Lessons from Lieberman (or, why Kucinich may read OpenLeft)

by: Adam Bink

Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 12:05


From today's earlier thread on the Kucinich announcement, I'd like to flag one comment from ArthurKC:

Kucinish carefully answered a broad question about concessions to him for his vote in a way that did not close the door to him having asked for and gotten a deal on ERISA.  He answered in terms of denying anything particular to him or his district.  And, it seems that both he and the WH are aware of the blowback on the Louisana Purchase and had gamed out what would be said to avoid stepping in a similar pile on ERISA.

I think ArthurKC is onto something, although what I'd actually say is that if he and the White House are aware of anything, it's how Lieberman reacted to the Medicare buy-in:

But in the interview, Mr. Lieberman said that he grew apprehensive when a formal proposal began to take shape. He said he worried that the program would lead to financial trouble and contribute to the instability of the existing Medicare program.

And he said he was particularly troubled by the overly enthusiastic reaction to the proposal by some liberals, including Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, who champions a fully government-run health care system.

"Congressman Weiner made a comment that Medicare-buy in is better than a public option, it's the beginning of a road to single-payer," Mr. Lieberman said. "Jacob Hacker, who's a Yale professor who is actually the man who created the public option, said, 'This is a dream. This is better than a public option. This is a giant step.'"

Lieberman went so far as to name liberals (albeit somewhat inaccurately) whose opinion he took seriously and used them as justification for throwing away the deal. It seems to me if you could pick any liberal liking something who could make conservative House Democrats think twice about supporting this bill, 499 out of 500 panelists would pick Dennis Kucinich announcing some awesome concession he got to push this bill to the left.

So, maybe Kucinich does read our strategy discussions here at OpenLeft:

As an organizing discussion I'm sure this will start an interesting conversation over whether, when dealing with Joementum in the future, the Weiners and Hackers of the world should be lying in public and saying the compromise sucks just so he is tricked into being satisfied.

I suppose we'll know when this is all said and done.

Adam Bink :: Lessons from Lieberman (or, why Kucinich may read OpenLeft)

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Lessons from Lieberman (or, why Kucinich may read OpenLeft) | 43 comments
I dunno... (4.00 / 2)
Sounds like wishful thinking to me...
Well (4.00 / 1)
Not saying he got some awesome concession, merely that if he did, this might be the way he would have a non-announcement about it.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter
[ Parent ]
I think it is wishful thinking too (4.00 / 2)
As I said,  in the quick hit, that progressives want to win they need to become the party of no. Meaning, in each case, including here if the wishful thinking is right, the true lesson is that by saying no long enough, people are forced to give you concessions rather than by starting from yes. In each example, power was gained by saying no. That's the real Lieberman example.
[ Parent ]
Hooray! (0.00 / 0)
Then along with the Republicans we'll have two "parties of no."  "No" will have overwhelming support, a supermajority in each chamber!  We win!

It's genius, with our combined voices in favor of no, Congress will get "no"-thing done.  Which is exactly what we've been working for...all...along.......

...wait, what?!

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!

[ Parent ]
Yes, you are confused (4.00 / 5)
In your mind, the power of veto translates into nothing getting done rather than defining what gets done.  The GOP gets what it wants policy wise even while out of power. Democrats can not say that. This would require a longer view than just the last year. But since people can't remember beyond the last week that's a hard request to ask for.

Lieberman got something passed the way he wanted it passed. So did others who choose to use the power of veto. The only people who got nothing were folks such as yourself. Think about it this way- the progressive concessions that you and others are so fond of pointing out- only serve to prove my point rather than counteract it.  

[ Parent ]
The Rs want failure. (0.00 / 0)
And the Ds who enable them may want some sort of success, but they are willing to settle for failure.

If you're willing to settle for failure, then by all means become part of the "Party of No."  But those of us who see value in moving forward, even incrementally will chose a different path.

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!

[ Parent ]
The Republicans as of a few years ago were in control (0.00 / 0)
They passed a lot of legislation.  Stop repeating talking points to me and think about whether what you are saying is actually the case or something you believe is true.  
[ Parent ]
They aren't diverse. (0.00 / 0)
It's easier to pass legislation when your coalition is 95% right wing ideologues and they all agree with your agenda of tax cuts and being mean to "scary brown people."

We have much greater diversity in our coalition.  As we can see in this debate, even with the vast majority in consensus, there is still a lot of diversity of opinion.

Until liberal Democrats make up 95% of our coalition, there is no comparison.

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!

[ Parent ]
Again talking points. The conservative base as much diversity (4.00 / 2)
as we do. There are paleo conservatives, Wall Street conservative, christian conservatives, Reagan democrats, economic libertarians etc.

I frankly find these conversations difficult because they often lack any larger context. Your argument also totally misses the point. The numbers are not the problem. The will to use power is. Even if we were 95 percent, we would see the same problems as we do now.

Meteor Blades or someone like that discussed how the liberals in Colorado took over the city government of Boulder CO (I believe it was Meteor Blades) and then like now they refused to use the power. They attempted to work with the much smaller conservative minority on the board to attempt gain votes that were not necessary for a win. They did so not because of numbers, but because o mind set. So they would water down bills, and get few if any votes. They were later replaced by conservatives due to character issues and weakness being run as the central issue in the general elections. WHy did that work? policy? No. Lack of messaging and conservatism? No.  They won due to the perception over character issues.

The point here is that this is not a matter of numbers. And, let's pretend it is-- the lesson again of each of the concessions that progressives supposedly gained is that no works better than yes toward obtaining better outcomes. That if progressives want to win more, even in a coalition, the first step is to start from no and mean it. Then the coalition will take gaining progressive votes into consideration since , for example, the president needs us more than we need him.

[ Parent ]
Do you know what "talking point" means? (0.00 / 0)
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is a "talking point."

I defy you to explain to me which one of those conservative groups you mentioned disagrees with tax cuts.  For which one is discriminating against "brown people" a deal-breaker?  Their diversity in views is small and so it is easy to find common ground.

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!

[ Parent ]
Talking points (0.00 / 0)
bruhrabbit consistently uses the term "talking point" to dismiss something he doesn't agree with.

While it is hard to bite my tongue finger, it seems really best to stay out of this discussion about the usefulness of the current bill.  Both sides just keep repeating the same stuff.  (One might even call these talking points!)  No one is going to change their minds.

[ Parent ]
You're probably right. (0.00 / 0)
I have had worthwhile discussions one or two places, but the most shrill and self-righteous commenters seem to just be a waste of time.

It bothers me to see falsehoods go unanswered though.  (Not all opponents of the bill are guilty of this.)

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!

[ Parent ]
Talking Points: Things that are common wisdoms that are repeated (4.00 / 1)
without thought as  the talking point that lead to them.

Here's one "They all want nothing. They are the party of no." that's a Democratic talking point. It is repeated as common wisdom now without regard to underlying reality.  

Example: "They want no bill."

Who is "they"? That's the part of the cw. Digging into it one finds talking points.

They variously being the GOP, conservative Democrats, centrists and anyone else that is used for rationalizing capitulation by progressives.

It assumes all interests are the same. That the party, including the president, does not have a vested interest in passing a bill. Thus, the calculus might change if one considers the different interest rather than repeating the talking point over "they."

That because of that vested interest that means the battle is somewhat different than the talking point of faming the bill as pass a center right bill or pass nothing. It changes the bargaining positions.

No one asks that question. They assume that they are right in stating that we have no choice but to capitulate based on the underlying cw that grew out of a talking point.

And, thanks at the end for the false equivalency.

You don't say whether either side is better at proving its arguments.

For instance, either the argument that the moment that the unions decided to say they were willing to kill the bill did produce results on the excise tax or it did not. That's not a matter of both sides making points and one not being able to verify the correctness of an argument.  

[ Parent ]
This is a talking point. (0.00 / 0)
The Republicans as of a few years ago were in control.  They passed a lot of legislation.

This is what a talking point looks like by the way.  Just in case you were still unsure about that.

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!
[ Parent ]
Bruh, don't waste your time on this troll (0.00 / 0)
He's so full of shit he's not worth your time.  I've found it is better to ignore him than to lower yourself to his level.  If the majority of Dems agree with him, then I'm not part of the party anymore.   He's like a bad case of athlete's foot.  You can't get rid of him.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
[ Parent ]
Troll (4.00 / 1)
Troll

n. Someone I disagree with

[ Parent ]
The problem is that many buy what he is saying (0.00 / 0)
although they are no trolls.  
[ Parent ]
I could say the same about you. (n/t) (0.00 / 0)


We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!
[ Parent ]
I see we are at the portion where you just repeat back what I say (0.00 / 0)
without regard to whether it makes any sense. What could you say about me? that others believe what I say? Thanks for pointing that out. Or is your argument that I am a troll? Well, I guess if your perspective is to reinforce the belief that progressives are helpless to do anything but capitulate that may be true since I not buying what they are selling regarding their feigned helplessness.  
[ Parent ]
re: no (4.00 / 1)
But those of us who see value in moving forward, even incrementally will chose a different path.


[ Parent ]
They are not even discussing moving forward. that's the ironic part (4.00 / 1)
they are just promising us more of the same. I would love for someone else to push chris for example to explain how we are going to move forward when he can't even get votes for this bill.
[ Parent ]
Who would cave to the left party of No? (0.00 / 0)
Who would be hurt by their intrasigence? Who needs their vote? Are there enough of them, with the left party of no, to pass a bill?

Or is the Democratic right wing perfectly willing to let this bill fail? These reforms fail, any reform fail, etc?

Who is being pressured please, and does it, once it gets the left party of no's agreement, have a voting majority?

--

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

[ Parent ]
Obama needs their votes (0.00 / 0)
or do you disagree with Chris' whip counting totals?

If Obama did not need Kucinich's vote - why the ride on AF 1 and the arm-twisting?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Thanks for comment but I am asking in relation to the prog block (0.00 / 0)
"standing strong" in order to create a capitulation by someone else, so as to get votes that lione up with the prog block.

Standing "firm" doesnt do anything (see King Canute) unless there is someone, something, some group, that can capitulate to you.

The below I posted elsewhere.


There are people who want what we want, in both houses. I dont know how many, but more than a handful. There are many who do not, the entire Republican caucus and a large number of the Democratic caucus. A near voting majority who don't.

And there is a skittish bunch of sellouts who will do anything that ensures re-election or graft or both.

I don't see cave in this equation. We need to elect more "our side" Democrats, primary out the conservadems and corrupt, and do it by organizing people who aren't the likeliest to vote, the voters who dont vote, the voters who are kept from voting, and the angry.



--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
If they need our votes, that means we have the ability to get more (0.00 / 0)
Your response is basically "Yes, but where are they going to get the other votes from?"

My response: I don't care because if they want ours they should have to deal.

Once again, there is zero evidence for the position that holding the veto power and a willingness to use it does not produce a better  result. Every example you can use actually shows the opposite.

Your belief, and sadly I really am dealing with faith at this point , should not dictate discussions. And yet, like conservatives, for too many progressives your belief systems trump reality. Thus, why they feel they are the ones that must capitulate. A mind set and why no matter how many progressives re in congress we would be seeing the exact same outcome.

[ Parent ]
Its as if merely holding ones breath will make fairy princesses pop out of ones ass. (0.00 / 0)
Being angry...grrr..and making shit up..isn't any more connected to reality than a cool aid drinker.

Just being angry isnt the same as being right.

We need not more anger, but more work, more organizing, more precincts, more counties, more state orgs, more members of congress. Just threatening doesnt necessarily worry anyone. You have to be able to take away whta they want. Obama wants "some deal" - but the rest of congress?  Yeah some do, not a voting majority though. Isnt that obvious now? Isn't that Obvious? We can't trust the blue dogs, the conservadems are "Just as Happy" if this falls through, this doesn't threaten them. A primary threatens them.

I refuse to buy your diamonds! If you dont hand over the gold I will jump off the bridge!

Power is not argument, it is power. We should be talking about defeating conservadems, most definately the conservadems that can be replaced. Lieberman won the last election, but he will never win again. In a representative democracy corrupted by money, unless you have "the money" your only route to change is elections. Just defeating Bush wasn't enough. That should be obvious now. Isnt that obvious?

--

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

[ Parent ]
Its as if merely holding ones breath will make fairy princesses pop out of ones ass. (0.00 / 0)
Being angry...grrr..and making shit up..isn't any more connected to reality than a cool aid drinker.

Just being angry isnt the same as being right.

We need not more anger, but more work, more organizing, more precincts, more counties, more state orgs, more members of congress. Just threatening doesnt necessarily worry anyone. You have to be able to take away whta they want. Obama wants "some deal" - but the rest of congress?  Yeah some do, not a voting majority though. Isnt that obvious now? Isn't that Obvious? We can't trust the blue dogs, the conservadems are "Just as Happy" if this falls through, this doesn't threaten them. A primary threatens them.

I refuse to buy your diamonds! If you dont hand over the gold I will jump off the bridge!

Power is not argument, it is power. We should be talking about defeating conservadems, most definately the conservadems that can be replaced. Lieberman won the last election, but he will never win again. In a representative democracy corrupted by money, unless you have "the money" your only route to change is elections. Just defeating Bush wasn't enough. That should be obvious now. Isnt that obvious?

--

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

[ Parent ]
I knew it was a waste of time. (0.00 / 0)
Look you can't prove your perspective. I have given you now examples that prove mine. Either respond with specific examples, or don't expect me to do much more than ignore you here on out.
[ Parent ]
?????? (0.00 / 0)
"examples" of what?

proof?


--

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

[ Parent ]
Too bad you don't advise the Blue Dogs or Lieberman (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
sigh... (0.00 / 0)
And I, am so glad you advise... whoever it is.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
His sole purpose seems to be that no matter what evidence is brought to (0.00 / 0)
distort the discussion. So, that's why when he first posted I ignored his response. As you can see, for my efforts, I got more of the same rants.  
[ Parent ]
Going down the rabbit hole with HoP (0.00 / 0)
can be a mind-bending experience. As one of my uncles used to say to me, "talking with you is like trying to eat jello with a fork. Just when I think I've got, it slips away again."

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
His sole purpose seems to be that no matter what evidence is brought to (0.00 / 0)
distort the discussion. So, that's why when he first posted I ignored his response. As you can see, for my efforts, I got more of the same rants.  
[ Parent ]
you wrongly assume (4.00 / 1)
the pinos would like a better result than the one they have got.  that is not in evidence.  They just look like  they are playing us.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
We sure have a bunch of skitish ponies in the right half of the democratic party caucus. (4.00 / 2)
No one clap too loudly, don't anyone shout, if they are startled they will buck and screech like untrained ponies, or more correctly, post lunch kindergartners.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Can we all agree on something? (4.00 / 3)
As much as I like to decipher tea leaves, there's something we've gotta admit about Dennis Kucinich: He's no spinner. And fittingly, in his announcement he did not mince words about the realities of his decision or his "compassion" for a President whose presidency is danger of being "de-ligitimized". Folks around here may be losing the stomach to fight for Obama (myself included), but it looks like Kucinich is inside the machine preparing for what comes next.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
He spun for the democrats (4.00 / 2)
and  the president as if their needs are more important than real results.

The democrats are not at all important relative to real results.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
The problem Dame is (0.00 / 0)
We need a new ride, but none of us know what vehicle to choose at this point.  I think if you read Kucinich carefully you understand that he's saying it isn't time quite yet to sink the Good Ship Democrat.  It's too close to the election.  We don't want to give the GOP a complete rout of Democrats.  It would be better if we could choose our own medication this fall for the right wing traitors and capitulators.  Thanks to good King Barack, this fight is going to last for decades.  At this point we need to retreat and regroup.  I'm not sure who are friends at this stage.  I don't think the Democratic Party is going to look the same in eight years.  If it does, I won't be affiliated.  

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
[ Parent ]
We'll find out soon enough (0.00 / 0)
I agree with the premise that it would be smart to keep a low profile on any legitimate concessions before the bill gets signed into law.  I'm just not convinced that Obama, Kucinich or any D.C. Dem is smart enough to pull that one off.
ERISA waver (0.00 / 0)
I still think this is about the ERISA waver in one form or another.  However, I don't think the ERISA waver can be done via reconciliation, having almost nothing directly to do with the budget at all, therefore the obvious deal simply could not be done.

But perhaps they added the ERISA waver to another bill.  Given the real law to allow state-based health care is already in the Senate bill and there is controversy whether or not the ERISA waver is even required, this seems like a simple thing to do.  It is simply removing a potential roadblock to a provision that had bipartisan support in committee.

I half-expect it to be in the next military bill, that Kucinich won't even vote for, but is guaranteed passage.

this just in, the secret pony plan has been upgraded to a secret unicorn plan (4.00 / 3)
multidimensional chess replaced by light cycles from Tron
Fool me once (4.00 / 1)
Anyone could see it was a unicorn plan from the get-go. Don't get me wrong, I support a robust pony plan, let's be reasonable and live in reality for a moment: there were never enough votes for the pony plan, so the unicorn is the best we can expect. Besides, I've heard they are creating a new way to transform unicorns into ponies. Gotta get the unicorn first, even though I really don't care for unicorns.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Lessons from Lieberman (or, why Kucinich may read OpenLeft) | 43 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox