue is a lot more important than that.  And as Chris said, that's what politicians do if they can.  And as Paul said, the administration has not shown great political sense since taking office.

Yes, they will pass watered down healthcare if they (rightly or not) think it is the smart political move.  It's a fact of political life and those who thought Obama was not political that way were being willfully ignorant.  What we can do is pressure enough reps and Senators to make it hard to pass a poor bill.  That has been happening and will continue to happen.  So the outcome is in doubt - does that surprise anyone?  it shouldn't.

And if a poor bill DOES pass, we will find out for sure how good the administration's political sense is.  I suspect quite a few dems will be surprised by the lack of enthusiasm (if not outright primary challenges) for their campaigns, a lack that is already showing up in polls.  Most primary challenges will fail, but it seems like quite a few dems will lose close races to repubs in 2010 and 2012 if the current course is maintained.

I wonder if they'll recognize the reason?

Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.


Well put (4.00 / 1)
Who gives a crap if I'm angry that I voted for Obama and now he's not doing what he said?

We need to get tougher.  Being a drama queen won't buy much.  Sure we're pissed.  That and four bucks will buy us a latte at Starbucks.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.


[ Parent ]
now more than ever we need the progressive block to hold their position. (4.00 / 5)
is there anything else we can do to increase the consequences of screwing up this reform?

HOLD THE LINE! (4.00 / 2)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
While my own capabilities in this regard are limited (0.00 / 0)
due to neither being an American nor living in America, one idea I like is to hold a fundraising drive for the Progressive Block but in a way so that they only get the only money if and when they've followed through on their pledge; no followthrough, no money. Hold it in escrow or something.

And/or recruit primary challengers to the key "moderates" in Congress who are running things, or make a very credible threat that they will get a primary challenger if they fuck up on health care. (And in this case, do it even if they're in a red state/district where a progressive would lose the general: the ramifications of the short term far outweigh the long term, here. If health care goes down or sucks, we'll lose a lot more than just one seat.) But I rather assume that if this were easy, it would've been done. (Am I right to assume this?)

Anyway, I know words are easy. These are the ideas I can think of. I wish I actually lived there so I could help.


[ Parent ]
Here's another thought: (0.00 / 0)
Are there any Progressive Block members who live in the same state as one of the influential "moderate" Senators? (Conrad, Baucus, etc.)

If there are and if we could get them to make loud noises about primarying said Senator if they sell out on healthcare reform, that could potentially be meaningful.


[ Parent ]
BTW, I Met With Congresswoman Laura Richardson (CA-37) Today (4.00 / 4)
as part of an editorial board meeting she had with Random Lengths.  Not only did she reiterate support for the public option, remind us that she had voted for Sheila Kuehl's single-payer bill when she was in the California Assembly, and that she was a co-sponsor of Conyer's Single-Payer Bill.  When I asked her about preserving the state single-payer option, she immediately said she supported it.

How hard she'll fight for it remains to be seen.  But there was no convincing necessary.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Republican Congress, 1994 - 2006 (0.00 / 0)
Last time we had a Democratic leadership and a Democratic Presidency who thought that the highest priority goal was to help Republican-backed policies through while knifing their liberal allies, it led to the Republican takeover in 1994, the Republicans' holding the House for a dozen years, and eventually the Bush Jr. triumvirate.

Well played!


Which Is Why They Think They Can Walk All Over Us Now (4.00 / 3)
We'll be too scared of a repeat, they reason.

But, realistically, I just don't think that's true.

The GOP is far weaker now than they were in 1992-94. If we block a sellout bill from passing, they can come back and pass a good bill, and the GOP can't do anything to stop them.

So, in the end, the question will be, do the Versailles Dems (including Obama) want to commit suicide?  Because the final move (or lack thereof) will be up to them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Fear doesn't much help with stay-aways (4.00 / 1)
In 1994, a major factor in many local races was simply a depressed degree of support and turnout among local Democrats and liberal independents.  My local (D) was turned out, in a liberal area.

So, this would be a dumb assumption by the centrist thinkerati, because it doesn't take active work to unenthusiastically turn away and fail to donate or vote.


[ Parent ]
Depressed Turnout Was A Major Factor In 1994 Nationwide (4.00 / 2)
The Dem base was badly disappointed, and didn't show up to vote.  The Perot voters felt insulted and betrayed, and broke heavily for the GOP, enticed by the messaging in the "Contract with America"--which most folks couldn't identify, but which helped provide message discipline.  These two factors were all it took.

Note what this means: If the Dems had continued to act like FDR/Tip O'Neill Dems, they would have been fine.  It was the very "move to the center" that was supposed to "return them to relevance" after Clinton was elected that was responsible for their crushing defeat.

And now Obama & Co. are ready to do the same damn shit all over again.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Didn't I say that? (0.00 / 0)
I'm pretty sure I said what you added...

[ Parent ]
It Came Across A Bit Unclear (0.00 / 0)
at least to me, what with that "local" stuff.

And you didn't say anything about how they got clobbered for abandoning their New Deal principles.

So, I'm not trying to contradict you.  I'm trying to countrapunct you.


"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
"Local", because they were Congressional elections (0.00 / 0)
I guess I was just distinguishing the different scenario than a national, i.e., Presidential, election.

And yes, you could characterize this as an abandonment of New Deal principles.


[ Parent ]
hostage to goals (4.00 / 1)
liberals have a handicap in this, because we actually want to do something. we do want to reform health care, we do want to do something about climate change.

but it's all just a puppet show for the other players. the Democratic not-liberals (which includes the Obama Administration, yes it does) only want to be seen to seem to have done something. the Republicans can use all the veto points and personal and systemic weaknesses to cause as much failure as possible.

so it is pretty easy to expect that when it comes down to a crappy bill with mandates and no public option coming out of conference, House liberals are not actually going to vote against the success of the Obama Administration, against health care. especially when they must know they will be excoriated and endlessly rebuked if they do - not to mention the usual arsenal of campaign threats (no money, no help, no visits). but it's not just that sort of political calculation. liberals really do want to do something, and even the crappy bill will still do something. they really do want Obama to succeed, and even a faux victory beats defeat.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


NO you are wrong. The Bill will Be Killed (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
How do we create consequences responsibly? (0.00 / 0)
It seems the WH is ambivalent to the public option.  It seems all they want is a "win".

All we can do is keep stating that we will not support those who don't fight for the things we believe in.

During the primaries there was so much tension between the Hillary/Obama camps, that it seemed impossible to me to imagine them coming together.  But that happened naturally and now I don't even think about "Hillary supporters" as being a subset of Democrats.

In that vein, it's probable that, in the eventuality of a passed health care bill with no public option, progressives will suck it up and move on.

Their political calculus seems to assume that there's a hump they have to get over which is House opposition to removing the PO, but after that it's smooth sailing.

I am firmly of the opinion that passing an unpopular bill today will pay better dividends than passing a useless but less controversial bill.  R's are going to scream bloody murder at just about anything, so you may as well give the liberals some meat as well.  For &^*% sakes Democrats, grow a pair!

"You got these claws and you're staring at these claws and your thinking to yourself, and with these claws you're thinking, "How am I supposed to kill this bunny, how am I supposed to kill this bunny?"

"And you're looking at your claws and you're looking at your fangs. And you're thinking to yourself, you don't know what to do, man. "I don't know how to kill the bunny." With this you don't know how to kill the bunny, do you know what I mean?"


I agree with the thrust of the argument, though ... well (4.00 / 1)
anyway, never mind the bunny

The only thing I disagree with is that the Bill with a Strong Public Option might not be the most popular.

Because it is the most popular. Its even got super majority support among Republican voters.

But yes, this is the time to dig those crow bars deep into the road and push.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Direct Hit (4.00 / 2)
This is right on target. I wish this would be posted everytime some well-meaning putz tries to delude themselves into believing that we have some sort of warm and fuzzy relationship with the President and his staff.

Politics is about power.

Period.


We don't want Obama to be "nice." (0.00 / 0)
No way. This is NOT what it's about.
There is no reason to expect that people who have managed to rise all the way to the White House will stick by their ostensible policy allies just out of principle.  It would be nice if that were the case, but it isn't.  Don't expect people who have risen to perches of extreme power to give up that extreme power just to be nice to you.

We don't want Obama to be "nice."  


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox